Fri 8th April 2011, 7:12pm
He's an English professor
- he's not in the sciences or economics or even history. Peer review in English Literature has always been highly subjective, and research funding (what little there is of it) is even worse.
The fact is, he's probably written a whole bunch of stuff besides Wikipedia articles for his tenure bid, and in all likelihood, Auburn-Montgomery isn't the sort of school where you need more than two or three peer-reviewed articles. And he also helped defend a colleague's BLP, which is just as good as any suck-up effort you can come up with these days.
Meanwhile, on the somewhat-notorious ratemyprofessors.com
, he's got kids saying he's "extremely abrasive, abrupt, has no problem embarrassing you and peers," that he "will criticize anyone about anything," and that "his class is a nightmare." (Admittedly, most of the comments were fairly positive...)
The unfortunate thing about this is that the Wikipedia fanboys and fangirls are going to treat it as some sort of vindication, somehow "proving" that WP activity is now being accepted as legitimate activity in academia, and they'll be further degrading higher education as a result.