Wikipedia talk:Expert retention/Archive 1

message: Any resolution to the problem is likely to involve a means of identity management. The existence of sock puppets and meat puppets precludes  the current system. One alternative is to use a system of karma like slashdot. This would provide a measure of how real people are. Karma would build with non-reverted edits and decrease with reverted edits, while IP address users would always have negative karma. The size of each edit could also be used in the formula.
Once an identity measure is established then preferential powers for some users could be implemented, yet still adhere to the principle that 'anyone can edit'. One power could be a temporary page clamp, perhaps against users with less karma for a short time or or a particular crank with less karma for a longer time. This would need to use up karma so the power can't be overused.
derrick 01:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity 

message: Annon comment moved from front page DV8 2XL 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved my response to this to the bottom to emphasize. Ninja Joey 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close off editing to some sections

message: In the interests of keeping my sanity, I've decided to leave vandalism to be fixed by others. It's dispiriting, all this tagging, and the resistance to dealing with it sends the same sort of message as when the landlord doesn't clean the graffiti off the building. And it's particularly dispiriting when there seems to be evidence that one entirely reasonable little change to the whole setup would improve matters greatly. But in the meantime I'll let those who enjoy ferreting out vandalism take up the slack.
What really galls me, though, is the attitude here of disrespect for expertise. Experts have earned their arrogance and the rest of us haven't. It's quite unreasonable to expect any good article to be written by someone with a personality disorder, but that's what it takes to shrug off the attacks in defense of the "if you can't stand the heat" attitude. At least the cranks have some interest in the matter, however warped. Mangoe 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion: Abuse is abuse -- period. It is harmful, period. Now, whereas one might very well argue that the cost to the Wikipedia project for allowing or turning a blind eye to "expert abuse" is higher than "non-expert abuse" -- this goes to cost-benefit analysis, not Right-to-Arrogance. It sounds painfully clinical and dispassionate to say it this way, but the long and short of it in my opinion is that the cost to the Wikipedia increases when experts are abused but the cost to society and the abused individual are invariant regardless of whom is abused. If one opens the door to allowing the abuse of non-experts, but not allowing the abuse of experts (because it costs the project too much to allow), one opens all kinds of nasty implications about teleological ethics. Can the ends be allowed to justify the (permissible) means? Yuck. -- QTJ 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism is one thing, expert abuse another 

message: Here's a section which might be worth adding to the page; some wordsmithing and further suggestions may be needed.
Some experts may find it impossible to contribute directly to Wikipedia, or may choose not to for various reasons, including those outlined in this article.  Experts who are unable or unwilling to contribute content to the encyclopedia can assist it in other ways:
* Participate in talk pages; suggesting improvements.  Recommend literature; advise us on which sources are not reliable.    
* Do what you normally do in the course of your professional activities.  Teach.  Advise.  Mentor students, graduate and undergraduate alike.  Write.  Publish.  Participate in peer review.  Speak.  Conduct research.  Supervise research.  Invent.  Design.  All these activities either add to the body of human knowledge, and/or the count of persons who are knowledgeable; indeed, these activities may be the best use of your time and skills.  Anybody can contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and document the knowledge of mankind; the number of people who can meaningfully expand it is far smaller.
** In particular, write good secondary sources.  In many disciplines, there is a wide gulf in quality, completeness, timeliness, and accuracy between the primary sources (which may be difficult for the layperson to grasp, as they often require in-depth knowledge of the field to understand), and the secondary sources, which provide both depth and breadth into a field of study, and are more suitable for teaching.  In some disciplines, the gulf between the two can be measured in decades.  Good secondary sources don't have to be full textbooks; short introductory articles on specific topics, lecture notes, and other materials may be invaluable in assisting us with development of a tertiary source such as Wikipedia.
* Please understand what we are trying to do, and what our mission is.  Please remember that there are numerous good, conscientious editors here.    
* add your suggestion here
--EngineerScotty 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like it would be great to put on the page, and publicize widely.  I really like the point distinguishing documenting human knowledge (what Wikipedia is doing) and creating human knownledge (what knowledgable experts can hopefully do). JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other ways experts can help Wikipedia

message: This essay raises a number of issues that invite a response from a veteran contributor (like me ;), but I'm going to focus on just one here: editor burnout. 
I'm interested in this phenomena because I've contributed to Wikipedia for almost four years now, & I'm curious to know just how much of my perceptions & how much of my own career with project are similar to other participants. My original focus was on a number of articles that could be considered "crank-magnets": these included King Arthur & a number of Christianity-related articles. In those days, the quality of the material in Wikipedia was admittedly unsatisfactory, but I worked with the assumption that if I could start these articles with better quality information, then it would be harder for them to devolve into garbage.
What I encountered was that fighting cranks is exhausting -- whether you are an expert with decades of experience & an imposing title, or a simple amateur whose hope is to create articles that meet the qualifications of professionals in the field. Part of the problem is that the odder the belief, the more fanatic the crank's belief in it, but a good chunk of the problem is the stress from the effort to assume good faith in the other individual because the material deserves it; that person may be espousing a legitimate point of view that deserves inclusion in Wikipedia -- however she/he is going about it all wrong. Perhaps this is my own weakness, but after a few encounters with individuals I considered cranks -- I lost much of my enthusiasm for tackling these "crank-magnets". (My last struggle involved Celtic Christianity, which attracts a number of individuals who have an idealized -- & unsubstantiated -- view of what these early Christians believed. I ended up walking away from this dispute for lack of a successful strategy for dealing with it.)
And yet, I still enjoyed writing & knowing that whatever I wrote was being read, so I looked for a corner of Wikipedia I could work on without this level of conflict -- which is why I have been working on Ethiopia-related articles. I suspect that if I encountered these cranks, kooks & other troublemakers in a field I was a recognized expert in, & made a good living from, I would conclude that my time would be better spent somewhere else & leave -- as have the editors listed in the article. 
The point of telling my own story is that I believe I've seen it duplicated by other editors. I've noticed -- & have been surprised to see -- that editors to Wikipedia tend to follow a fairly predictable cycle: initial discovery & an increasing number of edits, increasing involvement in the policy side of Wikipedia (become an Admin, subscribe to one or more of the mailing lists, volunteer to help with the Foundation), then a gradual disengagement in Wikipedia in the form of reduced visibility &/or fewer edits. While I base this on my own subjective impressions, I can point to some undeniably troubling datapoints:
* Compare the names of people who posted to EN-Wikipedia in January 2003 with those who posted in January 2006: there is a massive turnover in participants between those two periods. This is one of the fora that serious participants to en.wikipedia could be expected to participate in. (When I first noticed this, I was frankly shocked.)
* Another fora serious Wikipedians could be expected to participate in is WP:AN/I. Compare the names of participants during any two months at least a year apart, & I expect you'll see a similar high turnover. (I just compared an older page from a year ago with today's, & found it was about the same ratio.)
Then again, I'm not the first to point this out. Perhaps the most depressing statement of this dynamic was made by Dbachmann, (sorry, after a lot of searching I can't find the original quotation) who wrote that it was the nature of Wikipedia to burn through editors. I think its clear we need to focus on editor retention. -- llywrch 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is part of the wider issue of editor burnout in some instances, but also in the case of some experts they have been given such a poor welcome (because the were experts) that they have left in weeks, generally without saying why. Only those who were privy to the events saw it happen. There is a constituency of Wikipedians who take deep offence to any suggestion of expertise, and will make it hot for those that come, and tedious for those who stick around for awhile. --DV8 2XL 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the general burnout theme, surely it isn't much different from any web forum/posting/interactivity type site? People find something new, devote a lot of time to it, drift off. I've seen it a lot on internet forums, peaople come people go. Likewise experts come experts go, just like everyone else. From a personal standpoint I have found very little hostility to my expertness (in seabirds and conservation biology), what little I have has been diffused with endless discussions. I certainly burn out from time to time and leave for a while, then come back energised for more editing. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this part of a wider problem? 

message: Administrative solutions assume that much of the problem can be attributed to inappropriate user behavior (POV-pushing, vandalism, edit-warring); and attempt to improve Wikipedia by increasing it's ability to police itself, or reducing the editor pool.  Some solutions I've seen here and elsewhere include:
* Eliminate WP:IAR and WP:NBD; these are too easily abused.
** - If not eliminated, they at least need some rephrasing. In particular the shibboleth "It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing" ought to go. Mangoe 03:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrative solutions

message: In many Wikipedia circles, it is an article of faith that administrators are out of control, abusive, control-freaks, etc.  Quite a few policies being proposed currently deal with the (alleged) need to reign in admins, and bring them to heel.
To which, I put the following questions to the experts on the panel here:
* Have you had any issues with administrators abusing their authority (per current Wikipedia policy), either in matters concerning users or content?
* What do you think of WP:ROUGE?
* To whom should administrators be accountable--the community?  The foundation?  Both?
* What of the means for appointing admins?  
* Are admins better, or worse, authors/editors than non-admins?
* Here's a leading question :) :  Do you notice a correlation (positive or negative) between complaints from a user regarding administrators, and crankiness?  (In other words, are those users who regularly complain about administrator behavior more likely to be the POV-pushers and vandals, or the quality editors who are busy improving the encyclopedia)?
* Should admins be given greater authority, less, or the same?
* Should admins be given greater editorial authority (over content; historically, they have been rather limited here)?  Or should greater authority over editorial matters be delegated elsewhere, if at all?
Although my suspicions may be evident from the phrasing of the questions, here are my answers (not that I consider myself an expert for Wikipedia purposes):
* No.
* Rogue, er rouge admins are like Dirty Harry-esque cops--useful for dealing with the persistent perps; but I wouldn't want to get pulled over by one.
* Both.
* Too much of a popularity contest as it stands. 
* Slightly better, with many notable exceptions in both directions.  One concern I have is that many admins are too busy cleaning up vandalism to be writing good content.
* A definite positive correlation, with wikipedia review (a blog/forum largely populated by cranks who have been booted off of Wikipedia) being the nexus of such complaints.  I can think of a few cases of conscientious, productive editors who are admin-bait due to personality quirks or other issues, as opposed to blatant POV-pushing or vandalism, but in my experience the folks who complain the loudest tend to be those whom are less beneficial to Wikipedia.
* More, but better defined.  
* As I mention in Wikipedia talk:Expert rebellion, I've been (mentally) exploring the prospect of a separate editorial track, parallel to the administrative track.  But what that would look like I have no idea.
Thoughts and flames?  
--EngineerScotty 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My answers:
* No, never.
* As I have never run into a rouge admin I'll recuse
* Comunity
* Too much of a popularity contest as it stands.
* In general I have found them better (at least in the sci/tech articles)
* A definite positive correlation, c.f. the 'You protected the wrong version' whine.
* More
* No, I am not for a class of super-editors
--DV8 2XL 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins 

message: It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. - Chinese proverb
I've created a Wikipedia essay that summarizes the things I wish I had known when I joined Wikipedia.  As a new editor I stepped into a hornet's nest of troublesome editors at Joan of Arc.  It's a featured article and a CD selection now, but it was far from that a year ago.  At the risk of making an inappropriate pun, the experience was a trial by fire.  Maybe the page will help some other editors resolve disputes and improve articles. Durova 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Light one candle]] 

message: The fundamental problem is that Wikipedia promotes process over content. For example, we have an ArbCom, but they deal only with process, not content. I think with some creative thinking, it will be perfectly possible to create a (software) structure that:
* Is open for anybody to contribute
* Has expert quality control
* Resulting in stable pages for visitors
* Has a substantial less problem with vandalism, POV-pushers, and cranks
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fundamental problem 

message: I'm moving relevant content over from Wikipedia:Expert rebellion, which I hope to eventually retire and redirect here.  A couple of sections follow from the talk page.
--EngineerScotty 04:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content over 

message: The following moved from Wikipedia talk:Expert rebellion.
[Copied from the 'Elsewhere' project page].
JohnA of Wikipedia Review writes...
If I ran Wikipedia, I'd put every single article on it on a six monthly or yearly review cycle. If its still a stub after 6 months after creation, I'd delete it automatically. If it's an unreadable mess, I'd pare it down to a stub and put it on the "rewrite it or die" list of two months duration. I'd have a quality control box on every single article for completeness, grammar, readability, citations which people can vote for (including visitors) and every three months any article that doesn't have good quality in at least three of the categories, gets pared down to a stub and put on the "rewrite or die" list. Every editor will get a karma rating depending on the quality of the articles produced (automatically from the article quality), so editing an article which you don't know anything about the subject becomes a risk to your karma, reducing the amount of senseless fucking about with articles that happens at the moment.
People with low karma will only be able to edit the lowest quality articles, and people with high karma will be able to edit them all, so if you've got low karma better improve some articles and get your karma risen or face being able to edit fewer and fewer articles.
I'd purchase a large corporate license to turnitin.com and test all of the featured articles and a random sample of 5% of the others for plagiarism. Any article which has plagiarized sentences gets put on a special watch and the article authors warned and their karma reduced. If the plagiarism approaches 25% then it gets pared down to a stub and put into "RW or D"
I'd have an automatically generated list of the top ten or twenty contributors to each article, and I'd reward quality scholarship with prizes, attaboys and attagirls, featured contributors on the front page, scholarships to universities or paid holidays, and I'd let everyone know what wonderful authors we have on Wikipedia.
I'd have fewer editors as a result, but when someone says "I am a Wikipedia author" it will actually enhance their reputation as a good person rather than harm it.
Made some good points, I think DV8 2XL 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, as we all recognise, is that this requires some sort of independent criterion of quality.  What we need is for a CONSENSUS system to do this.  Let's not forget that consensus does work, and is the reason why much of WP is as good as it is.  Groups of like-minded people work together on articles, and such groups tend quickly to recognise, as a group, when someone is not contributing good quality stuff.  That is undeniable.  The problem (I am guessing) is that there is no REWARD for behaving in this way, i.e. no reward whatever for being recognised as part of the group, as opposed to some belligerent troll or crank or whatever.  As someone put it, the cranks and trolls are winning.  Dbuckner 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted that not to suggest that this was the way to go, but more as a start - a talking point, as it were - to stimulate discussion on solutions. While crying on each other's shoulders may provide some comfort, unless we move forward with some concrete ideas we are wasting our time again. DV8 2XL 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And nothing wrong with moaning together as a kind of bonding.  Dbuckner 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: Below is a brief table summarizing what different classes of user can do; sorted from anonymous users to stewards.  Editing, for purposes of this table, primarily refers to encyclopedic content (article, template, category, and image space); different standards may apply for project, user, and talk pages.  Each class of user may do anything that the classes listed above may do.  Certain specific capabilities, such as checkuser and oversight, are not listed here.  I've also exluded developers from the list; they have full access to the site, but are prohibited by policy from exercising developer access for reasons other than maintenance of the database, application software, and servers (in other words, developers do not use their capabilities for day-to-day operational administration).
This table is a summary of info provided elsewhere, and is included here for reference.
 
Level                         	Privelege
Anonymous users (IP addresses)	Edit unprotected pages (C)
New users                     	Create new pages (C)Upload images (C)
Established users             	Move pages (C)Edit "sprotected" pages (C)
Administrators                	Rollback (V)
View unprotected pages list (V)
Delete/restore pages and versions (C/V)
Read deleted pages, other than oversighted pages (A)
Move pages when obstructed or move-protected (C)
Block/unblock users and IP ranges (A)
Protect/sprotect/unprotect pages from edits or moves (V/A)
Edit protected pages (C)
Edit site stylesheets (A)
Bureaucrats                   	Grant sysop powers (A)
Flag bot accounts (A)
Change usernames (A)
Stewards                      	Desysop users (A)
: C = capability is primarily for content generation/maintenance
: V = capability is primarily intended to fight vandalism (a special case of content maintenance that I have chosen to single out).
: A = capability is primarily administrative in nature.  Note that the overall presentation of the website (the site stylesheets) are considered an administrative issue.
Banned/block users generally have read-only access to the site, though they can still edit their talk pages.  Admins and bureaucrat positions are on a project-by-project basis, and are selected by the community.  Stewards are global across Wikimedia projects, and are selected by election on meta. 
--EngineerScotty 05:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some times, page metadata is the subject of edit wars, such as occaional attempts to include George W. Bush in :Category:War criminals.  Even tags like  are occasionally disputed, with one side not recognizing that a conflict, often because they consider the other side's position to be wholly illegitimate (which it may well be--cranks have been known to slap the NPOV tag on well-written technical articles when their crackpot theories are reverted from the text).  One interesting possibility (which might require extensive site modification)  would be to move more metadata "out of band"; so that it can be subject to separate editorial or administrative control.
Other ideas?  Again, posting the idea here does not necessarily constitute endorsement.  Just blue-skying for the moment.
--EngineerScotty 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current priveleges of various user classes 

message: This section is intended to discuss future possibilities; not to generate any specific proposals at this time.
Several items on the previous chart are identified as being related to content generation/maintenance.
* Article editing.
* Article creation.
* Article moving
* Article deletion
* Image uploading.
Current Wikipedia policy places assigns the responsibility for these actions to all editors, either individually or via consensus. Some of the above actions are denied (technically) to certain classes of users (primarily new and anonymous ones), as specified above.  Technical access to things like deletion is restricted to administrators; but policy states that a consensus of users may direct administrators to delete a page; outside of speedy-deletes; admins may not unilateralily do so.
Some have suggested that some of these capabilities, or additional ones currently not specified by policy, be limited--in some fashion--to a subset of Wikipedia editors, conceivably those who have been selected by the community or appointed by the Foundation, for that purpose.  Such a change would move Wikipedia closer to the traditional (hierarchical) publishing model, in which contributors have established roles, authority, and responsibilities.  
Additional capabilities, and/or repurposing of existing administrative capabilities, include:
* Make established user priveleges revokable:  Currently, once a user registers an account and passes the "established user" threshold, no technical restrictions are placed on his ability to edit, excluding the act of blocking.  ArbCom rulings may restrict his access via policy, but no technical restrictions are generally placed--the policy restrictions are enforced via block if the user does not comply.  It may be useful to be able to restrict specific users from actions such as page creation, page movement, or image uploading (if they abuse these), without restricting their ability to edit existing articles.  A more extensive idea would be to (technically) ban specific users from specific pages or categories of pages.  I do not know the performance impact that either would have on Wikipedia servers.
* Page protection: Existing pages may be protected (by administrators) from editing or movement; however policy states that this should only be done to combat vandalism (either in reaction to an attack, or pre-emptively, as in the case of the Main Page), or cool off an edit war.  Policy states that page protection is not to be used to prevent ordinary edit creep or to freeze an article deemed good (or excellent).  Further, page protection does not constitute an endorsement of the protected version, and is almost always intended to be a temporary measure (excluding the main page and certain administrative templates; which if vandalized would cause significant problems).  There have been proposals, however, to expand the use of page protection to endorse specific versions of articles, and grant this authority to designated editor(s) of the pages in question, who could then approve changes to the page.  This would contravene WP:OWN, and likely be unpopular among much of the userbase.
* Trusted page recognition: Already discussed in great deal elsewhere; the ability to select (and endorse) a stable version of a page would potentially be a useful defense against cranks, vandals, and edit creep.
* Page metadata:  Along with the content, pages (more accurately, page revisions) contain metadata which serves a variety of functions, both editorial and administrative.  Some of this is generated automatically by the site software, but others may be altered by editors
** Out-of-band metadata (recorded separately from the article text)
*** Automatically recorded by site software:
**** Time and author of a specific revision or other action
*** Generated by editors/admins
**** Edit summary|Edit summaries
**** Page protection status
** In-band metadata--part of article text (including talk pages), encoded via various forms of Wikipedia markup.
*** Categories
*** Interwiki links
*** Warning templates like  or 
*** Distinction between articles, dab pages, and redirects
:Some times, page metadata is the subject of edit wars, such as occaional attempts to include George W. Bush in :Category:War criminals.  Even tags like  are occasionally disputed, with one side not recognizing that a conflict, often because they consider the other side's position to be wholly illegitimate (which it may well be--cranks have been known to slap the NPOV tag on well-written technical articles when their crackpot theories are reverted from the text).  One interesting possibility (which might require extensive site modification)  would be to move more metadata "out of band"; so that it can be subject to separate editorial or administrative control.
Other ideas?  Again, posting the idea here does not necessarily constitute endorsement.  Just blue-skying for the moment.
--EngineerScotty 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content-related capabilities 

message: Could not resist:

Feel free to modify the box, add an image whatever....:-)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some fun 

message: The AfD is incorrectly listed (the user who listed it didn't do steps 2 and 3 of the AfD) process; but the article has been nominated.
--EngineerScotty 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, all the attempts to remove him are just making him more notable. He's been elevated to "just another climate guy" to "central figure in a well-know Wikipedia content dispute." You just can't buy that kind of publicity. Mangoe 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William M. Connolley]] up for AfD... 

message: If WP:CRANK were ever to be approved, crackpots could be dealt with with warning templates such as this:
First offense, simply uses test1:
:Thank you for experimenting with the page :Einstein on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 
Second offense:
:Please refrain from adding original research or ludicrous and unsupported claims to Wikipedia, as you did to :Einstein. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.
Third offense:
:Please stop. If you continue to promote original research or discredited theories, as you did on :Einstein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  
Fourth offense:
: This is your last warning.  The next time you disrupt a page, as you did to :Einstein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 
Further:
:  You have been  blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ~~~~  
--EngineerScotty 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crank warning templates 

message: What is meant by "putting my name down"?
The wiki idea works really well at allowing cranks and experts to create an article that is neutral, well-referenced, and well-written.  The problem is that it doesn't stay that way.  The expert says "Ahh, finished, time to move on to something that hasn't been written yet", and the cranks screw up the article again.  Experts don't want to waste their time fighting with people over the same things over and over again.  We need to be much more liberal with the ban button if we want this to be a reliable source of non-biased information.  We're too paranoid about offending people or blocking people who might, someday, turn into good editors.  
If someone is POV-pushing, there should be a quick way to put them on a fair trial (not RfC), and then just ban them.  Set up some obvious guidelines about putting the same idea in an article over and over against consensus, in a way that you can clearly say "you're breaking this rule".  Clarify that the article will be written either with or without their help.  If they want to contribute, they'll have to do it in a cooperative manner, or else the article will be written without any input from them.  
Just some rambling thoughts. — Omegatron 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have I put my name down? 

message: I have a proposal to deal with cranks, can we install a system of a temporary block for anyone who reinserts specific/very similiar edits after they have been reverted withut receiving community conensus? Also for cranks from becoming the reverters should we also create a good punishment for no logical reason reverts such as being temporary blocked. Right now we only depend on the three revert rule which takes a lot of energy to wait for cranks to break it. If the actions continue after the block they should be blocked for longer periods. Obviously there should then be a place where the community can discuss controversial changes such as Wikipedia:Controversial changes? 
The only problem I see is expert users having to wait for their changes to gain approval if a crank reverts them, but a good result comes from this wait since after this short period of waiting the crank is blocked. Also we can create a criteria for what is allowed to be reverted to help punish crank reverters even easier.
Thanks for the replies.  - Tutmosis 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So how you guys feel about making reverting more stricker. You guys are adressing issues of information being added by crack users but not crack users controlling pages through reverting any good edit that removes their information. The process to deal with this users is very tedious having to wait for the 3 revert rule breaching and arbcom. Im suggesting creating a stricker reverting criteria for reverts that do not constitute as removing vandalism. What you guys think?  - Tutmosis 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I have created Wikipedia:Tendentious editors as a guideline/policy proposal. It is essentially the text from Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Crackpot users with some extremely minor editing. We seem to be developing a consensus here that it needs to be pushed forward. Mangoe 00:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal created 

message: Moved discussion to this sub-page.  Decided to get it proposed sooner rather than later : ) - jc37 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "WikiWorks"

message: While I am a minor editor, and haven't done much in the way of major contribution, I have a suggestion. Once an article becomes featured, maybe it should have some sort of protection put in place. Not necessarily a lock, or any other typical protection that already exists, but maybe an approved sort of editing. Only approved users can edit a certain featured article, and this would generally be limited to those users who made the biggest and most noteworthy contributions. Then, if at some point another editor feels that they could contribute with perhaps a high degree of knowledge on the subject, they could request access to that page. The way I see it, how things work now, certain constantly edited articles stand little to no chance of becoming featured. Even if they do eventually reach that status, the constant editing and reverting will probably cause them to loose their status. See why Christmas lost its featured article status. Basically, at the rate certain articles are edited and reverted, it seems like they will never be stable enough to be consistently featured without some sort of change. Cue Jesus, George W. Bush, Mohammad, etc. Ninja Joey 04:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure where to put this, but... More on FAs

message: This is an interesting essay. I'll have to think on it some more, but in the mean time I fully agree that WP:NBD is misleading. I've proposed a rename on its talk page, and it could probably use some copyediting. Comments welcome, on here. >Radiant< 16:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No binding stuff? 

message: The experiences of current expert contributors to the Wikipedia documents the problems well, but also keep in mind that these same problems are putting off other potential contributors who could serve as subject matter experts.  
For example: me.  I'm impressed by the current quality of much of the Wikipedia an consider it to be one of the greatest treasures of the World Wide Web.  I would like to contribute and would welcome substantive corrections and additions to any work I created, but find myself reluctant to do so.  It just doesn't seem worth the investment of time to write or edit a Wikipedia article if it means having to become a watch dog defend an article from capricious editing or having to argue about trivia.
I suspect (without really knowing) that for every current expert who is experiencing this frustration, there are dozens or even hundreds of potential contributors who, like me, are put off by these same problems. -- Greg 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  These Same Problems Prevent New Contributors 

message: Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. --Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4288 

message: Digital Universe incorporates many of the features advocated in this proposal, placing great emphasis on experts. We don't know yet whether DU is going to be viable (though it has already missed two well publicised deadlines for launching substantial content). It may well be that the expert based model simply isn't viable because too few "experts" will give their time free or below market rates. DU is much better financed than Wikipedia, and is supported by major academic institutions, but there is still much doubt about whether it will be able to sustain itself. Let them test out the "expert" based model, and be the ones who lose out if it is found that it isn't viable. If they fail that will show that Wikipedia is right to avoid that model. If they succeed, then people who prefer the closed model can edit DU and people who prefer the open model can edit Wikipedia, so everyone who wishes to share knowledge will have a place to do so and readers will have a choice of two full and free encyclopedias. Calsicol 11:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DU model places far too much importance on experts.  All a question of balance.  I want a system which recognises in a SMALL way that I have made a small number of major changes to articles, over a long period.  Nothing too much.  Just something that gives me an edge over the argumentative newbie whose knowledge is in total disproportion to his or her (usually his) arrogance.  A model where I gain the trust of a group of caretakers of a subject area, with whom I don't have to argue again and again that Astral projection or crystals are not a part of metaphysics, or whatever.  Why can't I have that?  Doesn't seem to much to ask.  For example, the power for such a group to ban such troublesome users without going through some tortuous bureaucratic process.  Dbuckner 12:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If these proposals are impractical, let it be Digital Universe that suffers

message: Currently, the project page has  on it; indicating that there is a policy being written here.  While this page has already spun off one real policy proposal (Wikipedia:Tendentious editors), what happens here seems to be more general discussion, rather than discussion of specific proposals.
For which, a Wikipedia:WikiProject is more appropriate.
Who is for creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Editorial Quality Improvement (WP:EQUIP) for short?  It would be a new project page, which would link here.  If we were to do this, much of this talk page might move over; and we could create the standard set of templates and such.  Other related pages could also come under our auspicies.
I've been involved in setting up WikiProjects before, and would be happy to do the gruntwork. 
Thoughts, yea or nay?
--EngineerScotty 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think taking of the policy tag is probably a good idea. Moving it? For right now I would leave it be and look for a more appropriate tag instead. Mangoe 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've boldly changed the tag to . Mangoe 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  As I said, we need to get concrete evidence of what is happening here.  I have given some information on philosophy. what other subjects?  We need to counter the inevitable retort that WP is a great success story &c by concrete evidence that, in areas outside Britney Spears it is not looking so good.  just go to village pump for a sample of the world view there.  Dbuckner 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to convert this to a WikiProject 

message: Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Conflicts involving expert editors.  Descriptions of specific disputes should go there.  
--EngineerScotty 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added subpage 

message: The idea that successive changes will generally improve Wikipedia was true when most articles where incomplete or inexistent. This is no longer valid. When the number of good articles increases, the probability of changes being negative also increases. In fact, in a few years, almost all changes will be deleterious.
I propose the creation of expert committees for every academic discipline, with both "experts at large" and "expert administrators" elected among them. For example, only wikipedians recognized as "history experts" can vote for the election of "history administrators". The functions of these administrators would be:
1.- To grant or deny "expert" status to other wikipedians that claim to be experts in their field, based on their wikipedia work OR in their real world califications OR both. 
2.- To designate "stable versions" of articles in their discipline, and to modify them when needed.
3.- To create sub-committees when needed.
Some articles (at first only a few, in a few years almost all of them) would have a "stable version", (just between "article" and "discussion"). The "normal" article would continue just as now; anyone can change anything. So no problem with the "spirit of the wikipedia". But you can easily clic "stable version" and read the last expert-approved version. In fact, you can now read every old version; the problem is that, if you are not an expert, it's difficult (and, even if you are an expert, it's time-consuming) to find the good one. So you can see "stable versions" as a kind of "our chef recommends..." :-)
Anyone can propose (to the expert committee) a version of an article to be "stabilized" fort the first time. Only the expert administrator can stabilize an article, but he can delegate the work of revising and approving an article to any expert member or group or members. This stable version can only be changed by an expert administrator. 
Stable versions should be revised every year, or whenever needed (only experts can propose to change a stable version before their due date). Expert administrators can designate an expert or group of experts "responsible" for each stable article. Every year, the responsible expert revises all the changes made in the "normal" page, select those changes (if any) worth including in the stable version, and proposes a new stable version to the expert administrator. 
Bradomín 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is almost quite similar to an idea I've thrown around amongst my friends. All articles should be made stable versions once declared to be a good article, with only admins, and in the future another larger group of recognised editors, can edit. Then eventually as a subject's article gets more complete, editorial oversight is added in the form of a group of people known to be knowledgable in that area and a few laypeople. Entire subjects of many, many articles would then have an overall editorial board, eventually reaching to a general committee for wikipedia editorial direction. Whilst many layers of burocracy are bad, they all allow for independant oversight over those benieth them. All the time a freely editable version of all articles would exist, just not being displayed to all visitors. LinaMishima 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable versions 

message: Whilst briefly going over the current state of what I'd began, and more importantly after reading the wonderful parody at User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur, a thought occured to me. A major problem we have is that many people are ignorant of the scientific method, the historical method, logic, peer review and many other things that we often take for granted.
Leaving aside the problem of those who do not wish to learn (that should be solvable via the Tendentious editors proposal), it looks to me that perhaps we should also consider means to better introduce a wide range of topics to people that would see their contributions benifited by their underderstanding (ga, that's a horrible attempt at a sentance, I'm sorry). Which are the immediate areas of concern do you think? How best can we try to provide learning resources? LinaMishima 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly the whole idea of providing learning resources implies there is something to learn. This goes against the principle that WP is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Dbuckner 08:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing and requiring education before editing provides a negligible barrier of entry to Wikipedia. The principle specifically is "can edit," not "change" or "add to." Edit implies an intellectual who has basic knowledge of ethics,  historical and scientific methods, logic, etc. There is something to learn...how to edit! Electrawn 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another thought - educating the masses? 

message: ... you might find this exchange instructive. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shell Kinney's block of ScienceApologist. Why ScienceApologist stays and puts up with this is beyond comprehension. 70.49.63.201 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to see the current debate regarding SA's admin nomination (I put him up for it; discussion here.) Disappointing to see the ways in which expert knowledge is made to bow to a number of squeaky wheels. Sdedeo (tips) 06:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone thinks that experts get cut any extra slack on Wikipedia... 

message: Larry Sanger's new project: Citizendium, a Wikipedia fork maintained with real names, editorial boards, and emphasis on expertise. --Gilles Tran 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean we wait for "cunc" to notice this movement and try to sabotage it? I'd also dare to remark that belief in physical science expertise as a social fact is not really sustainable in light of the abilities needed to sustain expert input. A lot of the worst expert rebellion situations revolve around things like non-physicists and the like attempting to advance physical science claims. Mangoe 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me that the concept of "expert" has a different meaning for different kinds of persons. People who tend to dismiss the expertise issue in Wikipedia tend to see it as a social construct first while those who think the problem important see expertise as something based on facts. Of course, expertise is both things, and there are domains where the social fact is dominant, but the "expert rebellion" (and generally the lack of expert input) seems more rooted in domains where expertise has been gained the hard way. Yesterday, a colleague of mine was preparing a student course related to information gathering and she used wikipedia as an example of an unreliable source of data (along with a paper encyclopedia whose choice of editors was questionable), using screenshots of pages containing bogus stuff concerning our area of expertise. They were bogus because the editors who had created the pages were obviously clueless about the topic at hand (the mistakes were glaring to an expert). The figures were wrong because they were wrong in real life, not because someone did or didn't have academic credentials. How difficult it is to see that this has little to do with the social construction of expertise? --Gilles Tran 09:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the whole expert rebellion movement is based on the observation that the "expert as social construct" position is tendentious and ignores differences in the character of different fields. Maybe it is tenable in sociology, but it isn't tenable in physics. If you cannot understand calculus, then you are not competent to hold an opinion on physics; that is not a matter of social convention, but of simply being able to speak the language of the field. Mangoe 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, he's certainly quite active in WIkipedia now. Mangoe 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If it works, I am gone and spend my time there. The big if, IF it works, and I have to see how it evolves in the coming weeks. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizendium 

message: # Articles promoted to FA are automatically protected.
# They join an "expert queue". Basically, "this has been deemed very good and the last thing we'd like to have done is a read through and an edit by an expert (assuming the FAC wasn't initiated by an expert in the first place)." On the main page day, and for two subsequent days, it would be unlocked. Video games, pop culture, etc. would be excluded. Whoever volunteers to look it would still have to go through talk, but not have to worry about revert wars and anons.  
# After the expert check the article becomes a stable version, which is completely locked to editing (some procedure to unlock it from time to time could thrashed out). The regular version returns to regular, open editing.
Advantages: scaleable, more attractive to the expert who will know their work is contributing to a stable version, and still attractive to the amateur who wants to attempt an FA (the parallel expert/public idea, by contrast, basically creates a kids' table that will drive away a lot of people). Marskell 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Articles as a cure for edit creep  

message: I'm gone from WP. see Gleng 14:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bye

message: These terms refer to the devolution of responsibility for governmental services to local regions; these concepts might usefully be applied to Wikipedia.  To the extent that we are concerned with providing a large enough cadre of administrators to maintain some order on a growing Wikipedia, perhaps the way to go is by devolving responsibility to the Wikiprojects.  The larger and more stable of these groups may be able to develop a cadre (and institutions?) sufficiently to maintain the quality of articles in their area of expertise.
The simplest way in which this might be done is to encourage administrators interested in a subject to be active contributors and vice versa.  These specialist administrators can than deal with greater understanding of the problems of their Wikiproject.  I suggest a few minor steps to move in this direction.
*List the wikiprojects in which administrators participate on the list of administrators.
*Strongly encourage administrators, sysops, and stewards to list their status on Wikiproject lists of participants (A random check of half a dozen Wikiprojects found only one listed administrator)
*Recruit administrators from among the active contributors to those wikiprojects which are under-represented.
When administrators are presented with problems concerning the editing of an article, there will then be a base of knowledgeable people to deal with the problem.  Once there are enough admins in different areas, there may be a basis for devolving various forms of conflict resolution.  
Ultimately, this cadre could provide the basis for "district ArbComs" to deal with disputes in broad topical areas.  --SteveMcCluskey 14:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devolution / Federalism 

message: Wikipedia:User versions, for an idea on a way to deal with edit creep, and better enable expert editors to monitor content in their subject area.  Among other things.  And it's completely democratic, and in the wiki spirit.
--EngineerScotty 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see... 

message: Several editors have proposed replacing the troika of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS with a new proposal, Wikipedia:Attribution.  I'm participating in the discussions; though am concerned with the direction of this.
--EngineerScotty 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy proposal 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience is a page regarding issues surrounding why many science experts leave Wikipedia. Take a look. --ScienceApologist 12:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the five invariables of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science completely present? 24.148.93.88 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "O gosh, lets have an argument!" -- my sarcastic reply -- this type of anon commentary is exactly why the cranks and crackpots are driving away the good editors. linas 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience is a poster for why serious editors are giving this project up for lost. I drop in once a week or so to scan things to see if there has been any progress, and it seems that if anything the situation is getting worse. I draw your attention to User:MichaelMaggs/Minority science and pseudoscience for a rather good essay on the issues at hand. --DV8 2XL 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New arbitration relevant to this page

message: I hope that your initiative to change Wikipedia will be a success. I want to contribute to it, if that is possible.--Daanschr 07:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-expert supporting sceptical experts

message: I've read through some of the opinions. The main claim seems to be there are crackpot Wikipedians who destroy good Wikipedia articles that are written by experts by doubting established facts or well-supported theories, or writing positively about disproved hypotheses. We can test this hypothesis. There are many Wikipedia articles that deal with potentially sexually arousing themes. Under the additional assumption that when crackpots encounter such articles, they tend to jack off or go away to find sites that help them do so (rather than contributing any edits), we would predict that pornography-related articles are more factually accurate on average than articles about "proper" academic subjects, because only genuinely interested people would edit them. Anybody want to propose a methodology? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour or sad truth? 

message: I think there is also a point about the fact that experts can be every bit as dogmatic as cranks. I've read a number of books where I was constantly thinking "Yes, I know that your subject is important, that's why I'm reading the book, but you can't honestly expect me to believe it's the be-all and end-all of everything." When looking at why Betrand Meyer left, I was led to Talk:Eiffel (programming_language), where it appears that Betrand Meyer jumped in with the "right way" to do things and got into an editor war over syntax highlighting, and furthermore helped produce an article that was overly heavily tutorial and advocacy. It takes some personal distance from a subject to write dispassionantly (in an WP:NPOV manner) about it, and it's clear to me that Meyer didn't have it, and neither do many other experts.--Prosfilaes 15:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be careful about expressing that as a generalisation. It's probably true that dogmatism increases with age, but certainly younger scientists become successful by revising existing frameworks. And this only a sceptic can achieve. I'm inclined to think that older experts are just as valuable because they can write with great knowledge about those facts and theories that form the foundation of what is current science. And I think most would lose their dogmatism after a few years of lecturing and become content for the students to take away anything at all from the lectures. I have great respect for academics who are very active lecturers - it seems to improve both their writing and public speaking considerably. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about dogmatism increasing with age, but it does increase with personal connection to the issue. I think it important to note somewhere when talking about expert retention, that not all expert loss is Wikipedia's fault or even possible Wikipedia's loss; that some experts cannot or will not play within the guidelines. IMO, it's quite possible that Betrand Meyer was one of those, that no matter how we had treated him better, he would have been unwilling to try and produce consensus on non-factual manners (in this case, the formatting of code and code fragments) or help produce encyclopedic, neutral articles.--Prosfilaes 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are partly right. I have heard some hideous stories about historians specialised in Norman history. However, my main complaint for being critical of Wikipedia is a lack of objectivity. I don't like it that major edits to articles are hardly discussed in talk pages. If a discussion does occur, then it mostly has to do with political reasons or one-sided 'POV-pushing'. Real discussion on the contents of an article only occurs in popular articles. This doesn't mean that a popular article has a good quality. The article Anarchism is the most hotly debated i guess, but it has resulted in a lousy political compromise. The moment i really had enough of Wikipedia was when the article Military history of France became the featured article of the day. The main page of Wikipedia made the military history of France start with the Romano-Gallic wars in Italy in the 4th century BC. The Gallic or Celtic people came originally from Southern Germany and migrated to Italy, where the war between Romans and Gallics evolved in the 4th century. It has nothing to do with France. I changed to change it into the article Military history of France, but my changes where quickly reverted. The reason of the revertion was the lack of space. My edits were allowed as long as the Romano-Gallic wars in Italy of the 4th century BC remained part of the article. At that moment, i just gave up. I didn't want to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. I have left Wikipedia for Citizendium a month ago.--Daanschr 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a valid point, for sure.  The people who expound the most contentious minor theories are, in their own minds, experts.  There are also some fields of expertise where there are separate and opposing entrenched views; it is hard for the "referee" to judge the merits without specific knowledge.  The more contended an article is, though, the more likely it is that there will be discussion, in my experience.  But there is for sure more motivation for the POV-pusher than there is for the reputable expert, since the reputable experts understands that the academic credibility of Wikipedia is zero whereas the POV-pusher knows that it is a very effective tool for raising the profile of the minority view.  Guy 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious Experts 

message: Wikipedia:Notability (science), yet another proposal in this vein.  --EngineerScotty 19:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see... 

message: After hanging around for a while and doing some more editing and writing around the joint ... I added something to my user pages that pertains, I believe, to expert retention. Granted -- it's only my particular perspective, but there you go. -- QTJ 18:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some further thoughts 

message: I've seen content deleted from various articles by real experts who sincerely believe that if a scientific theory has been rejected or disproved, or if they think it is of dubious scientific value, then it should be deleted from Wikipedia. I think they are missing the point. Presenting a rejected theory does not mean misleading the readers or endorsing it. It is part of the scientific process; it should be presented as such: relevant information, albeit false or wrong. I've seen this problem in the discussion about microtubules, for example, where the paragraph about Roger Penrose's (largely rejected) theory of quantum consciousness (which involves microtubules) has been repeatedly deleted by matter experts. Some of them have expressed frustration about "having" to repeatedly delete that paragraph. The problem here is that although Roger Penrose's theory has been highly criticized (and rejected) by most experts, the books exposing this theory have been read by thousands of persons since they were published. So what should we do in Wikipedia? Is any scientific theory so untouchable that it deserves to be erased and forgotten forever? It is akin to a case of scientific snubbery. And yes, most published theories (even the most bizarre or exotic) have been reviewed or criticized by peers; this provides enough content for properly presenting them in Wikipedia. In the same way, should we also bury disproved theories such as Lamarckism and the Ptolemaic system because they were proved wrong a few centuries ago? If they are wrong, or if they have been replaced by a better theory, do they deserve to be erased and forgotten? I don't think so. Building an encyclopedia is not just about covering the "absolute truth" and the "most glorious achievements of science". It should also cover the hoaxes, dead ends, tragic failures and embarrassments. Why? Because they exist. Some experts don't seem to understand this point... they should understand that knowledge is not necessarily a synonym of truth. Talking about a failure doesn't mean endorsing it. Hugo Dufort 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just talking about keeping the Wikipedia content connected. Of course we won't fill the page on evolution with Lamarckism. The Penrose case is just an example; a single sentence with a link would do. But some experts think that even that is too much, that it is "polluting" the page. There ought to be a reasonable way of keeping the content rich and interconnected. As for the microtubules, a friend of mine was recently searching the Penrose theory, because he wanted to validate what he had read somewhere else. He found the "microtubule" page in Wikipedia, but no answer to his questions. By the way, it's not about "fans of crackpot theories being vocal" as you state it. It's about covering the field, even though it involves its fringes. Hugo Dufort 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Experts, Truth and Knowledge: Yet Another Problem