SEP vs WP
editIt has long been an article of faith for many here that the traditional model of author-owner, peer review, editorial management and fixed release versions has been superseded by Wikipedia. If you argue about this, people point to the failure of Nupedia to grow in the rapid way that Wikipedia did in 2001.
But actually there is a good example of an online (and free) encyclopedia developed using the traditional model, namely the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I joined Wikipedia in 2003 and I have watched the SEP grow. It now has over 2,000 articles. How does it compare to Wikipedia? The table below shows some of the SEP entries under 'A' which I took in the exact order they occur in the Stanford Encyclopedia Table of Contents. The first column is a link to the SEP article, the second to the Wikipedia article if there is one.
Judge for yourself. My view is that the traditional model wins hands down, at least for the complex and difficult subjects engaged by the SEP. Should Wikipedia be like the SEP? I don’t think so: the SEP is aimed at philosophy undergraduates and is difficult and challenging for the average reader. But I think Wikipedia should be more like the SEP. And how would we do that? I returned to Wikipedia recently, as you all know, and the task is daunting. Many of the original editors in my subject area have left, and parts of it look like a ghost town in the Old West. Many of the articles have deteriorated.
Why is this? In particular, why don't specialists of the calibre who contribute to SEP also contribute to Wikipedia? My sense (from contacting the editors who I worked with before 2009) is mainly that there is no resumé value in working on Wikipedia. By contrast, although the SEP does not pay its authors, having an article published there is career-enhancing. Perhaps that's selfish of them – I would argue not, given they must publish or perish – but if quality is the goal, and surely that's what the project is about, should we not give some consideration to a more 'mixed model'? One possibility might be for specialist writers to contribute a 'stable version' of a Wikipedia article which could be linked to from the current Wikipedia version. If we could establish an editorial board for each subject area, they could review submissions. Non-professional editors could submit too, of course.
| Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Wikipedia | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Abduction | Abductive reasoning | Wikipedia has two separate sections on "history". SEP has a clear explanation of what abduction is. |
| Peter Abelard | Peter Abelard | SEP article written by Peter King.
The Wikipedia article lists his works but misses an account of them. The section on his thought was lifted from the 10th edition of Britannica article, written by George Croom Robertson. |
| Abhidharma | Abhidharma | The SEP article is written by Prof. Noa Ronkin (Wolfson College, Oxford). It is extensive. The Wikipedia article is brief by comparison, and consists mostly of lists. |
| Abilities | Aptitude | The Wikipedia article is very short. |
| Abner of Burgos | Abner of Burgos | The SEP article is much longer. |
| Judah Abrabanel | Judah Leon Abravanel | The SEP is slightly longer. The Wikipedia article is mainly written in 2006 by IP 152.19.192.168, which locates to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. |
| Abstract Objects | Abstract and concrete | SEP written by Gideon Rosen, Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Princeton. Wikipedia: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." |
| Action | Action (philosophy) | The Wikipedia article is four paragraphs long. A significant part was written by an IP from University of Pittsburgh who made some very good contributions, but has not edited since 2005. |
| Actualism | Actualism | The Wikipedia article is relatively brief. |
| Adaptationism | Adaptationism | The SEP article is extensive; the Wikipedia article is brief. |
| Jane Addams | Jane Addams | The SEP article is extensive; the Wikipedia article is brief. |
| Theodor W. Adorno | Theodor W. Adorno | Both articles are extensive. |
| Advance Directives | Advance health care directive | The SEP is far more comprehensive. |
| Aegidius Romanus | Giles of Rome | SEP has a comprehensive account of his works and thought, written from the perspective of modern scholarship. Wikipedia is based on the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. |
| Ancient Skepticism | Part of Philosophical_skepticism | The SEP is detailed and extensive. The Wikipedia is perfunctory and a jumble. |
| The Concept of the Aesthetic | No equivalent article. | |
| Aesthetic Judgment | No equivalent article. | |
| Beardsley's Aesthetics | Monroe Beardsley | Wikipedia article is nine sentences. SEP is extensive. |
| 18th Century British Aesthetics | No equivalent article. | |
| Collingwood's Aesthetics | R. G. Collingwood | Wikipedia has almost nothing on Collingwood's aesthetics (although it links to the SEP article). |
| Croce's Aesthetics | Benedetto Croce | Wikipedia has a very short section on his aesthetics. |
| The Definition of Art | Redirects to Art | Very little substance in Wikipedia |
| Dewey's Aesthetics | Art as Experience | The Wikipedia article is more a chapter by chapter summary of a work by Dewey. |
| Environmental Aesthetics | Everyday Aesthetics | The Wikipedia article was entirely created IP 82.9.219.7 in February 2013. It has no historical background. |
| Existentialist Aesthetics | No corresponding article? | |
| Feminist Aesthetics | Feminist aesthetics | The Wikipedia article is five short paragraphs, written by Wikipedian in residence (User:Maximilianklein), who is presumably a man. The SEP is extensive, and written by Carolyn Korsmeyer, who is presumably a woman. |
| 18th Century French Aesthetics | No corresponding article. | |
| Gadamer's Aesthetics | Hans-Georg Gadamer | The Wikipedia article has nothing on his aesthetics. |
| 18th Century German Aesthetics | No corresponding article. | |
| Goodman's Aesthetics | Nelson Goodman | Wikipedia has almost no mention of his aesthetics. |
| Hegel's Aesthetics | Lectures on Aesthetics | The SEP article covers all of Hegel's aesthetics comprehensively. The Wikipedia article is only on his lectures, and is little more than a table of contents. |
| Heidegger's Aesthetics | No corresponding article. | |
| Hume's Aesthetics | David Hume#Aesthetics | Wikipedia has only two paragraphs. |
| Japanese Aesthetics | Aesthetics, section "Japanese aesthetics". | Wikipedia's article has a three-sentence paragraph; SEP is extensive. |
| Plato's Aesthetics | History of aesthetics before the 20th century, section "Plato". | The treatment of Plato is perfunctory. There is nothing about his aesthetics in the article about the philosopher himself. |
| Schopenhauer's Aesthetics | Arthur Schopenhauer's aesthetics | The Wikipedia article was written mostly by User:Ihcoyc, who is still contributing. It is much shorter than the SEP. |
| Wittgenstein's Aesthetics | Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief | The Wikipedia article is about a book, rather than Wittgenstein's aesthetics as a whole. It consists of six sentences. |