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

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:49 AM 8/14/2009, wjhonson at aol.com wrote:

>An expert editor is not a source, the have to edit using sources, just
>like anyone else does.  Their personal opinions have and should have
>nothing to do with building articles neutrally.  Neutrality is not the
>result of a single editor, it is the emergent condition of the cloud
>editing concept.  The final result of hundreds of edits by a dozen
>editors is neutral.

This is completely correct, it is basic wikitheory. However, it can 
also be seen as highly inefficient, especially when the process 
continues, and the continued process can seriously burn out experts. 
It works, there is no doubt about that, *unless there is controversy 
in the field." In which case something more may be needed. The 
*final* result of *thousands* of edits can be far from neutral, and, 
if it attains some kind of stability, it may be because we start 
banning disagreement. But it won't attain stability, in fact, there 
will be frequent objection. Frequent objection is a sign (not a 
proof!) of lack of neutrality.

>If an "expert" cannot provide an adequate source for something they are
>claiming, then they are not an expert at all.  Just a pseudo-expert.

No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how 
they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this, 
and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts won't 
want to put in that work, because, after all, they know the fact so 
well. So we get the best results with interaction between experts and 
non-experts.

>Perhaps if you gave a concrete example from a specific article it might
>help to see to what you're referring and how to address the issue.

I agree that it would help. Unfortunately, I'm an expert and don't 
have time to explain..... I'm just advising here, not trying to control. :-)

Eventually, great idea, I'll do it if I can.