User talk:LinaMishima/Experts Problem

I edited this to reflect my belief that the problem is not just about subject matter experts, but about good editors generally, i.e. those who understand how to put together a good balanced article from scratch. Dbuckner 09:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

Please can people remember that proposed solutions should be based directly on the detailed discussion of a problem. The section should not be used speculatively, as this will only hinder the goals of this article. We must follow the good practice we want others to follow, logically stating a subject before attempting to draw conclusions. All existing statements that appear to be more speculative have been moved off the article to a subpage (that is linked to). LinaMishima 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence to support these claims

It's fairly important that there is good evidence to back up these claims, otherwise this turns into another whingeing and moaning page. The links given on Hillman's page, some of which I reproduced in the reference section, I strongly recommend following up. There are other links there to surveys on edit creep, some statistics and so on. Dbuckner 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. LinaMishima 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PS See the expert rebel list for some fine additions (eminent neurologist). His story is well worth it. Dbuckner 07:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Generalization

I’ve read many articles and usually follow up reading the discussions on the subject. If I feel in the discussion, I have valuable input, then yes I speak my mind. Consequently pop shot comebacks keep coming, complaining about wasting a scholar’s time, and how common individuals have no business expressing their garbage (expressed in hidden agenda). So if the message I’m getting that Wikipeada is only for bookworms with some degree in some profession then why is it open to the general public. Another issue to consider is how we deal with vandals by provoking them with statements that show anger (making the problem worse-by fueling their motives). I have not received any suspicions on my talk page, which leads me to believe that I am accepted. That’s my conformation that I’m doing the right thing.Kisida 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On why leaving is a cop-out

I think that, to some extent, we're dealing with two different sets of problems here. The problem ikkyu2 has with edit creep, that is, uninformed/misinformed/malformed edits degrading article quality, is one that I don't see as a long-term problem. As we enact tighter controls and some form of article stabilization, it will be easy to look over a swath of recent edits and decide whether they increase or decrease the quality of an article; misinformation, rather than achieving NPOV, is the primary problem with epilepsy and similar topics.

The philosophers (a large portion of the list so far) are complaining about something fundamentally different: fighting against consensus or dealing with a lack of consensus, especially on topics where non-expert editors/groups have a strong interest. It is on topics like these where I think the "expert rebellion" takes the wrong attitude. We need to accept that NPOV requires that room be made for the vocal minorities. Wikipedia articles on controversial topics should be considered a success if they help to move the popular view—the cultural baseline, if you will—a little closer in line with expert viewpoints; holding fast to an expert viewpoint in spite of widespread opinion to the contrary is a losing endeavor, but compromise and a strict commitment to presenting and attributing opposing viewpoints has overall been very successful. A good way to measure progress is not to compare your chosen article to whichever version you last fixed, but to compare the current version to the one from a year ago. Consensus does not equal truth, but the great potential of Wikipedia is the bring the consensus closer to the truth.

When experts simply throw up their hands in frustration and leave Wikipedia, this is essentially abandoning the effort to reach out beyond the academy and actually make expert knowledge relevant. The failure to do so is one of the main causes of the amateur rebellion that has been going on for far longer (in society in general, not just on Wikipedia) than the current "expert rebellion." It's hard to deal with some of the headaches of dealing with people who don't know what they're talking about, but putting up well-documented information from expert sources does make a long-term difference, and edit creep/POV-pushing only partly undoes the work good editors do. If anything an expert does stands up to edit creep and becomes part of the new consensus, his/her time on Wikipedia has not been a waste.--ragesoss 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental assumption behind your point is flawed. Edit creep is mostly caused by registered and established, and largely well-meaning editors who are incapable of editing. Simple as that. The evidence is that all the good articles are written by a small number of good editors (perhaps not experts - I deliberately use the phrase 'good editor'). Dbuckner 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Which fundamental assumption are you referrring to? For the well-meaning but inept degradation of articles type of edit creep, I don't claim that it's not a problem. But it's a problem with some solutions in the works; particularly, once there is support for stable versions, it will be much easier to maintain articles that are merely the subjects of inept editing. And that kind of edit creep generally doesn't generally destroy the valid information in an article or lead to edit wars, it just destroys the style and coherency. The more long-term problem is the type of edit creep (if we want to call it that) you complain about below (also by well-meaning and sometimes well established and even "good" editors) for articles like intelligent design. I believe these are fundamentally NPOV conflicts; one of the main reasons intelligent design is such a problem article is that many readers and editors don't see their viewpoints treated adequately, and the regular editors who control the article seem committed to (at least implicitly) maintaining a Scientific rather than Neutral POV. The goal of NPOV is to create an article where all sides can agree that their own views are adequately represented; for the most problematic articles, the defenders of the mainstream views are so zealous in fighting what they see as pseudoscience that a Wikipedia-style NPOV is never achieved.--ragesoss 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'fundamental assumption' is that it is only "uninformed/misinformed/malformed edits" that are degrading article quality. The real problem is edits by those who do not understand where a particular thought belongs in a particular article, or whether it belongs there at all. I don't understand the expression "malformed edits" by the way. Dbuckner 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true, the larger and more complex an article gets, the harder it is to edit it piecemeal (often even for people who are highly capable in other contexts). Maybe we need to do more to encourage spinoffs for large articles. My malformed edits, I meant just this kind; edits that don't make sense in the overall context of the article.--ragesoss 16:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In many respects you have a good point, and that is the aim of this article, to try and prevent the leaving and to encourage active contribution. There are a number of related underlying problems, not with wikipedia but with society itself. Journalists often misinterpret the traditional goal of a balanced viewpoint to mean giving both sides, no matter how much merit, an equal ammount of air time - but this only ends up implying that both sides are infact equally wieghted. The scientific community itself has a similar problem often shouting down rather than embracing extremists. This, obviously only leads to an idea of a conspiracy, when infact the goal most of them seek is to accept all arguements and to judge them on merit. In theory, educating people about the scientific way and encouraging everyone to use it should be the goal, and if the evidence turns up to support another argument, the scientific community should shift to agree with where the evidence lies.

However it truely isn't that simple, and that is where the problems with missinformation lies. Many of these people spreading such things and devotedly attempting to enforce their views upon an article have grown up thinking that their opinion on such matters is right because TV says so, because their pastor says so, because their parents say so, and so on. About the only hope of engauging these people to help improve the community is via an intensive program of working with them, with someone they will listen to and they will find respect for. You only find such people rising out of the scientific community once per generation or so. Here on wikipedia they are free to safely bash queers or evolution as they wish (random examples from the top of my head, not specific). And in doing so, whilst the general consensus may begin to swing in a good way, more people will be exposed to unhelpful information, and wikipedia will be more discredited.

You have to remember, most people who read wikipedia don't understand the idea of bias, or of reasoned evalution of research material. This is a true shame, but not one we can easily fix from within wikipedia.

You're right, leaving isn't the answer. We need good editors to stay on and help us here - that's the whole point of this article, really. But simply asking them to stay on as is isn't an answer, either - it's much akin to sticking heads into the sand.

My experience of using Lupin's filtered recient changes list has me doing about a revert of vandalism a minute. yes, discussions are happening on how to reduce vandalism - and I don't see how documenting deeper the problems it causes can at all harm these or hinder the development of anti-vandal features.

Edit creep (which, in my opinion, is a poor descriptive title for the problem) is, as you say, mostly an issue of misinformation. The problems emerge when people try to discuss such things, and those spreading misinformation begin to argue, often with a mob mentality behind them. This very much is the social issue of wikipedia, that in using 'soft security', many people can end up being quite foul to each other before anyone starts to step in and tell them to cool it.

It's worth noting that is problem with social interactions is not just limited to misinformation followers - I've flicked through edit logs of some experts and seen them act in an appauling manner, failing to try and embrace the other side, to try and seem friendly and welcoming, to try and help them explain their issues with enough reason as to become listened to. This may sound like a lot of work, but it saves many months more trouble later. That, in many respects, is the greatest contribution anyone can make to wikipedia. Not the creation of new articles, not adding references or images, not removing cruft articles and not dealing with vandalism. Quite simply, the greatest contribution to wikipedia is teaching others how to get along, how to use reason and logic, and how to respect their use by others. LinaMishima 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with you here. I think adding and improving articles is more important than talk page teaching, simply because the editors (whom one can personally teach) are outnumbered massively by non-editing users. But effective talk page engagement is certainly crucial as well. But the vandalism problem is, IMHO, a short-term problem. Once the new German system gets ported here (which seems like a near-certainty in the medium term), a large portion of the vandalism problem will simply disappear. The soft security, though, is crucial for the continued growth and improvement of Wikipedia. When you only look at anon edits, the current system seems like a clear failure; the proportion of good edits is small (though significant). But you also have to consider that many of the good anons go on to become good or great registered editors; vandalism is a transient problem, but the contributions of former anons are extremely valuable.

By dividing the problem into misinformation and disagreement over NPOV, I don't mean to suggest (for example) that scientific issues are in the former category while philosophy topics are in the latter. But the scientific topics that are controversial and subject to POV-pushing (as opposed to the problems ikkyu2 describes regarding the epilepsy article) typically have significant social/cultural components as well as issues of fact. Part of the problem is that experts want to treat these articles as solely scientific issues, or to artificially divide the scientific from the social, when the best approach would be to deal with both aspects and the ways they do and do not interact (as the social science and humanities experts who study these issues do). Editors who do not understand the difference between NPOV and a Scientific POV, or do not understand/agree that NPOV (a superset of SPOV) is preferable, are bound to be frustrated—and in some cases, we may be better off without them. The journalistic "equal time" model is severely flawed, but so is the overzealous use of the "undue weight" clause of NPOV policy to excise the viewpoints of small but vocal minorities (which is certainly not the way to create a stronger consensus or move the cultural baseline forward). When NPOV is working properly, minority/crank views can be described (even if this means giving somewhat more article space than the proportional support of those views) along with the consensus or majority take on those views.

Editors are only free to bash gays or evolution (or whatever) insofar as they are free to make any edit they want. But for the most part, these things will be reverted, and if the behavior continues, other editors will engage with them about it. Editors are not free to change article for the long-term with such simple-minded bias. The problem comes with more complex challenges, where the cranks and POV-pushers (note that these are relative terms; being a POV-pushing crank doesn't necessarily make one wrong ) have an intellectual framework (and likely a cultural framework as well) for backing their disagreement with the mainstream, even if the flaws in that framework seem obvious to experts. In these cases, the opposing viewpoints need to all be presented, even if expert opinion is firmly or even unanimously against the minority (or perhaps in some cases, majority) view.--ragesoss 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but why has nobody commented on the absurdity of the title of this section? Should experts (or anyone else for that matter) be expected to increase the time they put into WP when it becomes apparent that their efforts are fruitless? Isn't it an unquestionably bad thing, when the best way to win is to put a whole lot more time and effort into arguing? Let's face it - in many (most?) cases, experts cannot prevail due to their superior numbers, nor can they usually rely on a huge surplus of free time. I can understand why many people leave when they learn just how much time it can take to defend against cranks, vandals, and POV-pushers. Especially considering that there are other venues in which to share knowledge. My Alt Account 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit creep

Let's be clear about the definition of 'edit creep'. It is: the tendency of articles to get worse through time because of piecemeal editing.

• Piecemeal editing. Piecemeal editing is placing a thought in a part of an article where it doesn't belong. It arises from failure to understand that an article is not a list of facts, but needs connective tissue or thread. The vast majority of edits consist in minor additions or deletions. For example see the Organon article. I slapped a clean-up order on this ages ago, but you see people are still making piecemeal alterations to prose that should have been deleted. " It is difficult to craft an article in its entirety when reading it piecemeal, and, given Wikipedians’ obsession with racking up edits, simple fixes often take priority over more complex edits." (Stacy Schiff). Piecemeal editing causes edit creep: articles that had a chance of being good, turn into rubbish.

There are four kinds of users that good editors (i.e. those who construct carefully crafted and balanced articles) face.

• Schoolboy vandals and graffitists. I think this is actually the least of our worries.
• Lone cranks. I have a good example which I will place somewhere, but don't have a place yet. Lima, is there a way of creating a 'storage' place for all the examples of bad editing that I am digging up.
• Organised cranks. See articles on Intelligent design and so forth.
• Well-meaning edits from people who can't edit. The last is, in my view, the main problem. Dbuckner 08:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See also the comment that ikkyu has placed on my rebellion talk page. Dbuckner 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the best ways to defend against the final type of edit creep, which you see as the biggest problem, is to cite everything. When you've established within a particular article that everything needs to be cited, then other editors will be much more comfortable reverting new questionable edits that, without the high level of citation, they would have let stand unless they absolutely knew they were wrong. This is one of the main reasons why I don't see that type of edit creep as a crippling or insurmountable problem. Over the past year (especially since the new ref system), the level of citation in articles has grown rapidly and continues to do so. Articles are getting better and more stable across the board; that this isn't a monotonic increase is largely irrelevant. Good, referenced information doesn't creep away, except on articles with NPOV conflicts.--ragesoss 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there's no doubt that there is more citation, and some articles are getting better for it. However, that does not solve the problem of 'factoid' articles: lists of unconnected facts without any kind of balance or thread, endless repeated ideas &c &c. I will look for evidence of this. Dbuckner 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one has bothered to create a good article on a topic, the fact that a mediocre, factoid-filled one exists doesn't particularly bother me. If it wasn't here, it would still be elsewhere on the internet, and if it hasn't drawn attention and criticism then it's probably not that significant in terms of spreading socially harmful misinformationl; it's likely to be more accurate than the average google hit on the topic. I'm just generalizing based on what I take to be factoid articles, but maybe you mean a different class of articles. Did you have any specific "'factoid'" articles in mind?--ragesoss 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant specifically that the requirement to give citations will not prevent edit creep via well-cited factoids being placed so as to destroy the flow and balance of a previously well-constructed article. It will probably make the problem worse by giving spurious credence to the article. Dbuckner 09:48, 3 September 2007

Expert egos

As a non-expert (at least on the areas I prefer to contribute on) it seems to me that experts have a much tougher time with the sort of aggression that is too commonplace, and edits or comments (or tags) on their contributions made with the best of intentions can be taken very personally. People like me find something interesting and look for easily available texts on the subject as the basis of a summary, while experts know the subject and draw on their expertise when putting together an article or editing. While I can expect someone who knows better to come along, they have the problem that criticism or corruption of their contribution can be felt as an attack on their professional standing and so they can find the usual hassle particularly irritating and more trouble than it's worth. There's not an easy way of being gentle with such contributors while keeping up the peer pressure on inferior work, but for one thing procedures could be rethought to encourage rather than just criticise. In particular some tags should be reconsidered to be really civil, but that's just a start. ...dave souza, talk 09:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Expert rebellion page has two new sections, one for extracts or links to talk pages showing the sort of problem out there, the other for diffs of articles showing the sort of horrendous things that get into articles. Dbuckner 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Serious non-Expert contributor rebellion

I'm separating myself from this assocation of expert whiners and malingerers. To me, it has become rather obvious that true "experts" have no need to complain. What the hell is your probem anyway? If you really are "experts" with the appropiate qualifications go and get your work published by one of the billions of acedmic jounals, publish a book, write for the SEP, Brittanica, IEP, Scicne magaizine.....you have gazillions of options. Lacking such sufficent qualifications of this nature, I do not have these options. If I did, I would take advandtage of them and stop whining about Wikipeidia. I started writing on the 'pedia because it's avaialble to non-credentialed but serious writers and scholars. I am disgusted with the cranks, the fanatical movements, edit creep and all the other nonsense. Thereofre, I plan to start the "serious non-expert contributor rebellion" againt both experts who prevent people like myself from being allowed to publish their writing in serious journals and other forums AND from the cranks and other malevolent destroyers of high-quality content conttibuted by myself on the Wackipedia. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I regret using the word 'expert'. I have copied your comment to the ER page. Dbuckner 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing attempts of original research with the work done by expert editors. Their gripe is not so much with the excellent editors such as yourself, as with those who wish to avoid reason and civil debate. And yes, please do! It is a great shame that academia is quite so elitist. LinaMishima 21:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some issues with: "experts who prevent people like myself from being allowed to publish their writing in serious journals and other forums." DV8 2XL 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've hosted (as the academic officer of a student society) a guest lecture for Steve Mathews of the department of computing university of warwick, whereby he suggested that it is a shame that it is difficult for students (and, one assumes, non-professional academics) from getting published in peer reviewed journals, and promoted the idea of a journal for student written papers. But it goes without saying that such issues are not for wikipedia at all, and should be talked about elsewhere. LinaMishima 00:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now left

In fact, I have now left for good. I deliberately stopped writing articles some months ago, but came back to see if a rearguard action was possible. It clearly isn't (see my page for details). Best of luck with you reforming efforts. Dbuckner 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia Namespace

The concerns here of the editors affect more than just the user namespace. I have made initial attempts to create a guideline entitled Wikipedia:Expert Retention. The guideline is an attempt to build a consensus on to keep experts at wikipedia and not flaming out. I consider myself an expert editor, but rather than crying about it and leaving wikipedia, I would rather get involved with policy as a metapedian than change my userpage to "Wikipedia sucks, I'm out!" Compared to other organizations and projects, we have a direct say in the policies and processes, guidlines and shape. There are some absolute limits, such as you can't throw out Jimbo Wales, but most everything else is fair game. In short, the "system" is VERY changeable, if you don't like it, change it! Electrawn

My own concerns are very specific to WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL as well as defamation. This generally fits in with crank views and the like. I recently formed WP:LPU to form a consensus on how to deal with libel as it is not understood well among wikipedia editors. Libel issues require immediatism as opposed to the wikipedia eventualism philisophy. Actions required are not only to protect the source from harm but editor and administrator education about unusual and not well understood policies. Electrawn

Some of the policies themeselves are in need of work. For instance, WP:LIBEL is way too short. Good Luck Electrawn 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Expert rebellion, moved from User:Dbuckner's userspace. --EngineerScotty 01:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's odd to have a TALK page for "proposals"

Isn't that a proposal for a proposal??

I can flesh it out later, but there are really two separate problems. One is ordinary vandalism, much of which is caught by 'bots. But not until the public sees it, or has a chance to. Page blanking and dirty words are reverted quickly now, as is all major blanking, but subtle stuff like insertion of a joke which needs human understanding, cannot be caught by computer. But neither does it need a subject-matter-expert (SME) to fix. Thus, I propose a Stable-I version which is the lookup version of any article, which can't be promoted to that status, except by "old and trusted" editors. You can pick your criteria for these: name-user, X-edits, a recommendation by an admin, or an admin him/herself. But somebody we trust to do the simple cleanup each day or so. In the meantime, the unwashed public, including IP editors, can work on that day's "under edit" article, which doesn't come up when you use the encyclopedia in "lookup mode" but which easily available for each article, in just the same manner than the main article is available NOW. [Short version of this proposal is that only the last vandalism-free version of any article "shows", until the next day combined edited one is "promoted" by a gatekeeper.] As for how the gatekeeper would do the job, it's pretty much what we all do now-- you pick a version from the day before from somebody you trust (in this case the last days' stable version), and do a diff from that to look at all the combined edits. If they're all vandalisms, you just save the old version (under the new system you'd just promote the old version with a new timestamp). For mixed vandalisms and good edits, you have to do more work, but other editors of all classes will have done some for you, just as now. None of this takes a SME, but it does take somebody (actually many people) we trust to be a non-vandal. "Semi-protecting" pages against IP users ("sprotect") does almost this, but it doesn't help against single purpose vandal-created accounts. We need vetting of some sort to fix against THAT. Pick a thresh hold of 1000 edits of whatever you like for it. But another grade of editor is badly needed here.

Benefits is that this class of editors protects a badly needed resource (the SMEs) from "caregiver burnout". These guys shouldn't have to spend their time reverting profanity and jokes.

The NEXT level is promotion of past SME-reviewed SME-stable articles, which will need to be done by vetted SMEs. Since nobody can figure out how to do that without real-world credentialing, ala Citizendium, it's going to be harder. But don't confuse this problem with the one above, which is easier to fix since it requires human intelligence, but not really any special expertise in the subject (usually).SBHarris 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)