Wikipedia talk:Guru

Feel free to edit this proposal. I just see experts in things around all the time, we might as well make it easier to find them by making it official. Karm a  fist  06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but personally I would prefer the current informal expert acknowledgement we have now. Even if we claim we give no special editing status to these people, in practice people could develop blind faith in a title. This is made even more important by the fact that most experts have highly specialised in just parts of subfields of a field, and aren't necessarily entitled to speak on even the whole field - never mind all topics. I think it's healthy to approach every new person with no presupposed view of their skills or intentions. Deco 08:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no real value in this. Sadly, I have encountered a number of editors who believe that they have expertise in topics merely because those topics are discussed in the media, not realising that there are major academic disciplines involved. Trying to disabuse these editors of their preconceptions and prejudices is never easy and will not be made any easier by having the label of guru slung around one's neck. David91 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't he saying that those users would not be Gurus -- to become a Guru would be hard. And a real Guru would have a solid official status to point to help overawe those whose self-esteem is not matched by their erudition, maybe. A couple reasons I like this: 1) As Wikipedia expands and loses some cohesion, authority tends to devolve more to officially-recognized persons -- and the only officially recognized position is admin (also ArbCom member and bureaucrat, but there are few of those). But admins are vandal-fighters, not necessarily any better at editing etc than other editors. 2) Might make it easier to attract/keep editors who are experts in some area. Herostratus 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * David's got a good point. This would be horrible if these people were like "I have this title, so you should listen to me because of it." Ultimately, humbleness has to be a prerequisite for being a guru. Also, in terms of what Deco said, that's going to be a problem, but one thing i'd like is for a quicker way to get what you get at WP:HELP, not an expectation that the guru knows everything -- nobody knows everything, even a teacher. Karm  a  fist  22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a poorly thought out idea. You can tell who's really an expert on a topic by seeing them around articles and talk pages. Making it official will give people a way to stifle dissent and encourge a WP:OWN mentality. Furthermore, people shouldn't be applying their (perceived) expertise in a vacuum anyway (though it's definitely beneficial); sources are most important. Superm401 - Talk 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. If someone is an expert, that person should be able to make more credible argument without relying on the credibility of his background. FWBOarticle

IMO if people want to put on their user page that they have a PhD or other relevant, academic and accepted sign of expertise then that is fine. There is no need to make this "official". Batmanand | Talk 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is good, but not from the point of editors, more from the point for reviewers (e.g. Peer Review etc.). If there was a list of 'experts' in particular fields who could review pages related to that field it may well help in the process of article disputes and FA content. --Wisd e n17 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This idea is good, but it has no place in Wikipedia, IMO. It simply promotes inequality, who has the right to say who's a guru and who's not? If a person is a guru in a subject, they have no need to boast it or wear it as a badge, make it known by doing your part and editing articles, make yourself known by doing your part, it's the entire point of wikipedia! -- Neur 0 X. talk 06:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)