[WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:34 PM 8/13/2009, wjhonson at 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.