Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
Marc Riddell
On 19/01/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What is your definition of an "expert"? Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
My first approximation, off the top of my head: Someone who knows their given field and can show they are regarded as someone who knows said field.
The second part is of some importance. Cranks are often highly-credentialed but their crankery is not respected even if other things they know are. e.g. William Shockley, the usually-credited inventor of the transistor, knew all about electronics, but his work on racial differences in intelligence is considerably less regarded.
- d.
On 1/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Someone who knows their given field and can show they are regarded as someone who knows said field.
By this definition "expert" and "recognized expert" are mutually the same, i.e. mutual backlslapping is the key.
nobs
Marc Riddell wrote:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
1) Someone with academic training and/or credentials in a given field.
2) One with significant demonstrated knowledge in a subject.
It's a rather fluid term given the subject matter that's involved, though. To be a law "expert," you almost certainly need legal training. To become an expert on a specific subject (like, say, a film or a sports team), it may simply involve having done significant research on it.
-Jeff
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
Marc Riddell
Someone who is passionately interested in and committed to learning everything (from anyone) about their field. This person would be a life-long learner who stays abreast of current events in their field, and can explain their field to anyone. For example, Albert Einstein was an expert. So was Carl Sagan. The "Brief History of Time" guy in the wheelchair (I'm blanking on his name) is an expert. Bill Gates is not an expert, but Steve Jobs might be one. Annie Sprinkle is an expert. bell hooks is an expert. For gemstones, I'm an expert.
I said 'their field' three times in one post. I either haven't had enough coffee or I've had too much.
Marc Riddell wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Tough one. You have people who know a lot about a subject, and then you have people who have certificates which say they know a lot about a subject. Sometimes the two sets intersect. Especially with the set "people who like to talk hold forth on their areas of perceived expertise". :)
Seriously, this is what people are still quibbling over at Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No-one can agree a formula whereby people which would allow people whom we would consider experts in the field of the arts but disbar people we wouldn't consider experts in the sciences. The problem is that opinion is fair game in the arts but not in the sciences.
Steve block
On 1/19/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Tough one. You have people who know a lot about a subject, and then you have people who have certificates which say they know a lot about a subject. Sometimes the two sets intersect. Especially with the set "people who like to talk hold forth on their areas of perceived expertise". :)
Seriously, this is what people are still quibbling over at Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No-one can agree a formula whereby people which would allow people whom we would consider experts in the field of the arts but disbar people we wouldn't consider experts in the sciences. The problem is that opinion is fair game in the arts but not in the sciences.
Steve block
Opinion is important in the sciences, but there are testable hypothesies and theories, and working standard models for engineering and the like.
Lack of competency in the standard models would be a disqualifier as an expert in sciences or engineering. Some experts in the research community would also be pushing the envelope (professionally doing original research) but would still be expected to be fluent in the common standard models for the field.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:21 -0500, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
"X", the unknown quantity, plus "spurt", a drip under pressure.
Guy (JzG)
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
It's a difficult question, I think in part because there are two definitions of 'expert' which are related but distinct.
I offer myself as an example: I am an undergraduate student of mathematics. I've completed all of the undergraduate courses required for a B.S., and a few graduate courses as well.
Am I an expert? Probably not. There are many people with much more knowledge than I have about math; in particular, most everyone with a higher-level degree, and most people who work with particular subsets of math in other fields.
But, do I have a large amount of /expert knowledge/? Indeed I do. I've studied things that you probably wouldn't learn without specifically trying to learn them. I probably know more about combinatorial designs and rook theory than any hundred random people off the street. Probably some of those hundred would know more than I do about history, or languages, or welding, or any number of other topics.
So, the question that remains is: at what point does a person stop simply having expert knowledge, and become an expert? I don't know the answer to that; perhaps there is some invisible line that reads 'experts only past this point.' Certainly one standard would be that a person is an expert if other people consider them an expert: it's a good approximation of the system we use, I'd say. Whether it's a good system, I'll leave for others to decide.
Tracy Poff
On 1/19/07, Tracy Poff tracy.poff@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
It's a difficult question, I think in part because there are two definitions of 'expert' which are related but distinct.
I offer myself as an example: I am an undergraduate student of mathematics. I've completed all of the undergraduate courses required for a B.S., and a few graduate courses as well.
Am I an expert? Probably not. There are many people with much more knowledge than I have about math; in particular, most everyone with a higher-level degree, and most people who work with particular subsets of math in other fields.
But, do I have a large amount of /expert knowledge/? Indeed I do. I've studied things that you probably wouldn't learn without specifically trying to learn them. I probably know more about combinatorial designs and rook theory than any hundred random people off the street. Probably some of those hundred would know more than I do about history, or languages, or welding, or any number of other topics.
[[Rook theory]]? Hmm..it's not even linked to! Please add some stubs for us benighted ones.
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
Someone who, if they get involved in editing subjects on Wikipedia in which they have expertise, will get quickly exasperated by the process.
On 1/19/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Someone who, if they get involved in editing subjects on Wikipedia in which they have expertise, will get quickly exasperated by the process.
That doesn't take into account exasperated crackpot theorists.
On 1/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Someone who, if they get involved in editing subjects on Wikipedia in which they have expertise, will get quickly exasperated by the process.
That doesn't take into account exasperated crackpot theorists.
True, it's not an IFF definition.
On 1/19/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
Someone who, if they get involved in editing subjects on Wikipedia in which they have expertise, will get quickly exasperated by the process.
Counterpoint:
For the purposes of debate, I'm going to claim pseudo-Expert status in the fields of IT operations and systems architecture (general), spaceflight (general), reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles (particular), space policy and alt.space (particular), ships and naval architecture (general), and nuclear weapons.
Of these, we've had WP "annoying edit frustration" problems with one survey article in spaceflight ( [[Space Exploration]], resolved), an image copyright issue with shipbuilding articles, and nuclear weapons being a moderately popular vandalism target.
All the stuff that's frustrated me has been in other fields, where I wouldn't think I'm an expert by any reasonable definition.
An Expert who actually understands Wikipedia and how to write for general audiences and reference things, and is working in areas which aren't WP or general community hot-button items, shouldn't have too many problems. Problems do come up - an expert who understands both the field and Wikipedia will not have to resort to "Because I said so"; they will have the resources and knowledge to locate and cite sources and engage in an informational Talk page discussion and show mistaken non-experts the error of their ways.
An Expert who doesn't know how to interact with the general public in general, or WP in particular, will possibly have a worse time. But I think no more so than if they were having to explain things in social or professional circles to people outside the field. Until you figure out how to explain things to laymen, life can be frustrating, but that's not WP specific at all.
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This
question is
for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers,
simply
state your own.
Someone who, if they get involved in editing subjects on Wikipedia in
which
they have expertise, will get quickly exasperated by the process.
Counterpoint:
For the purposes of debate, I'm going to claim pseudo-Expert status in the fields of IT operations and systems architecture (general), spaceflight (general), reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles (particular), space policy and alt.space (particular), ships and naval architecture (general), and nuclear weapons.
Of these, we've had WP "annoying edit frustration" problems with one survey article in spaceflight ( [[Space Exploration]], resolved), an image copyright issue with shipbuilding articles, and nuclear weapons being a moderately popular vandalism target.
All the stuff that's frustrated me has been in other fields, where I wouldn't think I'm an expert by any reasonable definition.
I was being a bit facetious, as I hope people would recognize.
On 1/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This
question is
for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers,
simply
state your own.
Someone who, if they get involved in editing subjects on Wikipedia in
which
they have expertise, will get quickly exasperated by the process.
Counterpoint:
For the purposes of debate, I'm going to claim pseudo-Expert status in the fields of IT operations and systems architecture (general), spaceflight (general), reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles (particular), space policy and alt.space (particular), ships and naval architecture (general), and nuclear weapons.
Of these, we've had WP "annoying edit frustration" problems with one survey article in spaceflight ( [[Space Exploration]], resolved), an image copyright issue with shipbuilding articles, and nuclear weapons being a moderately popular vandalism target.
All the stuff that's frustrated me has been in other fields, where I wouldn't think I'm an expert by any reasonable definition.
An Expert who actually understands Wikipedia and how to write for general audiences and reference things, and is working in areas which aren't WP or general community hot-button items, shouldn't have too many problems. Problems do come up - an expert who understands both the field and Wikipedia will not have to resort to "Because I said so"; they will have the resources and knowledge to locate and cite sources and engage in an informational Talk page discussion and show mistaken non-experts the error of their ways.
An Expert who doesn't know how to interact with the general public in general, or WP in particular, will possibly have a worse time. But I think no more so than if they were having to explain things in social or professional circles to people outside the field. Until you figure out how to explain things to laymen, life can be frustrating, but that's not WP specific at all.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
An expert is someone who can explain everything they think they know about their field to others, including laymen and experts in their own and related fields, well enough to impart a WORKING knowledge of the field to those others--obviously if you teach cartography to a layman versus if you teach your theory of using GPS for mapping fossils to a geologist, the working knowledge the layman takes away (being able to read your maps) is different from the working knowledge your fellow scientist takes away (being able to create maps similar to yours, although possibly not theoretically develop related ideas of mapping).
And if you can also write a college level textbook on your subject that passes critical review and is bought by your colleagues to teach their classes, you're probably an expert.
And if you can then explain the concepts in your textbook to a lay audience in a 2 minute blurb on the evening news, you might also be a scientist.
Knowledge not shared is called a secret, not science.
I think much of this would apply to experts in other fields, but there are rigorous differences for the sciences that may not apply to the humanities or such. In the humanities there are bodies of knowledge (literary criticism) that seem designed for the experts alone, whereas in the sciences this is not so much the case, no matter your personal inexpertise with quantum mechanics.
KP
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:21 -0500 To: "Wiki-EN-L (new topics)" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] What is an "expert"?
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
Marc Riddell
In my case, I don¹t work with a single definition of the word ³expert²; in too many contexts it is divisive and elitist. That is why, when I must use it for any reason, I enclose it in quotes (no, I don¹t use air quotes when I speak it, George Carlin broke me of that).
Rather, my focus is on the material that may be in question. If that material is in my field, and it is counter to what I have learned in the past, I know where, and to whom, to go for verification.
If that material is in a field I know a little bit about, and the statement(s) don¹t jive with what I¹ve learned in the past, I go to other source(s) and check them out.
If it is in a field I know absolutely nothing about and I am wanting to apply what it is telling me to someone or something in my own life I read many sources.
My beliefs regarding the word ³expert² were further strengthened recently when a person on CNN was introduced as a ³personal safety expert². I didn¹t know whether they were a bodyguard, a crossing guard, or someone who designed condoms. After the interview was over I still didn¹t know. :-)
Perspective.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Please, for now, try to resist responding to the others' answers, simply state your own.
The first place that I looked at for help on this was my 1816 11th edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary. What surprised me was to see that it appears there only as an adjective. Its use as a noun came later in the 19th century. That being said the shortening of "expert person" to simply "expert" is a common linguistic phenomenon.
"Expert" comes from the Latin 'expertus', the past participle of 'experior', meaning 'to try." "Experience" and "experiment" have the same origon. The general tone of the word suggests an acquisition of skills through practice and experience. An interesting usage from Francis Bacon: "Expert men can execute and judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs come best from those that are learnèd." Or Oliver Goldsmith: "The sceptic is ever expert ast puzzling a debate which he finds himself unable to continue."
From this it would be inappropriate to suggest that a person is an expert by the simple expedient of having sat an exam or completed a course of certification. At bare minimum a physician needs to have interned, and a lawyer to have articled. Even then it would be too easy to fall into presumptuous folly. Book learning alone does not produce an expert.
Ec
On 21/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The first place that I looked at for help on this was my 1816 11th edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary. What surprised me was to see that it appears there only as an adjective.
According to my copy of W. Peacock's version of the Dictionary (fifth edition, London, 1797), it is an adjective meaning "skilful, intelligent, ready". Well, we have a great number of /ready/ contributors, that's for sure...