Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past

From Wikipedia Quality
Revision as of 10:42, 4 March 2021 by Nepheria (talk | contribs) (+ embed code)
Jump to: navigation, search


Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past
Authors
Roy Rosenzweig
Publication date
2006
DOI
10.2307/4486062
Links
Original

Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2006, written by Roy Rosenzweig.

Overview

History is a deeply individualistic craft. The singly authored work is the standard for the profession; only about 6 percent of the more than 32,000 scholarly works indexed since 2000 in this journal’s comprehensive bibliographic guide, “Recent Scholarship,” have more than one author. Works with several authors—common in the sciences—are even harder to find. Fewer than 500 (less than 2 percent) have three or more authors.1 Historical scholarship is also characterized by possessive individualism. Good professional practice (and avoiding charges of plagiarism) requires us to attribute ideas and words to specific historians—we are taught to speak of “Richard Hofstadter’s status anxiety interpretation of Progressivism.”2 And if authors use more than a limited number of words from Hofstadter, authors need to send a check to his estate. To mingle Hofstadter’s prose with your own and publish it would violate both copyright and professional norms. A historical work without owners and with multiple, anonymous authors is thus almost unimaginable in professional culture. Yet, quite remarkably, that describes the online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia, which contains 3 million articles (1 million of them in English). History is probably the category encompassing the largest number of articles. Wikipedia is entirely free. And that freedom includes not just the ability of anyone to read it (a freedom denied by the scholarly journals in, say, jstor, which requires an expensive institutional subscription) but also—more remarkably—their freedom to use it. You can take Wikipedia’s entry on Franklin D. Roosevelt and put it on your own Web site, you can hand out copies to your students, and you can publish it in a book—all with only one restriction: You may not impose any more restrictions on subsequent readers and users than have been imposed on you. And it has no authors in any conventional sense. Tens of thousands of people—who have not gotten even the glory of affixing their names to it—have written it collaboratively. The Roosevelt entry, for example, emerged over four years as five hundred authors made about one thousand edits. This extraordinary freedom and cooperation make Wikipedia the most important application of the

Embed

Wikipedia Quality

Rosenzweig, Roy. (2006). "[[Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past]]". Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.2307/4486062.

English Wikipedia

{{cite journal |last1=Rosenzweig |first1=Roy |title=Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past |date=2006 |doi=10.2307/4486062 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Can_History_Be_Open_Source?_Wikipedia_and_the_Future_of_the_Past |journal=Oxford University Press}}

HTML

Rosenzweig, Roy. (2006). &quot;<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Can_History_Be_Open_Source?_Wikipedia_and_the_Future_of_the_Past">Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past</a>&quot;. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.2307/4486062.