Last weekend Cara Schulz wrote a piece on the trouble some Pagan writers were having with Wikipedia.
It looks as though some on Wikipedia are trying to introduce more rigor to the entries, although I would hate to see Pagan-related entries suffer because of that.
Academics, meanwhile, have tended to shun Wikipedia. Many advise their students never to cite it as a source because of its alleged unreliability.
So it caught my attention when I read that some psychologists have decided to embrace it.
Anthony G. Greenwald, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington who was watching the editing demonstration, said he has asked seven students in his “Implicit and Unconscious Cognition” course to work on Wikipedia articles as part of the coursework. “This is repair work,” he said. “There is so much in Wikipedia that is inadequate.” Or plain inaccurate, said Alan G. Kraut, the association’s executive director.
But getting academics to fix it is a tall order,[Harvard psychology professor Mahzarin R.] Banaji admitted. “I know my colleagues won’t really want to write Wikipedia articles. It just won’t be seen as important, because it isn’t going on their CV,” she said.
So the solution is to have graduate students write or revise the Wikipedia entries.
Well, that approach might work for Pagan studies grad students too. I think it is time to propose such a move.