In Defence of Wikipedia III

Back in March, I wrote In Defence of Wikipedia and followed it with In Defence of Wikipedia Response, specifically to criticize the trendiness of academic sneering at a resource that students are using more and more. I offered a range of reasons to suggest that our reaction to Wikipedia should be more nuanced. Putting our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes is not a realistic option. As always, the academic's best option is critical engagement. Inevitably, some misread the posts; others disagreed. It is encouraging to see John Hobbins writing intelligently about Wikipedia, Bible Study and the SBL, from which this is an excerpt:

How might Wikipedia’s presentation of biblical and related literature be improved? Let me count the ways. Coverage is spotty and sometimes amateurish. Links are not always top-notch. Bibliographies often seem slanted.

But, as I said before, improvement over time is noticeable.

Wikipedia does not adhere to the shameful practice of much scholarship in the humanities, whereby essays published decades ago are republished unchanged with nary a nod to developments in the field since original publication.

Wikipedia is a community effort. It is up to scholars to stop griping, roll up their electronic sleeves, and improve it themselves.

The ever reasonable and always interesting Doug Chaplin has a nice follow-up on Metacatholic headed Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? with the message "Wikipedia is here. Deal with it." One of the most important ways of embracing this challenge is the one suggested by John, echoing my own earlier suggestions of getting involved. If one is serious about rigorous academic life, then one should be serious about being a critical participant rather than a critical outsider.

Jim West criticized my earlier piece and he now does the same again. As Doug mentions, I earlier suggested that a way out of the impasse would be to test Jim's claims by means of the Wikipedia article on Zwingli. I would be interested to know if Jim has taken up that challenge and how he feels about the resulting product. Jim suggested that I too test things by working on the Wikipedia article on the Q document, which I have been doing, just every now and then. So far, I've been pleased with what I have seen. The article is looking OK, though with some work still necessary, but when I make changes, they usually stay. To be honest, the real challenge would have been the Synoptic Problem article, which is a bit of a mess and needs some serious work. But I've recently written a lengthy encyclopaedia article for a print volume (which therefore will get far less exposure than Wikipedia) on that topic, so I am loathe to end up duplicating my work there, all the more so as I already have something of a web presence on this topic. So perhaps others would enjoy taking up this challenge?

One last thing: I was shocked to see that there was no Wikipedia article on Michael Goulder, so I have added one. At the moment it's just a skeleton, but I hope to add to it in due course, or perhaps you would like to?