User:Fuzheado/Academics and Wikipedia

Here are some points I think help a lot when talking to academics about Wikipedia.


 * 1) The Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, is a big fan of Wikipedia and under his direction, the National Archives now employs a full time Wikipedian in Residence. Ferriero was the former head academic librarian for MIT, the Vice Provost for Library Affairs for Duke University and Director and Chief Executive of the Research Libraries at the New York Public Library. This should show that Wikipedia is not just a rogue web site used by high schoolers.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ferriero#Relationship_with_Wikipedia


 * "If Wikipedia is good enough for the Archivist of the United States, maybe it should be good enough for you."


 * 1) We've collaborated with prominent experts in their field at the Smithsonian Institution on Wikipedia content. One significant example was when we worked with the Smithsonian American Art Museum's head of sculpture on improving Wikipedia articles. She is a fan of Wikipedia because she discovered an archive in the "External links" section of the article for the famous sculptor Hiram Powers that she did not know about until she saw it in Wikipedia. The University of Vermont Libraries Center for Digital Initiatives had inserted a link to their archival holdings, and Lemmey, one of the academic experts on Hiram Powers, only found out about this after looking it up in Wikipedia. This shows how important a hub Wikipedia has become among academics to share knowledge in their field.


 * I talk about it in this here in my 2015 Wikiconference keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj6U22uJzGM?t=54m34s


 * (Later in the talk, I also talk about working with professor David Frank, University of Oregon, on improving Wikipedia articles)


 * 1) To support what James Heilman says about the flaw of just saying "peer reviewed" is the best, listen to this interview I did with him in 2015, where he explains the nuances of peer review, and why it is no gold standard. James's main point: peer review literature oftentimes does not agree with *itself*. A peer reviewed journal is a snapshot, in isolation, of a particular viewpoint in time and for a given panel of reviewers. It is typically not rationalized or updated after the fact to correlate with new findings. The audio segment is below, at 5 minutes, 30 seconds in. The whole conversation is a great listen if you have the time.


 * http://wikipediaweekly.org/podcast/wikipedia-weekly-111-wikiconference-usa-james-heilman/


 * 1) Something that may also help with traditional academics on Wikipedia "bans" and usage - tell them that even Wikipedia fans agree you should not cite Wikipedia in your academic papers as your source. But one should not ban its use by students.


 * My usual saying as to Wikipedia use: There is no better starting point for research than Wikipedia. There is no worse ending point for research than Wikipedia.


 * Use it, but use it properly. You should rarely cite Wikipedia in your papers as your reference, just as you would not have cited Britannica, World Book, Comptons or Encarta before 2001, when Wikipedia was created.