User talk:Ragesoss/HSS

Comments from Awadewit

Is it ok for my to post my comments here? If not, just move them to the most convenient location. I'm being really picky, by the way. Feel free to disregard some or all of this.

• The essay starts Historians of science greatly underestimate the popular demand for our work. However, not everyone who is a part of the project is a historian. They may simply have an interest in the topic - the "our" might be a little off-putting. What about phrasing it in terms of the discipline rather than in terms of the scholars?

• I assume you are going to link to articles and have footnotes to emphasize the importance of citing sources by doing it yourself? :)

• As one of my colleagues puts it, using historical scholarship to improve the public understanding of history has always been like "tilting at windmills". - At this point in the essay, the reader does not know who you and your colleague are.

• The misinformed "army of middle-school teachers" create a closed loop of misinformation that propagates from generation to generation, a seemingly insoluble problem. - I hate to get down on middle-school teachers - their job is so hard. Why not criticize the educational system that creates them? Where is the quote from? Why are they an army?

• Myths about the flat earth, astrology, alchemy, the conflict between science and religion, Ptolemaic astronomy, and many other topics are doubly pernicious and recalcitrant because they serve as a purpose, as foil for their modern counterparts. - This is confusing - do you mean myths about the history?

• This historian was pessimistic that any significant changes in public (mis)perceptions of the history of science are possible, since these myths acquire their own momentum. - Slightly confusing - your colleague or yourself in the third person?

• fans are increasingly sensitive to sloppy treatment of easily-found information - prove it!

• scholars can intervene in Wikipedia with little trouble - Yes, but do they? I have seen little evidence that historians and literary critics do.

• It's a destination of first resort for things that don't matter enough to require scholarly literature--which for garden-variety historians and scholars in other fields, includes the whole of the history of science. - "don't matter enough"? I'm skeptical of this phrase. I don't think it conveys the meaning you intend. I think you mean something more along the lines of "don't need to read in depth on" or something. Scientists might say "first order of magnitude". :)

• The potential is great, but the reality will fall desperately short until scholars become involved with Wikipedia on a larger scale. - I would say "scholars and dedicated amateurs" - let's not sell ourselves short or alienate readers, right?

• Whiggish content is not uncommon - unnecessary scholarly jargon

• computer-savvy physical scientists and technologists are over-represented in the Wikipedia community - prove it - I suspect this is true, but this needs to be demonstrated

• The histories of the biological sciences have high points (e.g., the biographies of Darwin and Wallace), but overall the coverage is spotty. - give examples of egregious omissions (I did this in my wikipedia weekly interview, hoping it would spark someone's interest!)

• Tapping into the enthusiasm of talented history buffs and history-minded scientists has been the most rewarding part of working on Wikipedia. - add "for me"

• The second part of the essay seemed a lot less coherent to me. I wasn't sure what its main thrust was: to convince academics to work on wikipedia? to convince project participants to contribute more? to convince other readers that there is no deference to experts? It needs more focus, I think. The first part followed quite nicely and made sense as a little mini-essay. The second part is much more fragmented. I think you either have to pick a single message (and obviously have a different one each month) or you have to a bulleted list of "Here's how to get involved in this intellectual endeavor" kind of thing.

It all sounds very optimistic, which is good for a newsletter. I'm not sure that I share such optimism. But I don't think that newsletters are the proper forums for the cynicism that dissertation-writing breeds. :) Awadewit | talk 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Part the second

With the new audience in mind:

• Might you have to explain wikipedia before you start talking about its articles? Can you assume everyone reading the newsletter knows what it is? What about at least "online encyclopedia" or something?

• For this audience, you might want to emphasize the ideal of education changing the world, or something along those lines.

• Wikipedia's lists of information are particularly helpful for scholars - you might also include that and maybe some of the ideas from Markus Poessel's essay "Many things to many people". I had a friend who looked up an author and found his list of works - this led him to a text he had not known about previously and he is now teaching it.

• Garden-variety historians and non-historians need to know about the history of science to do better history and make better sense of the world around them. - This statement can be made more precise, I think.

• I would emphasize several things about collaborative work on wikipedia for other academics. Sometimes academics are selfish - to motivate them, you might point out what they will gain as well as what they will give:

• 1) It is often very much like teaching a classroom of eager, bright students who then go teach others (I have actually seen my own statements repeated!). I often feel like I have many opportunities to explain literary criticism to people who would not have heard about it otherwise, for example.
• 2) You meet fascinatingly interesting people with diverse interests. This has informed my own work - I have been exposed to so many new ideas by writing and peer reviewing that my dissertation has been immeasurably enriched. I am sure you can say the same.
• 3) There are excellent writers and copy editors on wikipedia. My own writing has improved measurably on wikipedia. The constant scrutiny has been a marvelous benefit.

Just a few extra thoughts. Awadewit | talk 12:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)