Wikipedia:Expert editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "consensus support is not present...whether there is active discussion or not."

Shortcut: WP:EE WP:EXPERT

Expert editors are of great value for Wikipedia because of their in-depth knowledge of subjects matter and are explicitly invited to contribute to Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales stated, in an article published in Nature:

Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect", says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. "Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way," he says.^[1]

On the other hand, Wikipedia is The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it does not make a distinction between editors based on their expertise. Wikipedia has no formal structure to determine which editors are experts or not (and on which subjects), nor is there the intention to develop such a structure; nor does Wikipedia grant users privileges based on subject-matter expertise. This philosophy has resulted in public criticism of Wikipedia suggesting that the encyclopedia is hostile to experts, and accusing the encyclopedia of anti-elitism. One noted critic who has offered public comment along these lines is Larry Sanger, the former editor-in-chief of Nupedia. ^[2].

This guideline seeks to clarify Wikipedia policies with regard to expert editors, and their role in the Wikipedia community.

[edit] General

1. Subject-matter experts, on any encyclopedic subject whatever, are encouraged to edit Wikipedia, and to contribute material on their area(s) of expertise. Experts generally have advantages, both (a) in locating sources for articles (from their familiarity with the literature) and (b) in understanding the material in sufficient breadth and depth to write a good article. The coverage of subjects in the popular press is not necessarily up to date with the recent technical or academic literature (see also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
2. No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies concerning acceptability of contributions; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources still apply. Unsourced "expert opinion" and unpublished conjecture have no place in an encyclopedia.
3. Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.
4. Wikipedia does not grant additional powers to subject-matter experts; Wikipedia does not have a process for determining (a) who is a bona-fide expert and on what subject(s), and (b) in which articles a given expert should have privileges. Given that many editors post pseudonymously, and that it may be difficult or impossible to verify the identity, credentials or experience of an editor who posts under his or her real name (or claims to do so), vetting users as experts would open a can of worms.
5. In discussions with expert editors, lay editors are encourages to use experts as a new source of information. Expert editors often edit at Wikipedia for a limited time, after which lay "resident" editors will do the maintenance of those articles. Knowing why things are written as they are by the experts will facilitate future discussions.
6. Despite claims to the contrary from Wikipedia critics, experts (or other editors) do not need to appeal to Wikipedia mediators and/or arbitrators in order to remove patent nonsense from the encyclopedia. Unsourced claims which are challenged can easily be removed, and attempts to deliberately insert misinformation into the encyclopedia, especially when contradicted by reliable sources, are treated as vandalism.

[edit] Suggestions for expert editors

1. Experts can identify themselves on their user page and list whatever credentials and/or experience they wish to publicly divulge. It is difficult to maintain a claim of expertise while being anonymous.
2. Editing an article in Wikipedia is not like writing an original research article for a scientific journal; instead, it should be a solid review of the subject as a whole. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research - even if it is brilliant. Wikipedia's No original research policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. However, this may only be done when the editor is sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and his material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done.
3. Expert editors are highly encouraged to locate and join the WikiProjects concerning their areas of expertise. WikiProjects help articles on related subjects to be coordinated and edited by a group of identified interested parties. All editors are free to join any WikiProject which they are interested in.
4. Experts do not have any other privileges in resolving edit conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. 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.
5. Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's research, writings, or discoveries. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.

[edit] References

1. ^ Nature special report
2. ^ Larry Sanger editorial on Kuro5hin