i'm actually glad that oliver's viewpoint is presented as smugly as it is, because it's a good representation of the so-called academic opposition to wikipedia. the mere idea of trying to separate between "legitimate academic work" and "amateur enthusiasts" (or whatever he said) is a lot of rubbish that wikipedia is doing an excellent job of exposing and unraveling, leaving a lot of upper class snobs to spit in their teacups. we're taught to look at educators as altruists, which is obscuring us to the reality of the backlash which is that the real reason academics react so badly to wikipedia and free information in general is that it threatens their business model. today, it's encyclopedias that are going under. tomorrow, it's textbook companies. eventually, it's publishing companies altogether, in a totally free (as in speech) economy. this doesn't eliminate academic rigour, it merely separates it from a profit motive and gives it back to the community (and away from the individual) where it belongs. this is progress, and the universities should be scolded for resisting it.

it's one thing to point out that this is in direct contradiction to the increasing privatization and corporatization of the "knowledge industry", including skyrocketing tuition prices. they warn of free information dumbing us down, but this is indicative of our existing era of academic sophistry, where students are charged thousands of dollars to sit through lectures where profs summarize books they could get at the library for free. it's another to point out that it's exactly why it's so important - because it breaks that model of education for profit.

once you realize you're dealing with scam artists that are afraid of being called out on it, rather than people working towards the common good as we are so often falsely lead to believe, it is easy to cast aside their criticism as rubbish.

jimmy's making far more sense, here. he's built a great tool that academics should be more excited about adapting to, and would be if they were the altruists so many of us like to pretend they are. now, the challenge is in getting them out of their ivory towers and down on the ground to engage. it may not be in their immediate financial interests, but here's the nice part of it - there's a cusp approaching, where they risk irrelevance if they don't.

and rupert murdoch can fuck off.