So, why are anthropologists not writing and editing articles for online encyclopaedias/compendia to the extent that they might? (Wasn't that Justin's original question? Have we answered it? Do we accept its premises?)
Here is a different, but perhaps related, hypothesis; the reason anthropologists' ideas don't figure much on wikipedia is that anthropologists typically have a contextual and dialogical view of knowledge that doesn't fit the format of knowledge as a list of facts.
Huon, I think that many disciplines in both the sciences and humanities might have a contextual and dialogical view of knowledge, which is incapable of being reduced to a list of facts. In that way, I don't think anthropologists are unique. Encyclopedias also typically include entries for concepts and intellectual debates, not just 'facts'.
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.
From The Sunday Times (London)
November 29, 2009
Thanks for putting this up, Martin. It is very useful. It's a pity that it panders to the fogies by claiming that Wikipedia is mainly about popular culture. For some time now ...