Citizendium and Wikipedia
As Michael Fischer observed elsewhere on the OAC, Wikipedia coverage for anthropology is dismal in comparison to other disciplines due to lack of participation by anthropologists. As Rex noted at Savage Minds some time ago, the same holds true for Citizendium. Any ideas as to why this might be the case?
Citizendium even has a program, Eduzendium, where they partner with university programs to create high-quality entries by allowing students, under teacher supervision, to write public entries about key terms pertaining to their discipline. This would be a great project for undergraduate anthropology courses.
Citizendium even has a program, Eduzendium, where they partner with university programs to create high-quality entries by allowing students, under teacher supervision, to write public entries about key terms pertaining to their discipline. This would be a great project for undergraduate anthropology courses.
Views: 437
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Huon Wardle on -
I said 'ominous', but probably 'silly' would have done as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Beck J on
-
Huon I am afraid you are missing the point completely. You keep tracking back to something akin to "oh well publisher A lost money so publisher A1 in a new guise [ie Wiki] will make money - someone always makes money, thats the way of the world - so what is the problem then?"
I am saying that people everywhere are invited/coerced [ie undergrads as in the case of this thread above] in to contributing to Wikis - to spend their time, contribute their energy and knowledge, within a framework where their labour is not rewarded and others who are in control of Internet process and packaging Internet products will and do appropriate that labour. You are focusing upon those on the making money side, I am focusing on those who will not be paid for their work. The fact that they are not paid is the reason I think wikis will ultimately fail and I can see in the next couple of years a massive speeding up of the process whereby access to the net will be seriously divided between the haves and have nots.
As for contributions to this site versus a wiki, well I did contribute a lot to various wikis, like many people here, and this site is quite different. Sure someone may package Ning with other products - if its format is successful enough - but no one's work or labour is being appropriated for no payment. people are basically only expressing their ideas and networking. Writing a detailed article about some area that you are an expert in is work and labour. You wouldn't sell your expertise as a consultant for free, or teach in a university for free, or work for a research institute for free, but you give it up to a WIKI for free? You may publish a piece of work in order to get feed back but the majority of posters here will not do that.
Rousseau - I don't know - but I feel pretty sure that the first person who said "this is mine" was not the first person and had a lot of back up so others would believe him - but then I am no social theorist. Moreover, I think people have been saying "this is mine," about this, that and the other thing for a very long time - longer than since Rousseau.
As for your ideas about anthropologists' reasons for not figuring much on Wikipedia because of a dialogical or contextual view of knowledge - well I can't agree - as I pointed out earlier there is heaps of anthropological stuff on wikis of all sorts - also in different languages - its just not all listed under the heading anthropology or coordinated and organised like a text book or university course etc. Also there is heaps of dialogical and contextual stuff as well. So I don't agree with you there.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Mietchen on
-
Beck J said:The object of my critique is Justin's comment about Educendium being a great project for undergraduate anthropology courses - as though undergrads don't already have enough to do and adding to wikis is not anthropology training and obviously the point I raised about them appropriating labour for no money.
Students have to do coursework anyway, so why not do it on a wiki instead of their word processor or paper? No appropriation of labour here beyond what is accepted standard in courses that lead to an academic degree.
Furthermore, most coursework done by students is usually never read by anyone other than the course instructors, so doing it in a public wiki would allow that knowledge to live on and to be built upon, both by the students themselves and by others (e.g. the same instructors' course a term later, or even someone half a globe away).
Of course, there are several wikis to choose from, and because of its improved navigation and lack of vandalism, Citizendium may be one of the better options for doing wiki coursework, and the Eduzendium (etymology: EDUcation via the citiZEN's compENDIUM) initiative is dedicated to just that.
Also not negligible is the possibility that people with expert knowledge in the field may join the process (instructors can configure whether they want that via a dedicated template — we have experience both ways).
-
-
Hi Daniel
Im 3rd year now - nearly finished and I canvassed a few friends on this and no-one wanted to spend their time doing wikis. Also why force students to publish their work when they are still learning to write and explore their fields. We have a seminar series which is intimate and for students only precisely because it is a safe environment for us to feel our way. Also most of us are not stupid, we can appreciate history, economics, politics, maths philosophical or anthropological concepts - but the best way to understand something is to sit down with you teacher and discuss it - and then as you move through - as in the case of anthropologists into the field where you have to readjust all you have learnt for yourself - you experience of it. What does doing Wikis for no money add to that? Presumably there will only be so much that can be written by students about ritual in New Guinea - so only a select few will actually get to write - the rest read what is written.
Also we have to pay for everything here so why should I then be forced to contribute labour beyond my course requirement as well - I don't understand - I already pay and now you want me to work for eduzendium?
Anyway if enduzendium is so good why hasn't it taken off and why aren't you paying people? Also you use the word citizen but how is it I am citizen - I am a citizen of my own country I thought.
Beck
-
Permalink Reply by Philip Carl SALZMAN on
-
Isn't this a bit of a discussion across economic boundaries? Huon has a secure academic job with good pay and benefits (as do I), while Beck is a student, presumably without a secure job and lacking a steady, substantial income. Huon can afford to be generous with his free time and effort; Beck is still looking to find a secure foundation for his future life. (I hope I am not being presumptuous here.) Of course the world and wikis look different from these two perspectives.
I would include OAC in the same category as wikis. Contributing is an investment without financial payoff; it remains to be seen if the intellectual or professional payoff justifies the investment. Like a number of other OAC colleagues, I have put a great deal of time and effort in setting up groups, offering new topics, and providing comment. But there is an opportunity cost, which can and probably is a financial cost: I could be working on a new book, with rewards in merit pay; I could be consulting for a fee; etc. So I tend to think that Beck is seeing beyond the initial enthusiasm of delighting in our names, pictures, and words up on the screen, to the real world commitment and decisions that people make. As regards OAC, the vast number of members are not contributing, whether for reasons of diffidence or economy. Perhaps they are investing their efforts where they think the payoff is greater.
-
Permalink Reply by Huon Wardle on
-
J, We have now established that you are opposed to people contributing to Wikis. The logical relationship of this wikiphobia to other to other kinds of 'labour', such as writing course essays when you have already 'paid' for your course remains obscure. Each to his own.
-
Permalink Reply by Huon Wardle on
-
Philip, I am glad to see that there is at least one member of the OAC who can understand J's perspective.
-
-
Gee, Huon, I thought postmodern epistemology was all about positionality and corresponding perspectives. And postmodern anthropology all about giving voice to alternative but equally valid perspectives.
Huon Wardle said:Philip, I am glad to see that there is at least one member of the OAC who can understand J's perspective.
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Hart on
-
Philip, You first reduced Huon's arguments to his social position, while claiming that you miraculously transcended that position to share an ideology with J Beck. This suggests to me that the issue is one of ideas unrelated to social position. I know students who are generous with their time while others are narrowly self-regarding. I don't think it is a matter of social class. Now you throw out the postmodern taunt as a substitute for engaging with Huon's arguments over several posts. The fact is that J Beck has single-handedly derailed this thread from a constructive discussion of how to go about developing wiki contributions in anthropology. No doubt he will come again with a repeat of his one-track idea. This has nothing to do with sociology or with broad cultural categories. It is a dispute over the value of working for the commons as opposed to sticking with the utilitarian creed. That's a personal choice.
-
-
The interesting empirical question (pace Huon) is why so many potential contributors are making the "personal choice" to not participate and not contribute. Repeating your mantra in favour of working for the commons blocks rather than opens exploration of this issue. Nor does it contribute to dialogue to berate contributors who take a view different than yours.
You say that I have "miraculously transcended that [economic] position," but is it not the job of anthropologists to listen to other voices from different positions and to try to understand and appreciate those views? Is it too long since you have tried to do that? Are you out of practice?
Keith Hart said:Philip, You first reduced Huon's arguments to his social position, while claiming that you miraculously transcended that position to share an ideology with J Beck. This suggests to me that the issue is one of ideas unrelated to social position. I know students who are generous with their time while others are narrowly self-regarding. I don't think it is a matter of social class. Now you throw out the postmodern taunt as a substitute for engaging with Huon's arguments over several posts. The fact is that J Beck has single-handedly derailed this thread from a constructive discussion of how to go about developing wiki contributions in anthropology. No doubt he will come again with a repeat of his one-track idea. This has nothing to do with sociology or with broad cultural categories. It is a dispute over the value of working for the commons as opposed to sticking with the utilitarian creed. That's a personal choice.
-
-
I thought I was quite moderate in my tone and language. I didn't call you any names. If you want to have a discussion about the low level of participation, set up a thread and several of us will join you in a spirit of open inquiry, since it is a matter of widespread concern. As for the specific topic of this thread, it was always going to be of interest to a few specialists, like most activity around here, but even more so. Instead we have been humouring someone who says he is an Australian student, but there is no way of confirming that since he conserves his anonymity. I have never been convinced that the position taken by Beck is genuine and, if it is, he has taken up too much of the space for this discussion. Far from hounding him out for his neanderthal views, several people here, including Huon, have been tolerant and rational, if at times ironic. You now want to escalate the argument into one of a few utopian activists missing the boat when it comes to the vast majority of self-interested or passive OAC members. In the meantime some of us are trying to do something about it. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Philip Carl SALZMAN said:The interesting empirical question (pace Huon) is why so many potential contributors are making the "personal choice" to not participate and not contribute. Repeating your mantra in favour of working for the commons blocks rather than opens exploration of this issue. Nor does it contribute to dialogue to berate contributors who take a view different than yours.
-
-
I have had to sign in with a new personality as I was advised of this comment by Keith Hart while I was away from home and didn't have my OAC password on me.
Keith Hart you are totally out of order, rude and owe me an apology. Who do you think you are to say those things about me? You don't even know me? First thing "He" is not a He, He is a she - if that is ok with you, which it probably isnt.
Second, you comment about me single handedly derailing the conversation. Excuse me I came in very early to this conversation and I have made attempts to keep it on track. I even expressed reservations about it going off track - above, as others took umbrage with what i said and took it elsewhere. i explained my position very clearly actually.
Admittedly i dont know your work and I accept that is my fault but I also know a bit of anthropology now, which you say you want to contribute to, exists in a real world with real people. Internet applications are real things - they affect us, they affect our lives. We are taught at university to interrogate taken for granted presuppositions. The understandings of the processes of these applications in the real world, shown on this site, so far have been very limited and too positioned. I might be poor, and from a marginalised background but I am not stupid, I deserve a voice to respond to such an outrageous characterisation of my postings.
Your comment that what I have had to say has nothing to do with sociology or broad cultural categories beggars disbelief. Moreover the interaction between Huon, kathleen, Daniel and myself was not a dispute over the value of working for the commons versus a utilitarian creed. It was not a dispute! Huon and the others interpreted my as constructing a particular type of argument . I clarified their interpretations - explicity! I believed their interpretations did not take into account the real conditions of interacting with Wikis and the position of Wikis in the Internet political economies.
I am sorry, but I have been so clear about what I was talking about. AGAIN I am talking about appropriated labour for no payment in the context of the production of Wikis. Do you accuse generations of unionised workers of being utilitarian in their fight pay and conditions? Perhaps Philip S is correct in what he is saying about positionality - I am a student - you guys are all high paid academics.
But the thing is you should check with me before levelling these wild accusations - you make it sound like I am trying to derail you or something. Why on Earth would I try to derail? Actually i remeber now, you were the one who said flamebait on another posting - was that aimed at me then? I hope it wasn't. This is all pretty confusing.
Becky
Welcome to
Open Anthropology Cooperative
© 2019 Created by Keith Hart.
Powered by
