[WikiEN-l] What is an "expert"?

[K P]

On 1/19/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/19/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/19/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at 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 at 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