I think it is more the common variety academic snobbery/pedantry.
How about: if you think Wikipedia's coverage is poor, then do something about it? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2017.1392360 …pic.twitter.com/SyiRxt4pzq
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Problem is that general / basic topics are typically controlled by gatekeepers, with a high probability that one of those gatekeepers is a fanatic. Highly technical articles on Wiki are generally pretty useful, but trying to improve a basic article elsewhere is very difficult.
-
Changing political articles to align with some agenda is hard because there are others with opposite agenda with the same idea. Improving on errors in basic math articles is not likely to cause serious edit wars.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also writing an academic article on what’s missing on Wikipedia is rewarded by the academy. Spending that same amount of time to correct errors on Wikipedia is not. Maybe working on Wikipedia in your field needs to be valued as academic service by way of public communication
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.