Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Runcorn (talk | contribs) at 09:10, 7 May 2006 (→This has been changed far too much: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for Misplaced Pages:expert editors, a proposed guideline/essay (not sure which is appropriate) which is designed to:

1. offer specific guidelines for expert editors
2. address criticism of the project concerning treatment of expert editors.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Darwins 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages style), many get offended. Misplaced Pages 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:

1. Expert editors are highly encouraged to locate and join the appropriate Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Expert contribution tag?

Maybe a weird idea, but would it be a good thing to have a tag for the talk page, which identifies whether an extablished expert (with user name) has contributed to the article so that other editors know? Something along the line of:

This article contains substantial contributions of subject matter expert Kim van der Linde. See Misplaced Pages policy on Expert editors for suggestions.

I think only other editors who recognize the expertise should insert such a tag. KimvdLinde 15:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

True, other editors who regognize their expertise should insert such a tag. If the editors think that they are experts in the respective subject area themselves, it would definitely create an awkward situation which would be prone to debate. --Siva1979 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, shoot me down if this is not nothing {{ExpertContribution|]}}:

Template:ExpertContribution

KimvdLinde 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And feel free to edit it at the development page. An suitable image would be nice.

I did some copyediting, and made the template a bit suitable for use with multiple experts (that way, all can be mentioned in one box rather than having multiple boxes). Someone who is a wizard with Wiki markup and templates might improve things to allow separate experts to be mentioned as separate arguments (separated by pipes), or to have a 0-argument mode which says "this page is edited by experts" but not saying who.

Regarding use of real names rather than usernames for verifying credentials--OK, but Misplaced Pages policy generally prohibits the publication of personal details (including real names) that aren't divulged by users themselves. This policy is place mainly to prevent harassment, threats, or other forms of intimidation ("do you want me to email your employer?"); but a user might run into trouble if they publish another user's real name, without the other user's permission--even if done so with good intent.

One more question. How should {{ExpertContribution}} interact with articles maintained by a WikiProject. My thought is: If the expert in question is a member of a given WikiProject, and the article is identified as maintained by that WikiProject (by an appropriate message box on the talk page), then having an ExpertContribution tag for that expert is superfluous. ExpertContribution tags should be used when either 1) a page is not affiliated with a wikiproject, or 2) it is, but the expert isn't part of the page's wikiproject(s). Many WikiProject rosters include credentials on the subject--there is a general presumption in Misplaced Pages that WikiProject members are generally knowledgeable on a subject.

--EngineerScotty 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Names, ok. I had written that because I think it is important to be able to check credentials, but I can also see that the other editors recognize the expert nontheless, and add the user name.

I think most editors are wise enough to decide when to add it, and when not. If they feel someone added substantially to a specific page, they should be able to add it to that page, despite that the page is a wikiproject page. However, I would not expect that editors in those cases are going to add it. KimvdLinde 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

For situations that experts have only contributed to specific sections:

Template:ExpertContributionSection KimvdLinde 03:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just about as unacceptable as a proposal can get. It is utterly out of the question to introduce any mechanism that assesses edits according to who made them, rather than on their actual merits. Bhoeble 03:21, 7 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 ]) which are not encyclopedic. --EngineerScotty 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a notable change. --Siva1979 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 Misplaced Pages, because of the policy Misplaced Pages: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)

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:

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.

--EngineerScotty 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

• An excellent question, and one of the reasons which Misplaced Pages does not officially recognize experts. (And a reason it is suggested that the {{ExpertContribution}} 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:
   • 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).
   • 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).
4. 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 Misplaced Pages editorial standards apply to all editors.

--EngineerScotty 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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 , 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)

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.

• 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)

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.

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

• 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 Misplaced Pages as well. --EngineerScotty 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for convincing me that this page is very needed. KimvdLinde 04:41, 7 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. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)