WikiProject on the History of Science

Noted in message by Sage Ross, a grad student, in the History of Science, Medicine and Technology mailing list hosted by Michigan State University: The History of Science Wikiproject. Ross writes:

As Wikipedia becomes more sophisticated, undergraduates will increasingly rely on it as a starting point (and ideally only a starting point, but often more) for writing papers.  So even if you have no desire to contribute to Wikipedia, it pays as an historian to familiarize yourself with it.

Indeed, Wikipedia will compete with many sources for easy access to summaries of history and other facts. I've made my suggestions here, here and here for improving Wikipedia, and this project is exactly the kind of undertaking Wikipedia needs. A group of people who care about a topic to undertake to make the information on a Wikipedia page reliable. It doesn't matter that they are "experts," though it helps, rather it reflects how human organizations can be layered onto technical platforms to promote information the people think is accurate. Yes, there will be wars, but it is good that "professional historians" are not ignoring Wikipedia, because it could be a key source of information for generations to come.

R. Mills Kelly of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, explains how participating in Wikipedia helps his students better understand their subject and the subjectivity of history: 

In addition to talking about Wikipedia often, I also assigned my graduate students several readings on Wikipedia and had them create their own entries. I gave my undergraduates the option of creating an entry for extra credit (only two did took me up on the offer). The discussion the graduate students had in our blog was especially interesting, because, while many remained skeptical of the virtues of Wikipedia and almost everyone disliked the interface, as a group they were intrigued by the possibilities of "open source history" and at least one is convinced the Wikipedia is worthy of more serious research. 

This isn't a project to impose exclusivity on the Wikipedia (which could be a complaint—a stupid one—we might hear), it's the beginning of real democratic dialogue. The question is whether the truth can survive the conflict.