In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.damian@btinternet.com writes:

In my experience the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the methods and training of

the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that of 'Wikipedians' (who by and large have no training at all) that disputes nearly always turn ugly. >>

You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian (untrained at least).

However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an "expert" because you have a credential, you are an expert because you behave like an expert. When challenged to provide a source, you cite your source and other readers find, that it does actually state what you claim it states.

However it seems to me that you'd perhaps like experts to be able to make unchallengeable claims without sources.

If I'm wrong in that last sentence, then tell me why being an expert is any different than being any editor at all.

What is the actual procedure by which, when an expert edits, we see something different than when anyone edits.

I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes to our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in that specific field.

The problem comes, imho, when "experts" add claims that are unsourced, and when challenged on them, get uppity about it.

The issue is not uncited claims, or challenged claims. All of our articles have uncited claims and many have challenged and yet-unfulfilled claims. The issue is how you are proposing these should be treated differently if the claim comes from an "expert" versus a "non-expert", isn't it?

So address that.

Will Johnson