Talk:Expert/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Last paragraph

I removed the last paragraph as it appears the author placed it in the wrong article. Paragraph is as follows:

Their are also hackers that specialize in phones such as cellular, landline and cordless phones, these specialist are very good also in remote tapping by using codes and techniques by putting parts together as well, these people are know as phreaks and phrackers ( ph-phone rackers-crackers. not all hackers and crackers use your standard computers, they do it all using a phone. ( Level-9 )

--Atratus 11:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Dont. The Gomm 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite funny

The beginning of this article is worthy of Uncyclopedia. Esn 04:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? J. D. Redding 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looked at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Expert ... see that you did a typo correcction there ... not really anything but ranting and babbling .... J. D. Redding 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Will Rogers definition of "expert"

Will Rogers described an expert as "A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase." —Van.snyder, (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New to this

I am new to this, I think the following would be usefull:

Malcolm Gladwell "on experts"

"The gift of their expertise is that it allows them to have a much better understanding of what goes on behind he locked doors of their unconscious...When we become expert in something our tastes grow more esoteric and complex. What I mean is that it is really only experts who are able to reliably account for their reactions."

--from Blink, Chapter 5, Section 5 "The gift of expertise" Krotona 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

Please expand this article with general information about expert testimony. I also see that the article says that it contains copyrighted information: is it fair use? If not, the copyrighted information should be removed. 68.49.208.76 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Legality?

What is this?:

"... sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion."

Does this mean that relying or even considering the opinion of someone not considered an "expert", even for a personal belief, is violating the law?! I've never heard of this law before. Is there a source for this? mike4ty4 07:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it means that it can be entered into evidence. The expert's opinion can be a piece of evidence. It has more weight than hearsay. ... be nice to clarify this. BUT, it's not unlawful for non-experts. J. D. Redding 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An example: a contractor gets a expert to state that he was not at fault for a accident. This would be more valid in a court than a layperson's. J. D. Redding 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Challenge to the Experts

Let me get this right. An expert is reliable, and the way they become reliable is via the process of Reliabilism.

That means that they have to have Justified Belief. And justified belief is any belief that one believes, and which has been reached by a reliable process ?

So what constitutes a reliable process ?

The only definition of a reliable process is a process provided by a reliable person -- an expert. Huh ?

The argument (and not to mention parts of the citation reasoning of Wikipedia) relies on circular reasoning.

Only an expert can offer a reliable process. And being reliable defines one as an expert.

Am I missing something here ?

"One knows that p (p stands for any proposition--e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p through some reliable process." InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See the 'use in literature'. J. D. Redding

Sages and Prophets

Just would like to return to Wikipedia's difficulty in working with the concept that there are religious figures (such as prophets, mystics, seers, and ascetics), and then there are those who are experts by way of the visibility of their work.

IF Wikipedia is positing that anyone who founds or extends the sway of a religion is a sage and therefore (a) a philosopher and (b) an expert, I think we are confusing the ability to persuade with the ability to determine useful knowledge.

This problem is aggravated when the religious figure is either dead, or more worrisome, legendary, to the extent that opposite or confounding views as to their statements can be simultaneously asserted. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Historically, they were sages, not prophets. J. D. Redding 09:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

By acclamation

I'd like to propose an alteration to the overall definition:

Drop references to experts as sages.

Sages are either philosophers or religious figures.

It is very hard to make the argument that religion has anything to do with being an expert.

The alternate version is simply to state that sages are philosophers, but then who determines who is a philosopher ?

Defining a philosopher might be a more helpful step.

By the way, my previous comments didn't seem to take.

Is anyone interested in this discussion ? If so, please help by maybe taking issue with my suggestions, so I'm not the only one doing the thinking.

Quite frankly, the rest of the definition and article just doesn't hold water.

How does the "widely recognized" criteria work ? By a vote ? Universal acclamation ? Via shout volume in the stadium ?

How do we know someone is "widely recognized"

If Wikipedia is basing its veracity or utility on this article, then does Wikipedia's baseline utility exceed that of the average fanzine (at least where controversy exists) ?

"An expert (en-us-expert.ogg Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain.

An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study.

Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.

Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment." --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Think you are missing the link. Wise old man. J. D. Redding 09:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Found the perfect article for you, Sage (Sophos). Added it to the article. J. D. Redding 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Past master

Merriam-Webster defines "past master" as "one who is expert". As these two articles discuss the same subject, Past master should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Expert vs Specialist

This is a discussion..

Text says: An expert differs from the specialist in that a specialist has to be able to solve a problem and an expert has to know its solution.

This separation may not be necessary, or even valid depending on the theoretical framework we use to define expertise. According to Sternberg (1998) expertise is the same as "developing abilities". He notes, "expertise is typically not at an end state but is in a process of continual development" (p. 11). Yes, accuracy is important, but it's not the only factor that leads to high levels of expertise. I don't think we can say that experts have to know the solutions to problems. They may not know the solution, but can use effective strategies to come up with a working solution.

To learn more about how Sternberg defines and conceptualizes expertise see: Stenberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 11-20. http://thorndike.tc.columbia.edu/~david/Cog%20Dev/Required%20Readings/Abilities%20as%20expertise.pdf

Suzankg (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors' Clutter

This article is interrupted by two boxes like the following:

Question book-new.svg This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2013)

The article has 16 footnotes, more than a dozen "for further reading" suggestions, and is full of, as far as I can see accurate, references like "Plato's theory of..."

There may have been a time when the editorial intrusions were appropriate. If so, they have now achieved their purpose, and the editor who placed them there now has a duty to clean up after themself, surely?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Germain "Expertise Scale"

Why is the odd Germain business in this overly-long article? It's horribly written and bizarrely redundant. It's also only three years old, meaning it's not something that, though clunky and verbose, has stood the test of time in its field and thus belongs in an encyclopedia. It could be omitted entirely, or replaced by a short, better-written list of qualities common to experts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.180.126 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.180.126 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above unsigned comment that the Germain "Expertise Scale" section does not belong. There has been so much more written on the topic of expertise that would better deserve this space. Consider, for example, the 100s of papers that have cited the Chi paper that is summarized. Koedinger (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Expert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150424001834/http://website.education.wisc.edu/~mnathan/Publications_files/2003_Nathan%26Petrosino_AERJ_EBS.PDF to http://website.education.wisc.edu/~mnathan/Publications_files/2003_Nathan%2526Petrosino_AERJ_EBS.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed joke in the lead

There was no source for the "ex spurt" joke in the lead, nor in the article that I could see. I googled, and found the joke in self-published books by motivational speakers, hardly a RS.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Death of expertise

I am reading a book "The Death of Expertise" by Tom Nichols, which expands on his article if anyone wants to reference it here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Dab hand" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dab hand and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 27#Dab hand until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"ExpertS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ExpertS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 27#ExpertS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)