Norms Of Research Methodology (NORM's), You Say You're A Professional What ??? Options

[Jonny Cache]

The title may be a whitewash, but (groan) at least the article is an acknowledgement that something unprofessional did happen, unlike the quickly deleted subpages.

"Unprofessional?" Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to be unprofessional? To be a professional, you need the following:

1. Advanced training and/or education
2. An ethics code separate from that of the enterprise you associate with
3. Substantial discretion over your job

None of these are present at Wikipedia. To expect "professionalism" from them is to misunderstand what a professional is.

I'm not sure this is a good description of professionalism, and the only point of these that Wikipedians *might* not meet is the first one. All of them apply their own ethic code, and as an undirected volunteer you have substantial discretion over your job. Editors aren't forced to make any edits, and admins aren't forced to take any actions. We all have discretion. We all have our own ethics code, although there are some rules, I've never had a job without rules. And while many Wikipedians have little or no formal training, there are lots of Wikipedias with extensive formal training. Check out the math articles, it's rife with genuine Ph.D.s (which is evident just from the writing), and being mostly "nerds", many have at leave reasonable training (bachelors or what have you).

We're not professional because we don't get paid. I meet all three of those points, (more or less - I'm in the middle of a Ph.D. so how "advanced" my education is can be debated — I have a four year honours degree in science, you may not consider that "advanced"), but I'm not a professional, I edit Wikipedia as a hobby.

In ordinary usage, being a professional means you get paid, as in professional hitman. Sorry, gals, hitmen as a rule are a hidebound traditional sexist bunch — and there's a thick, even •proof glass ceiling among hit professors, and even though we all know there are many fine hitmisses, hitnymphs, and hitwomen, somehow those more PC termsofart just ain't made the hit parade yet, with or without a •.

Where was I ??? Oh yeah, professionalism …

The question is whether Wikipediots observe Norms Of Research Methodology (NORM's) that are analogous to those observed in the relevant professions.

Now that is such a good question that I think it's worth starting another thread devoted to discussing it — give me a second, as thinking up new titles is always something of a strain for me.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 4th September 2007, 3:38pm

[Jonny Cache]

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've always been a ramblin man, but I did manage to axidently pick up a couple of masters in my travels, plus many years of post-masters graduate study in several fields, the last being a decade of tombstone, er, capstone study in systems engineering where I tried to synthesize the unfinished business of a lifetime into what I affectionately call My Dissipation. There's a pertinent bit of Vita at this Wikipedia Review Directory Page.

Have to break for lunch —

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 28th December 2007, 5:17am

[Jonny Cache]

Just So You Know Where I'm Coming From (The Next Day) —

Given my background, I naturally wasted a lot of my days in Wikiputia trying to improve articles in logic, mathematics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, psychology, systems sciences, and so on.

Let's focus on Maths for the moment. These were once some of the best articles in Wikipedia, graded on the scale of Math As She Was Spoke at the undergrad level in about 1950 or so. Still, math doesn't move all that fast, so these articles, by and large, were not in the horribly despicable state that afflicts the lyin's share of Wikipedia.

The not horribly despicable quality of the math articles in Wikipedia is due in large part to a couple of factors:

1. The presence of a duly diligent subcommunity of editors who are grounded in a mathematics curriculum that is pretty much globally standardized.
2. The fact that a huge amount of the mathematical grubstake of Wikipedia was imported whole hog from PlanetMath, a wiki that specializes in mathematical subjects.

Do we have the analogous conditions in other parts of Wikipedia? Yes, in selected areas of Literature, Science, and the Arts. Outside of that, not much.

Still, "not horribly despicable" is a condition that leaves a lot of room for improvement.

I'm going to rest up a while before I try to tell y'∀ the sad² tale of how much luck I had with that.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 4th September 2007, 10:00pm

[LamontStormstar]

I thought you did more of truth theory.

But Wikipedia is off in math. They falsely claim .999999..... = 1.

[Pwok]

In ordinary usage, being a professional means you get paid, as in professional hitman.

If getting paid is the only criteria for being a professional, then the word means nothing at all.

[Jonny Cache]

In ordinary usage, being a professional means you get paid, as in professional hitman.

If getting paid is the only criteria for being a professional, then the word means nothing at all.

I realize that we've all been developing bad cases of TSAS;DR>1L@AT in recent years, but anyone who reads >1¶ of what I wrote would recognize that the 1st ¶ was little more than a comic warmup to the main punchline of the piece.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th September 2007, 2:02am

[Pwok]

I didn't see the other posts. Sorry.

[Jonny Cache]

I didn't see the other posts. Sorry.

Okay, I read the top post on this thread again, which was itself torn from a previous post about some other topic, and I see that all of those comedic hijinks might have been just a mite distracting.

In the context that gave rise to this spinoff, most of those present appeared to have arrived more or less on the same page about what sense of professionalism would make sense to talk about in a setting that involved a large, if not predominant population of amateurs.

So that is where we really want to begin the present discussion.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th September 2007, 11:20am

[LamontStormstar]

TSAS;DR

What's that mean? I asked before.

[Jonny Cache]

TSAS;DR

What's that mean? I asked before.

And I answered it before.

On a related note —

• WDETGTOT?

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th September 2007, 4:06am

[LamontStormstar]

Sorry J, I missed that thread somehow.