Wikipedia:Expert editors: Difference between revisions

{{redirect|WP:EXPERT|page about retaining expert editors|WP:Expert retention}}{{redirect|WP:EX|the external links guideline|WP:EXT}}

# Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.

# Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts. Wikipedia does not have a process for determining (a) who is a bona fide expert and on what subject(s), and (b) in which articles a given expert should edit. Given that many editors, including experts, post pseudonymously, vetting users as experts (identity, credentials or experience) is not practical, even though it is technically feasible to verify a user's identitiesidentity if disclosed.

# Despite claims to the contrary from Wikipedia critics, experts (or other editors) do ''not'' need to appeal to Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators to remove [[WP:PN|patent nonsense]] from the encyclopedia. Unsourced claims which are challenged can easily be removed, though they may be reinserted later by others.

# A bit more on "credentialism" -— authors of scholarly works are listed on the work, and the authority of authors matters a great deal to readers. In Wikipedia, there are no listed authors. The only authority for content, is what sources say, and the [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]] under which we summarize them and work together. In its early days Wikipedia did stray into accepting the authority of editors, which led to the [[Essjay controversy]]. Since then the community has rigorously adhered to the principle that it doesn't matter who you are or who you say you are -— what matters is the quality of the sources you bring and of your edits summarizing those sources, and how well you work with others. You will gain a reputation here, but it will be based solely on what you do here.

# Editing an article in Wikipedia is similar in some ways to writing an article for an academic journal and different in others. As with a [[literature review]] article you need to provide a solid review of the subject as a whole, accurately ''summarizing'' what other published reviews say. But be careful not to add your own [[WP:OR|interpretation]] or [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] of the topic. Support all factual statements with citations in much the same way as required for a journal article. Wikipedia is not a place to publish [[WP:NOR|original research]], nor your own [[WP:SYN|synthesis of the research literature]]. The genre here is "[[encyclopedia]]"—each article is meant to provide "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject".

# Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. "Because I say so" or "because I have a PhD from Harvard" or "I wrote the most-used textbook in this field" are never an acceptable justificationjustifications for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. All editors, whether they are expert editors or high school graduates must cite [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for all claims. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits and the reliable sources upon which they are based that counts.

# {{highlight|Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential [[Wikipedia:conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about herself/himselfthemself|cornsilk}}. Wikipedia's [[WP:SELFCITE|conflict of interest]] policyguideline ''does'' allow an editor to include information from his or hertheir own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and their material has been published in a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia [[Wikipedia: Consensus|consensus]], rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's [[Wikipedia:talk page|talk page]] and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.

* [[WikipediaHelp:RelationshipsWikipedia editing withfor non-academic editorsexperts]]

* [[Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, andmedical academicsexperts]]

==Further readingSee also ==