Wikipedia talk:Expert editors/New draft

message: I'm not sure if this is being aimed at being a guideline again, but  is all it should strive for.  If expert editors don't have any special powers, there doesn't need to be any formal process to recognize them.  Furthermore, it is dubious as to whether they should have any special recognition beyond a list of their achievements.  If an editor is expert because he or she has three FAs, they should say "I helped promote three FAs" if they want to, and leave it at that.--Father Goose 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting an article to FA status is not an individual's effort, but a collaborative one as is the editing of all articles in Wikipedia. You cannot say "I have three FAs", you can only say that you contributed alongside all other editors that edited that article to bring it to FA. You can add a star to your user page, if you want to, but that is it.  I do not see that this page can get any traction as a proposal, and as an essay it does not read as one. Leave it as historical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as Wikipedia goes, the only thing you have to demonstrate your expertise, be that in editing, in policy, in community work, etc, is your public identity as defined by your contribution history. See WP:AKASHA. Note that being an expert does not automatically means anything in particular. You can be an expert and be a disruptive editor (I have seen those), and you can be an expert and be a model Wikipedian (I have seen these as well), so "expertise" in its own right is meaningless for this project, without other very necessary attributes for that expertise to be of use to the project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole thing presently reads like a bunch of back-slapping.  To put it extremely bluntly: fuck recognition. Nah, too blunt.  Just edit the encyclopedia, earn the respect of those who notice your work (which tends to be ample anyway), and leave it at that.--Father Goose 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This essay starts by defining "expert editors" as those who are expert at editing Wikipedia, then it defines "specialists" as those with expert knowledge of a topic, then it swaps usages and refers to "expert editors" as those with expert knowledge. The whole first section, the one that deals with expertise in editing Wikipedia, appears to be a distraction. IN any case, it should stick with one term for the subject editors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the slightly reworded version? (diff) Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: ===Shut this idea down and salt the mind it came from===
#Definitly shut it down, against the point of wikipedia--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the arguments for using experts? Doesn't Wikipedia already use experts? I think the status quo is that nobody gets recognition, expert or not. Should a section for arguments for expert recognition be worked into the essay? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Running straw poll

message: #Definitly shut it down, against the point of wikipedia--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shut this idea down and salt the mind it came from

message: I do not think this is likely to get anywhere, but there is a serious issue that on WP we have a tension between trying to be all inclusive and democratic, yet we want to get it accurate. The latter involves experts. I do not know how we do his. As an expert on some scientific areas, I am less than happy about most of the arguments for using experts, but use experts we must. How do we do that? --Bduke 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the arguments for using experts? Doesn't Wikipedia already use experts? I think the status quo is that nobody gets recognition, expert or not. Should a section for arguments for expert recognition be worked into the essay? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Has a little potential, but not worth the effort

message: *Recognizing people with extensive knowledge in a specific subject matter is only a benefit. Identifiable experts make it easier for one to seek collaborators on a specific project or an expert peer review for a specific page. The very fact that wikipedia is built on research and that you cannot become an expert of anything without spending extensive time researching/studying while developing such skills then it should be a no brainer for why such people will fit right in wikipedia. We're all people here and everyone loves being recognized for their devotion to their interests, therefore experts should feel welcomed and respected here, the same way they are in real life all for sake of wikipedia benefiting. I pity anybody that is clueless as to why a collaborative project devoted to the collection of knowledge would need experts and professionals. 74.13.88.201 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Has good potential, I hope somebody else works on it

message: *Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm working on this essay/project

message: I think spending time categorising users rather then working on the encyclopaedia itself would be a waste of resources to.  On a more basic level I don't think, from what I've read about the issue, it will go anyway to solve the problems of expert retention (which I assume is what it's designed to do).  It seems to me that the fundamental problem is a perceived, or real, lack of support for scientific views in scientific articles, and possibly other articles on academic subjects, when it is being disputed by views outside those views established by academia.  I don't believe ranking editors will really help with this.  If this is the problem that your trying to address perhaps setting up a place "experts" or people defending the scientific view can take problems for support and quick action, if necessary, would help more but this would need the support of a number of editors to work.  This probably isn't the response you wanted but I think it's great you’re trying to come up with a way of improving the situation, and so the encyclopaedia, I just don't think this is the right idea. --Kaly99 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is not the right approach.  If you're trying to encourage subject-matter experts to contribute more to Wikipedia (or stick around), giving them a meaningless badge is not the right approach.  If you're simply trying to bestow honorifics on editors, it's a bad, bad idea.  However, providing a place where such experts could go to get technical and policy advice and assistance would be a very good idea.--Father Goose 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments

message: Editors interested in this "Expert editors" page may care to look at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review and its three archives. If nothing else it demonstrates the difficulty in getting any kind of agreement about the role of experts, or the definition of experts. We are currently deciding whether to wind up that Project or not. --Bduke 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review|Scientific peer review]]

message: My definition of an "expert editor" is an editor who has experience in one or more scientific fields (they are not necessarily "experienced editors", who I would define as having experience in Wikipedia procedures and culture).
It is my personal opinion that "expert editors" should be granted a "reviewer" status that allows them to perform formal peer reviews of articles. I don't think that being an "expert editor" (okay, I promise to stop using the quotes) should grant anyone more authority on the project. However, from my experience, I have seen more than one occurrence when one or more otherwise-good Wikipedians have been extremely vicious to someone who identified themselves as an expert. This is not good.
Therefore, I simply recommend that a stronger community philosophy be enforced, and I suggest that this philosophy be that of bringing the encyclopedia to an even higher level of accuracy, precision, and comprehensivity. Obviously, expert editors going around boasting do not help this idea, and nor do other editors who bash them, tell them to "behave themselves and work in with our opinions", and — in effect — reject the principle of encyclopedic accuracy and Wikipedia culture.
Best regards to all,
— Thomas H. Larsen 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how it would be useful to have some editors in any field who have a thorough knowledge of the field, or even the subject. I would include societal subjects, like religion, music, anthropology, video games, and a huge number of other fields as well. Right now, there do seem to be WikiProjects for basically every subject out there. Maybe the best way to achieve this would be to have many of the major projects elect a "project reviewer", the same way some projects elect coordinators, who would be requested to be involved in regular review of articles related to that project. If we could get such respectable input from respected individuals, I think that might help matters quite a bit. John Carter 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that your suggestion — of WikiProjects electing a reviewer — is certainly worth looking into. In fact, they could even elect multiple reviewers if the project was very large. Alternatively, we could have a centralized system (say, on Wikipedia:Reviewing) where all reviewers were selected by the community on a page like Wikipedia:Requests for Reviewership or such by discussion and a final vote. I've got quite a nice system worked out, but it's on my home computer (which the computer I'm using to access the Internet isn't :/). I invite commentary on ideas for reviewing. Best wishes to all in the name of open source and running code, — Thomas H. Larsen 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are occasional, scattered, attempts at trying to set up what I hope would be inaccurately described as a kind of interproject system there. I know I've proposed inter-project review of A-class articles which would hopefully involve the projects most involved in a given article. Proposals there have a chance, but the completely voluntary nature of everything on wikipedia can create problems in this regard, and overloading reviewers would as well. It might be possible to ask some of the extant project coordinators to serve as "contacts" who might be able to assist in matters like this though. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a coincidental reference, or did you already read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Contacts page? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert editors, etc.