User:Peter Damian/SEP vs WP

SEP vs WP

It 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here that the traditional model of author-owner, peer review, editorial management and fixed release versions has been superseded by Wikipedia.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.