323:, geared toward making the encyclopedia as reader-friendly as possible to a broad, general audience, without dumbing down content. These Knowledge-internal best practices are a careful balance of compromises, and they generally do not match in every detail what is preferred in any particular discipline, since stylistic preferences vary in ways that conflict between different fields. Experts are already familiar with having to adapt their writing style for whatever publication to which they are submitting material, and should approach Knowledge with the same mindset.
56:
281:. 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.
334:
Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts: 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
252:
and list any credentials and experience they wish to publicly divulge as it may help fellow
Wikipedians who seek advice or expertise. Experts should be aware there is no personal advantage and considerable risk in divulging one's real identity and expertise in this way. However, please see
223:
Knowledge does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts. Knowledge 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
272:
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
Knowledge, there are no listed authors. The only authority for content, is what sources say, and the
330:
concerning their areas of expertise. WikiProjects help articles on related subjects to be coordinated and edited by a group of identified interested parties. All editors are free to join any WikiProject in which they are interested, regardless of
141:
Knowledge has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in
Knowledge is what you do, not who you are. Previously published
257:, and think carefully before you do this. Do not publicly identify yourself if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers. It may make more sense to declare credentials without self-identifying. Knowledge is based on
339:
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
165:
them here). There is great advice below — please take some time to read it and consider it, to help you adapt to this environment. We greatly appreciate your desire to help build and maintain the encyclopedia.
216:
apply to expert editors just as well. Although other encyclopedias might have articles based on personal "expert opinion" or unpublished conjecture, Knowledge requires all text to be verifiable to published
227:
In discussions with expert editors, lay editors are encouraged to use experts as a new source of information. Knowing why things are written as they are by the experts will facilitate future discussions.
358:
allow an editor to include information from their own publications in
Knowledge articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Knowledge article maintains a
134:
accepted knowledge regarding their subjects, working in a community of editors who can be anonymous if they wish. We generally find "accepted knowledge" in high quality secondary sources like
370:, 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
127:
can be very valuable contributors to
Knowledge, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Knowledge is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing.
399:
224:
pseudonymously, vetting users as experts (identity, credentials or experience) is not practical, even though it is technically feasible to verify a user's identity if disclosed.
335:
field" are never acceptable justifications for a claim in
Knowledge, regardless of expertise. All editors, whether they are expert editors or high school graduates must cite
479:
458:
300:
of the topic. Support all factual statements with citations in much the same way as required for a journal article. Knowledge is not a place to publish
198:
414:
277:
under which we summarize them and work together. In its early days
Knowledge did stray into accepting the authority of editors, which led to the
404:
437:
284:
Editing an article in
Knowledge is similar in some ways to writing an article for an academic journal and different in others. As with a
409:
175:
453:
71:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
238:
from the encyclopedia. Unsourced claims which are challenged can easily be removed, though they may be reinserted later by others.
348:
that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about themself
34:"Knowledge:Subject-matter expert" redirects here. For reliability of self-published sources by subject-matter experts, see
72:
427:
35:
17:
374:
and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Knowledge.
359:
484:
345:
179:
76:
42:
441:
419:
363:
194:
320:
378:
242:
316:
220:
Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.
388:
who can cite sources that support his arguments, is more compelling than a professor who can't.
433:
327:
312:"—each article is meant to provide "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject".
94:
8:
371:
367:
258:
249:
189:
by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed, or places where
101:
204:
No editor is exempt from fundamental Knowledge policies; in particular, the policies of
351:
278:
254:
154:
86:
108:
463:
285:
230:
Despite claims to the contrary from Knowledge critics, experts (or other editors) do
158:
150:
135:
79:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
366:
by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Knowledge
64:
288:
article you need to provide a solid review of the subject as a whole, accurately
265:, so the fact that yours won't be directly verifiable isn't really important. We
190:
186:
146:, not Knowledge editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia.
473:
305:
301:
297:
274:
266:
262:
205:
28:
336:
309:
293:
235:
213:
143:
185:
Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly
385:
209:
292:
what other published reviews say. But be careful not to add your own
234:
need to appeal to Knowledge administrators or arbitrators to remove
193:, and to identify optimal and recent sources in their fields. (See
41:"WP:SME" redirects here. For the essay on advanced permissions, see
444:
is about retaining expert editors as active editors on Knowledge.
400:
Help:Knowledge editing for researchers, scholars, and academics
122:
27:"WP:EX" redirects here. For the external links guideline, see
344:
Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential
149:
Please do not use Knowledge to promote your own papers (see
447:
466:- advice for museum curators and analogous professionals
169:
454:
Knowledge:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI
459:
Knowledge:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
130:
The mission of Knowledge is to provide articles that
432:Non-expert editors seeking expert advice may want
199:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
471:
415:Knowledge:Ten simple rules for editing Knowledge
405:Help:Knowledge editing for non-academic experts
438:Knowledge:Relationships with academic editors
161:in Knowledge (we summarize reviews; we don't
480:Knowledge essays about experts and expertise
362:and their material has been published in a
410:Help:Knowledge editing for medical experts
176:Knowledge:Conflicts of interest (medicine)
248:Experts can identify themselves on their
269:, and generally trust you to be honest.
14:
472:
428:Advice on working with expert editors
306:synthesis of the research literature
50:
191:ideas are over- or under-emphasized
24:
77:thoroughly vetted by the community
73:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
496:
54:
36:Knowledge:Self-published sources
212:along with guidelines such as
180:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
13:
1:
379:Advice for new expert editors
326:Expert editors can join the
157:), and please do not author
43:Knowledge:Super Mario effect
7:
10:
501:
442:Knowledge:Expert retention
420:PLoS Computational Biology
195:Knowledge:Reliable sources
173:
84:
48:Essay on editing Knowledge
40:
33:
26:
384:A guy who never finished
243:Advice for expert editors
436:, and for social advice
275:policies and guidelines
396:
315:Knowledge has its own
485:Knowledge expert help
434:Knowledge:Expert help
382:
360:neutral point of view
317:article titles policy
308:. The genre here is "
187:neutral point of view
75:, as it has not been
393:TJ Berens, Quora.com
352:conflict of interest
346:conflict of interest
206:no original research
423:aimed at scientists
261:of editors, not on
279:Essjay controversy
159:literature reviews
136:literature reviews
302:original research
286:literature review
267:assume good faith
119:
118:
16:(Redirected from
492:
417:– an essay from
394:
349:
337:reliable sources
214:reliable sources
144:reliable sources
111:
104:
97:
58:
57:
51:
21:
18:Knowledge:EXPERT
500:
499:
495:
494:
493:
491:
490:
489:
470:
469:
450:
430:
395:
392:
381:
364:reliable source
350:. Knowledge's
343:
321:manual of style
304:, nor your own
245:
236:patent nonsense
182:
172:
115:
114:
107:
100:
93:
89:
81:
80:
55:
49:
46:
39:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
498:
488:
487:
482:
468:
467:
461:
456:
449:
446:
429:
426:
425:
424:
412:
407:
402:
390:
380:
377:
376:
375:
341:
332:
324:
313:
294:interpretation
282:
270:
244:
241:
240:
239:
228:
225:
221:
218:
202:
171:
168:
117:
116:
113:
112:
105:
98:
90:
85:
82:
70:
69:
61:
59:
47:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
497:
486:
483:
481:
478:
477:
475:
465:
462:
460:
457:
455:
452:
451:
445:
443:
439:
435:
422:
421:
416:
413:
411:
408:
406:
403:
401:
398:
397:
389:
387:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
347:
342:
338:
333:
329:
325:
322:
318:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
276:
271:
268:
264:
263:credentialism
260:
256:
251:
247:
246:
237:
233:
229:
226:
222:
219:
215:
211:
210:verifiability
207:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
183:
181:
177:
167:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
145:
139:
137:
133:
128:
126:
124:
110:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
91:
88:
83:
78:
74:
68:
66:
60:
53:
52:
44:
37:
30:
19:
431:
418:
383:
355:
328:WikiProjects
310:encyclopedia
289:
231:
162:
148:
140:
131:
129:
121:
120:
62:
290:summarizing
255:WP:REALNAME
155:WP:SELFCITE
138:and books.
63:This is an
474:Categories
464:WP:CURATOR
354:guideline
331:expertise.
174:See also:
151:WP:REFSPAM
372:talk page
368:consensus
298:synthesis
259:consensus
250:user page
132:summarize
95:WP:EXPERT
87:Shortcuts
448:See also
217:sources.
163:generate
102:WP:IANAE
340:counts.
170:General
125:editors
123:Expert
29:WP:EXT
109:WP:EX
65:essay
356:does
319:and
208:and
197:and
178:and
153:and
296:or
232:not
476::
440:.
391:—
386:HS
201:)
67:.
45:.
38:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.