Follow

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

do people on here edit/write wikipedia articles related to your field? and what's your experience/motivation?

I'm very much intrigued by the idea of living literature reviews, but of course as an academic it's nice to get some credit/citations for it...

Wikipedia does have ORCID integration which is cool, eventually your Wikipedia edits could show up along peer-review activity etc.

· · Web · 6 · 6 · 8

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

I ask since I'm thinking of getting into it, since articles in my field could use some help, and I want to review the literature anyway and Wikipedia seems like the best repository for updating it in the future

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk I think @11011110 edits there fairly regularly and may have pertinent experience.

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk I've edited some articles on English and Finnish wikipedia, mostly when the originals are so terrible that I can't look at them without feeling bad.

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk

Yes.

Not often. It's far to easy to get pulled into edit wars, and I edit under a pseudonym. However, some of the topics I work on are subject to hostile editing by ethnic nationalists, religious extremists, or other cranks, so I carefully revise entries using solid references and flag up hostile edits. I only watch a few pages...

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia. I get very little academic credit for it but I'm at a point in my career where that's not especially important. I think it's a good way to provide literature surveys for other researchers and to push knowledge down from the research literature to a broader audience. (Re ORCiD integration: I don't have an ORCiD. And many Wikipedia editors, for good reason, don't want their edits tied to their real-world id.)

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@11011110
Thanks all for the helpful replies. @11011110 , beyond editing controversial topics, what are the main motivations for anonymity/pseudonymity? Just curious

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk Even if you think you are only going to edit dry technical topics, you're bound to eventually piss off someone who thinks their brand-new junk-journal publication deserves prominent showcasing, when you undo their edits. Pseudonymity can help protect you against being hassled in real life, like having people phone your department chair, suggest to their friend the dean of research that he pressure you, or raise official complaints to the regents.

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

Thank you for sharing this perspective @11011110. That's terrifying. : (

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk
What I have done at different periods:
-carefully preparing good articles on my field [and included this in the cv/grant applications]
-using it as a notebook, to write some organised notes (a very brief article) on something I need to understand: it's great to have your own words to refresh your memory, years later
-using it to assign homework for master (or late undergrad) students: it works beautifully, but it takes a lot of time from them!

:wiki: question: academics and wikipedia 

@kirk
Also, my experience on edit wars and the social-interactive aspects of it: I enjoyed being part of the community during my two intense periods (a few months long each, too many hours per week... or even per day!), but in general, for me it's too much to handle.
If, however you know and respect the rules/etiquette and you only visit sporadically, I have found zero problems in using my real name.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.