Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 7 2009, 5:53 AM EDT (current) | mebeckman | 36 words added |
| Aug 18 2009, 9:55 AM EDT | hdry | 1 word added, 1 word deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
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.
