[WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:41 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some
>may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case).  For something to
>be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person
>has a strong opinion on it, or a history of deep knowledge of the topic.

That's right. I proposed that we *treat* self-proclaimed experts as 
having a COI, i.e., the same basic rules. A badge of honor, not a 
shame. No more arguments about whether a situation is a real COI or 
not. You claim to be an expert, please don't contentiously edit the article.

You claim to be an expert, fine. We will listen to your advice, we 
will check the sources you provide us, we will assist you in every way.

If you don't claim to be an expert, but you have a true COI, and 
don't disclose it, well, that's Not Nice.

People with a true COI usually have *some* level of expertise, they 
will be familiar with the topic, the sources, the news, or the like. 
So we recruit them as advisors.


>Rather it requires that they are something close and personal to *gain*
>  from editing it in some particular fashion.  And that that gain can't
>simply be academic acclaim or high-fiving from their peers.  Rather
>that would be considered the normal rational response to a great
>article.
>
>Trying to position WP:COI as a way to attack experts merely for
>participating in the writing of articles about their field would be
>suicidal to the project.

It's a way to *protect* experts, not attack them. Treating "as COI" 
isn't an attack at all. Right now, "COI" is often used as a attack.

It's a reframe, but I certainly don't have time to write more about 
it. Do I hear sighs of relief?