Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft

Expert editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia was founded on slightly different principles than those taught in most educational institutions. Wikipedians work on a foundation supported by five pillars: a neutral, free-content encyclopedia, with a code of conduct, but no firm rules, for the editors (just lots of guidelines). In a hierarchy of Wikipedians, an expert editor, or "professional Wikipedian", is one who adheres to the spirit of the five pillars.

Now consider Wikipedia's hierarchy of articles, graded by quality: stubs, B-class, GA, and FA. Imagine applying similar grades to your fellow editors. Most of us are easily B-class editors (well, I certainly am, anyway -- CanIBeFrank), while an FA-class editor would be one who has helped push several articles to FA-status and (insert other criteria). It would be in the spirit of Esperanza to nominate a peer to FA-expert status. (to be determined: should self-nominations be allowed?)

Experts can recognize each other (they know the fine difference between talk and user talk pages, and use them both). Newbies are still learning the ropes, gaining the experience necessary to become an expert. Some newbies don't agree with the pillars, in which case we bid them farewell. But newbies will forever be welcome, and encouraged, to edit Wikipedia. Sometimes it requires a fresh point of view to see an old problem in a solution-oriented light.

Currently, no process exists where a panel of community approved experts can elevate seasoned newbies to expert status. This process should resemble WP:RFA. It has been suggested that WikiProject Expert Editors be started to handle this process. Once approved as a general expert editor, one may request specialized (or "real world") expert status in a similarly to-be-determined process.

Scientists

Scientifically expert editors are of great value for Wikipedia because of their in-depth knowledge of subject matter and are also explicitly invited to contribute to Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales stated, in an article published in Nature:

Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect", says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. "Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way," he says.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it does not make a distinction between editors based on their expertise. Nor will Wikipedia grant users privileges based on subject-matter expertise. This philosophy has resulted in public criticism of Wikipedia suggesting that the encyclopedia is hostile to experts, and accusing the encyclopedia of anti-elitism. One noted critic who has offered public comment along these lines is Larry Sanger, the former editor-in-chief of Nupedia. .

General guidelines

1. Subject-matter experts, on any encyclopedic subject whatever, are encouraged to edit Wikipedia, and to contribute material on their area(s) of expertise. These specialists generally have advantages, both (a) in locating sources for articles (from their familiarity with the literature) and (b) in understanding the material in sufficient breadth and depth to write a good article. The coverage of subjects in the popular press is not necessarily up to date with the recent technical or academic literature (see also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
2. No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies concerning acceptability of contributions; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources will always apply to everybody. Unsourced opinions and unpublished conjecture have no place in an encyclopedia.
3. Everyone, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic. An article may require conflicting, and referenced, opinions to satisfy neutrality.
4. Wikipedia does not grant additional powers to subject-matter experts.
5. In discussions with expert editors, "newbies" are encouraged to use experts as a new source of information. Expert editors often edit at Wikipedia for a limited time, after which lay "resident" editors will do the maintenance of those articles. Knowing why things are written as they are by the experts will facilitate future discussions. Talk pages are good; newbies who ignore edit summaries, bad.
6. Despite claims to the contrary from Wikipedia critics, experts (or other editors) do not need to appeal to Wikipedia mediators and/or arbitrators in order to remove patent nonsense from the encyclopedia. Unsourced claims which are challenged can easily be removed, and attempts to deliberately insert misinformation into the encyclopedia, especially when contradicted by reliable sources, are treated as vandalism.

Suggestions for scientists

1. Scientists can identify themselves on their user page and list whatever credentials and/or experience they wish to publicly divulge. It is difficult to maintain a claim of expertise while being anonymous.
2. Editing an article in Wikipedia is not like writing an original research article for a scientific journal; instead, it should be a solid review of the subject as a whole. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research - even if it is brilliant. Wikipedia's No original research policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. However, this may only be done when the editor is sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and his material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than any individual, that decides what is to be done.
3. Scientists are highly encouraged to locate and join the WikiProjects concerning their areas of expertise. WikiProjects help articles on related subjects to be coordinated and edited by a group of identified interested parties. All editors are free to join any WikiProject which they are interested in.
4. Scientists do not have any other privileges in resolving edit conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) scientist and a non-scientist, it is not permissible for the scientist to "pull rank" and declare victory. In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. 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.
5. Scientists are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern their own research, writings, or discoveries. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.