thank you for the explanation!

….but I think it could have a significant impact over the course of five or ten years.

I agree with you on that. I found your example with the huge number of readers of the Einstein entry very convincing – it may be a chance to counterbalance science textbook “history” of science.

Best regards, Stefan

Thanks! The Wikipedia Gap I had in mind was the gap between history of science coverage on Wikipedia and the coverage of other topics; I think good Wikipedia material is a great way to get people interested in what we do (and hence, a way to better compete in the literal marketplace of ideas that is the modern academy). Other people I’ve talked to find that a bit far-fetched, but I think it could have a significant impact over the course of five or ten years.

It was also a way to play off of the coincidental Stangelove allusions in the titles of two articles about Wikipedia from an academic perspective (cited at the end of the Spontaneous Generations article) that both came out around the time I was writing that article.

I’ve found your blog via your piece “Wikipedia and the History of Science” in the current issue of the newsletter of the HSS – it’s very interesting, thank you a lot!

I have a question about the “Wikipedia Gap”: What actually do you refer to by that phrase?

I can come up with two very different explanations – which one did you actually have in mind?

Does it refer to the ever‐widening gaps between the islands of specialized knowledge (citing your “Spontaneous Generations” piece), that Wikipedia may help to overcome?

Or does it mean the gap between scholarly well-established knowledge and the qualitatively watered-down version of this, including errors and debunked myths that can be found in some Wikipedia entries?

I definitely like your idea that experts should engage to close the gap in the latter case, and that in general Wikipedia may be helpful to bridge the former one.

Or did you have in mind even something else?

Thanks, Stefan