Talk:Professional

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A paragraph about professional conduct should be added.

Contents 1 Sports professionals 2 Wikipedia needs to be professional 3 reverting to remove professional categories 4 Definition

[edit] Sports professionals

I see no reason for this deletion. John Reid 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia needs to be professional

We need information about the professionalism of Wikipedia.

That really is not the place for it. MadMaxDog 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverting to remove professional categories

MadMaxDog, I am unhappy that you have removed these categories, which do indeed fit the definition. Social Workers and and Nurses are self-regulating (at least in the UK and I believe in a range of other countries). I am even more concerned that you have used revert which should really be reserved for vandalism

"Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith."

In the spirit of these guidelines I have not reverted your revert, but would like to persuade you that these catagories should be reinstated" Markoc 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I guess you are right. I was likely acting too fast while going through my watchlist late at night.

However, I somewhat disagree with your comment as to the use of reverts. Many, many, things get changed on articles which are clearly wrong or inappropriate or so badly sourced that they should not be in there. It is NOT good behaviour to simply let this stand in all cases, 'pending resolution'. You end up with articles that, at best, grow and grow with 'citation needed' tags. Sometimes, where possible, I do the research to clear it up, and in all cases I try to accompany my revert with explanations why. I also often (but admittedly not nealry always) explain my revert on an editor's talk page. Finally, I also see other people often use reverts on dubious (as opposed to bad-faith or vandalism) edits all the time, and will continue to do so. Cheers, MadMaxDog 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

The wording of the first part of the criteria in this section seems very insufficient for defining a profession. ("Criteria to include following categories: 1. Highest Academic Qualifications ie University College/Institute.")

How is "Highest Academic Qualifications" defined?

What is "highest" when there may be competing standards?

Does this imply that a person who may have a degree which is on a path to a further degree (for example, an MBA degree which can be followed by a PhD means that a person who obtains an MBA is not a professional because an MBA is not the "highest" academic qualification?

I feel this portion of the article needs to be reworded and is misleading to readers. — Mmathu (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)