I've been reading Tom Nichols' "The Death of Expertise," and largely rejecting the point of view. He has a contrary take on Wikipedia. For a book that champions established knowledge, you have to take a lot of what he says on faith, here and elsewhere. He isn't impressed by the quality of Wkipedia, while you, I, and Jon Gertner are. But as for why he doesn't think it's a good model.
*The editors are volunteers and hobbyists, not professionals and experts.
*It' like "a group homework project."
*There aren't enough editors, there are too many subjects to cover, and even with standards, there's not enough supervision.
*Ninety percent of editors are male, and treatment of non-western subjects leaves a lot to be desired.
*Good encyclopedia entries require synthesis. Non-experts fail except where they collect facts.
I've been reading Tom Nichols' "The Death of Expertise," and largely rejecting the point of view. He has a contrary take on Wikipedia. For a book that champions established knowledge, you have to take a lot of what he says on faith, here and elsewhere. He isn't impressed by the quality of Wkipedia, while you, I, and Jon Gertner are. But as for why he doesn't think it's a good model.
*The editors are volunteers and hobbyists, not professionals and experts.
*It' like "a group homework project."
*There aren't enough editors, there are too many subjects to cover, and even with standards, there's not enough supervision.
*Ninety percent of editors are male, and treatment of non-western subjects leaves a lot to be desired.
*Good encyclopedia entries require synthesis. Non-experts fail except where they collect facts.