Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for Wikipedia:expert editors, a proposed guideline/essay (not sure which is appropriate) which is designed to:
This isn't intended to be policy--it doesn't really create any new rules. Instead, it simply reiterates and collects various rules with regard to experts, in a single place. -- EngineerScotty 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As an expert editor in biological subjects, I do not like this guideline. It says in the first place what expert editors can not do, before it says something about that they should be appreciated. The basic message is, all animals are equal. Ok, what is new about that? Furthermore, there is a large grey area between appeals to authority and completely equal. I am frustrated at times with non-expert editors as they push there pet aspects on topics especially in popular/media/social hot topics without knowing where they talk about. I think there needs to be more discussion on whether expert editors should be assigned some more (bit bot to much) weight in discussions. KimvdLinde 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that expert editors should be set apart from other editors...this guideline/policy does that. --
Osbus 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:I don't agree that it does. It is simply a moderate summary of how various policies and practices impact on a particular (vaguely defined) class of users. I think it is a good idea to have a realistic summary of the actual position, because some of Wikipedia's critics (e.g. Larry Sanger) are eager to maliciously misrepresent it. I just don't buy the idea that there is systematic hostility towards experts. A few editors may see Wikipedia as some sort of radical experiment, but I think they are a small and shrinking minority. Most of us just want to share what we know or to help out a project which is proving to be of great practical use to ourselves and people like ourselves. When expert users fo have problems, most likely it's usually just part of the rough and tumble nature of Wikipedia and not the result of any specific antagonism towards experts.
Bhoeble 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a small one so I've gone ahead and made it. I've changed "any subject" to "any encyclopedic subject"; mainly so this guideline isn't interpreted to mean that experts somehow have a green light to unilaterally resurrect deleted articles, or create articles on subjects (like [[Why George Bush is an idiot]]) which are not encyclopedic. -- EngineerScotty 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Original research" to a seasoned Wikipedian means something very different from what it means to an academic researcher. To other types of expert (and people generally) it may not mean too much at all.
In Wikipedia, because of the policy Wikipedia:No original research, OR can mistakenly become "what you should not do" or "what you should not include in articles". The policy would more precisely (and less memorably) be called "No ideas may be added unless previously published in reliable, third-party sources" (it is the publisher, not the author, who must be third-party). The policy summarises itself well as "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position".
Hence, provided an article remains encyclopedic and neutral, use may indeed be made of original research material. On the other hand, really quite minor matters can be regarded as OR and hence unsuitable. Sorting a list of roads into order of length and ranking them [1] and making a telephone call [2] are examples.
Now, experts must learn the ropes by wading through the policies and guidelines (and by receiving flak!) just like anyone else. However, is the somewhat unexpected nature of the NOR policy a matter sufficiently specific to experts that it should be elaborated on in this guideline? Thincat 10:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
How far are we. I feel good about this guideline, what will be the next step? KimvdLinde 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following additions:
-- EngineerScotty 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can claim anything they like. I may assert that I have say a degree in history. I may be telling the truth, but even then I may be an expert only in modern European history yet claim expertise in mediaeval China. Or I may say that although I have no degree, I have acquired expertise. This may be valid; indeed, I may know more about some aspects of birds through my hobby of bird-watching than does someone with a degree in zoology. And to an expert, something may be blindingly obvious, whereas to laymen it is not obvious and seems to be original research. Runcorn 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
-- EngineerScotty 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
To get back to the title of this section: That's a very good question, and it has a simple answer.
Experts (or people regarding themselves as experts) are encouraged to announce that they are experts. Further, they're encouraged to give their real names, etc.
I haven't yet announced my real name (as far as I remember). But if I suddenly rewrite my user page to announce that I am [insert name of eminent expert here], there's no reason why you should believe this claim. So I recommend the following addition:
If you regard yourself as an expert in one or more fields, please give your name on your userpage and also link to your own web page (or your page within your institution's site). Have that web page announce that on en-WP you edit as username such-and-such.
-- Hoary 06:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The early version was a fair summary of the current situation, but as it is now, it carries a strong assumption that edits by people with demonstrable qualifications are better, and does not place proper emphasis on assessing edits on their own merits.
This is not acceptable. Academics often publish material that is biased towards pet theories, and are skilled at propaganda. They are often the last people able and willing to assess what is a neutral point of view on a topic as their careers can depend on complying with the orthodoxy imposed by senior academics.
A good illustration of how the dead hand of academic orthodoxy can damage an encyclopedia is that race and intelligence is mentioned in Britannica only to say that it musn't be discussed, because that is the agreed position senior liberal academics, whereas it is covered properly by Wikipedia. Recognition of academic expertise would hand control to the liberal establishment, which would put an end to any effective effort to produce a neutral encyclopedia. Britannica and Encarta are academic-controlled and so of course they are (socially) liberal, not neutral.
The current version of this proposal gives far too much weight to personal status over edit quality and could almost have been written by Larry Sanger. If it is not returned more or less to where it started it should be scrapped. Bhoeble 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This can go round in circles. I detest ad hominem arguments that an edit from one person is somehow better than the same edit from another person. However, equally, presumably an expert can assess the value of an edit better than another editor. Runcorn 09:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As Geni says this is instruction creep. Wikipedia already has more policies and guidelines than most people will ever want to see. However this one is phrased, it will upset some people, and I can't see any practical use for it: a reference to it will just open up the same old arguments. Recommendation: archive as rejected. Sumahoy 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi ---
I think it's excellent to formalize the relationship between expert & non-expert editors, and that you are making a good start on this.
I've basically preferred to edit wikipedia anonymously, and I doubt that my edits in my own area of expertise are really that much more or less valuable than my edits on other pages. I only once got angry when something I spent some time on got totally wiped & did a slightly snippy move of saying "well, I learned that at MIT" in the discussion page & then abandoned wikipedia for about a month. When I checked back though it turned out that the system had "worked" and someone had reverted my contributions back in.
I actually think putting a tag on an article or edit saying "I'm an expert so there" is a bad idea on many levels. Expertise is fluid --- amatures can be experts if they spend enough time (look at tennis.) Students should be encouraged to think critically, and even highschool students sometimes see connections that experts may have missed, because of their intelligence and what they have happened to read recently. I think the watch, history and other mechanisms are more than adequate to protect good writing.
The only reason I now have an "expert" login identity is because I'm currently exploring incorporating wikipedia into funded research, such as as a communication and organization method for networks of excellence. We had a protracted discussion about this on the village pump on policy (which has got deleted!! I'm still being surprised by some things in Wikipedia...) but the upshot of the brief discussion was that any funding acknowledgement should probably be on the user's home page, which is of course referenced through the history so therefore permanent even if the article changes. You may want to think about this policy matter as part of the one you are working on, because if we can get this right then it will enable experts to spend more time actually contributing to wikipedia (or hiring people to!) Charities and national and international science organizations are often happy to fund science outreach and networking, but they tend to require that their contribution is publicly acknowledged, if only in a footnote. -- Joanna Bryson 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
quoted from the article: "Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts, nor is there any mechanism to do so. In the end, it is the quality of the edits that counts."
The last sentence is certainly the basis on which Wiki is built, but, as best, this is wishful thinking, nowhere proven and perhaps unprovable. 'In the end', in this Wiki anarchy, is too often the result of the most forceful and tenacious editor who sticks to something until all others have given up trying to write something else and being reverted or tire of being insulted. I don't think anything in this 'Expert editors' article will change this situation. Thanks Hmains 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A quick "straw poll", for those commenting and/or observing. I've put my thoughts under each question, other editors are encouraged to do so as well. This is non-binding, so answer how you like.
...we're not voting yet. I say this because some of the above comments are phrased like votes. If you think this proposal is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed, go ahead and say so... but voting probably won't start for another week or so. (And there does appear to be some support for this page, so withdrawing the proposal prior to a vote isn't likely to happen. :) -- EngineerScotty 18:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it intended to be an insult, or is it an accident that it comes across as one? Either way, this policy belongs in the reject tray. Athenaeum 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The very idea that someone self-identifies as an "expert" and then blatantly wants to put a tag on the article or its Talk page as if they are somehow a "better" editor than others is offensive personally, and is contradictory to the Wikipedia ideal. Please remember that User:Snowspinner claims to be an expert on webcomics, and has repeatedly tried to use this self-identified expertise in order to try to derail AfDs on non-notable webcomics. Are we supposed to kowtow to these supposed experts? If your expertise requires you to indentify yourself as such, then it's basically worthless. Show it in your edits, not by trying to railroad other people into stepping aside so you can own an article. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people are making the connection between expertise and academia--and implying that the proposal will give greater rights to PhDs. You may notice that the proposal avoids defining "expert"; that is intentional. While an advanced degree is a strong indicator of expertise (especially in subjects which are well-established disciplines); in my mind it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Someone who earned an PhD in microbiology thirty years ago, and then embarked upon a career in computer programming (no longer paying attention to the biology literature), probably will have a difficult time claiming expertise in microbiology today--the field has advanced significantly since 1976. However, that person, due to past experience, would have an easier time reacquiring expertise should they choose, simply because they wouldn't be starting from zero. Likewise, someone who learned to program computers in the Air Force directly out of high school, got a programming job upon leaving the service, and who is now a published author and in-demand consultant on some programming topic, certainly qualifies as an expert.
True expertise is demonstrable, and can be acquired, lost, and re-acquired by continued learning (or failure to do so). It isn't a piece of paper that you hang on the wall. However, the learning, study, and research that one must do to get that piece of paper certainly goes along way towards claiming expert status.
And again, I must reiterate: This proposal does not give experts, real or otherwise, a blank check. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV apply to everybody, including experts. -- EngineerScotty 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that the template is removed; I wouldn't like it if somebody would place a notice saying that I as an expert edited the article, as it implies that I have reviewed the article. Now, I see little that I disagree with, except that I think that
is too strong. If somebody accidentally inserts a wrong fact; that's a mistake and it should not be labelled vandalism. Perhaps insert deliberate before attempts?
Regarding instruction creep: it is just a rehashing of policies. It could be useful to point experts to, to help them understand their position within Wikipedia quickly. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have have combined the lay editor (formerly "non-expert") section into the general section. Such a section necessarily implies that there are two fundamentally different classes and experts are more valuable, which is not acceptable. I have also removed some hostile phrases that were directed towards lay editors. Even with these improvements, I think this should be scrapped as it offers nothing new and will just be a source of future antagonism. Athenaeum 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please indicate why the quote needs to be reduced? Kim van der Linde at venus 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This page hasn't been edited for over a fortnight and there is a lot of opposition to the proposal, to which I add mine as I consider it to be divisive instruction creep. I am going to mark it rejected. Osomec 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with experts editing, anyway? I think a big problem is that people may put experts on some sort of pedestal while at the same time denigrating those who aren't experts, even though we should not denigrate at all. Anti-elitism, where experts are denigrated, and pro-elitism, where non-experts are denigrated are both extreme position and both are wrong. 74.38.35.171 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Press releases/Nature compares Wikipedia and Britannica
To quote Herb Morrison: Oh, the humanity! -- 71.141.242.194 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Is consensus editing the best way to achieve accurate, thorough articles, particularly on complex, technical subjects? Clearly it isn't. The consensus view is often incorrect. It's not worth the effort for real experts. This is a fatal flaw. Real experts don't want to waste time debating and re-debating points that are trivial to anyone with expertise in a subject, yet beyond the grasp of other editors who firmly believe they understand the subject. Wikipedia is a powerful thing... anyone can contribute from anywhere in the world. Yet for all this power, it is fatally flawed. Tvaughan1 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm resurrecting this essay/proposal. Wikipedia needs to recognize experts. Experts get a special userbox on their page. A WikiProject will be formed to accept nominations for new experts and field complaints against established experts. Being an expert editor does not mean one exemplifies the 5 pillars; experts are certainly biased. But, as Wikipedians, we possess a unique openness. If one claims to be unbiased, and then exhibits a bias to a certain other, one can be challenged to defend oneself without the other violating WP:AGF.
Effectively, those WikiProject:Expert Editors members will be vouching for the contributions of these so-called "experts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.40.194 ( talk) 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Your first drafts at a proposal look as if they may have some promise. But of course in making them you've completely destroyed an entirely different proposal: this one. I strongly suggest that you quickly self revert so the article stays in that state; you are welcome to write your essay somewhere else, e.g. Wikipedia:Proficient editors. -- Hoary 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First, the fact that I happen to have made some contributions to the earlier version isn't an issue at all.
Many thanks for reverting. I'm too busy to work on improving either the earlier idea or your newer one. And I'd acknowledge that the earlier one seems to have hit a dead end. However, plenty of links refer to the earlier one, and if it's left as is there is always a chance that somebody with a pleasing combination of imagination, energy and time will work on it to a point where it will attract more attention and support, and may even develop into a guideline.
You can copy the content of your version and paste it into something with a new title, e.g. Wikipedia:Proficient editors.
Copying entire articles and pasting them elsewhere is of course frowned on, and for good reason, but here it would actually be a good thing, because whatever your opinion is on the relative merits of the old and the new essay, you have to acknowledge that the older one has a richer history, and thus one that more deserves to be retained with it. Of course you can (and probably should) point out in the talk page of your new page that its earlier history will be found between edits such and such of the history of this page. -- Hoary 03:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my aims are not well suited for an essay. I've thought about unilaterally starting a WikiProject, and then thought a task-force might be more suitable. To be honest, I only got tangentially inspired by this essay, but I feel my particular take on the idea can possibly gain enough traction to be subjected to the same edit/discuss/straw-poll process this essay experienced.
I believe Wikipedia would benefit from the identification of it's expert editors. In most minds, an expert is a scientist who has graduated from several years of college, and has read and has access to dozens/hundreds of specialized textbooks. But any cardiologist can cite an obscure, possibly false, reference that will go unchecked for some time, unless a bolder claim is made with the same source. In the latter case, the source is called into question. Fellow experts disagree sometimes.
Wikipedia desires transparency. Just put all your cards on the table, and let everyone come to their own conclusion. I love this point of view. Once people begin editing Wikipedia, they'll notice most of the seasoned editors will be in Category:Expert Editors. This is just meant to be a general category that includes those editors who have read a greater portion of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 75.111.26.137 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've got an account now, just so I could create a new page. 75.111.26.137 == CanIBeFrank 06:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Might it not be an idea to consider inviting an expert (or something similar) in a subject to write an article for Wikipedia in much the same way as Encyclopedia Britannica does? Of course, they wouldn't be compensated financially, but in some areas our content is so tiny or non-existent that we could easily replace it with an expert written article (and merge anything worth keeping into it). The writers in question would be made aware that their article would still be open for others to edit and perhaps improve on, but we could also work to see that their work didn't deteriorate over time from nonsense edits and the generally poor article maintenance that is little short of typical of Wikipedia (perhaps have a list of such articles and who is maintaining them). The expert contributes an article voluntarily after being requested, submits it either directly or indirectly, and a regular here sees that it doesn't get ruined by vandals and good-intentioned but clueless individuals. This may be a good strategy to boost areas where our coverage is currently mediocre. I'm not sure how many experts would take us up on such requests, but I think the approach might be worth a try. Richard001 ( talk) 05:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you are inserting your POV here - who says that experts are not respected here? I suppose the article is an essay, but I think the edits are still questionable. Richard001 ( talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess this is basically a page by experts for experts, but the recent addition of the quote "We provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views." seems to conveniently omit the fact that these diverse views are those that are attributed to reliable sources. Seems like a bit of quote mining going on here, though it certainly won't fool anyone with the intelligence to read the page in question. Richard001 ( talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The initialism IANAE has been created as a shortcut. Any objections to adding this link ( WP:IANAE) to the page?— Teahot ( talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As the failed proposal is ~three years old and the page has value as an essay expert editors can be referred to, I've taken off the failed proposal tag. Additionally, I've removed the section about civility/thick skin to avoid the negative tone. Gerardw ( talk) 12:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
So, my view, such essay statements are convenient, organizationally self-affirming platitudes, but are, practically speaking, utter rubbish. (As are related platitudes about the desire for expert retention.) Leprof 7272 ( talk) 02:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The text includes the statement, "there is no advantage (and considerable disadvantage) in divulging one's expertise" (on one's user page). I would welcome some advice about what these considerable disadvantages are. I am considering adding such information to my user page, but already it is pretty easy to deduce my real name from my username and find me via Google, yet I have not so far encountered any disadvantages. As an academic, I would find it helpful to know the identities of the other experts that edit the kind of pages that I work on--it might well be that we interact in real life too--, so I feel I should facilitate others learning my identity. Jmchutchinson ( talk) 09:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Imo the Wikipedia:Expert help page is way more useful and informative concerning the help of experts while this page may better describe why they're useful and provide some additional advice for said.
However I do think it's way more useful/practical for people on here to have an article specifically about how to gain and provide the help of experts - hence I'd like to request the WP:EXPERT shortcut to point to that page. What do you think of that?
It might also be worth considering merging this page into there - I'm not sure if that would be a good idea; maybe it should only be merged partially or so.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that it could be useful to merge in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists page. The information has a lot of overlap, but much of the rest would wok well together (especially since very little is relevant to research scientists but not other experts). This page gets far per annum more traffic. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Wikipedia stringently adheres to the "evidence, not eminence" principle, so you will need to leave your ego and credentials by the door. Telling other editors that you have a Ph.D. in the subject isn't going to help. To win a dispute over the content of an article, you need to back up your opinion with reliable sources, published material in journals, books, theses, newspapers, etc., that says what you want the article to say." REFSPAM and SELFCITE are linked from "Do not go into Wikipedia for the purpose of boosting its coverage of you as a person or of your research publications. It can be OK to cite your own writings in certain situations, but only sparingly, and it is almost never OK to create or edit an article about yourself. If you develop a reputation as a self-promoter, you are likely to get yourself blocked as an editor and your contributions undone or deleted. As in academia, conflicts of interest must be declared. Experts are not expected to have no opinions in their area of expertise, but they are expected to write from a neutral point of view."
My general feeling is that all of this is in the category of "general advice for newbies" having little to do with the specific topic of the essay and little feel for which pieces of advice will actually be useful and which are likely to come across as hostile condescension. (Don't underestimate how offputting such impressions can be: most academics have little free time and little patience for wasting of it. I have certainly myself backed away from volunteering on projects where I thought I could do some good and I thought the project would be interesting but I also thought the people running the projects were condescending to me.) I think it would be better to link to general-advice-for-newbie type essays rather than copying there content within that essay; that way, at least, academics reading it will see that it's just general advice for newbies rather than taking it as indicative of how Wikipedia editors think of academics specifically. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for Wikipedia:expert editors, a proposed guideline/essay (not sure which is appropriate) which is designed to:
This isn't intended to be policy--it doesn't really create any new rules. Instead, it simply reiterates and collects various rules with regard to experts, in a single place. -- EngineerScotty 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As an expert editor in biological subjects, I do not like this guideline. It says in the first place what expert editors can not do, before it says something about that they should be appreciated. The basic message is, all animals are equal. Ok, what is new about that? Furthermore, there is a large grey area between appeals to authority and completely equal. I am frustrated at times with non-expert editors as they push there pet aspects on topics especially in popular/media/social hot topics without knowing where they talk about. I think there needs to be more discussion on whether expert editors should be assigned some more (bit bot to much) weight in discussions. KimvdLinde 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that expert editors should be set apart from other editors...this guideline/policy does that. --
Osbus 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:I don't agree that it does. It is simply a moderate summary of how various policies and practices impact on a particular (vaguely defined) class of users. I think it is a good idea to have a realistic summary of the actual position, because some of Wikipedia's critics (e.g. Larry Sanger) are eager to maliciously misrepresent it. I just don't buy the idea that there is systematic hostility towards experts. A few editors may see Wikipedia as some sort of radical experiment, but I think they are a small and shrinking minority. Most of us just want to share what we know or to help out a project which is proving to be of great practical use to ourselves and people like ourselves. When expert users fo have problems, most likely it's usually just part of the rough and tumble nature of Wikipedia and not the result of any specific antagonism towards experts.
Bhoeble 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a small one so I've gone ahead and made it. I've changed "any subject" to "any encyclopedic subject"; mainly so this guideline isn't interpreted to mean that experts somehow have a green light to unilaterally resurrect deleted articles, or create articles on subjects (like [[Why George Bush is an idiot]]) which are not encyclopedic. -- EngineerScotty 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Original research" to a seasoned Wikipedian means something very different from what it means to an academic researcher. To other types of expert (and people generally) it may not mean too much at all.
In Wikipedia, because of the policy Wikipedia:No original research, OR can mistakenly become "what you should not do" or "what you should not include in articles". The policy would more precisely (and less memorably) be called "No ideas may be added unless previously published in reliable, third-party sources" (it is the publisher, not the author, who must be third-party). The policy summarises itself well as "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position".
Hence, provided an article remains encyclopedic and neutral, use may indeed be made of original research material. On the other hand, really quite minor matters can be regarded as OR and hence unsuitable. Sorting a list of roads into order of length and ranking them [1] and making a telephone call [2] are examples.
Now, experts must learn the ropes by wading through the policies and guidelines (and by receiving flak!) just like anyone else. However, is the somewhat unexpected nature of the NOR policy a matter sufficiently specific to experts that it should be elaborated on in this guideline? Thincat 10:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
How far are we. I feel good about this guideline, what will be the next step? KimvdLinde 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following additions:
-- EngineerScotty 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can claim anything they like. I may assert that I have say a degree in history. I may be telling the truth, but even then I may be an expert only in modern European history yet claim expertise in mediaeval China. Or I may say that although I have no degree, I have acquired expertise. This may be valid; indeed, I may know more about some aspects of birds through my hobby of bird-watching than does someone with a degree in zoology. And to an expert, something may be blindingly obvious, whereas to laymen it is not obvious and seems to be original research. Runcorn 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
-- EngineerScotty 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
To get back to the title of this section: That's a very good question, and it has a simple answer.
Experts (or people regarding themselves as experts) are encouraged to announce that they are experts. Further, they're encouraged to give their real names, etc.
I haven't yet announced my real name (as far as I remember). But if I suddenly rewrite my user page to announce that I am [insert name of eminent expert here], there's no reason why you should believe this claim. So I recommend the following addition:
If you regard yourself as an expert in one or more fields, please give your name on your userpage and also link to your own web page (or your page within your institution's site). Have that web page announce that on en-WP you edit as username such-and-such.
-- Hoary 06:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The early version was a fair summary of the current situation, but as it is now, it carries a strong assumption that edits by people with demonstrable qualifications are better, and does not place proper emphasis on assessing edits on their own merits.
This is not acceptable. Academics often publish material that is biased towards pet theories, and are skilled at propaganda. They are often the last people able and willing to assess what is a neutral point of view on a topic as their careers can depend on complying with the orthodoxy imposed by senior academics.
A good illustration of how the dead hand of academic orthodoxy can damage an encyclopedia is that race and intelligence is mentioned in Britannica only to say that it musn't be discussed, because that is the agreed position senior liberal academics, whereas it is covered properly by Wikipedia. Recognition of academic expertise would hand control to the liberal establishment, which would put an end to any effective effort to produce a neutral encyclopedia. Britannica and Encarta are academic-controlled and so of course they are (socially) liberal, not neutral.
The current version of this proposal gives far too much weight to personal status over edit quality and could almost have been written by Larry Sanger. If it is not returned more or less to where it started it should be scrapped. Bhoeble 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This can go round in circles. I detest ad hominem arguments that an edit from one person is somehow better than the same edit from another person. However, equally, presumably an expert can assess the value of an edit better than another editor. Runcorn 09:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As Geni says this is instruction creep. Wikipedia already has more policies and guidelines than most people will ever want to see. However this one is phrased, it will upset some people, and I can't see any practical use for it: a reference to it will just open up the same old arguments. Recommendation: archive as rejected. Sumahoy 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi ---
I think it's excellent to formalize the relationship between expert & non-expert editors, and that you are making a good start on this.
I've basically preferred to edit wikipedia anonymously, and I doubt that my edits in my own area of expertise are really that much more or less valuable than my edits on other pages. I only once got angry when something I spent some time on got totally wiped & did a slightly snippy move of saying "well, I learned that at MIT" in the discussion page & then abandoned wikipedia for about a month. When I checked back though it turned out that the system had "worked" and someone had reverted my contributions back in.
I actually think putting a tag on an article or edit saying "I'm an expert so there" is a bad idea on many levels. Expertise is fluid --- amatures can be experts if they spend enough time (look at tennis.) Students should be encouraged to think critically, and even highschool students sometimes see connections that experts may have missed, because of their intelligence and what they have happened to read recently. I think the watch, history and other mechanisms are more than adequate to protect good writing.
The only reason I now have an "expert" login identity is because I'm currently exploring incorporating wikipedia into funded research, such as as a communication and organization method for networks of excellence. We had a protracted discussion about this on the village pump on policy (which has got deleted!! I'm still being surprised by some things in Wikipedia...) but the upshot of the brief discussion was that any funding acknowledgement should probably be on the user's home page, which is of course referenced through the history so therefore permanent even if the article changes. You may want to think about this policy matter as part of the one you are working on, because if we can get this right then it will enable experts to spend more time actually contributing to wikipedia (or hiring people to!) Charities and national and international science organizations are often happy to fund science outreach and networking, but they tend to require that their contribution is publicly acknowledged, if only in a footnote. -- Joanna Bryson 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
quoted from the article: "Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts, nor is there any mechanism to do so. In the end, it is the quality of the edits that counts."
The last sentence is certainly the basis on which Wiki is built, but, as best, this is wishful thinking, nowhere proven and perhaps unprovable. 'In the end', in this Wiki anarchy, is too often the result of the most forceful and tenacious editor who sticks to something until all others have given up trying to write something else and being reverted or tire of being insulted. I don't think anything in this 'Expert editors' article will change this situation. Thanks Hmains 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A quick "straw poll", for those commenting and/or observing. I've put my thoughts under each question, other editors are encouraged to do so as well. This is non-binding, so answer how you like.
...we're not voting yet. I say this because some of the above comments are phrased like votes. If you think this proposal is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed, go ahead and say so... but voting probably won't start for another week or so. (And there does appear to be some support for this page, so withdrawing the proposal prior to a vote isn't likely to happen. :) -- EngineerScotty 18:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it intended to be an insult, or is it an accident that it comes across as one? Either way, this policy belongs in the reject tray. Athenaeum 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The very idea that someone self-identifies as an "expert" and then blatantly wants to put a tag on the article or its Talk page as if they are somehow a "better" editor than others is offensive personally, and is contradictory to the Wikipedia ideal. Please remember that User:Snowspinner claims to be an expert on webcomics, and has repeatedly tried to use this self-identified expertise in order to try to derail AfDs on non-notable webcomics. Are we supposed to kowtow to these supposed experts? If your expertise requires you to indentify yourself as such, then it's basically worthless. Show it in your edits, not by trying to railroad other people into stepping aside so you can own an article. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people are making the connection between expertise and academia--and implying that the proposal will give greater rights to PhDs. You may notice that the proposal avoids defining "expert"; that is intentional. While an advanced degree is a strong indicator of expertise (especially in subjects which are well-established disciplines); in my mind it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Someone who earned an PhD in microbiology thirty years ago, and then embarked upon a career in computer programming (no longer paying attention to the biology literature), probably will have a difficult time claiming expertise in microbiology today--the field has advanced significantly since 1976. However, that person, due to past experience, would have an easier time reacquiring expertise should they choose, simply because they wouldn't be starting from zero. Likewise, someone who learned to program computers in the Air Force directly out of high school, got a programming job upon leaving the service, and who is now a published author and in-demand consultant on some programming topic, certainly qualifies as an expert.
True expertise is demonstrable, and can be acquired, lost, and re-acquired by continued learning (or failure to do so). It isn't a piece of paper that you hang on the wall. However, the learning, study, and research that one must do to get that piece of paper certainly goes along way towards claiming expert status.
And again, I must reiterate: This proposal does not give experts, real or otherwise, a blank check. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV apply to everybody, including experts. -- EngineerScotty 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that the template is removed; I wouldn't like it if somebody would place a notice saying that I as an expert edited the article, as it implies that I have reviewed the article. Now, I see little that I disagree with, except that I think that
is too strong. If somebody accidentally inserts a wrong fact; that's a mistake and it should not be labelled vandalism. Perhaps insert deliberate before attempts?
Regarding instruction creep: it is just a rehashing of policies. It could be useful to point experts to, to help them understand their position within Wikipedia quickly. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have have combined the lay editor (formerly "non-expert") section into the general section. Such a section necessarily implies that there are two fundamentally different classes and experts are more valuable, which is not acceptable. I have also removed some hostile phrases that were directed towards lay editors. Even with these improvements, I think this should be scrapped as it offers nothing new and will just be a source of future antagonism. Athenaeum 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please indicate why the quote needs to be reduced? Kim van der Linde at venus 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This page hasn't been edited for over a fortnight and there is a lot of opposition to the proposal, to which I add mine as I consider it to be divisive instruction creep. I am going to mark it rejected. Osomec 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with experts editing, anyway? I think a big problem is that people may put experts on some sort of pedestal while at the same time denigrating those who aren't experts, even though we should not denigrate at all. Anti-elitism, where experts are denigrated, and pro-elitism, where non-experts are denigrated are both extreme position and both are wrong. 74.38.35.171 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Press releases/Nature compares Wikipedia and Britannica
To quote Herb Morrison: Oh, the humanity! -- 71.141.242.194 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Is consensus editing the best way to achieve accurate, thorough articles, particularly on complex, technical subjects? Clearly it isn't. The consensus view is often incorrect. It's not worth the effort for real experts. This is a fatal flaw. Real experts don't want to waste time debating and re-debating points that are trivial to anyone with expertise in a subject, yet beyond the grasp of other editors who firmly believe they understand the subject. Wikipedia is a powerful thing... anyone can contribute from anywhere in the world. Yet for all this power, it is fatally flawed. Tvaughan1 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm resurrecting this essay/proposal. Wikipedia needs to recognize experts. Experts get a special userbox on their page. A WikiProject will be formed to accept nominations for new experts and field complaints against established experts. Being an expert editor does not mean one exemplifies the 5 pillars; experts are certainly biased. But, as Wikipedians, we possess a unique openness. If one claims to be unbiased, and then exhibits a bias to a certain other, one can be challenged to defend oneself without the other violating WP:AGF.
Effectively, those WikiProject:Expert Editors members will be vouching for the contributions of these so-called "experts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.40.194 ( talk) 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Your first drafts at a proposal look as if they may have some promise. But of course in making them you've completely destroyed an entirely different proposal: this one. I strongly suggest that you quickly self revert so the article stays in that state; you are welcome to write your essay somewhere else, e.g. Wikipedia:Proficient editors. -- Hoary 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First, the fact that I happen to have made some contributions to the earlier version isn't an issue at all.
Many thanks for reverting. I'm too busy to work on improving either the earlier idea or your newer one. And I'd acknowledge that the earlier one seems to have hit a dead end. However, plenty of links refer to the earlier one, and if it's left as is there is always a chance that somebody with a pleasing combination of imagination, energy and time will work on it to a point where it will attract more attention and support, and may even develop into a guideline.
You can copy the content of your version and paste it into something with a new title, e.g. Wikipedia:Proficient editors.
Copying entire articles and pasting them elsewhere is of course frowned on, and for good reason, but here it would actually be a good thing, because whatever your opinion is on the relative merits of the old and the new essay, you have to acknowledge that the older one has a richer history, and thus one that more deserves to be retained with it. Of course you can (and probably should) point out in the talk page of your new page that its earlier history will be found between edits such and such of the history of this page. -- Hoary 03:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my aims are not well suited for an essay. I've thought about unilaterally starting a WikiProject, and then thought a task-force might be more suitable. To be honest, I only got tangentially inspired by this essay, but I feel my particular take on the idea can possibly gain enough traction to be subjected to the same edit/discuss/straw-poll process this essay experienced.
I believe Wikipedia would benefit from the identification of it's expert editors. In most minds, an expert is a scientist who has graduated from several years of college, and has read and has access to dozens/hundreds of specialized textbooks. But any cardiologist can cite an obscure, possibly false, reference that will go unchecked for some time, unless a bolder claim is made with the same source. In the latter case, the source is called into question. Fellow experts disagree sometimes.
Wikipedia desires transparency. Just put all your cards on the table, and let everyone come to their own conclusion. I love this point of view. Once people begin editing Wikipedia, they'll notice most of the seasoned editors will be in Category:Expert Editors. This is just meant to be a general category that includes those editors who have read a greater portion of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 75.111.26.137 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've got an account now, just so I could create a new page. 75.111.26.137 == CanIBeFrank 06:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Might it not be an idea to consider inviting an expert (or something similar) in a subject to write an article for Wikipedia in much the same way as Encyclopedia Britannica does? Of course, they wouldn't be compensated financially, but in some areas our content is so tiny or non-existent that we could easily replace it with an expert written article (and merge anything worth keeping into it). The writers in question would be made aware that their article would still be open for others to edit and perhaps improve on, but we could also work to see that their work didn't deteriorate over time from nonsense edits and the generally poor article maintenance that is little short of typical of Wikipedia (perhaps have a list of such articles and who is maintaining them). The expert contributes an article voluntarily after being requested, submits it either directly or indirectly, and a regular here sees that it doesn't get ruined by vandals and good-intentioned but clueless individuals. This may be a good strategy to boost areas where our coverage is currently mediocre. I'm not sure how many experts would take us up on such requests, but I think the approach might be worth a try. Richard001 ( talk) 05:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you are inserting your POV here - who says that experts are not respected here? I suppose the article is an essay, but I think the edits are still questionable. Richard001 ( talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess this is basically a page by experts for experts, but the recent addition of the quote "We provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views." seems to conveniently omit the fact that these diverse views are those that are attributed to reliable sources. Seems like a bit of quote mining going on here, though it certainly won't fool anyone with the intelligence to read the page in question. Richard001 ( talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The initialism IANAE has been created as a shortcut. Any objections to adding this link ( WP:IANAE) to the page?— Teahot ( talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As the failed proposal is ~three years old and the page has value as an essay expert editors can be referred to, I've taken off the failed proposal tag. Additionally, I've removed the section about civility/thick skin to avoid the negative tone. Gerardw ( talk) 12:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
So, my view, such essay statements are convenient, organizationally self-affirming platitudes, but are, practically speaking, utter rubbish. (As are related platitudes about the desire for expert retention.) Leprof 7272 ( talk) 02:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The text includes the statement, "there is no advantage (and considerable disadvantage) in divulging one's expertise" (on one's user page). I would welcome some advice about what these considerable disadvantages are. I am considering adding such information to my user page, but already it is pretty easy to deduce my real name from my username and find me via Google, yet I have not so far encountered any disadvantages. As an academic, I would find it helpful to know the identities of the other experts that edit the kind of pages that I work on--it might well be that we interact in real life too--, so I feel I should facilitate others learning my identity. Jmchutchinson ( talk) 09:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Imo the Wikipedia:Expert help page is way more useful and informative concerning the help of experts while this page may better describe why they're useful and provide some additional advice for said.
However I do think it's way more useful/practical for people on here to have an article specifically about how to gain and provide the help of experts - hence I'd like to request the WP:EXPERT shortcut to point to that page. What do you think of that?
It might also be worth considering merging this page into there - I'm not sure if that would be a good idea; maybe it should only be merged partially or so.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that it could be useful to merge in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists page. The information has a lot of overlap, but much of the rest would wok well together (especially since very little is relevant to research scientists but not other experts). This page gets far per annum more traffic. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Wikipedia stringently adheres to the "evidence, not eminence" principle, so you will need to leave your ego and credentials by the door. Telling other editors that you have a Ph.D. in the subject isn't going to help. To win a dispute over the content of an article, you need to back up your opinion with reliable sources, published material in journals, books, theses, newspapers, etc., that says what you want the article to say." REFSPAM and SELFCITE are linked from "Do not go into Wikipedia for the purpose of boosting its coverage of you as a person or of your research publications. It can be OK to cite your own writings in certain situations, but only sparingly, and it is almost never OK to create or edit an article about yourself. If you develop a reputation as a self-promoter, you are likely to get yourself blocked as an editor and your contributions undone or deleted. As in academia, conflicts of interest must be declared. Experts are not expected to have no opinions in their area of expertise, but they are expected to write from a neutral point of view."
My general feeling is that all of this is in the category of "general advice for newbies" having little to do with the specific topic of the essay and little feel for which pieces of advice will actually be useful and which are likely to come across as hostile condescension. (Don't underestimate how offputting such impressions can be: most academics have little free time and little patience for wasting of it. I have certainly myself backed away from volunteering on projects where I thought I could do some good and I thought the project would be interesting but I also thought the people running the projects were condescending to me.) I think it would be better to link to general-advice-for-newbie type essays rather than copying there content within that essay; that way, at least, academics reading it will see that it's just general advice for newbies rather than taking it as indicative of how Wikipedia editors think of academics specifically. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)