Which could be an indication that there is also a problem with wikipedia. In particular, I think when someone takes a genuine effort to improve an article and that effort is reverted, there should be a clear indication of the reasons. In this case, whenever malte pointed to specific issues with the article, the student corrected them immediately.

> if someone comes along and disagrees with the changes, they revert to the consensus version, then you discuss it and try to reach a consensus.

I don't see much effort to reach consensus on the editor's side. Most comments are in the style of "please read the rules before editing" - which is not very helpful.

>I don't see much effort to reach consensus on the editor's side. Most comments are in the style of "please read the rules before editing" - which is not very helpful.

I've said elsewhere here I think the whole situation would have been much more fruitful if the teacher had been or had engaged with an experienced Wikipedia editor to put these sorts of comments in the right context. Personally, I think the WP:SYNTH document is concise and clear enough that it isn't unreasonable to point to it after the reversion, but that's beside the point. The student has the option of continuing to make changes to their text to try and fix the problems the experienced editor pointed out, or if they think the changes are appropriate, go through another dispute resolution mechanism if the experienced editor is unwilling to budge. There are many such mechanisms, none of which were tried in this situation, because inexperienced editors don't know how to take advantage of them.

She did:

> I was put in touch with a Wikipedian here at the University of Michigan who would be able to help

Now, to your other issue:

> the problem with Wikipedia causing this is a PR problem, not a problem with the culture of Wikipedia.

Both problems exist, as the above refutation of your statement makes clear. There is denial among Wikipedians that there is a cultural problem, and that denial comes in the insidious form of not noticing facts that would counter your position.

There is also a public relations problem, in that people really, really need a stronger advisory before embarking on a Wikipedia edit that there is a measurable risk of reversion or deletion, and first contact with bureaucracy will almost certainly be unpleasant. To mitigate that, the new editor should be very strongly advised to skim the rules and expect the neutrality of the administration to feel harsh. Like coming up against laws of physics while rock-climbing harsh.

I think this was a cautionary tale for educators considering similar projects. If you tried to learn how to surf and almost drowned three times before you got your feet back to solid ground, I think you'd be cautioning other people as well.

> Frankly, this seems like a perfect teaching tool - you've got someone right there willing to do the teaching for you, because they're engaging your student in a debate about the content of the material.

If the goal is to learn about Wikipedia administrivia, then yes, it's a perfect teaching tool (the virologist Mahlke doesn't seem terribly interested in teaching epidemiology with statements like "see, the thing is..."). I will even grant you, there's a fair chance that being able to incorporate most Wikipedia administrivia into your online behavior is probably a good test whether or not a person is really able to act like an adult. That said, without realizing the primacy of the bureaucracy at the outset, I think most people agree first contact with the Wikipedia bureaucracy is generally a horrible experience. It's rather similar to learning to surf: most people give up before they try, and most who do try give up after the first attempt.

The be bold policy should now be "be bold, and time your edits. In the 1 in 20 chance they are contested, expect at least 10 times as much time will be spent in the bureaucracy. Once administrative action is taken, skim the key policies and guidelines (1) before saying anything. Expressing indignation will only make things worse."

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia_policies_an...

> About Meghan Duffy (author of post): I am an ecologist at the University of Michigan. My research focuses on the ecology and evolution of infectious diseases, particularly in lake Daphnia populations.

I believe this student is a college student. Since it was reviewed by an expert in the field, I'm inclined to believe it was a quality edit.

Regardless, you had to two doctorates (one in Molecular Virology, other in evolutionary biology and behavior) duking it out. Looking at the difference between the two pages[1], [2] there doesn't seem to be a large difference. My guess is that this was a small point they were arguing over; on a large part, her edits were accepted.

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_spreader

[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-spreader&ol...

Also, as for the changes that were "accepted" - the main article has now been reverted to the student's version since this article was posted. If I had to guess, I'd say it'll be re-reverted back to its original state shortly, then temporarily semi-protected if it starts an edit war. It's quite likely that this will spur a bunch of additional attention which will cause the student's changes to be refactored into something that the previous editors would find acceptable, and much of the student's research will be incorporated into the page.

So, maybe the blog post isn't such a bad thing after all?

That said, I don't think the blog post author did anything wrong or anything. Her experience sounds like it could have been a frustrating one. I just don't particularly believe the general conclusions that are quick to be drawn from these one-off experiences about the health of Wikipedia and its viability as an encyclopedia.