I therefore would view contributing to Wikipedia not as a part of scholarly output, but as part of community outreach or public communication.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a project to teach undergraduate would-be scientists to communicate with the public. The authors claim that even second-year undergraduates have difficulty communicating outside the specialist language of their fields in order to inform a broader public. I think scholars should contribute to that broader communication, and as Judy suggests, Wikipedia is a place with a built-in large audience.

Contributions to Wikipedia can be seen as a contribution to public communication, on par with media appearances, and not comparable to research and publication. Of course, as Steven points out, how and whether employers or tenure committees should value such contributions remains as an important and difficult question.

I’ll confess, I don’t go looking at articles on my own areas of expertise. I know I’d probably want to do revision and, as suggested above, I just don’t have time to do that right now. I do sort of envision weighing in on those topics at some point in the vague and misty future. I suppose it is a form of reciprocity, since I rely on other scholars going in there and messing about with their own topics.

If wikipedia gives our students a sense of the discursive nature of the construction of knowledge, perhaps that is not such a bad thing? I’d love to think that they learn to read thoughtfully and critically, as a matter of course.