somehow removed, somehow unreal
As there probably are at most universities, I have a handful of current professors - and others in the past - who refuse to accept Wikipedia as both an academic citation and as a source of general knowledge. This stance seems to undermine the most basic academic pursuit of knowledge as well as the belief that human minds can, together, do something greater than the sum of their parts. Wikipedia is a massive human effort, requiring an unparalleled technological correspondence and collaborative spirit, but some still roll their eyes with even a vague reference of Wikipedia in public conversation.
While I could write yet another epic on why the internet changes everything, it is imperative to remember that digital collaboration is just as legitimate as any other type of professional interaction. Everything from job interviews to Wall Street bond sales now rest on the back-and-forth, instantaneous correspondence that the internet provides. Those were operations that once required telephone communication to move forward, and that once required physical proximity to initiate in the first place. Wikipedia is this type of new online communication able to break all physical boundaries and eliminate any latency of information flow.
Since most people have favorites or preferences or settings, so to speak, it is assumed that everyone is an expert at something. This is a legitimate assumption, too. Few people today, if any, go their entire life wearing an “Undecided” sandwich board in a sea of “Brad Pitt is king” and “Pluto is not a planet” sandwich boards. But even for articles you would think are heavily fan-centric, it’s remarkable how unbiased most end up being. For example, Lance Armstrong’s article used to have the fan-based warning, but has recently been approved as a legitimate batch of references. When an article has potential for being fan-based, a groundswell of level-headed people will come around and set things straight. There must be something about order and proper organization that drives a great deal of American people.
I simply cannot understand why my professors would disapprove of Wikipedia. I could just as easily vocalize my ignorance and dissatisfaction at their research results to produce the same bitterness that I experience every time a professor openly mocks Wikipedia in class. Classmates who show the same Wiki-ignorance also deserve my hatred, but I would rather focus my efforts of change on the people who have maximum influencing power, namely the professors who have hundreds of open-eared students per year. Tradition drives most of this foolishness, and, as everyone battling a PTA or school board or political party or a herd of Hokie fans knows, fighting tradition will leave you bruised.
You need a tradition of fighting tradition before it finally collapses. A heritage calling for new fundamentals. A mathematical limit of algebra to require the extra capacity of calculus. A worldwide collaboration of experts needing a greater collection of their documentation accessible to everyone, with topics ranging from entertainment to science to politics to commerce to whatever. Let’s hope that Wikipedia keeps it up for the long-haul. Once they get into the natural habit of typical searches (i.e. Google and Wikipedia) then they will have secured themselves as one of the most legitimate sources for information. Certainly approvable by modern university professors.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I love wikipedia. I think that what some don’t like about it is that anyone can contribute. A “lowly” truck driver as well as a rocket scientist.
Sometimes I think people are just too into themselves. You said it right here. “I could just as easily vocalize my ignorance and dissatisfaction at their research results.”
Being highly educated doesn’t make you intelligent, always right, or better than anyone else!
September 18th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Well I re-read that and I don’t know that I clearly conveyed what I was trying to say but hopefully you get it. Ha ha.