The form of a Wikipedia contribution is quite exacting . . . but what counts as "exacting" is culturally determined. This is the beginning not the end of a discussion of gender and knowledge. I'd love to hear what others think about this study of Wikipedia contribution and use as well as about the larger issues.

How did English become such a grumpy profession? And what is the epistemological framework that accounts for "critique" having a higher value on the intellectual hierarchy than "formulation"? There are so many things in the world worth critiquing. No one questions that. But there is also much to contribute, and especially now, where so many forms of public knowledge are truly open, accessible, and available to anyone who can sign-in to the public terminal at the local library. Making knowledge public is easy now. Why isn't sharing the knowledge of our profession--including its standards of credibility and citation--something we teach in every course and require of everyone entering the profession?

A whimsical piece I wrote on "The Art of Fudging" appeared this week in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Here's a link courtesy of the Duke News Service: Commentary: The art of fudging (Chronicle of Higher Education)
Cathy N. Davidson, a professor of interdisciplinary studies and English, on ?the deep roots of disciplinary fudging.?

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i17/17b00501.html.

The clip is also included with a live link in the Duke in the News section of Duke Today, www.duke.edu/today.