I keep wondering what would happen if a loosely-organized group of 2000 anthropologists set their minds and skills to improving the Anthropological entries on Wikipedia...
The motivation for posting this discussion was twofold. Firstly, I was reflecting on a post by Judd Antin made in 2005 concerning anthropologists' general reticence to thinking and writing in public, and making use of blogs, wikis or places like the OAC. His post is in response to the then recently published AAA report on anthropology and open source.
This speaks to Keith's concern about the recent lack of activity in the discussion groups despite the OAC boasting 2,000 plus members and averaging about 400 daily visits. It also reminds me of Keith and Anna Grimshaw's inaugural Prickly Pear Pamphlet, "Anthropology and the Crisis of the Intellectuals," and also Patrick Wilcken's "Anthropology, the Intellectuals, and the Gulf War."
There are exceptions, but I was wondering if the digital landscape had changed since 2005, and if not, why? Also, see Kerim's recent post on Savage Minds, "Anthropology 2.0: For Real?"
Secondly, I wanted to make reference to Larry Sanger's Citizendium project, especially the Eduzendium program, for those who did not already know about them.
Excuse me, as I am new to the OAC and do not know if it is out of place for me to speak.Why build up Wikipedia when most of our activities are languishing and the rate of growth of visits is negative?
Keith Hart said:Excuse me, as I am new to the OAC and do not know if it is out of place for me to speak.Why build up Wikipedia when most of our activities are languishing and the rate of growth of visits is negative?
I think we've a responsibility to make Wikipedia as complete an encyclopedia as possible. Last I checked the section on kinship was pretty rudimentary. Obviously there is a lot of anthropological information out there on other sites. That is fine, especially for those who are engaged in the field. But those who would like to introduce themselves to anthropology or to some topic in anthropology are likely to do so through Wikipedia. It is the world's encyclopedia, a project of almost indescribable significance.
But I do not see this as a situation in which one has to choose one but not the other. Can't wiki-content developed here, or some abridged version of it, be transferred there if all parties are willing?