[Air-L] using aoir researchers in non-academic paper on wikipedia

[Mathieu O'Neil]

One thing I have noticed when one writes about WP is that people come 
forward very quickly to correct perceived errors. Now, I'm always happy 
to be corrected, and errors can always be amended... but fair's fair, 
and any criticism should respect the cardinal rule - "reliable 
sources".
I based my comment on Essjay on a NYT article, which is linked to in 
the piece. If you have a more reliable source, please let me know.
I think you are twisting my words a little when you describe my view as 
saying that "no one knows why WP is ranked so highly" on Google. What I 
said was: no one knows whether it is because of WP's link structure and 
because it is frequently updated, _or_ because Google tips the scales 
in its favour. If you know for sure, please enlighten me.
Regards
Mathieu

On 07/05/2009, at 10:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

> That is a nice overview, Mathieu.  Thanks for sharing.
>
> Unfortunately there's no way to edit it, or leave comments, to correct
> its occasional errors... (Essjay did not "repeatedly [use] credentials
> to bolster his views during content disputes," nor, as you note
> earlier in the essay, are purported credentials effective at
> bolstering views on Wikipedia.  And it is not true that 'no one knows'
> why Wikipedia articles appear highly in Google rank for most topics.)
>
> SJ
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM,  <oneil at homemail.com.au> wrote:
>> You may remember a few months ago I posted a call for people to share 
>> with
>> me their experience of being the subject of a Wikipedia article. 
>> Well, I
>> got a few responses and decided to use communications scholars as an
>> illustration of how the much-debated notion of "notability" sometimes 
>> works
>> on WP.
>> The result has now been published in English; French and other 
>> versions
>> were published last month.
>> See http://mondediplo.com/2009/05/15wikipedia
>> Cheers,
>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:23:11 +0200, Christophe Prieur
>> <christophe.prieur at liafa.jussieu.fr> wrote:
>>> Quite agree with Ismael, a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a
>>> footnote saying 'hey dude, look at the dictionary', if not just 
>>> 'rtfm'.
>>> If you think an explanation is needed for some technical term, put it
>>> either in a few words or in a whole section, but if you choose not 
>>> to,
>>> then leave it to the grown-up reader to look for further information.
>>>
>>> My humble opinion of course but i guess you don't want to annoy those
>>> pedantic readers (including reviewers) that share it :)
>>>
>>> --    Christophe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 7 mai 09 à 09:50, Ismael Peña-López a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Dear Stefano,
>>>>
>>>> Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation.
>>>>
>>>> It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it
>>>> appropriate
>>>> to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of
>>>> essay,
>>>> including K-12.
>>>>
>>>> And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience
>>>> might be
>>>> aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are
>>>> aware of
>>>> the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include
>>>> references to
>>>> e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't
>>>> understand a
>>>> word or (say) "basic" concept.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing
>>>> specific
>>>> authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific 
>>>> authors
>>>> (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical 
>>>> methodology
>>>> developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic
>>>> handbook).
>>>>
>>>> Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin
>>>> as e.g.
>>>> "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals
>>>> with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the
>>>> term and
>>>> have it defined by their own quotes.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, strictly personal opinion :)
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Ismael Peña-López
>>>> ICTlogy.net
>>>>
>>>> Public Policies for Development and ICT4D
>>>> School of Law and Political Science
>>>> Open University of Catalonia
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>>>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers 
>>>> http://aoir.org
>>>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>>>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>>>
>>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>>>> http://www.aoir.org/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers 
>>> http://aoir.org
>>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>>
>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>>> http://www.aoir.org/
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>
>
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University

E-mail: mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au
Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00
Web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
Mail: Coombs Building, 9
Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA