Wikipedia talk:Expert editors

message: This is the talk page for Wikipedia:expert editors, a proposed guideline/essay (not sure which is appropriate) which is designed to:
# offer specific guidelines for expert editors
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Purpose

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't agree that it does. It is simply a moderate summary of how various policies and practices impact on a particular (vaguely defined) class of users. I think it is a good idea to have a realistic summary of the actual position, because some of Wikipedia's critics (e.g. Larry Sanger) are eager to maliciously misrepresent it. I just don't buy the idea that there is systematic hostility towards experts. A few editors may see Wikipedia as some sort of radical experiment, but I think they are a small and shrinking minority. Most of us just want to share what we know or to help out a project which is proving to be of great practical use to ourselves and people like ourselves. When expert users fo have problems, most likely it's usually just part of the rough and tumble nature of Wikipedia and not the result of any specific antagonism towards experts. Bhoeble 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: My previous comments were based on the policy at it existed at that time, not on the current divisive version, which I oppose. Bhoeble 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment 

message: It's a small one so I've gone ahead and made it.  I've changed "any subject" to "any encyclopedic subject"; mainly so this guideline isn't interpreted to mean that experts somehow have a green light to unilaterally resurrect deleted articles, or create articles on subjects (like Why George Bush is an idiot) which are not encyclopedic. --EngineerScotty 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a notable change. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One additional change 

message: How far are we. I feel good about this guideline, what will be the next step? KimvdLinde 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets take the repeat request. KimvdLinde 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far are we? 

message: I suggest the following additions:
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Additional suggestions for the non-expert editors section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for convincing me that this page is very needed. KimvdLinde 04:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are a Sanger fan, you can leave Wikipedia and join Digital Universe. Trying to stage a coup to turn the former into the latter is not on. Athenaeum 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax.  Nobody wants to turn Wikipedia into DU; for one thing--I probably wouldn't be qualified to touch many of the articles over there.  --EngineerScotty 05:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be scraped whatever. see Instruction creep.Geni 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See comment above. --EngineerScotty 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This has been changed far too much

message: As Geni says this is instruction creep. Wikipedia already has more policies and guidelines than most people will ever want to see. However this one is phrased, it will upset some people, and I can't see any practical use for it: a reference to it will just open up the same old arguments. Recommendation: archive as rejected. Sumahoy 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree with JoshuaZ. What he recommends is indeed a good way to demonstrate that you're a cut above the stereotypically slipshod editor of WP. It does not show that you have the bullshit-detection abilities, perspective, etc. of an expert. Yes, Wikipedia indeed already has more policies and guidelines than most people will ever want to see; but it also has more crap, pseudoscience, recycled tabloid gossip, commercial puffery, etc., than I for one want to see. Yes, a great number of non-experts are capable of editing without screwing up. (Perhaps I'm among them.) But a great number are not, and I'd love to see their "contributions" separated from those by people who are qualified. -- Hoary 06:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Digital universe is over there.Geni 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Hoary 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just described how digital universe is meant to work in future.Geni 05:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Digital universe"? -- Hoary 07:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Digital Universe. Athenaeum 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has worked because it welcomes everyone. If you don't like that, the solution is to leave. Your contempt for other editors will not be missed. Athenaeum 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I phrased that badly. Rather than their "contributions", read our contributions. Wikipedia has worked better than I expected. It already doesn't welcome everyone: it makes exceptions for unambiguous trolls and the like. I think that some users do much better work than others. For some subjects, notably medical subjects for which nostrums are widely spammed, I'd be much happier if only experts were able to make substantive edits. I'm not an expert in such subjects and any "contempt" (?) for the non-expert would most certainly apply to myself. Hoary 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrap it

message: quoted from the article: 
"Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts, nor is there any mechanism to do so. In the end, it is the quality of the edits that counts." 
The last sentence is certainly the basis on which Wiki is built, but, as best, this is wishful thinking, nowhere proven and perhaps unprovable.  'In the end', in this Wiki anarchy, is too often the result of the most forceful and tenacious editor who sticks to something until all others have given up trying to write something else and being reverted or tire of being insulted.  I don't think anything in this 'Expert editors' article will change this situation.  Thanks Hmains 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does a little to change your observations, it swould have achieved something. If it does not help at all, nothing is lost. KimvdLinde 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about all the good editors who will leave if Wikipedia changes to a culture where they are treated as peasants by people who have a PhD to wave about? They will be lost. Academic snobs should sign up to Digital Universe and see if that model will work. Wikipedia has its own model, and I do not want to see a coup by academia. Athenaeum 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coup by academia? I think the proposal is pretty clear about the fact that everybody can edit everything, and that experts do not have special rights they can use. So, I fail to see this conclusion. KimvdLinde 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a PhD. I think that KimvdLinde does. I don't think that he's treating me like a peasant. I'd be delighted to know that articles about knottier subjects were written by experts and thus were more likely to be trustworthy. -- Hoary 02:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wishful thinking 

message: ...we're not voting yet.  I say this because some of the above comments are phrased like votes.  If you think this proposal is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed, go ahead and say so... but voting probably won't start for another week or so.  (And there does appear to be some support for this page, so withdrawing the proposal prior to a vote isn't likely to happen.  :) 
--EngineerScotty 18:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick reminder.... 

message: Is it intended to be an insult, or is it an accident that it comes across as one? Either way, this policy belongs in the reject tray. Athenaeum 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-expert is simply the opposite of expert; it shouldn't be an insult.  There are few subjects on which I can claim any expertise, and on virtually all that I can there are many far more knowlegdeable than me.  As nobody is an expert on all things; all of us are non-experts; any claims of expertise should be qualified by a subject.  If you prefer, we could use the word "layperson" instead.  The term non-expert is not intended to be synonymous with dummy, idiot, or any other term of abuse. --EngineerScotty 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may not be not intended to be so, but it reads that way to me and I am sure it will to many others. As you continue to defend it I can only assume you don't care about offending people you consider to be your inferiors. Athenaeum 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't call people "non-experts"

message: The very idea that someone self-identifies as an "expert" and then blatantly wants to put a tag on the article or its Talk page as if they are somehow a "better" editor than others is offensive personally, and is contradictory to the Wikipedia ideal.  Please remember that User:Snowspinner claims to be an expert on webcomics, and has repeatedly tried to use this self-identified expertise in order to try to derail AfDs on non-notable webcomics.  Are we supposed to kowtow to these supposed experts?  If your expertise requires you to indentify yourself as such, then it's basically worthless.  Show it in your edits, not by trying to railroad other people into stepping aside so you can own an article.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder, what was not clear on the: "To recognize the contribution of subject matter experts, other editors (and not the subject matter expert him- or herself) can add the ExpertContribution template (general) or ExpertContributionSection template (specified sections) to the talk page of the article." KimvdLinde 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you get your editing buddy to make the page ownership for you?  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you assume bad faith, anything can be manipulated to fit an end (which is what a lot of people try to do anyway.) In such a case, a bnch of editors can also coordinate to put completly bogus information or strong POV in an article.  KimvdLinde 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to create new opportunities for manipulations when there are too many already. Athenaeum 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Knowing little about SnowSpinner (other than the fact the tends to annoy the folks at Wikipedia Review, which is to me a feather in his cap), does he back up any claims of expertise with demonstrated knowledge on the subject?  Webcomics, and the study thereof, aren't a well-founded academic discipline, so it's hard to judge claims of expertise.  At any rate, I refer you to the above section; if SnowSpinner is an expert, he ought to be contributing numerous well-sourced edits to the encyclopedia. --EngineerScotty 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoe has a pleasant idea, but my knowledge of medicine (for example) is minimal. I'm therefore often unable to determine whether edits about medicine are for better or worse. I can imagine a competition between a disinterested expert and [danger, possible straw man approaching] a slick soft-seller of some snake-oily remedy. When we got to the stage of adding external links, I'd have a strong hunch of which writer was more credible, but the latter [straw man?] editor might have distorted the article before it reached that stage. Moreover, as a user of WP, I want to be able to use articles without feeling a need for a time-consuming examination of their edit histories and discussion pages. There's something I agree with, though: the distinction between expertise in well-established academic fields and that elsewhere. I don't want to belittle the latter. Sometimes, however, a certain kind of (reasonably claimed) expertise might not be desirable. Surely a "creation scientist" can claim to be an expert in "creation science" -- but I for one would prefer an article on "creation science" to be primarily shaped by people other than such "experts". -- Hoary 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strongly disagree with a lot here

message: Lots of people are making the connection between expertise and academia--and implying that the proposal will give greater rights to PhDs.  You may notice that the proposal avoids defining "expert"; that is intentional.  While an advanced degree is a strong indicator of expertise (especially in subjects which are well-established disciplines); in my mind it is neither necessary nor sufficient.  Someone who earned an PhD in microbiology thirty years ago, and then embarked upon a career in computer programming (no longer paying attention to the biology literature), probably will have a difficult time claiming expertise in microbiology today--the field has advanced significantly since 1976.  However, that person, due to past experience, would have an easier time reacquiring expertise should they choose, simply because they wouldn't be starting from zero.  Likewise, someone who learned to program computers in the Air Force directly out of high school, got a programming job upon leaving the service, and who is now a published author and in-demand consultant on some programming topic, certainly qualifies as an expert.
  
True expertise is demonstrable, and can be acquired, lost, and re-acquired by continued learning (or failure to do so).  It isn't a piece of paper that you hang on the wall.  However, the learning, study, and research that one must do to get that piece of paper certainly goes along way towards claiming expert status.
And again, I must reiterate:  This proposal does not give experts, real or otherwise, a blank check.  WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV apply to everybody, including experts.  
--EngineerScotty 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But slapping your proposed tag on an article implies ownership, which is also not allowed under Wikipedia rules.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is currently not in the proposed version, it has been removed, and I will remove it all together from this page as that seems to be a major red flag for people, despite that is explicitly not for owner ship etc KimvdLinde 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts and Academia 

message: I'm glad that the template is removed; I wouldn't like it if somebody would place a notice saying that I as an expert edited the article, as it implies that I have reviewed the article. Now, I see little that I disagree with, except that I think that 
:"attempts to insert misinformation … are treated as vandalism" (at the end)
is too strong. If somebody accidentally inserts a wrong fact; that's a mistake and it should not be labelled vandalism. Perhaps insert deliberate before attempts?
Regarding instruction creep: it is just a rehashing of policies. It could be useful to point experts to, to help them understand their position within Wikipedia quickly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first version was just a rehash of policies, but this proposal is one of the most fundamental changes to Wikipedia ever proposed. It creates a class system and  blows to pieces the idea that an edit should be assessed on its own merits. Athenaeum 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, where does that happen in the proposal? Kim van der Linde it's a girl 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This page hasn't been edited for over a fortnight and there is a lot of opposition to the proposal, to which I add mine as I consider it to be divisive instruction creep. I am going to mark it rejected. Osomec 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone wrote "In the end, it is the quality of the edits that counts." This is the bone of contention, and a hopelessly flawed, subjective, empty standard in the context of a work which relies on the idea that individual differences should be ironed out by discussions between individuals. <BR>As I read Pirsig, who has much to say about quality: In the moment, in-depth current knowledge ... and awareness of and humility about the unknown ... the tentativeness of knowledge ... decides quality; in the long term, history decides quality. Today, in a snit, I might fail to see wisdom; recollected in tranquility, one day I might see it. Or I might never see it because I haven't the capacity. <BR>Quality is accumulated, not produced; generally it can only accumulate during tranquil eras; in other times it is tested. I've lived long enough to have been an "expert" in subject niches which are now quaint and forgotten. Quality today, gone tomorrow. Accuracy is one thing, precision is quite another. Agreement requires a maturity which recognizes the utter futility of skirmish and jockeying. The only durable agreements are grounded in mutual caring. I'm thinking of Solomon and the baby.Twang 09:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stale proposal

message: Is consensus editing the best way to achieve accurate, thorough articles, particularly on complex, technical subjects?  Clearly it isn't.  The consensus view is often incorrect.  It's not worth the effort for real experts.  This is a fatal flaw.  Real experts don't want to waste time debating and re-debating points that are trivial to anyone with expertise in a subject, yet beyond the grasp of other editors who firmly believe they understand the subject.  Wikipedia is a powerful thing... anyone can contribute from anywhere in the world.  Yet for all this power, it is fatally flawed.  Tvaughan1 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is quite true.  It is often very easy to claim that a statement by an expert is "disproved" by links to incorrect popular discussions.--Runcorn 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why that would be a problem.  A journal article will always trump a blog or forum.  And to answer the first concern, we just need some persistent experts (and we have quite a few, I think).  --Joelmills 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not worried about blogs or forums.  The problem is that an article in a national newspaper, being verifiable, trumps an unpublished talk at a symposium of experts and, still more, an informal discussion among experts.--Runcorn 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it's an unpublished talk or an informal discussion, then it's not verifiable.  I would only worry if a newspaper article contradicted published material.  The article would probably be quoting someone, in which case their qualifications could be taken into account. --Joelmills 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  Therefore it is not a level playing field for experts.--Runcorn 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia - the place where persistent amateurs edit the experts 

message: It looks like you are inserting your POV here - who says that experts are not respected here? I suppose the article is an essay, but I think the edits are still questionable. Richard001 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no formal mechanism to grant respect to experts. Less formally, some editors have respect for expertise, many don't care, and more than a few are actively anti-expert. I'd rather not name any names, but some anti-expert editors are prominent members of the community, including present or former admins and arbitrators. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that some editors may not respect experts doesn't imply that editors aren't respected at all. I think the onus is on you to show that this is the case. You're going to be more aware of people who are anti-expert than those who quietly respect experts, aren't you? It just seems like you're adding hearsay to the page to me. Richard001 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exasperating.  Please read what I actually wrote: "Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts."  If there is any policy by which Wikipedia does formally grant respect to experts, please point me to it. I didn't say "[experts] aren't respected at all" and I'm at a loss to understand why you keep insisting that I did. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think I was switching the 'to' and 'or' around there. What would granting 'respect' mean though? Besides having additional powers, what else would you want experts to be granted? (I ask this because adding the word 'respect' is redundant if there is nothing besides powers that you wish given to experts). That misunderstanding aside, there is still the claim of a 'strong undercurrent of anti-expert bias'. Is this widely recognized by the community? I haven't seen anything I would call anti-expert bias while I have been here, so it can't be particularly strong unless I am unable to perceive it. Richard001 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we edit in different topic areas... Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:Raymond arritt]]

message: Okay, I guess this is basically a page by experts for experts, but the recent addition of the quote "We provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views." seems to conveniently omit the fact that these diverse views are those that are attributed to reliable sources. Seems like a bit of quote mining going on here, though it certainly won't fool anyone with the intelligence to read the page in question. Richard001 (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits, again

message: The initialism  has been created as a shortcut. Any objections to adding this link (WP:IANAE) to the page?—Teahot (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut IANAE 

message: As the failed proposal is ~three years old and the page has value as an essay expert editors can be referred to, I've taken off the failed proposal tag.
Additionally, I've removed the section about civility/thick skin to avoid the negative tone. Gerardw (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I wonder if as an essay it needs so many warnings to experts without some encouragement. Getting my colleagues to edit Wikipedia is hard enough as it is. :-)  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  transform into essay 

message: *"WP requires all text to be verifiable to published sources." Requires how, and on what timescale?  With what enforcement? Does the writer of this regularly and broadly  read science articles at Wikipedia?  In the natural sciences?
*"Unsourced claims whichthat are challenged can easily be removed..." Not easy at all, and in fact in many scientific venues near impossible.  Personality and editor networks play a ridiculously powerful conservative role. Attempts at many sites to remove longstanding text without citations results in immediate reversions, with well-intentioned (citation-demanding) editors left on the wrong end of the tally in the edit war that would ensue (if the revert was re-reverted....).  See short-lived, futile arguments at Species and Steroid.
So, my view, such essay statements are convenient, organizationally self-affirming platitudes, but are, practically speaking, utter rubbish.  (As are related platitudes about the desire for expert retention.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there "platitudes" are in fact the most fundamental wikipedia policies. See WP:CITE, WP:RS. Their enforcement is another issue. - Altenmann >t 10:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In re: "General" heading. Rubbish. 

message: Imo the Wikipedia:Expert help page is way more useful and informative concerning the help of experts while this page may better describe why they're useful and provide some additional advice for said.
However I do think it's way more useful/practical for people on here to have an article specifically about how to gain and provide the help of experts - hence I'd like to request the WP:EXPERT shortcut to point to that page. What do you think of that?
It might also be worth considering merging this page into there - I'm not sure if that would be a good idea; maybe it should only be merged partially or so.
--Fixuture (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Expert help]] as target of the [[WP:EXPERT]] shortcut (merge?)