Has anyone here ever written a lot for Wikipedia?

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
Aren't these two sentences of yours contradictory to each other?


Yeah, I did this over the course of seven years. It's certainly a good, productive hobby to have. I'll consider writing more for Wikipedia at some future point in time; I'll just have to figure out when.

I've got absolutely nothing compared to this guy, though; he wrote over 35,000 articles for Wikipedia! :

Steven Pruitt - Wikipedia
Yeah the problem is I'm mostly into Korean history which suffers from a lack of reliable secondary sources (especially in English), so a lot of my research is my own original stuff from primary sources which is not allowed as per Wiki's guidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Yeah the problem is I'm mostly into Korean history which suffers from a lack of reliable secondary sources (especially in English), so a lot of my research is my own original stuff from primary sources which is not allowed as per Wiki's guidelines.
I thought that foreign-language sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia as long as it is believed that the information from them was translated in good faith?
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,192
Italy, Lago Maggiore
If you are graduated in psychology and you find a professor of archaeology ready to supervise a work of yours ... you can publish on academia.edu an essay about Ancient Egypt [!!!!]. I have noted this some days ago. This diminished a lot my appreciation and evaluation of academia.edu. Even if the site claims to be a place where to share academic scientific researches ... actually there is no filter, no peer review [to use an academic term].

This is why I think that academia.edu is not different from Wiki. It limits the posters to graduated students and professors ... but also Einstein said bullsh**s ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
I thought that foreign-language sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia as long as it is believed that the information from them was translated in good faith?
I mean most of the stuff I know is my own research because most of the few secondary sources that exist are of debatable reliability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
I mean most of the stuff I know is my own research because most of the few secondary sources that exist are of debatable reliability.
Oh; OK. Anyway, you could try getting your research published and then posting it on Wikipedia. :)
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
Oh; OK. Anyway, you could try getting your research published and then posting it on Wikipedia. :)
Yeah if I could, don't know how to do that, especially since I have nothing more than a high school education. Also I'm constantly revising my latest theories so nothing stays to much the same for long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,887
Blachernai
This is why I think that academia.edu is not different from Wiki. It limits the posters to graduated students and professors ... but also Einstein said bullsh**s ...
Indeed, anyone can put anything on Academia. It's mostly a scam to harvest data but it is often also the easiest way to access published research outside of a good university library.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,972
Portugal
This is why I think that academia.edu is not different from Wiki. It limits the posters to graduated students and professors ... but also Einstein said bullsh**s ...
And yet an article in academia.edu is personalized, the author has a name, that we can recognize the valour or not, while in Wikipedia is basically an anonymous salad, often we don't know who wrote what sentence.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
And yet and article in academia.edu is personalized, the author has a name, that we can recognize the valour or not, while in Wikipedia is basically an anonymous salad, often we don't know who wrote what sentence.
Actually, Wikipedia does have an edit history, but going through all of it for every article is going to be just a huge pain in the butt that only a machine/AI could do it.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,192
Italy, Lago Maggiore
And yet an article in academia.edu is personalized, the author has a name, that we can recognize the valour or not, while in Wikipedia is basically an anonymous salad, often we don't know who wrote what sentence.
Correct. The author of a work on academia.edu is immediately visible. On Wiki you have to "discover" the author of a contribution.

But this is obvious: to be graduated is something public. If I graduate at Milan State University in "Psychology of the Ants" [this doesn't exist!] I will be visible all around the world [as the greatest psychologist of ants ever ...].

Being the filter of academia.edu about being an academic, this means that the authors who post their works and essays on that site have to be academics. And to be academics is beyond privacy. Once you are an academic you are a public personage.

Wikipedia doesn't apply this filter.

This generally means that on academia.edu you can read more valuable works than on Wiki. At least academia.edu imposes a filter ensuring a minimum level of quality ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist