Research:Wikimedia France Research Award/nominated papers/Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past

Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past

Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. By Roy Rosenzweig. Published in the Journal of American History, in 2006.

See the full text here or the HTML version with documents in full color.

Summary

Roy Rosenzweig was a history professor at George Mason University presented a paper on Wikipedia from the perspective of a historian : "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" as a historian's analysis complements the discussion from the important but different lens of journalists and scientists.

Rosenzweig focuses on, not just factual accuracy, but also the quality of prose and the historical context of entry subjects. He begins with in depth overview of how Wikipedia was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and describes their previous attempts to create a free online encyclopedia. Wales and Sanger's first attempt at a vetted resource, called Nupedia, sheds light on how from the very beginning of the project, vetting and reliability of authorship were at the forefront of the creators.

Rosenzweig adds to a growing body of research trying to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia, in his comparative analysis of it with other online history references, along similar lines of the Nature study. He compares entries in Wikipedia with Microsoft's online resource Encarta and American National Biography Online (ANBO). Where Encarta is for a mass audience, American National Biography Online is a more specialized history resource. Rosenzweig takes a sample of 52 entries from the 18,000 found in ANBO and compares them with entries in Encarta and Wikipedia. In coverage, Wikipedia contain more of from the sample than Encarta. Although the length of the articles didn't reach the level of ANBO, Wikipedia articles were more lengthy than the entries than Encarta. Further, in terms of accuracy, Wikipedia and Encarta seem basically on par with each other, which confirms a similar conclusion that the Nature study reached in its comparison of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Then, Rosenzweig discusses the effect of collaborative writing in more qualitative ways. He notes that collaborative writing often leads to less compelling prose. Multiple styles of writing, competing interests and motivations, varying levels of writing ability are all factors in the quality of a written text. Wikipedia entries may be for the most part factually correct, but are often not that well written or historically relevant in terms of what receives emphasis. Due to piecemeal authorship, the articles often miss out on adding coherency to the larger historical conversation. ANBO has well crafted entries, however, they are often authored by well known historians.

However, the quality of writing needs to be balanced with accessibility. ANBO is subscription based, whereas Wikipedia is free, which reveals how access to a resource plays a role in its purpose. As a product of the amateur historian, Rosenzweig comments upon the tension created when professional historians engage with Wikipedia. He notes that it tends to be full of interesting trivia, but the seasoned historian will question its historic significance. As well, the professional historian has great concern for citation and sourcing references, which is not as rigorously enforced in Wikipedia.

Because of Wikipedia's widespread and growing use, it challenges the authority of the professional historian, and therefore cannot be ignored. The tension raises questions about the professional historians obligation to Wikipedia. To this point, Rosenzweig notes there is an obligation and need to provide the public with quality information in Wikipedia or some other venue.

Rosenzweig concludes by looking forward and describes what the professional historian can learn from open collaborative production models. Further, he notes interesting possibilities such as the collaborative open source textbook as well as challenges such as how to properly cite collaborative efforts.

Most of this summary originates in the one posted by ray cha.

Jury comments

Thought Paper/essay that contrast with classic scientific articles but a very stimulating read.

Rosenzweig was a pioneer in digital history, incorporating new digital media and technology with history to explore new possibilities to reach a larger and diverse public audience.

Comments by Glyn Moody.

The essay is long, but it is well-worth reading all the way through its detailed comparison of Wikipedia and conventional reference works. One of its shrewdest observations is the following:

Overall, writing is the Achilles’ heel of Wikipedia. Committees rarely write well, and Wikipedia entries often have a choppy quality that results from the stringing together of sentences or paragraphs written by different people. Some Wikipedians contribute their services as editors and polish the prose of different articles. But they seem less numerous than other types of volunteers. Few truly gifted writers volunteer for Wikipedia.

Vote for this paper

--Alouache (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)=== Vote ===

1. This is an insightful well-written analysis of Wikipedia epistemology. Definitly a classic of Wiki Studies. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Alexander Doria. Gentil Hibou (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Classic. Shame Roy is no longer with us. --Piotrus (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
4. za (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Bokken (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Useful, anyway. --Ambre Troizat (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
7. A brilliant paper. Peter Damian (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Rudloff (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
9. Per Alexander Doria --PierreSelim (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Per Alexander Doria - wish many more readers to have a look to it. --Ttzavaras (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Love this one. A Wikipediaology must-read! --Dimi z (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
12. --Charles Andrès (WMCH) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Sfauqueur (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Ypnypn (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
15. This paper is fundamental to Wikipedia history - Rosenzweig was the first historian to understand the significance of what we do, and this paper gave legimacy to the idea of researching WP in the humanities. My own thesis about the historiography of Wikipedia [1] was only approved as a topic because I was able to point to Rosenzweig's paper. Wittylama (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
16. --Sgatoux (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)