QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am)
I'm not sure this is a good description of professionalism, and the only point of these that Wikipedians *might* not meet is the first one.
It is close to the U.S. Department of Labor's
definition used to determine whether someone is exempt from wage and hour regulations on account of being a professional.
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am)
Check out the math articles, it's rife with genuine Ph.D.s (which is evident just from the writing), and being mostly "nerds", many have at leave reasonable training (bachelors or what have you).
Leaving aside the subject/object disagreement in your sentence, there is no way to verify the credentials claimed by people who edit Wikipedia's articles. Ryan Jordan fraudulently claimed that he was a professional, and was supported in his fraud by Jimbo Wales, one of Wikipedia's founders. No credential claims published on Wikipedia can be accepted without verification.
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am)
We're not professional because we don't get paid.
This would eliminate you from consideration under the Department of Labor standard, but someone could easily be an "unemployed professional."
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am)
I meet all three of those points, (more or less - I'm in the middle of a Ph.D. so how "advanced" my education is can be debated - I have a four year honours degree in science, you may not consider that "advanced"), but I'm not a professional, I edit Wikipedia as a hobby.
Being "in the middle of a Ph.D." is like being "a little bit pregnant." As for honors degrees, you can drive a semi-truck through the loopholes.