Wikipedia talk:Expert editors/New draft

Heading

I'm not sure if this is being aimed at being a guideline again, but {{essay}} is all it should strive for. If expert editors don't have any special powers, there doesn't need to be any formal process to recognize them. Furthermore, it is dubious as to whether they should have any special recognition beyond a list of their achievements. If an editor is expert because he or she has three FAs, they should say "I helped promote three FAs" if they want to, and leave it at that.--Father Goose 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an article to FA status is not an individual's effort, but a collaborative one as is the editing of all articles in Wikipedia. You cannot say "I have three FAs", you can only say that you contributed alongside all other editors that edited that article to bring it to FA. You can add a star to your user page, if you want to, but that is it. I do not see that this page can get any traction as a proposal, and as an essay it does not read as one. Leave it as historical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia goes, the only thing you have to demonstrate your expertise, be that in editing, in policy, in community work, etc, is your public identity as defined by your contribution history. See WP:AKASHA. Note that being an expert does not automatically means anything in particular. You can be an expert and be a disruptive editor (I have seen those), and you can be an expert and be a model Wikipedian (I have seen these as well), so "expertise" in its own right is meaningless for this project, without other very necessary attributes for that expertise to be of use to the project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WADR, I'm not ready to leave this concept in history. I'm not sure I've presently it properly. I'm not sure I have a clear conception of what "guidelines" are. Maybe I should pitch this idea as a project?

I would like to see an editor's list of achievements verified, certified, whatever, and if they met Jossi's criteria for a model editor, then they would be Basic Experts(TM). Wouldn't there eventually be hundreds, or thousands of these editors, found in dozens of different WikiProjects? It'll just be a pretty little badge on a userpage, while the "actual" goal is the identification of individuals targeted for Expert retention.

As I've just read some of the intro to that page, specifically the seemingly perfectly descriptively concise historical impetus of the essay, I rest on the reference to Expert rebellion, where "discontent was expressed against a range of situations in which amateurs stood behind dubious or plainly wrong positions in spite of their utter lack of knowledge of the topic at hand." A further reference in the latter essay describes the claim that "Wikipedia offers very little incentive for editors who wish to contribute to expert topics."

These aforementioned "amateurs" should, in my view, make up the mass of Expert Editors(TM). I don't mean the truly childish amateurs, but those who have gained a balanced, expert knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. With a WikiProject to certify people, we can ensure our experts adhere to all five pillars. If this isn't a desirable goal for someone, they can be WikiGnomes. If they don't want to be WikiGnomes, they might want to edit Wikia.

With a cult of the Five Pillars in place, they will certainly recognize, in the spirit of Esperanza, the contributions of real world academic experts, and there will be WikiHarmony and WikiProgress. And if those same real world experts desire a formal standing on Wikipedia, they will follow the five pillars. They won't be administrators, and their contributions will remain editable by anyone, but their contributions will have the support of the community (see talk page :P ).

Part of the hazing ritual ensures our minority of Specialized Experts(TM) won't claim ownership, and generally dissuade the kind of personal investment that leads to hurt feelings, because not all experts are right all the time. I'm not even sure some experts are right all the time, but they're probably right most of the time. Maybe Wikipedia is getting too precise.... It almost hurts being on the cutting edge.

Now that that train ran out of steam, how about some suggestions for making this thing read like an essay, instead of the rough sub-page that it currently is. No? Everybody would rather shut it down? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing presently reads like a bunch of back-slapping. To put it extremely bluntly: ~~fuck recognition.~~ Nah, too blunt. Just edit the encyclopedia, earn the respect of those who notice your work (which tends to be ample anyway), and leave it at that.--Father Goose 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This essay starts by defining "expert editors" as those who are expert at editing Wikipedia, then it defines "specialists" as those with expert knowledge of a topic, then it swaps usages and refers to "expert editors" as those with expert knowledge. The whole first section, the one that deals with expertise in editing Wikipedia, appears to be a distraction. IN any case, it should stick with one term for the subject editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the slightly reworded version? (diff) Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running straw poll

Shut this idea down and salt the mind it came from

Definitly shut it down, against the point of wikipedia--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As if we didn't have enough stratification of users. Good grief. SHUT IT DOWN NOW. --Durin 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any place for anything remotely like this, it is certainly somewhere in a galaxy far far away from wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I assume the intentions of the editor suggesting this are good, the last thing Wikipedia needs is an aristocracy. - Revolving Bugbear 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very bad idea, kind of like crossing the streams. Haven't you people learned anything by supposedly "expert" editors like Essjay faking credentials and getting into all sorts of mischief. This proposal will only create an unnecessary hierarchy that has the potential for abuse written all over it. Dr. Cash 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to show good faith. Not everyone is Essjay. And how much mischief did he get into? The whole wiki idea was latched onto because it gave us the ability to examine every single one of Essjay's edits. Jimbo saw Essjay coming five years ago. The system works, trust it. Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, shut it down. From the point of the reader it undermines trust to claim that some editors are more qualified than others. That should be evident from the edit, not from the editor's credentials. From the point of the editor, it is frustrating for new editors to be seen as second tier (hey, they may be the world-expert on a topic, just new to Wikipedia for all you know...). It generates barriers, inequality, no benefits that aren't already in the system - it's really against the Spirit. --Steipe (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shut it down! Almost everybody is an expert at least on something. What being an expert gives you, an ability to come up with WP:Reliable sources in your area of expertise much more easily than someone who has no glue about the subject. So such an ability to be a way ahead with citing sources already gives an expert an advantage over "no experts". basically if you are a no expert, you can tell me all you want but you have no chances against me and my area of expertise once it comes down to WP:Citing sources. So the proposed guideline is useless. I don't care if you are an expert or not, show me that you are competent in the subject by relying on and backing up your edits with sources. In case you have published a book and you are a notable expert on a subject, good for you. You can just cite yourself pr. WP:RS. Just don't tell anybody that it's you in real life, some wikipedia editors don't like "experts". So don't ever refer to yourself , only to WP:Reliable sources that you may have published.--Termer (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has a little potential, but not worth the effort

I do not think this is likely to get anywhere, but there is a serious issue that on WP we have a tension between trying to be all inclusive and democratic, yet we want to get it accurate. The latter involves experts. I do not know how we do his. As an expert on some scientific areas, I am less than happy about most of the arguments for using experts, but use experts we must. How do we do that? --Bduke 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the arguments for using experts? Doesn't Wikipedia already use experts? I think the status quo is that nobody gets recognition, expert or not. Should a section for arguments for expert recognition be worked into the essay? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the attempt to clarify what experts bring to the table (positive and negative) on Wikipedia is worth clarifying, but I don't think that the new draft, beginning with A and B and Start class articles is a useful addition to the former essay. Also, it makes worse the WP bias that experts/professors are natural scientists. I suppose that other 2/3 of the academy that works on the humanities and social sciences aren't meant to be included? Though it's in these subjects that some of the most outdated ideas continue to be put forth without correction on WP.

One place that the expert/non-expert problem comes up often are in misconceptions that have long been corrected in specialized journals but which are continued in passing references in textbooks, popular media, etc., which are generally also considered reliable sources. So the Expert says, "X isn't true, see (journal 1 not available on the web), (journal 2 not on web), and (scholarly book not available on the web)." And other good editors say, "no it's still true, see (slate.com or similar site) and (one line in textbook on the entire history of the field published 2007)." And invariably the easily consulted sources win out (or it's reported as if there's some controversy among experts). In the end the expert will give up. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has good potential, I hope somebody else works on it

Recognizing people with extensive knowledge in a specific subject matter is only a benefit. Identifiable experts make it easier for one to seek collaborators on a specific project or an expert peer review for a specific page. The very fact that wikipedia is built on research and that you cannot become an expert of anything without spending extensive time researching/studying while developing such skills then it should be a no brainer for why such people will fit right in wikipedia. We're all people here and everyone loves being recognized for their devotion to their interests, therefore experts should feel welcomed and respected here, the same way they are in real life all for sake of wikipedia benefiting. I pity anybody that is clueless as to why a collaborative project devoted to the collection of knowledge would need experts and professionals. 74.13.88.201 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Songgarden 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A kind of support per my comments below. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"clueless as to why a collaborative project devoted to the collection of knowledge would need experts" <-- only some are clueless....others argue against developing new ways to support and make use of experts because they know that their disruptive editing of Wikiversity will become harder to get away with if more experts join the project. --JWSchmidt 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this essay/project

Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

I think spending time categorising users rather then working on the encyclopaedia itself would be a waste of resources to. On a more basic level I don't think, from what I've read about the issue, it will go anyway to solve the problems of expert retention (which I assume is what it's designed to do). It seems to me that the fundamental problem is a perceived, or real, lack of support for scientific views in scientific articles, and possibly other articles on academic subjects, when it is being disputed by views outside those views established by academia. I don't believe ranking editors will really help with this. If this is the problem that your trying to address perhaps setting up a place "experts" or people defending the scientific view can take problems for support and quick action, if necessary, would help more but this would need the support of a number of editors to work. This probably isn't the response you wanted but I think it's great you’re trying to come up with a way of improving the situation, and so the encyclopaedia, I just don't think this is the right idea. --Kaly99 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not the right approach. If you're trying to encourage subject-matter experts to contribute more to Wikipedia (or stick around), giving them a meaningless badge is not the right approach. If you're simply trying to bestow honorifics on editors, it's a bad, bad idea. However, providing a place where such experts could go to get technical and policy advice and assistance would be a very good idea.--Father Goose 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the other end of the spectrum

I'm not sure that heavy traffic articles such as featured articles are where expert editors are needed most. Wikipedia is full of low traffic articles where vandalism makes it very hard to maintain even modest quality. A support system for expert editors within Wikipedia would be useful because Wikipedia now attracts a significant number of disruptive editors who specialize in making edits that can only be recognized by experts as being bogus edits. This arbitration case provides an example of why Wikipedia needs to attract and support expert editors. I think it is good to support the participation of experts in wikiprojects and maybe there should be a central wikiproject all about supporting expert editors. Such a project could keep detailed editing portfolios for expert editors who are valued by the Wikipedia community. Such a wikiproject could also be a central hub for reporting POV pushers and scam artists who can be flagged by the community as needing to have their wiki editing histories evaluated by experts. Wikipedia has a page where editors can get help for dealing with typical vandals from administrators and it would be useful to have a similar page for getting help from experts when POV pushers and scam artists are first detected. --JWSchmidt 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MVEs: most valuable editors...who wants to start such a list? I'm not foolish enough to want to put myself on it, but maybe you and the other contributors here should be? If someone claims to have expertise, and then offers to provide something akin to mentorship, I there's a pretty high probability that that volunteer would at least be on the list of more valuable editors. Unless you want to say that WP:EA is the page to go when one encounters a potential POV pusher (except the NPOV pushers, that is), thereby short-circuiting a need for this possibly duplicative effort.

Maybe the whole project is against the evaluation of editors. After reading the warning on WP:Esperanza, I don't feel that a (hopefully) community-endorsed, three-tiered hierarchy (non-expert, expert, academic expert) is "overly hierarchical", mirroring the three tiers of adminstration (non-admin, admins, and ArbCom). If the community imposes this secondary, editorial hierarchy upon itself, the whole project could always be dissolved like Esperanza. Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in situations where "someone claims to have expertise". What I am interested in is when the history of edits by a Wikipedian is recognized by the community as being of value to the community, the community finds ways to support such editors and Wikipedia finds ways to make use of demonstrated expertise to improve the encyclopedia. In my view, this is simply a rational course of action for improving the encyclopedia. Editors with expertise in subject areas can spot bogus editing by POV pushing scam artists and cite published sources that debunk bogus editing by clever vandals. An informal "system" exists by which editors drop by wikiprojects looking for help from experts. It seems to me that there is room within Wikipedia to increasingly develop and facilitate this kind of utilization of expertise. --JWSchmidt 21:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Editors who disclose (some of) their personal information are more valuable then those who are otherwise electronically anonymous, yesno? Just because I fall in the latter category doesn't mean I can't be a valuable contributor, and all those in the former are not necessarily in agreement with our project's goals. How hard is it to check a users credentials? Make a few phone calls, mail a few letters, send a couple faxes, sign some consent forms? And if a person is willing to do this, what should they get in exchange for this certification? I say nothing more than a WikiBadge; they're still a fallible volunteer subject to administrative action, just like in their real vocation (kind of).

What kind of verification is required for admins, and the ArbCom? Is there a rational fear of a community-endorsed token program for recognizing experts of all flavors, or just a knee-jerk, it-might-negatively-affect-me, type of reaction? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging "experts" of the professional variety, even with a WikiBadge, creates a hierarchical environment among nonAdmin users. This replicates and reinforces the academic notion that experts have special powers of understanding that lay people don't have. While experts may have more knowledge and experience, they don't neccesarily have more intelligence or less bias than a regular user. In fact it could be quite the opposite. Sanctioned "experts" might feel an increased temptation to rely on, or argue from, OR. The whole concept devalues the whole notion of collective and egalitarian knowledge production. Who would qualify as a professional "expert"? Does an adjunct professor at a community college count? Does a graduate researcher count? A professor at an unaccredited college? Any professor? A scientist employed by a major chemical company? A member of the government from a related field?

Acknowledging experts is a step toward the accretion of institutional bias. All experts are still free to identify themselves and free to contribute to any page or project. As Frank has already noted - the system works, albeit slowly, so why tinker with it? I guess it comes down to what is most important from the WP perspective - a hierarchy of "experts" to help police reliability or the social experiment of public knowledge production. I side with the latter (much to my own astonishment). Phyesalis (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific peer review

Editors interested in this "Expert editors" page may care to look at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review and its three archives. If nothing else it demonstrates the difficulty in getting any kind of agreement about the role of experts, or the definition of experts. We are currently deciding whether to wind up that Project or not. --Bduke 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expert editors, etc.

My definition of an "expert editor" is an editor who has experience in one or more scientific fields (they are not necessarily "experienced editors", who I would define as having experience in Wikipedia procedures and culture).

It is my personal opinion that "expert editors" should be granted a "reviewer" status that allows them to perform formal peer reviews of articles. I don't think that being an "expert editor" (okay, I promise to stop using the quotes) should grant anyone more authority on the project. However, from my experience, I have seen more than one occurrence when one or more otherwise-good Wikipedians have been extremely vicious to someone who identified themselves as an expert. This is not good.

Therefore, I simply recommend that a stronger community philosophy be enforced, and I suggest that this philosophy be that of bringing the encyclopedia to an even higher level of accuracy, precision, and comprehensivity. Obviously, expert editors going around boasting do not help this idea, and nor do other editors who bash them, tell them to "behave themselves and work in with our opinions", and — in effect — reject the principle of encyclopedic accuracy and Wikipedia culture.

Best regards to all,

— Thomas H. Larsen 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice points; I agree. Experts do not have to be in a scientific field, however. Experience and wisdom, in nearly every topic established herein, are certainly needed. Songgarden 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it would be useful to have some editors in any field who have a thorough knowledge of the field, or even the subject. I would include societal subjects, like religion, music, anthropology, video games, and a huge number of other fields as well. Right now, there do seem to be WikiProjects for basically every subject out there. Maybe the best way to achieve this would be to have many of the major projects elect a "project reviewer", the same way some projects elect coordinators, who would be requested to be involved in regular review of articles related to that project. If we could get such respectable input from respected individuals, I think that might help matters quite a bit. John Carter 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your suggestion — of WikiProjects electing a reviewer — is certainly worth looking into. In fact, they could even elect multiple reviewers if the project was very large. Alternatively, we could have a centralized system (say, on Wikipedia:Reviewing) where all reviewers were selected by the community on a page like Wikipedia:Requests for Reviewership or such by discussion and a final vote. I've got quite a nice system worked out, but it's on my home computer (which the computer I'm using to access the Internet isn't :/). I invite commentary on ideas for reviewing. Best wishes to all in the name of open source and running code, — Thomas H. Larsen 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:COUNCIL, for inter-WikiProject collaboration and discussion. Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 05:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are occasional, scattered, attempts at trying to set up what I hope would be inaccurately described as a kind of interproject system there. I know I've proposed inter-project review of A-class articles which would hopefully involve the projects most involved in a given article. Proposals there have a chance, but the completely voluntary nature of everything on wikipedia can create problems in this regard, and overloading reviewers would as well. It might be possible to ask some of the extant project coordinators to serve as "contacts" who might be able to assist in matters like this though. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a coincidental reference, or did you already read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Contacts page? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]