On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxabd@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)
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxabd@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)
Sadly, I think enthusiasm for accusations is likely to lead to COI being overused against experts. What is required to establish COI in our sense is a sustained demonstration that they have an agenda in editing that is clearly at odds with the encyclopedia's best interests. Not that they can't guess where lines someone else is drawing for the playing area run.
Charles
*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.
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.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomaxabd@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)
Sadly, I think enthusiasm for accusations is likely to lead to COI being overused against experts. What is required to establish COI in our sense is a sustained demonstration that they have an agenda in editing that is clearly at odds with the encyclopedia's best interests. Not that they can't guess where lines someone else is drawing for the playing area run.
Charles
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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?