Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durin (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 9 November 2007 (→Shut this idea down and salt the mind it came from: shut down). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm not sure if this is being aimed at being a guideline again, but {{essay}} is all it should strive for. If expert editors don't have any special powers, there doesn't need to be any formal process to recognize them. Furthermore, it is dubious as to whether they should have any special recognition beyond a list of their achievements. If an editor is expert because he or she has three FAs, they should say "I helped promote three FAs" if they want to, and leave it at that.--Father Goose 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting an article to FA status is not an individual's effort, but a collaborative one as is the editing of all articles in Misplaced Pages. You cannot say "I have three FAs", you can only say that you contributed alongside all other editors that edited that article to bring it to FA. You can add a star to your user page, if you want to, but that is it. I do not see that this page can get any traction as a proposal, and as an essay it does not read as one. Leave it as historical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as Misplaced Pages goes, the only thing you have to demonstrate your expertise, be that in editing, in policy, in community work, etc, is your public identity as defined by your contribution history. See WP:AKASHA. Note that being an expert does not automatically means anything in particular. You can be an expert and be a disruptive editor (I have seen those), and you can be an expert and be a model Wikipedian (I have seen these as well), so "expertise" in its own right is meaningless for this project, without other very necessary attributes for that expertise to be of use to the project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WADR, I'm not ready to leave this concept in history. I'm not sure I've presently it properly. I'm not sure I have a clear conception of what "guidelines" are. Maybe I should pitch this idea as a project?

I would like to see an editor's list of achievements verified, certified, whatever, and if they met Jossi's criteria for a model editor, then they would be Basic Experts(TM). Wouldn't there eventually be hundreds, or thousands of these editors, found in dozens of different WikiProjects? It'll just be a pretty little badge on a userpage, while the "actual" goal is the identification of individuals targeted for Expert retention.

As I've just read some of the intro to that page, specifically the seemingly perfectly descriptively concise historical impetus of the essay, I rest on the reference to Expert rebellion, where "discontent was expressed against a range of situations in which amateurs stood behind dubious or plainly wrong positions in spite of their utter lack of knowledge of the topic at hand." A further reference in the latter essay describes the claim that "Misplaced Pages offers very little incentive for editors who wish to contribute to expert topics."

These aforementioned "amateurs" should, in my view, make up the mass of Expert Editors(TM). I don't mean the truly childish amateurs, but those who have gained a balanced, expert knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. With a WikiProject to certify people, we can ensure our experts adhere to all five pillars. If this isn't a desirable goal for someone, they can be WikiGnomes. If they don't want to be WikiGnomes, they might want to edit Wikia.

With a cult of the Five Pillars in place, they will certainly recognize, in the spirit of Esperanza, the contributions of real world academic experts, and there will be WikiHarmony and WikiProgress. And if those same real world experts desire a formal standing on Misplaced Pages, they will follow the five pillars. They won't be administrators, and their contributions will remain editable by anyone, but their contributions will have the support of the community (see talk page :P ).

Part of the hazing ritual ensures our minority of Specialized Experts(TM) won't claim ownership, and generally dissuade the kind of personal investment that leads to hurt feelings, because not all experts are right all the time. I'm not even sure some experts are right all the time, but they're probably right most of the time. Maybe Misplaced Pages is getting too precise.... It almost hurts being on the cutting edge.

Now that that train ran out of steam, how about some suggestions for making this thing read like an essay, instead of the rough sub-page that it currently is. No? Everybody would rather shut it down? Can I be Frank? 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing presently reads like a bunch of back-slapping. To put it extremely bluntly: fuck recognition. Nah, too blunt. Just edit the encyclopedia, earn the respect of those who notice your work (which tends to be ample anyway), and leave it at that.--Father Goose 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Running straw poll

Shut this idea down and salt the mind it came from

1. Definitly shut it down, against the point of wikipedia--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
2. As if we didn't have enough stratification of users. Good grief. SHUT IT DOWN NOW. --Durin 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Has a little potential, but not worth the effort

None yet.

Has good potential, I hope somebody else works on it

None yet.

I'm working on this essay/project

• Can I be Frank? 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More comments

Template:RFCpolicy It should take about 5-10 minutes to read the essay and talk page, to this point. Thanks for your time. Can I be Frank? 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think spending time categorising users rather then working on the encyclopaedia itself would be a waste of resources to. On a more basic level I don't think, from what I've read about the issue, it will go anyway to solve the problems of expert retention (which I assume is what it's designed to do). It seems to me that the fundamental problem is a perceived, or real, lack of support for scientific views in scientific articles, and possibly other articles on academic subjects, when it is being disputed by views outside those views established by academia. I don't believe ranking editors will really help with this. If this is the problem that your trying to address perhaps setting up a place "experts" or people defending the scientific view can take problems for support and quick action, if necessary, would help more but this would need the support of a number of editors to work. This probably isn't the response you wanted but I think it's great you’re trying to come up with a way of improving the situation, and so the encyclopaedia, I just don't think this is the right idea. --Kaly99 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)