Wikipedia talk:Contribute where qualified

IMO, the underlying concept of this essay is wrong. Many valuable contributions, including but not limited to copy editing, can be made by an editor with no formal qualification in a field and indeed with no knowledge. In anycase, neither truth nor verifiability depend on the authority of the person contributing. Contribute wherever you can improve the quality of the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Certainly it is true that you shouldn't wade into arguments where you are unfamiliar with the terminology or previous debate. But, given Rjm's point and also given WP:V, there is no impediment to improving the encyclopedia on topics which you are not "qualified". Witty Lama 09:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most people contribute to areas they are familiar with anyway, but there is no reason that someone unfamiliar with a subject can't produce a good article with just a little research and thought. Think outside the box 09:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This essay manages to be wrong, confused and redundant all at the same time. As those above me point out, you don't have to be an expert on a topic to contribute valuable content. But then that issue seems to get confused with an appeal not to lie about one's own credentials, which is fair enough, but a bit too obvious to deserve a separate essay. I'm sure this is an interesting topic, but I can't say I find this essay helpful at all. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This essay appears to me to be correct in title but incorrect in premise. The correct tack of the essay should be as follows, "Please contribute to areas in which you are academically able to contribute. In general, this will improve the encyclopedic quality of the academic articles available on Wikipedia."

The essay also implies that readers of Wikipedia fall into two separate and entirely divisive categories, "Those who read", and "those who write". To me this seems a difficult concept. While I appreciate the title of the essay is both informative and necessary, the content takes entirely the opposite route as those who are merely casual readers of the encyclopedia, those who are reading for educational purposes, and indeed, those who have been contributing for so long that they're bound to have made at least one edit to an article they either disagree with from a moral perspective or have problems understanding from an academic point of view. Just my opinion. Maybe I'm failing to blur the lines between editing and contribution, but to me, the lines have no need to be blurred in the first instance.

Moreover, what is the definition of "qualified"? This essay appears to me to bear no relation to false credentials - or indeed the argument about quality vs. quantity. More can be done to improve both of these aspects of private human editing, but this essay merely seems to have the potential to fuel the fire. Bobo. 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing that this is not a guideline, or policy of WP. If it were, I never would have been able to contribute to the Four corner method article or create the stub article 214 Radical System. I mostly did copy-editing, but I also learned enough (through researching the subject) to be able to appropriately add information to the article. Same thing goes for the reason that I joined WP. I could edit an article that was badly written, and then learn more about the subject, and then contribute. And it was way outside my field! Hires an editor (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this essay. We're not supposed to be here to contribute from our own personal knowledge, we're supposed to be here to contribute from verifiable and reliable sources. Given that, it should make no difference whether the author is a PhD in their field, or merely an eighth grader who can cite sources well. --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is the idea of Wikipedia perverted to a level Stephen Colbert never even managed: to take the fact that credentials are not recognised, and somehow distort that into the idea that expertise is worthless! Let's use the example of advanced fractal geometry again: we take an article from a peer-reviewed journal and hand it to a PhD in the field and a random eight-grader. Then we ask them to write a short paragraph summarising the subject for an educated but non-expert layman. Do you really think we would get the same result? Because the eight-grader "can cite sources well"?!

This is the kind of anti-academic arrogance that leads us into endless, meaningless edit wars and makes us TV comedy material. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point; let me back-pedal a bit. :-) There are certainly topics where background in the subject is required just to understand the material; but they're rare. This essay, however, says "don't know about it, don't write about it", in bold shadowed text yet, which is ridiculous for 90% of our articles, and outright causes problems for many. Think of all the nationalists here saying that others can't write about (India/Macedonia/Israel/X) because they're not (Indian/Macedonian/Israeli/Xian). The whole point of our rules is that we don't write what we know to be true and ask others to take our word for it; we write what others have already published, and give references to that. For most articles, that does not require any prior knowledge on the part of the article writer. --GRuban (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then we agree. I've already expressed my strong disagreement with the basic idea of the essay. Even though I think an expert is better qualified to present a subject, I still believe the open system works better, for reasons outlined here. The example of national articles is perhaps not the best, as that would bring in national bias. I wouldn't very much trust a Chinese academic writing on the history of Tibet, or a Turkish one writing on the Armenian Genocide, even though they are closer to the subject. I would, however, put more stock into what an internationally recognised expert said, than a 14-year-old who was good at wiki markup. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'll admit I'm not the most qualified to comment here, seeing as most of what I do is copyediting and dealing with vandalism. Yet I think this is the elitist arrogance that is the more worrying problem about Wikipedia. A PhD is a very useful tool because they are more likely to have access to a greater amount of tools than an eighth grader. But saying that the PhD is more qualified because of his resources is really missing the point. That's like saying someone is more qualified because they have access to a more well-stocked library. If you have access to resources on a subject, bingo, you're qualified. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the ownership of a scalpel the only difference between you and a brain surgeon? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, and god forbid the day I'm forced to do internet brain surgery. But honestly, what are we looking at? To write a good article, you need good sources, good prose, and good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I don't see what's stopping any good writer with resources from writing an article. Qualifications don't come into it. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The choice of having the article written by a PhD or a random eighth grader is a false dichotomy. While the PhD may better understand the material that doesn't mean she can express the ideas on simple language. In practice I suspect (though I have no evidence) that most articles are written by folks with an interest in a subject but no formal qualifications. People who want to write about it 'cause they love it. I good Wikipedia article should be understandable by a bright highschooler. I agree that a profound knowledge of a subject may be needed before you can simplify it however that process of converting your profound knowledge into a simplified summary can turn into Original Research that cannot be verified from citations and, in the absence of other citations using that simplification, can be dificult to distinguish your simplification from some crackpot with an axe to grind. That's why we developed this policy. There are too many crackpots out there saying they are the experts. If we adopted this policy then we would end up with unending arcuments about who is an expert that would be much worse than our rows about unreliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Qualification is irrelevant

Qualification does not mean that someone is knowledgeable in an area, and no qualification does not mean that someone is unknowledgeable in an area. "Area of expertise" is quite irrelevant: what matters to Wikipedia is research and verification. If someone not a qualified geologist is willing to read geology journals in preparing an article and is willing to reference appropriate resources extensively, why not? Referencing to appropriate resources is crucial for Wikipedia, and experts and non-experts alike are able to do this. The only advantage a supposed expert has is knowing where to look more immediately and handling resources more dexterously. Being an expert merely changes the way in which an article is written: it shouldn't affect the final article. --Oldak Quill 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple; an understanding of the subject is often required to represent it correctly. In many cases, sources can easily be incorporated into an article with only a bit of general knowledge and a basic grasp of the English language. But personally, I could have the best textbooks on advanced fractal geometry in front of me, and I wouldn't be able to add any of it to an article without copying verbatim, which is not allowed. Consequently I simply wouldn't try.

As confused and misguided as this essay is, I still think it's on to a sound principle: just because this is a anonymous and community-built encyclopedia, that doesn't mean expertise is worthless. The problem is that Wikipedia does not have a credential policy, and this we have to live with. But we can still know our own limitations, and recognise the expertise of others, at least as expressed through their editing and arguments. Perhaps the concept could better be stated like this: "Feel free to contribute to subjects on which you are not an expert, but do so with humility, keeping in mind that others might be." A bit wishy-washy perhaps, but at the moment that's the best we can do. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I do not mean that expertise is worthless, simply that a qualification (or any other measure of expertise) should not be required or necessary to editing an article. If someone does not understand a topic, even after research, I would expect that they wouldn't extensively modify the article for that topic. "Editing with humility" is a good principle for all Wikipedians to practice, including experts. Emphasis should be placed on resources, and the worth of resources; not on editors and how they came to edit an article. That said, experts can swiftly and nimbly improve an article because they know where to look for information and know where to look to verify facts. We reject original research, so most of the contents for Wikipedia should be identifiable in other resources. --Oldak Quill 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Essay discusses knowledge, not credentials

The second paragraph of the essay begins "Contribute to Wikipedia only within your own field of knowledge". I did not take this to mean "contribute to Wikipedia only within your own credentialed field". I believe the essay is asking people to contribute to articles on topics they are familiar with - whether they are credentialed in that area or not. (The essay never mentions credentialing.) I'm not sure what is so debatable about recommending that people contribute where they have knowledge and refrain from contributing where they have little or no knowledge. Awadewit (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The English language is a wondeful thing. I took the word "qualified" in the second paragraph to mean "having a formal academic qualification". It is possible that the author simply meant "qualified by virtue of knowledge". Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there is nothing wrong with contributing in an area where you have little or no knowledge. I wrote the following articles without having known a bit about the subject before I started searching for sources specifically to write the article, in most cases never having heard the name.

• Lane McCotter controversial prison administrator
• Karl Josef Weinmair 1930s German artist
• Minjung art 1980s South Korean protest art movement
• Gugum Gumbira Indonesian musician
• Ezquioga/Ezkioga Basque Spanish town that saw visions of Mary in the 1930s
• El Hajj Muhammad El Anka Algerian musician
• Hugo Hans Ritter von Seeliger German astronomer
• Josiah Edward Spurr 1900s American geologist and explorer
• Grant Wallace WWI era American journalist, screenwriter, artist, and occultist
• Toni Frissell American photographer
• Elizabeth Catlett African-American sculptor and printmaker
• Muhammad Awzal Moroccan Berber poet
• Marcelle Karp 3rd wave feminist writer & editor
• The Feminists short-lived New York City feminist group, stub
• Shoshong historical town in eastern Botswana.
• Ganapatya Hindu sect following Ganesh
• Mary Marvin Breckinridge Patterson American photojournalist and philanthropist
• Esther Bubley American photographer
• Engaruka Tanzanian ruins
• Tsetserleg Mongolian city - stub
• Tursunzade Tajikistan city
• Uganda National Rescue Front armed rebel groups
• Yoruba literature

How long would we wait for people with knowledge about those topics to have written them otherwise, if only they could write them? Over two years. I know, because I wrote half of them from the "Articles requested over two years" list (the rest for WP:CSB). Are they featured articles? No. Are they useful articles? Well, a photo by Toni Frissell was a featured photo, and Tursunzade was a Did you know. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Google: the great equaliser

I disagree heavily. Example in point; the Gmelin database. I know nothing whatsoever about organometallic chemicals, but i still created the page as a counter to a redlink at the Beilstein database article. The internet and various search engines (hence the title) helped me do this; the article is, i believe, fairly good, despite my lack of professional expertise.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, nevermind their professional qualifications. If we take the stance that one must hold various qualifications in a subject to write an article about it, we change from being a free encyclopedia to a collection of stuck-up academics and notjobs who claim to have a quantum mechanics degree from MIT. Taking the view of "if you arent an expert, dont edit" it follows that we see a 14-year-old's edits on the LHC article as LESS VALID than the edits made by a visiting professor at Stanford. This clashes completely with wikipedia's policy of equality, that if you have valid material you should be free to include it, and changes it instead to a league-style system where editing is confined to the most highly qualified editors only. If the system changes so that any new users are told "this edit is crap, i have extra letters after my name so i should know" then we'll start hemorrhaging users until it becomes said nutjob/academic collection.

On a side-note, i'd like to see your proposal on how to identify/check qualifications and personal knowledge in an encyclopedia where IP addresses are free to do what they want. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Essay has been misrepresented

The essay specifically says, "... [c]ontribute to Wikipedia only within your own field of knowledge ...". In the case of creating a redirect, or of copyediting, or of any such actions, this is contribution that is being carried out by editors qualified to make a redirect or carry out a copyedit.

However, if editors know absolutely nothing about Microbiology, they should not contribute content to that page unless they understand it. (Redirects don't count signicantly as content, and nor do copyedits, but "microbiology is the study of books" does and is wrong.)

Hope this clarifies, and I'll try rewriting the essay, – Thomas H. Larsen 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do you say about that long list of articles, above, that I knew absolutely nothing about before writing, yet wrote? Would the Wikipedia have been better off had I not written them? --GRuban (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If nobody with any competence in the field had bothered to write them, why were they needed? – Thomas H. Larsen 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To counteract systemic bias. We should not expect scholars in underrepresented fields to spend their valuable time wrangling with Wikipedia editors and similarly we should not exclude the fields of experience of people without academic degrees or the writing skills necessary to contribute. If they decide to do so, bully for them, but it hardly makes sense to say that, for example, Soil science is a worthless article just because no professional soil scientist took the time to write it. Full coverage, according to you, would require the input of every academic in the world, because each is likely the only authority in some micro-field. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification, and new essay

I have clarified on this essay and written a new one to replace it at Wikipedia:Recognise and respect competence. – Thomas H. Larsen 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)