Sign in or 
Share this
Discussion: Where should all this information go?
HThere was some discussion at the workshop of eventually moving some or all of the information on this wiki into a wikipedia article or series of articles. This page exists to host a discussion of that idea, and provide a forum for other ideas about where this information should live going forward.
Martin Haspelmath suggested that, while wikipedia may be appropriate for disseminating articles aimed at the proverbial "educated lay reader", we need to also disseminate more technical information to linguists using a specialist site such as glottopedia. Mark Liberman countered that much information on wikipedia is quite technical, citing the articles on various terms and concepts in maths and computer science, such as this article on maximum likelihood or this article on ontology (in information science).
In evaluating the arguments for and against establishing a separate wiki for more technical articles, we probably should look at opinion pieces such as this article on why does wikipedia suck on science, where Thomas Goetz says, "Curious about just what epigenetics is? Figure you really should know what mitochondria do? Don’t count on Wikipedia - odds are their analysis is too pedantic for you, as it is for me."
In deciding whether and how to use Wikipedia, we may want to look at an initiative at NIH to train NIH scientists in how to write effective Wikipedia articles. Wired Science has an article about a "Wikipedia Academy" that NIH hosted recently.
It may also be useful to review some of the insights about the sociology of wiki culture in Marshall Poe's article in the September 2006 Atlantic Monthly and Nicholson Baker's March 2008 New York Review of Books piece. More information on these issues can gleaned from reading the opinions expressed in (and experiences with Wiki editing recounted in) some of the comments on this Ars Technica piece on the Maurice Jarre Wikipedia hoax.
Wikipedia and/or glottopedia
Martin Haspelmath suggested that, while wikipedia may be appropriate for disseminating articles aimed at the proverbial "educated lay reader", we need to also disseminate more technical information to linguists using a specialist site such as glottopedia. Mark Liberman countered that much information on wikipedia is quite technical, citing the articles on various terms and concepts in maths and computer science, such as this article on maximum likelihood or this article on ontology (in information science).
In evaluating the arguments for and against establishing a separate wiki for more technical articles, we probably should look at opinion pieces such as this article on why does wikipedia suck on science, where Thomas Goetz says, "Curious about just what epigenetics is? Figure you really should know what mitochondria do? Don’t count on Wikipedia - odds are their analysis is too pedantic for you, as it is for me."
In deciding whether and how to use Wikipedia, we may want to look at an initiative at NIH to train NIH scientists in how to write effective Wikipedia articles. Wired Science has an article about a "Wikipedia Academy" that NIH hosted recently.
It may also be useful to review some of the insights about the sociology of wiki culture in Marshall Poe's article in the September 2006 Atlantic Monthly and Nicholson Baker's March 2008 New York Review of Books piece. More information on these issues can gleaned from reading the opinions expressed in (and experiences with Wiki editing recounted in) some of the comments on this Ars Technica piece on the Maurice Jarre Wikipedia hoax.
mebeckman |
Latest page update: made by mebeckman
, Sep 7 2009, 5:53 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by mebeckman
36 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EmilyMBender | What might move to *pedia, where else might things go? | 1 | Aug 24 2009, 9:06 AM EDT by mebeckman | ||
|
Thread started: Jul 30 2009, 7:37 PM EDT
Watch
It seems to me that some of the information we are collecting is more stable while other aspects are more fluid. In the more stable category are things like lists of resources (tools, standards). This is the kind of encyclopedic information that I believe could be well-situated on wikipedia or glottopedia. In the more fluid category are on-going discussions about privacy and ethics, action items or recommendations to funding bodies and scholarly organizations, and announcements of new projects/on-going efforts. This more fluid type of information doesn't seem to belong on wikipedia (and probably not glottopedia either), but I believe it needs a home, and a visible one at that. That home could be this wiki (perhaps exported to different software and physically housed at a different site), or it could be part of something else (LINGUISTList? Other suggestions?). I think that the home for the fluid information needs to have a hook, or a reason for people to frequent it. I think a multi-authored blog on topics related to cyberinfrastructure for linguistics would be ideal for that function, and am interested in feedback on this idea.
|
||||
| hdry | Cyberling materials | 0 | Aug 18 2009, 9:58 AM EDT by hdry | ||
|
Thread started: Aug 18 2009, 9:58 AM EDT
Watch
Hi, Emily,
I just read your message, with the suggestion that the information could go on LINGUIST List. And I wanted to say that we would be happy to host the info, or the blog, as the case may be. We already have the E-MELD workshop proceedings on our site, and the proceedings of the TILR workshop (Toward the Interoperability of Language Resources), as well as the GOLD Community site. So we could provide links from these sites to the Cyberling materials and perhaps increase traffic. Just a thought. But please let me know if there are other ways we might help with this initiative. |
||||
Showing 2 of 2 threads for this page
