In a message dated 8/14/2009 8:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
abd(a)lomaxdesign.com writes:
> 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.>>
---------------------
I'm glad you finally agree with me :)
Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together.
Anyone can find a source stating that "cats have retractable claws".
Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster.
I'm not really interested in an expert *explaining* anything to me. I'm
interested in that expert finding the souces that *back up* their words with
published third-party authorities.
If they can't do that function, then I agree that they should not be
editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was born
in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own
opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what
matters.
Will Johnson
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:35:46 EDT, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> This double-quoting to which you refer is a new "feature" of some mail
> readers.
> Cute isn't it? Not.
> It's hard for me to learn how to use it without pissing off sensitive types
> ;)
>
You've managed an even sillier style in some of your messages,
"double top posting", where you top-post your reply over a double
quote, first a trimmed quote of the part of the message you're
replying to, then a fullquote of the whole message.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
> editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
> explain it in the article?
It's quite possible to explain it to other people while being unable to explain
it to the specific other people who are complaining.
In other words: they can explain it to article readers because the article
readers are less biased and have less of an incentive to misunderstand than
the people on the talk page.
Because you keep assuming that the expert would say "this is so" and if
anyone asks how, they would say "believe me". But that is not how we
should be functioning.
The correct functioning would be that the expert would say "this is so"
and someone asks how and then the expert provide a source which states
what they claimed.
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.
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.
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>;
wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
the XML article
At 08:34 PM 8/13/2009, wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>"Please don't contentiously edit the article" applies to all editors,
>not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
>think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
>
>I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get community consensus to
>treat experts as having a WP:COI If a conflict-of-interest means
>"you're smart we don't want smart people" than we're really sunk.
Absolutely that is not what it means. It means that we want "smart
people" to *advise us,* not control us. By the way, on the subjects I
care about, this would mean absolutely no contentious editing in the
article, but more serious participation in Talk, because I would
claim expertise, enough to take me out of the neutral editor category.
Experts aren't neutral! (not usually, anyway, where there is
significant controversy). However, they know what we need to know in
order to determine neutral text.
How in the world would I gain a community consensus for a stupid idea?
Okay, "applies to all editors." Come on, great theory, absolutely not
common practice where controversy exists! Not contentiously editing
would mean 0RR or 1RR. But there would be rapid mechanisms for a
declared expert to get help.
The point is to both clearly respect, and make that real, and, at the
same time, contain expertise.
What we have now is experts owning articles, sometimes. It can get
very ugly, in both directions, it depends on how popular the expert
is. We block and ban them, or we enable their ownership, both happen.
A judge who happens to be an expert in a controversial field where
there is significant controversy would likely recuse if a case
involving that field arose.... It is, indeed, the opposite of what we
might think at first.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> 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.
The idea that a badge of honor results in a restriction is contrary to what
most people think of as a badge of honor.
Like the argument "a block isn't a punishment", calling a restriction by a
nicer name and pretending it isn't a restriction isn't going to fool anyone,
and may only discourage more people as they now see that not only are you
adding dubious restrictions, you're trying to lie about them.
> 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 an attack because it allows you to limit their activities in a way that
you could not if they didn't have a COI. In other words, it's treated as an
attack because it functions just like one.
You're not going to get anywhere by pretending it's not something that it is.
Erik Moeller, Fri Aug 7 00:59:55 UTC 2009:
>The Polish Wikipedia has hacked together a neat little pop-up tool for
>reporting errors in articles. To see it, go to
We on it.wiki have considered this possibility, too. The aim is to
explain people that they can actually get things fixed (maany don't
understand that they can press "edit"...).
However, pl.wiki doesn't seem to have received a great feedback, so far.
The volume is similar to the one of it.wikitionary, which uses a
different system: see a random page:
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Speciale:PaginaCasuale
All feedbacks are collected here:
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikizionario:Feedback
Well, I see that en.wiktionary does the same, but you have to logout:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Random
Nemo
At 08:48 PM 8/13/2009, Carcharoth wrote:
>It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
>"ignorant" editors who "don't know what they are talking about", and
>requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
>tell both lots to edit based on reliable sources, not from their own
>authority.
If you are telling others that you understand the topic better than
they do, because of your expertise, then, I'm saying, we should
accept that, taking it in good faith, *and* require you to write
strictly from sources, though in Talk you may explain more deeply.
Experts can actually be dangerous, even with strict sourcing
requirements, because, if they are truly experts, they know the
sources and can cherry-pick more effectively to support their own POV.
The other aspect is that experts often will insist on "perfectly
accurate" text, and what it takes to do that can make the text so
cumbersome, with the rare exceptions covered in every statement, with
technical language preferred, to avoid what they will see as
ambiguity, that the article becomes unreadable to a non-expert. We
have some articles like that, they are impenetrable unless you
already know the subject.
To reach a general audience, an article on a relatively abstruse
subject must approach the subject carefully, building up
understanding from what is most simple at the first, into what covers
the exceptions and the details.
Experts can make sure that true errors don't make it into the text.
Ordinary editors can make sure that it is understandable, and, when
there is conflict among experts, resolve the conflicts. Conflict
among sources is tricky; often, I've seen, when there appears to be
conflict among the highest quality reliable sources, i.e.,
peer-reviewed secondary sources, the conflict isn't actually in the
sources, it is in our interpretations of them. At least in the hard sciences.
I really shouldn't be writing here.... but this struck me.
"Please don't contentiously edit the article" applies to all editors,
not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get community consensus to
treat experts as having a WP:COI If a conflict-of-interest means
"you're smart we don't want smart people" than we're really sunk.
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
the XML article
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?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just the opposite.
We want experts to edit the controversial bits.
Do you really want a swarm of amateurs who have little-to-no basis in
the field being the sole people editing the most contentious portions?
That just sounds upside-down to me.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing
the XML article
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
>Lomax<abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>
> > we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
> > respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
> > expertise and we want them to advise us.
>
>Nothing says "we respect your expertise" like a short-term block :o)
The short block is down the line from warnings for incivility. I'm
claiming we should expect POV-pushing from experts. So, unless it's
not controversial, experts shouldn't edit articles! As long as the
expert behaves, no problem. And experts sometimes have a lot to say.
No harassment for writing too much. Ahem. But talk page refactoring,
organization, lots of stuff to do....
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l