Wikipedia talk:Expert editors

Purpose
This is the talk page for 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)
 * 1) offer specific guidelines for expert editors
 * 2) address criticism of the project concerning treatment of expert editors.


 * We already have more guidlines than any one person knows about. If this is already covered the last thing we need is more.Geni 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

An expert impression
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)
 * What should they be able to do differently? (Assuming one could unambiguously and uncontroversially identify "experts")?  One issue--since you bring up some of the controversial topics, such as politics--of course is that experts seldom agree on these things.  For every expert that takes the Israeli side in the Israel/Palestine dispute, there's another who takes the Palestinian side, for instance.  In my mind, WP:V should trump all--if the reliable sources support one position over another, that's what Wikipedia should say.  If sources are reasonably split, then both sides of the dispute should be presented.  That's really what this proposal is about; reaffirming the core editorial policies of Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 04:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I am primarily talking about (hard core) science subjects that have some visibility in the population of the world, not political opinion stuff which is much more difficult to deal with. It is mentioned in the guideline that wikipedia is percieved as anti-elitist, with which I can agree to a degree. I am not suggesting that policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR do not apply to expert editors, they do. However, my personal experience is that some non-expert editors treat expert editors as if they know equally much, and I get sometime quite frustrated from that especially if they are clearly wrong. It becomes especially frustrating if they keep repeating the same arguments using some outdated valid references. Or when the non-expert editors keep focussing on stuff published in the 1800's while the field has progressed far beyond what was known at that time. KimvdLinde 04:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every regular editor has frustrations with Wikipedia, as it is inevitable that there will be friction from time to time. An expression of some of these frustrations that doesn't include any specific suggestions doesn't get us anywhere. I'm afraid I don't see any glimmers of any practicable innovations in your comments. Bhoeble 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, in these sorts of disputes between experts and well-meaning laypersons (by well-meaning, I mean those who truly think their contributions are an improvement, as opposed to trolls/vandals), WP:V is usually your friend. If someone inserts nonsense, rebut with a reference that debunks it on the talk page.  If someone disagrees with an established fact, again, cite the literature.  If someone responds with an obsolete, deprecated, or non-scholarly reference (quoting an article in People magazine or some other dubious source), then WP:RS rides to the rescue.  Explain why their source is wrong--it's been obsoleted by more recent research, or is merely conjecture, or was written by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.  If someone still is obstinate, then and only then should stronger measures be taken.  (And--don't always assume you are right, especially if the topic is controversial).  You do point out one "hole" in WP:V--many references are deprecated by later developments, and one unfamiliar with the literature in a topic may not know this.  But a little education goes a long way. --EngineerScotty 03:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the regular frustrations. I am talking about encountering an editor who has clearly no clue were s/he talks about, but has read a single article on the subject and acts as if they are all knowing about it, while you know from your 20+ years of experience in the field, inclusing teaching students etc., that that specific article is not really up-to-date anymore. To give you an example, Natural selection (the article is a mess at the moment, there is an ArbCom case ongoing against one of the editors who monopolizes the article), but in the discussion with other editors, various editors insist on using quotes from Darwin's Origin of Species to explain the topic. However, the field has advanced to Neodarwinism, to the modern synthesis, and we are in the neo-neo-neo-neo-(...)-darwinism phase.
 * Natural selection is, of course, a controversial topic. Who is using Darwin's writings as evidence of current scientific thinking--well meaning editors trying to improve the article, or creationists and the like trying to sabotage it?  Many people, for reasons of religious faith, consider the scientific experts on this topic to be fools, frauds. or worse (disclaimer: I support evolution and am not a creationist), and consider scriptural works to be the only authorities worth citing.  Concern about "respecting experts" simply doesn't apply to contentious topics like that.  WP:NPOV is the best hope there; present the major sides of the dispute and let the reader decide who is right and who is nuts. --EngineerScotty 03:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think experts need to be recognized, otherwise, why would we even care about the nature reviews? The big difference is that outside experts are taken very serious and recognized as such, while fellow expert editors are not. I think it is very well possible to judge whether someone is an expert. I think the main hurdle is that Wikipedia in the first place is process oriented, mediation, arbitration etc is focussed on process principles. Content is only partially included, for example third opinion, but there is no way to resolve a content conflict that is unresolvable with the few methods that are available. This because of the same issue, how do you recognize an expert? Well, how do all those scientists it in the world of peer-review etc? Maybe it is time to add some of thoe components to wikipedia. KimvdLinde 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, journals perform a filtering function--in many cases, submissions by persons without at least some postgraduate work or recognized industry experience are deposited in the bin, unread. At any rate, experts on many topics are respected, when they choose to post (and don't make asses of themselves, like one noted computer scientist recently did).  Many fields of study have WikiProjects, which provide a framework for expertese to be recognized and honored--participants in such projects will have sufficient knowledge to know who is knowledgable and who is bullshitting, and if worse comes to worse, may be useful in defending an expert in a content dispute.  --EngineerScotty 03:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I more or less agree with KimvdLinde. As currently written the guideline comes across as a bit hostile to expert editors, implying that they tend to assume an arrogant attitude, engage in kooky speculation and expect everyone else to yield because they have letters behind their name. That has not been my experience at all. I'd prefer not to see the proposal marked as a guideline unless it is rewritten to be more friendly and flattering to the people we want to attract :) Geni also has a point that we may already have too many guidelines. Haukur 13:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am adding some stuff to it (need to find Jimbo's quotes), along this line. I think it can be more consise, and that we might want to add two sections for non-expert and expert editors on how to approach each other. KimvdLinde 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; the intent is not to be hostile to experts (or to anyway). The reason  it is written as it is, is that many of the complaints that I've read about Wikipedia concerning this matter, are of the form "I'm an expert on X and those nasty Wikipedians didn't (to quote Eric Cartman) respect my authoritay."  Many scientists and the like who could make wonderful contributions here come from environments (academia in particular) and cultures (much of Eastern Europe for example) where experts are regarded more or less like royalty--even outside academic contexts--and thus, they expect to be treated with deference.  When they are not--and when well-meaning teenagers who posses a copy of X for Dummies proceed to "correct"  an expert on X (and leave an abrupt note in the edit summary, as is common Wikipedia style), many get offended.  Wikipedia can be a rude culture shock for many people.  The intent of the article is to lessen the culture shock, to lay bare what the community expects of editors and what editors can expect from the community.  Any further wordsmithing that aids this intent is, of course, welcome.  --EngineerScotty 14:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you still recongnize the article, feel free to revert if this goes to far. KimvdLinde 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice changes. Thincat 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. --EngineerScotty 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One addition which I propose, now that I think of it is:
 * Expert editors are highly encouraged to locate and join the appropriate WikiProjects concerning their area of expertise. WikiProjects are a manner by which articles on related subjects may be coordinated and edited by a group of identified interested parties.  All editors are free to join any WikiProject which they are interested in.
 * WikiProjects are an excellent framework for editors (especially experts) to collaborate--and (though I won't say it in the article) for experts to build a community of supporters to help deal with the occasuasional unruly editor who thinks that the rumors he's read on the 'net correspond to established fact. --EngineerScotty 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy editing (my weakest point as a dislectic non-native speaker). I have added your suggestion. KimvdLinde 01:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

comment
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)
 * As I don't have any experience with handling these kinds of matters, I don't know the degree of hostility that is directed to these expert editors. Can you give me an example? --Osbus 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My previous comments were based on the policy at it existed at that time, not on the current divisive version, which I oppose. Bhoeble 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One additional change
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)
 * It is a notable change. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research
"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 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 and making a telephone call  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)
 * I personally think the guidleline is nice and clear, and for me (as a researcher) it never cause any issue. KimvdLinde 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one issue that I occasionally do come across. It is not significant in the humanities, but in the "hard" sciences it is every now and then: falsification. Peer review may miss claims that are falsified elsewhere; actually it happens more often than one might think (if one is not aware of the degree of specialization we have today in fields like molecular biology). In such cases, the OR policy falls on its face; it does have a loophole which allows factually wrong content to creep up on Wikipedia.
 * This happens rarely enough that it is not a general problem, but since NOR is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, if such things happen it is hard to deal with them (I have come across this perhaps 5 times or so, and I never know what to do).
 * A fictional example:
 * Suppose we have a molecular phylogenetic study claiming some date for a split between two lineages. Suppose there is a fossil record for one of the lineages, post-split, that predates the inferred date. Paleontologists and molecular phylogeneticists do not discuss such things as often as they might want to do, and there are perhaps a few dozen people in the world who can rightly claim to be experts in both fields. Suppose, furthermore, that there is no reference which explicitly discusses this discrepancy and draws the correct conclusion, namely: hard factual evidence vs. statistical inference relying on assumptions that may be false - hard evidence wins.
 * According to NOR, in such a case we can only keep our fingers crossed and hope nobody will work the mol-phyl study into Wikipedia: it claims something that cannot be factually correct, yet NOR forbids us from pointing this out in the absence of an explicit published claim to that effect. "Experts", "scholars" and "authorities" are only humans, too, and as such not above making honest mistakes ever so often, and one can only read so much material. But the sum of all Wikipedia editors can read more material on any topic than any single expert, so it is unavoidable that Wikipedia editors (as a collective entity) will ever so often stumble across inconsistencies in published knowledge.
 * NOR in its present form does not take this into account; its purpose was to kill opinionated interpretations dead before they arise, and in that regard it has well stood the test of time and Goodwin's Law. But it is only 100% applicable if such a thing like objective reality does not exist even in a moderately loose sense. Otherwise, it only comes very close to being 100% perfect.
 * The cases in which NOR fails can be characterized as: situations where "hard" evidence falsifies a necessary condition on which some claim is based that itself is not directly related to the evidence. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How far are we?
How far are we. I feel good about this guideline, what will be the next step? KimvdLinde 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We could put it up for a vote. Or, we could issue a second reqest for comments on village pump, and perhaps a few other places as well.  --EngineerScotty 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets take the repeat request. KimvdLinde 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional suggestions for the non-expert editors section
I suggest the following additions:

--EngineerScotty 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Non-expert editors should also be aware that in many subjects, the popular press is often years behind the technical or academic literature; and that the latter are far more highly preferred as a reliable source.  If an academic paper in some subject X contradicts a claim made in a book such as X for Dummies, it is highly likely that the more scholarly source is the more correct one.  Non-experts are discouraged from correcting claims made by experts based on information found in the popular literature--if you think an expert claim is in error, based on this reason, please discuss it on the talk page first.  Likewise, editors should remember to consider the date of their sources and/or knowledge in a subject; many (though definitely not all) older sources on a wide range of topics have been superceded by more recent discoveries or findings.  A source which was reliable twenty years ago may not be reliable today.
 * 2) Non-expert editors are also cautioned that many scholarly subjects which are notable within academia, are not well-known generally and may fail tests for notability such as the Google test.  Non-experts should exercise caution in objecting to, or proposing deletion of, articles on subjects which they are unfamiliar with.
 * 2 is redundant as such nominations are very rare (and on a wider point, anything that discourages deletion nominations is unwelcome as there is an awful lot of material that deserves nomination). It is also patronising; there are enough rules and cautions about nominations as it is. It would makes this proposal seem even more hostile to "non-experts". 1 is also somewhat overstated and should be made less hostile; don't mention dummies and don't divide users into two groups "experts" (esteemed) and non-experts (despised - you may not have intended it to seem that strong, but it does to me, and it will to others) .Bhoeble 03:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * #2 was partially intended to address a recent incident, where an expert on an obscure but notable topic created several new articles on it; which were promptly hit with an AfD by an apparent reductionist who, knowing little on the topic, proclaimed it not-notable. I prefer to err on the side of keeping material (especially if notability is the only objection), we may have to agree to disagree on this point.  Regarding #1, I'd be happy to tone it down; in particular, the backhanded remark on the For Dummies series is inappropriate on a guideline page.  Proposal #1 is also intended to address specific incidents which have been reported.  --EngineerScotty 04:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How do we verify expertise?
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)
 * Well, that is one of the reasons that I would suggest to experts to disclose their real name (As I have done, you can link from my user page directly to my homepage. If you have the real name, you can that name to find the universuity they work at, check the scientific publications they have etc. I think in general, when an expert comes to the article, you notice very quickley. If you know a little about the subject, you know immediatly when someone knows a lot about it. If you already know a lot about it, well, even without a degree, you might indeed be an expert. If that is true, you will notice very quickly when newby with hardly any knowledge shows up, you notice it. And in he end, it is a judgement and it can be wrong. I think in the end, it has to be a case by case jusgement based on the experience that the residenet editors have with that person. But I can tell you, I generally need only a few talk page posts to figure out whether someone is an expert or not. A first clue is the amount of detail they insert in a single sentence. It is very quickly obvious that they know their facts. KimvdLinde 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be in the business of assessing expertise because it is not proof of good editing. Only content should be assessed. If any users are deemed to have special status they may use it to pull rank and that is not acceptable. Bhoeble 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

--EngineerScotty 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An excellent question, and one of the reasons which Wikipedia does not officially recognize experts. (And a reason it is suggested that the  tag not be self-applied).  A few suggestions:
 * 1) First, assume good faith.  If someone claims to be an expert, assume (s)he is absent a good reason to suspect otherwise.
 * 2) Experts, as indicated by the article, are likely to be more knowledgeable about the literature than are non-experts; as a result, expert contributions are likely to be better-sourced than the contributions of laypersons.
 * 3) Be suspicious if:
 * 4) * Extravagant or detailed claims are made without sources (especially if sources are requested and not provided). Claims in article should not be backed up by "because I say so".  ("Because I say so" is a bit more acceptable for the removal of claims which cannot be independently sourced, as the literature often fails to demonstrate negatives).
 * 5) * The individual makes grandiose claims concerning his position within the field (and cannot support them with evidence), and/or suggests that the vast majority of recognized authorities in the fields are frauds, engaged in a conspiracy, or are otherwise incompetent or corrupt. (Many practitioners of pseudoscience engage in this sort of diatribe concerning mainstream science).
 * 6) And remember--WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V all apply to experts just as much as laypersons.  The purpose for identifying experts is to allow bona-fide experts to improve articles more rapidly than laypersons could; not to allow them to "own" articles.  All Wikipedia editorial standards apply to all editors.

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)


 * On you proposal (the rest is self-evident): On one hand, I would be in favour of stronger wording, arguments as clarity and such. On the other hand, I am not, as I think that rules should be equal for all editors. I think that by indicating it, it can be helpfull to avoid conflict between experts and non-experts. Furthermore, I think this flies in the face of certain wikipedia policies (have to find them, not one I frequently use). I think finding a good clear wording between encouraging something and being experienced as 'instruction crap' is the way to go. KimvdLinde 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been changed far too much
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)
 * While it would be foolish to proclaim that all "expert edits" are better than the other kind, assuming we could easily divine which was which, I think that on many topics--especially the non-controversial ones--there is a positive correlation between edit quality and subject matter knowledge. On controversial topics, WP:NPOV tends to make expertise less of an issue.  --EngineerScotty 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is one reason why, contrary to your suggestion below, nobody is proposing recreating Nupedia or anything like it. I'm well aware of the potential for academic orthodoxies to arise.  That said, this is an encyclopedia and not a research publication; a fact which ought to make us gravitate somewhat towards orthodoxy.  It's not the place of Wikipedia to challenge ossification in the ivory tower, though if it is documented or challenged elsewhere we can certainly comment on it. --EngineerScotty 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Race and intelligence is a controversial topic; WP:NPOV applies there. It ain't a matter of "experts" advancing a consensus opinion that a howling mob is objecting to.  I will have to disagree with you on the notion that either of the print encyclopedias you mention advances a "liberal" (whatever that means--the L-word is fast becoming useless in serious political discourse) agenda, at any rate that accusation has been bandied at Wikipedia as well. --EngineerScotty 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for convincing me that this page is very needed. KimvdLinde 04:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are a Sanger fan, you can leave Wikipedia and join Digital Universe. Trying to stage a coup to turn the former into the latter is not on. Athenaeum 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Relax. Nobody wants to turn Wikipedia into DU; for one thing--I probably wouldn't be qualified to touch many of the articles over there.  --EngineerScotty 05:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be scraped whatever. see Instruction creep.Geni 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See comment above. --EngineerScotty 04:56, 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)

Scrap it
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)


 * I agree with Sumahoy. This is well-intentioned instruction creep. If someone wants to write an essay on how best experts and non-experts should work together that's one thing, but this is both unecessary and unproductive. The section on how to recognize/have experts identify themselves is also bad. The best way to demonstrates one's expertise in an area is to make good edits and back them up with reliable sources. JoshuaZ 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with JoshuaZ. What he recommends is indeed a good way to demonstrate that you're a cut above the stereotypically slipshod editor of WP. It does not show that you have the bullshit-detection abilities, perspective, etc. of an expert. Yes, Wikipedia indeed already has more policies and guidelines than most people will ever want to see; but it also has more crap, pseudoscience, recycled tabloid gossip, commercial puffery, etc., than I for one want to see. Yes, a great number of non-experts are capable of editing without screwing up. (Perhaps I'm among them.) But a great number are not, and I'd love to see their "contributions" separated from those by people who are qualified. -- Hoary 06:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Digital universe is over there.Geni 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Hoary 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You just described how digital universe is meant to work in future.Geni 05:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Digital universe"? -- Hoary 07:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Digital Universe. Athenaeum 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has worked because it welcomes everyone. If you don't like that, the solution is to leave. Your contempt for other editors will not be missed. Athenaeum 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I phrased that badly. Rather than their "contributions", read our contributions. Wikipedia has worked better than I expected. It already doesn't welcome everyone: it makes exceptions for unambiguous trolls and the like. I think that some users do much better work than others. For some subjects, notably medical subjects for which nostrums are widely spammed, I'd be much happier if only experts were able to make substantive edits. I'm not an expert in such subjects and any "contempt" (?) for the non-expert would most certainly apply to myself. Hoary 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it!
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)


 * Maybe Ms Bryson's example proves the opposite of what she thinks. Maybe someone reverted, not because she said she'd learnt it at MIT but because in their (non-expert?) opinion it seemed better than the amended version. Runcorn 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look to me like she was trying to prove anything or that she was making assumptions about why her contribution was reverted back in :)


 * Her more important point is how we can make Wikipedia better able to receive funded expert contributions. Haukur 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be good to get more funded expert contributions but a policy to encourage that should be done on its own, not with all the additional stuff that is on this one. I would support the drafting a policy to encourage such participation, but this one is hopelessly flawed. JoshuaZ 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you draft it then? KimvdLinde 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wishful thinking
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)
 * If it does a little to change your observations, it swould have achieved something. If it does not help at all, nothing is lost. KimvdLinde 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What about all the good editors who will leave if Wikipedia changes to a culture where they are treated as peasants by people who have a PhD to wave about? They will be lost. Academic snobs should sign up to Digital Universe and see if that model will work. Wikipedia has its own model, and I do not want to see a coup by academia. Athenaeum 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Coup by academia? I think the proposal is pretty clear about the fact that everybody can edit everything, and that experts do not have special rights they can use. So, I fail to see this conclusion. KimvdLinde 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a PhD. I think that KimvdLinde does. I don't think that he's treating me like a peasant. I'd be delighted to know that articles about knottier subjects were written by experts and thus were more likely to be trustworthy. -- Hoary 02:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick straw poll
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.


 * Is the term "non-expert" offensive:
 * No All Wikipedia editors will be non-experts in most fields --EngineerScotty 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. per Scotty Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What approach do you think Wikipedia should take regarding expertise
 * Refuse to recognize it at all; all editors should be exactly equal, and credentials/experience should be completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, especially in content disputes
 * Recognize and encourage expertise, but unofficially.
 * Some official recognition, in particular WRT content disputes.
 * Official hierarchy of users, formal recognition of expertise
 * Nupedia model; all articles/changes vetted by experts.


 * 2. Knowledgeable editors can tremendously improve Wikipedia, they should be encouraged concerned .  3-4 involve bureaucracy that I'd rather not deal with (and would likely require official support from Jimbo and/or the directors, as well as technical help from the developers).  5 makes us no longer a wiki. --EngineerScotty 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. Obvious Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this proposal, so far?
 * Acceptable as is; ready to submit to vote
 * Needs some work, but holds promise
 * Needs signficant work
 * Needs to be scapped altogether or a completely different direction undertaken.


 * 2. More discussion is needed; primarily around wording.  But I think overall this is a step in the right direction. --EngineerScotty 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. Coments later. Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick reminder....
...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)

Don't call people "non-experts"
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)
 * Non-expert is simply the opposite of expert; it shouldn't be an insult. There are few subjects on which I can claim any expertise, and on virtually all that I can there are many far more knowlegdeable than me.  As nobody is an expert on all things; all of us are non-experts; any claims of expertise should be qualified by a subject.  If you prefer, we could use the word "layperson" instead.  The term non-expert is not intended to be synonymous with dummy, idiot, or any other term of abuse. --EngineerScotty 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It may not be not intended to be so, but it reads that way to me and I am sure it will to many others. As you continue to defend it I can only assume you don't care about offending people you consider to be your inferiors. Athenaeum 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with a lot here
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)
 * I wonder, what was not clear on the: "To recognize the contribution of subject matter experts, other editors (and not the subject matter expert him- or herself) can add the ExpertContribution template (general) or ExpertContributionSection template (specified sections) to the talk page of the article." KimvdLinde 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you get your editing buddy to make the page ownership for you? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you assume bad faith, anything can be manipulated to fit an end (which is what a lot of people try to do anyway.) In such a case, a bnch of editors can also coordinate to put completly bogus information or strong POV in an article. KimvdLinde 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to create new opportunities for manipulations when there are too many already. Athenaeum 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Knowing little about SnowSpinner (other than the fact the tends to annoy the folks at Wikipedia Review, which is to me a feather in his cap), does he back up any claims of expertise with demonstrated knowledge on the subject? Webcomics, and the study thereof, aren't a well-founded academic discipline, so it's hard to judge claims of expertise.  At any rate, I refer you to the above section; if SnowSpinner is an expert, he ought to be contributing numerous well-sourced edits to the encyclopedia. --EngineerScotty 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe has a pleasant idea, but my knowledge of medicine (for example) is minimal. I'm therefore often unable to determine whether edits about medicine are for better or worse. I can imagine a competition between a disinterested expert and [danger, possible straw man approaching] a slick soft-seller of some snake-oily remedy. When we got to the stage of adding external links, I'd have a strong hunch of which writer was more credible, but the latter [straw man?] editor might have distorted the article before it reached that stage. Moreover, as a user of WP, I want to be able to use articles without feeling a need for a time-consuming examination of their edit histories and discussion pages. There's something I agree with, though: the distinction between expertise in well-established academic fields and that elsewhere. I don't want to belittle the latter. Sometimes, however, a certain kind of (reasonably claimed) expertise might not be desirable. Surely a "creation scientist" can claim to be an expert in "creation science" -- but I for one would prefer an article on "creation science" to be primarily shaped by people other than such "experts". -- Hoary 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Experts and Academia
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)


 * But slapping your proposed tag on an article implies ownership, which is also not allowed under Wikipedia rules. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag is currently not in the proposed version, it has been removed, and I will remove it all together from this page as that seems to be a major red flag for people, despite that is explicitly not for owner ship etc KimvdLinde 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
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
 * "attempts to insert misinformation &hellip; are treated as vandalism" (at the end)

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)
 * The first version was just a rehash of policies, but this proposal is one of the most fundamental changes to Wikipedia ever proposed. It creates a class system and blows to pieces the idea that an edit should be assessed on its own merits. Athenaeum 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where does that happen in the proposal? Kim van der Linde it's a girl 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have cut back the patronising hostility, but it should still be rejected
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)
 * Well, you have cut back what you regard as patronizing hostility; and the idea that experts are more valuable than non-experts (or, if we're mealy-mouthed, "lay editors") is not acceptable to you. To me, it's acceptable. Clearly there is no simple division whereby one part of the editing population are experts and the other part are non-experts (or lay); that there is no such simple division does not imply that experts can't be distinguished from non-experts (a group in which I almost always class myself). I hope that substantive disputes over medical articles, say, are resolved in favor of expert opinion.


 * As a whole, the recent changes don't strike me as "improvements". Good bits here and there, no doubt, but on balance I'd call the changes "enfeeblements" -- so yes of course it now offers nothing new. How about going back to this version and improving it rather than watering it down? If somebody doesn't like the very nature of the thing, he can let it develop and stabilize, and then vote it down. -- Hoary 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Athenaeum, a question for you: Are you editing the policy in order to produce a version which you would accept?  Or do you think the whole thing is flawed, and are merely attempting what you think is damage control?  While all contributions and suggestions are welcome, it's a bit unusual to be making wholesale changes to something if you're just going to vote no anyway.  I've no issue with replacing "non-expert" with layperson (even though I disagree with you that the former term is somehow offensive); and I disagree that two classes of editors are produced--all editors will have the same rights and be bound to the same restrictions.  OTOH, Jimmy Wales' words provide appropriate context and guidance.  Rest assured that the reason that Wikipedia isn't Nupedia is due to Wales; including his full quote is certainly not out of place.  --EngineerScotty 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Both. Clearly not having this policy will be best, but if by some misfortune it is adopted, its capacity to generate alienation and division will need to be minimised. Athenaeum 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote reduction
Could you please indicate why the quote needs to be reduced? Kim van der Linde at venus 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it gives primacy to "scientist" over expert, implying that the policy is focused mainly on scientific experts rather than other experts. Athenaeum 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's quote is only here to provide context. The guideline as proposed, states that "experts, on any encyclopedic subject whatever, are encouraged to edit Wikipedia, and to contribute material on their area(s) of expertise."  (emphasis added).  Nothing should be construed to limit expertise to scientific disciplines.  Experts on art, literature, history, religion, theology, politics, business, music, etc... are all welcome.  Perhaps this should be further clarified with explicit language.
 * One further clarification I should make, even though I've sorta addressed it before. WP:EXPERT would not entitle the scientific side in the evolution debate (for example) to proclaim:  "we scientists are the experts in this matter; as such, we declare that creationism is bunk, and this shall henceforth be the position of Wikipedia".  WP:NPOV still applies to controversial topics, even when the "scientific experts" are generally on one side of the debate.  As it is a controversial topic, and creationism (whatever you otherwise think of it) a notable collection of beliefs, both sides of the debate would be presented on Wikipedia, as before.  --EngineerScotty 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Stale proposal
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)


 * Someone wrote "In the end, it is the quality of the edits that counts." This is the bone of contention, and a hopelessly flawed, subjective, empty standard in the context of a work which relies on the idea that individual differences should be ironed out by discussions between individuals. As I read Pirsig, who has much to say about quality: In the moment, in-depth current knowledge ... and awareness of and humility about the unknown ... the tentativeness of knowledge ... decides quality; in the long term, history decides quality. Today, in a snit, I might fail to see wisdom; recollected in tranquility, one day I might see it. Or I might never see it because I haven't the capacity. Quality is accumulated, not produced; generally it can only accumulate during tranquil eras; in other times it is tested. I've lived long enough to have been an "expert" in subject niches which are now quaint and forgotten. Quality today, gone tomorrow. Accuracy is one thing, precision is quite another. Agreement requires a maturity which recognizes the utter futility of skirmish and jockeying. The only durable agreements are grounded in mutual caring. I'm thinking of Solomon and the baby.Twang 09:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why rejected?
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)
 * Humor: Look in the previous section: Osomec, who writes mostly about golf, declared that, to him, it is rejected policy. Is that not good enough for you? Please, tell everyone with a PhD in science who still volunteers at Wikipeida that Osomec has addressed the matter in an assertvie fashion. Fore! --70.231.137.18 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I do not think anyone ever wanted this as policy, but as guideline. I think that Osome over-reacted. If I am wrong, swat me down. --70.231.134.11 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SWAT! The proposal was marked rejected because it did not have consensus support, either as a guideline or as a policy. Osomec did not mark it rejected on his/her own, but announced his/her intention and marked it rejected when nobody protested.
 * You cannot just decide, on your own, to make it a guideline. At the very least, you should get evidence that there is a consensus in favour of the proposal now. However, as Policies and guidelines says: "Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that this attempted guideline can be watered down much more and provide any comfort to contributors with (or in the process of obtaining) an advanced degree in hard science. I defer to your post-doc in math, but I fear that the hard-science post-graduate people, who have to contend with unforgiving Nature, will find your gesture to block what amounts to little more than a kudo and a hint of deference to be, if I may, ungrateful. Turning to your specialty, I see by WikiProject Mathematics that there are only 13 current "Math" FA's in the entire project, and none of them subjects clearly beyond the high-school level. These hard-science people are not looking for mathematial beauty in their work: they are looking for Truth in Nature and also are (or least, were) looking here for a manageable repository for the results their efforts to share their hard-won knowledge and if from nowhere else, mutual respect and support within their small group. The Nature study focused on hard science: External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors. To paraphrase Edward G. Robinson: Mother of Mercy! Is this the end of "Britannica or better"? --199.33.32.40 03:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From Press releases/Nature compares Wikipedia and Britannica
 * "Our goal is Britannica-or-better quality, but we're not completely there yet," said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. "We've been working on Wikipedia for less than five years, and it's a testament to the strength of our community that we should come so close to them at this point. As we get more people to contribute their expertise, I know that the clarity, readability, and accuracy of Wikipedia content will continue to improve."

To quote Herb Morrison: Oh, the humanity! --71.141.242.194 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia - the place where persistent amateurs edit the experts
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)
 * This is quite true. It is often very easy to claim that a statement by an expert is "disproved" by links to incorrect popular discussions.--Runcorn 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that would be a problem. A journal article will always trump a blog or forum.  And to answer the first concern, we just need some persistent experts (and we have quite a few, I think).  --Joelmills 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about blogs or forums. The problem is that an article in a national newspaper, being verifiable, trumps an unpublished talk at a symposium of experts and, still more, an informal discussion among experts.--Runcorn 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But if it's an unpublished talk or an informal discussion, then it's not verifiable. I would only worry if a newspaper article contradicted published material.  The article would probably be quoting someone, in which case their qualifications could be taken into account. --Joelmills 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Therefore it is not a level playing field for experts.--Runcorn 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What happens when you cross a Pheonix with Lazarus....
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)

Destruction of a virtually unrelated proposal
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. Proficient editors. -- Hoary 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Was this your essay? I thought I was welcome to edit both this page, as well as start my own essays elsewhere. And the previous essay was not destroyed, you over-dramatist. Nothing on Wikipedia can be destroyed unless there's a severe database failure. When I first came to this essay a few days ago, it seemed like the previous parties had given up on it. I'm sorry your name wasn't memorable from reading the talk page, but I now see you are one of the original authors of this essay.


 * As I've followed your suggestion to self-revert, I'd like to hear your suggestions for incorporating my conception of an expert editor into this essay. Though if you want to see this rejected essay remain in the state it's been in since the end of July, you won't offer any more suggestions. Unless you'd like me to revert it back to 7 May, as you once suggested, and we can improve it from there? 75.111.26.137 00:50, 3 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. 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)

A new essay/proposal
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)


 * So who will put them into that category, and after what process?


 * You suggest: Just put all your cards on the table, and let everyone come to their own conclusion. Which will be read by some people to mean: "Say about yourself what you will, make it sound convincing, and see if you can manage to con people into believing it."


 * Anyone can claim to be, say, a theology professor at Oxford. Some can even say so fairly convincingly. But for it to convince me, they'd have to say that they were this or that particular professor, specifying the URL of a descriptive page clearly hosted by the university -- a descriptive page that in turn clearly says, "Yes, I really do edit en:WP as username [XYZ]."


 * The other obvious "cards on the table" are of course the list of user contributions, which we already have.


 * What kind of third alternative do you have in mind? -- Hoary 08:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we need three cards? I've been thinking the second card, which you seem to dismiss as something "we already have", was the more important of the two. Let us browse the wannabe-experts list of contributions and decide if they should be called experts. But I'm not sure what process we should use. I suppose we should emulate the WP:RFA process.


 * But what kind of process do we really need? I would not feel hesitant to vote for you to have general Wikipedia expert status, after only looking at your userpage. Considering the fact that Rlevse gave you a Golden Wiki Award for helping push Harry S Truman to FA, I think he would vote for you as well. Further quick scans indicate Rlevse should be an general expert as well. Maybe I should just follow the trail of Wikipedians who give each other barnstars.... 75.111.26.137 08:07, 4 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)

Inviting experts to write an article
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)


 * I certainly agree with the the motive and spirit of your suggestion. However, I wonder if it would help. Consider some branch of something like veterinary science, where few amateurs are likely to be able to say all that much that's worth saying. Who are the experts? Well, I imagine that there's a hierarchy of expertise. The people at the very top are likely to be horrendously busy, and unwilling to spend their limited free time on doing more of what seems an unpaid extension of their regular job. Further down, you have postgraduate students. Most should be able to write worthwhile material, but they're likely to be busy too. Since I know nothing of veterinary science (and probably for other reasons too), I'd have trouble identifying the more level-headed or better writers among these postgrads. Anyway, postgrads already can and do work on articles.


 * You say you're doing a BSc in environmental science and biology. You probably do know (or have a good idea) whom to ask in those areas (or sub-areas within them). And of course you are free do so. You might find that they're already editing. (Or possibly they'll deny that they're already editing because they think they should really be spending the time so spent on preparing for classes or marking your assignments, and that your classmates might complain.) I'd very tentatively suggest that you suggest by example, though: Look at version X of this article; it contained utter crap in its second section. Here's me doing a radical fix in version X+1. Here I am tweaking it in version X+2. Here's some proponent of "Intelligent Design" attempting to make it pseudoscientific in X+3, and here in X+4, just seven minutes later, is another editor undoing the bad work. So you see, one's time isn't (always) wasted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt many 'experts' or even post grad students edit Wikipedia. There are only a few thousand regular editors around the world, and I only know one person from this university who edits (there are probably more, but not many more, and there are around 40,000 students here).


 * But anyway, another problem is that despite being knowledgeable in some areas, some experts may actually be terrible at writing an encyclopedia article. For example they may write something that's far too technical for a normal person to understand, and then be offended when it gets changed. So it's a difficult area. I doubt that I would be just writing to an expert I barely know and saying "Hey, how about write an article on X for Wikipedia". I would want them to have a reasonable understanding of what Wikipedia is and what they could expect. But it's still a possibility that we probably don't look at enough. We don't have to have this dichotomy that Wikipedia is this 'noble amateur' enterprise opposite to an expert written encyclopedia. More of the latter would be quite welcome, if we could get more experts interested. There's not going to be much in it for them, but I'm sure some would be fulfilled just by being the author of a great article on the world's largest and most read encyclopedia, even if they aren't inclined to be permanent editors. Richard001 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that a large percentage of worthwhile academics can write well. (This of course doesn't mean they don't occasionally waffle.) After all, those in your own subjects have important things to say that (when they're not in a particularly cynical mood) they think others should know. It's when we get into the murky areas of literature (as degraded by psychoanalysis and similar poppycock), "cultural studies" and (even worse) "critical theory" that you see real bilge: people writing not to elucidate but merely to impress. (Incidentally, I don't mean to damn all the practitioners of those fields. Just a lot of them.)


 * The serious book I'm reading right now is Ewa Dąbrowska's Language, Mind and Brain. It's excellently written. The praise on the back by Tomasello, "also accessible for even beginning-level students", seems a bit of a stretch; still, he does have a point. I can't believe that Dąbrowska was helped an enormous amount by copyeditors: as far as I know, university presses just don't have enough money washing around for such extravagances. And Dąbrowska's book is pretty typical of linguistics, aside from the famously rebarbative style of Chomsky as well as stuff on formal linguistics etc. that's necessarily heavy going: I've recently read readable (as well as solid) books by Frederick Newmeyer, Alan Cruse, Ray Jackendoff, and others. I don't claim that the level of writing in linguistics is particularly good, but it is good. I'd guess that the level of writing in environmental science and biology is easily good enough too. So ask around. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Prose glitches zapped 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are rather a lot of post-grads (and even experts) editing Wikipedia but anyone with any sense won't boast too much about it. See Category:Wikipedians_by_degree. Thincat (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And if any of my fellow academics were to ask whether they should get involved in Wikipedia, honesty would require me to tell them "hell no." Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be a "lot", but I'm pretty sure that if you went around any university you would find it hard to find anyone who is an editor here. You'd get someone eventually, but you'd probably give up before then. But if you just asked them to write one article (or review it), you might find quite a few who would. Most have heard of Wikipedia, but very few actually write for it, and of those who do there are fewer still who edit regularly. Richard001 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by User:Raymond arritt
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)
 * There's no formal mechanism to grant respect to experts. Less formally, some editors have respect for expertise, many don't care, and more than a few are actively anti-expert. I'd rather not name any names, but some anti-expert editors are prominent members of the community, including present or former admins and arbitrators. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that some editors may not respect experts doesn't imply that editors aren't respected at all. I think the onus is on you to show that this is the case. You're going to be more aware of people who are anti-expert than those who quietly respect experts, aren't you? It just seems like you're adding hearsay to the page to me. Richard001 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exasperating. Please read what I actually wrote: "Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts."  If there is any policy by which Wikipedia does formally grant respect to experts, please point me to it. I didn't say "[experts] aren't respected at all" and I'm at a loss to understand why you keep insisting that I did. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I was switching the 'to' and 'or' around there. What would granting 'respect' mean though? Besides having additional powers, what else would you want experts to be granted? (I ask this because adding the word 'respect' is redundant if there is nothing besides powers that you wish given to experts). That misunderstanding aside, there is still the claim of a 'strong undercurrent of anti-expert bias'. Is this widely recognized by the community? I haven't seen anything I would call anti-expert bias while I have been here, so it can't be particularly strong unless I am unable to perceive it. Richard001 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we edit in different topic areas... Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits, again
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)

Shortcut IANAE
The initialism 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)

transform into essay
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)


 * Good idea. I wonder if as an essay it needs so many warnings to experts without some encouragement. Getting my colleagues to edit Wikipedia is hard enough as it is. :-)  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In re: "General" heading. Rubbish.

 * "WP requires all text to be verifiable to published sources." Requires how, and on what timescale? With what enforcement? Does the writer of this regularly and broadly  read science articles at Wikipedia?  In the natural sciences?
 * "Unsourced claims which that are challenged can easily be removed..." Not easy at all, and in fact in many scientific venues near impossible.  Personality and editor networks play a ridiculously powerful conservative role. Attempts at many sites to remove longstanding text without citations results in immediate reversions, with well-intentioned (citation-demanding) editors left on the wrong end of the tally in the edit war that would ensue (if the revert was re-reverted....).  See short-lived, futile arguments at Species and Steroid.

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)
 * Well, there "platitudes" are in fact the most fundamental wikipedia policies. See WP:CITE, WP:RS. Their enforcement is another issue. - Altenmann >t 10:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Considerable disadvantage to revealing identity?
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)


 * I think that that statement can go, or at least be rephrased to "there are both advantages and disadvantages in ..." -- I have seen both sides (I'm a professional musicologist). From my experience, in a contentious situation it's a disadvantage. There are people with more time on their hands than most experts do who are determined to remove so-called "elite, biased, opinions" from articles. On the other hand, it has given me an advantage in removing outdated information that was well-sourced to outdated journals in favor of newer information even if there are fewer sources. I think that after one has the respect of the community the expert tag can help; without that it can be a hinderance because of the actions of some experts (well meaning but foolish profs who insert wrong information to "teach" their students about Wikipedia) who have given a bad name to experts. I would be happy to participate in a rewrite of this, now 8+ year-old essay. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are probably not going to have a problem using your real name as long as you stay in your field. Most problems come in articles that are about subjects not endorsed by mainstream science. For instance, my area is paranormal subjects and I was signaled out for writing about Wikipedia in a newsletter I published at the time. See: Arbitration case for Paranormal.


 * If you get into a difference of opinion, say about the morphology of snail xyz, one of the first things they will do is propose that you have a conflict of interest, rather than arguing the point based on references. Of course, I recommend that you have the courage of your convictions, but that is not the culture here.Tom Butler (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Expert help as target of the WP:EXPERT shortcut (merge?)
Imo the 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)

Merge in Wikipedia editing for research scientists
I think that it could be useful to merge in the 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 &#38; Evo)talk 11:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I had not come across the Wikipedia editing for research scientists page before. As a research scientist myself, I found it really well constructed and helpful, exactly what I would have found most useful when starting out as a Wikipedia editor. The Expert editors, which I did discover at that stage, was, and still is, much less useful to me. So, although I think the latter does need to improvement, I am reluctant to recommend doing this by merging the two articles, because then the useful, succinct advice in Wikipedia editing for research scientists might be diluted by distracting material in Expert editors that I find much less pertinent to my own situation.
 * Also, whereas I agree that Wikipedia editing for research scientists might also suit academics in other disciplines, much of it is probably not relevant to many other sorts of experts who do not have an academic background. So I oppose, and think the two articles should coexist independently, maybe slightly renamed to differentiate and clarify the intended audiences. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A little late to the party, but I agree with this sentiment. I prefer the idea of having it all in once place, but I'm not sure how a merge would functionally work here. The better option absent that would be to link the article here, have a summary as part of that, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, but clarify and separate scopes. POV: I wrote a lot of the current content of Wikipedia editing for research scientists. I thought of it as guidance for researchers/academics who were starting to edit Wikipedia (I wasn't sure why it said "scientists"; I think I'd apply about as well to an academic mathematician or historian, though maybe not to an engineer). I thought of Expert editors as a discussion of the advantages, difficulties and rules around expert editing on Wikipedia, aimed at an audience of experienced editors who may or may not be research academics. I'd suggest strengthening this division, and maybe mutual linking with a hatnote. "Expert editors" does have a sub-section called "Advice for expert editors", which I think should be partly merged here and partly rewritten there to give advice on how to work with expert editors. I've just created Wikiversity:Ga naar Wikipedia, which I've been meaning to write for a while, and which is still largely in point form. It incorporates another section of Expert editors. WP:Encourage the newcomers might also be a good place for some content, in a new section. If people are OK with this, I will try to get around to it. On the traffic, T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo) |Wikipedia:Wikipedia_editing_for_research_scientists is right. Maybe retitle "expert editors" and disambiguate? Or we could go through the incoming links and change any link from a major page that would more appropriately point to Wikipedia editing for research scientists. HLHJ (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also relevant might be better linking to Expert_help. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have moved Wikipedia editing for research scientists to the help namespace to clarify that it is an instructional guide, not an administrative page like the current essay. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have boldly added a big hatnote to Expert editors, including T.Shafee's suggestion and a link to Help:Wikipedia editing for non-academic experts, which I've just created. Please critique robustly. I'm not sure about Expert editors's role as a broad-concept article; the articles listed in that hat note are addressed to very heterogenous audiences. The two newbie-expert help articles, the Relationships with academic editors, and the Wikiversity:Ga naar Wikipedia article should probably eventually cover most of the content currently in the Expert editors article. I do also find merit in Fixuture's suggestion to redirect WP:EXPERT to WP:Expert help. HLHJ (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, so I've:
 * moved most of the info from WP:EXPERT to Wikipedia editing for research scientists and Relationships with academic editors, leaving only links to the specific pages and a broad-concept summary of the role of experts, devoid of specific advice.
 * Split Wikipedia editing for research scientists in two:
 * Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics
 * Help:Wikipedia editing for non-academic experts
 * Linked WP:Expert help from all relevant articles (I think).
 * I hope this satisfies Jmchutchinson's desire for more prominence for this page, but while retaining a narrow scope (thank you for the praise; I'm really glad you think the page good ), and Kingofaces43's desire to have it all in one place, but have clear scopes and link and summarize. Thanks also to T.Shafee, who has been persistently encouraging me as I slowly ground through all this over the past weeks. Finally, thank you for the namespace move, Wugapodes; I hadn't thought of that. Should Relationships with academic editors go, too? I hope that if any of you can think of any improvements, or ways it was better before, you will say so. If everyone is happy, I"ll come back in a few days and resolve the merge request. HLHJ (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Relationships with academic editors should stay in project space since it's an essay rather than a help/how to page. I'm on a plane so cannot give it a detailed read, but it may be worth retitling; it seems to interpret policy like NOR rather than discuss relations between Wikipedia and academia. It may actually be worth moving some of this content to meta and soft redirecting; other projects might find it useful (cf Academic standards disease which might benefit from a merge). Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm on limited time, and I have to take some time to review these changes, but I always thought the bulk of the information should be here since this is where WP:EXPERT redirects. At first glance at this edit, I'm not sure how much should have been removed. I have to look things over again since it's been awhile, but the intent in my last post was to keep this page largely as is, but carve out a section for the research experts by creating a the summary of that separate article here as a single summary section. I'll try to take a look in the next day or two to get my bearings again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure about HLHJ deleting all of this. But I did restore this introduction (followup note here) and made a few tweaks lower because, like I stated, "This essay is not just [to] tell experts that they are appreciated, but also that they need to keep their egos in check. They do not get special privilege." This should be clear in the introduction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm just getting back into editing after the holiday here, so this is still on my to-do list to assess further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thank you both. Wugapodes, I agree that Relationships with academic editors is a bit essay-like, and am happy to keep it in this namespace. I have not edited it much, and I'm sure it could be improved; I dumped some content in without giving it a through re-write. I might not be the best person to rewrite it: I've been involved in information-giving, but I haven't observed much by way of academic/non-academic editor conflicts in my own editing. I have some trouble understanding Academic standards disease (I think it's about the history of the idea of giving formal recognition and special roles to editors with expert qualifications, but I'm not sure what Britain has to do with it), so I may not be the person to merge it. I think I'd be in favour of separate articles for the topics "Information to help you, a non-academic editor, get along with academic editors" and "Relations between Wikipedia and formal academia". The first is more advice-for-the-reader, the second more sociohistorical.
 * Kingofaces43, firstly, that diff has a really awful edit summary, for which I want to apologize. I can't even remember what I meant, so I can't expect anyone else to understand it. I have added a null edit with a better explanation in the article edit history. I will, in future, try not finish off large jobs hastily, especially when the last steps involve content removal. It could have waited; my memory might have faded a bit, but fresh eyes might even have been beneficial.
 * To explain that edit here: I've moved a large amount of content from WP:EXPERT to the more specific pages linked from WP:EXPERT; in some cases I copied it over verbatim (with credit), but in many I had to merge it with other content on the same subtopics, as the more specific pages already overlapped substantially with WP:EXPERT. As I recall, I first added the content to the more specific pages (over some weeks), then removed it from the general EXPERT page (mostly that one big edit); I went through what I was removing line-by-line to make sure that the concept was adequately covered somewhere in one of the more specific articles; when I found it elsewhere, I deleted it from the EXPERT article-editing textbox. Finally, I saved the shortened version, apparently without paying any attention to the edit summary.
 * You're right, the links to other files are currently more hatnote than summary-with-main-article-link. Possibly cutting WP:EXPERT down to be almost a redirect page is not the best solution here.
 * I guess my problem with WP:EXPERT is that it seems aimed at multiple completely separate audiences; new expert editors, editors interacting with experts, and those wanting to know what role experts play in Wikipedia. Even these groups are subdivided by the information they are looking for. A summary of interest to one group may be of no interest to another. Quite a few concepts are relevant to multiple groups; however, they sometimes need to be presented differently (jargon level, perspective, etc).
 * I particularly want to prioritize the newcomers, and not make them hunt for the info they need amongst a bunch of material whose context they are not likely to understand yet. This goes especially for material about conflict and hostility, which to a newcomer might tend to have the implicit message "if you do X we'll hate you!", where X is some fuzzy and possibly jargon-laden concept. They need more of "Here, we do X, because Y: here's how", but obviously this is tedious for the old hands.
 * So I'm not in the least hostile to the idea of more summaries on the WP:EXPERT page, but I'm not sure what it would ideally look like. If we treat WP:EXPERT as a WP:Broad-concept article, I'm not sure what its scope should be. Any suggestions are very welcome. HLHJ (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * HLHJ, I guess what it boils down to now that I look things over is that I like having the bulleted lists at here, and I'm not sure why they were removed. Some of the current roles of experts section overlaps, but the old version seems to get the point across better and with more structure for a potentially new editor. I've gone ahead and switched it back for now, but your additions here could have useful changes for text in the current structure. Such incremental changes within might be the better approach right now, and I don't want to dismiss some of the reinterpretations you brought in that could result in tweaks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn, I strongly agree that the "Keep your egos in check... no special privileges" advice is good. I included this direct advice to experts in Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, and a non-academic-specific version in Help:Wikipedia editing for non-academic experts. The first of those pages says:
 * I tried to express this all in academic jargon rather than Wikipedia jargon (though I love the word "refspam" and encourage academics to use it), and I linked the "evidence, not eminence" principle to bring to mind the fact that it has some serious academic ancedents, like the vigorous support of Robert Boyle. My question is where this material should be included. The article lede currently seems to assume that all experts are academics; perhaps it could be made more general?
 * I had removed "we summarize reviews; we don't generate them here", as I thought it was outdated. It seems to conflict with the ideas of many working on the WikiJournals, which argue that some Wikipedia articles are literature reviews and can be double-published as both. I suspect that T.Shafee, for instance, holds this view. I did not know that there was live disagreement on the topic which would make this bold edit inappropriate. Thank you for reverting it and drawing my attention to the need for discussion on the topic. HLHJ (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For the Wikipedia articles vs literature review aspect, the understanding of a literature review varies from field to field. In some disciplines editorialising, synthesis and opinion are expected aspects of a review article, whereas in others reviews are expected to be a dispassionate summery of the current state of a field. I think the "we summarise reviews; we don't generate them here" statements have aimed to avoid the problem of academics peppering original research throughout an article. The way that WikiJournals and PLOS get around this is by asking contributors to keep all their WP:OR to a single section that can be omitted from the wikipedia article but published in the journal. For refspam, I think it might be worth trying to get across why wikipedia pages prefer a higher reference density than an academic article (often with a ref expected at the end of most sentences) but that refspamming to support a single point is counter-productive. It might even be worth framing it in terms of in Wikipedia, authority/trustworthiness stems from the references, not the author's identity. Again, possibly explaining why this is the case (e.g. to best represent mainstream consensus with due weight, make all statements verifiable so that hey can be checked, avoid opinion or fringe views). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 01:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For the Wikipedia articles vs literature review aspect, the understanding of a literature review varies from field to field. In some disciplines editorialising, synthesis and opinion are expected aspects of a review article, whereas in others reviews are expected to be a dispassionate summery of the current state of a field. I think the "we summarise reviews; we don't generate them here" statements have aimed to avoid the problem of academics peppering original research throughout an article. The way that WikiJournals and PLOS get around this is by asking contributors to keep all their WP:OR to a single section that can be omitted from the wikipedia article but published in the journal. For refspam, I think it might be worth trying to get across why wikipedia pages prefer a higher reference density than an academic article (often with a ref expected at the end of most sentences) but that refspamming to support a single point is counter-productive. It might even be worth framing it in terms of in Wikipedia, authority/trustworthiness stems from the references, not the author's identity. Again, possibly explaining why this is the case (e.g. to best represent mainstream consensus with due weight, make all statements verifiable so that hey can be checked, avoid opinion or fringe views). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 01:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * T.Shafee, I think those are good points. I've modified Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics; should anything further be changed or expressed more concisely? I do recall seeing academics writing long, unsourced, but otherwise excellent passages on technical topics, which were later referenced by other editors; while on BLP we cannot allow content without a citation, if we are talking about the behaviour of electrons it becomes less urgent, and I'd rather have decent unsourced content than none.
 * Not in relation to your comments, but more generally, I'm going to quote a critique of some of my earlier edits at Help:Academic:


 * This is a good part of why I've been working on specific and concise. HLHJ (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces43, I think we basically agree on what content should exist; I lean towards moving and rephrasing, but not deleting (outdated info aside). My questions on this page (WP:EXPERT):
 * What is its scope?
 * What is its target audience? (a general audience, or only experts, or only academic experts, or only editors, or only new editors, or...?)
 * What is its purpose? (what effects do we want it to have on editing, and Wikipedia?)
 * Flyer22 Reborn, I'd also welcome your views (and apologies for not pinging you in my earlier reply, above). Also pinging, . HLHJ (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As the general purpose expert page, it's really meant for anyone with significant expertise in a subject, typically as a product of formal training in the subject, where they could reasonably (or already do) generate real-world content on their own. Basically someone in the real-world where their thoughts on a subject would carry some weight. As for target editors, the current version basically covers all of the above. It gives guidance for new editors and also gives some grounding ideas to remind experienced editors. I guess I'm just not seeing any need to worry about those distinctions here too much from a functional standpoint. This guidance page pretty much boils down to the idea that editors with expertise in an area don't get de facto special privileges, don't engage in original research, don't cite yourself, and if you are an expert, you should be able to find good sourcing that negates the need to be tempted to engage in any of those three. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The ping didn't work; pings only work if using a fresh signature. I prefer not to be pinged when a page is on my watchlist. This one is on my watchlist.


 * If editors still feel that the page needs more work, I suggest creating a draft and editors working on that draft, and noting what they agree or disagree with before the material is implemented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That stated, like Kingofaces43, I think the current version is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've lost the thread a bit having been absent from this talk page for a while. I tend to agree with Flyer22 Reborn that the target audience is any "expert" as opposed to experts in particular professions or disciplines (e.g., research scientists). I think the purpose is to serve as a bit of a summary of the essays and policies we have regarding expert editors and how encyclopedia editing may be different from other genres they're used to. So I think the essay does a pretty good job at doing those two things already and while it can always be improved, I think consensus will be more easily found through editing the essay or a draft as Flyer recommends. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)