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?