Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 65.40.185.140 (talk) to last version by Abeg92 |
Bloddyfriday (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
If you have academic credentials, it's up to you whether you note them on your [[WP:USERPAGE|userpage]] or not. But you should '''never, ever''' refer to them outside your userspace. Just follow the policies. |
If you have academic credentials, it's up to you whether you note them on your [[WP:USERPAGE|userpage]] or not. But you should '''never, ever''' refer to them outside your userspace. Just follow the policies. |
||
===Constitution=== |
|||
All men are created equal. [[User:Bloddyfriday|Bloddyfriday]] 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:37, 15 March 2007
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In light of the Essjay controversy, a number of editors have become very angry about how User:Essjay misrepresented himself. Yes, he caused a major PR blow to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, but don't we have policies that prevent using individual experience? When it comes to editing articles, we must look at the sources which are being used in the article, rather than the credibility of the editor who put it in there. In the end, an expert in the field is helpful, but should those credentials have any effect in editing articles for an encyclopedia where only 3rd party sources are allowed?
Wikipedia's attribution policy dictates that information should be attributed to a reliable published source. Even someone with verifiable expertise in a subject cannot make edits based on their own opinion or interpretation of a subject, however well-informed that opinion is. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
This does not imply that someone with expertise shouldn't edit articles within their field; they should be encouraged to do so. They can also cite their own published research as an external source. But no Wikipedian can expect the community to accept their opinion as truth. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion.
Inappropriate use of credentials
When users use their credentials, real or imagined, to win an argument on a talkpage, to put an end to an edit war, or to circumvent the need to attribute their controversial edits to a reliable source, then they are using them inappropriately. All editors - whether they are world-renowned experts, or 13-year-olds editing from high school - are required to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, refrain from adding original research to articles, and contribute only material that can be supported by a reliable source. No Wikipedian's opinion is more valuable than another's.
Why "credential verification" is a bad idea
Trying to prove your credentials is contrary to the fundamental spirit of Wikipedia. In particular, stating at WP:RFA "I hold a Ph.D, so you should make me an admin" would destroy the concept of anonymity, equality and community that is fundamental to the Wikipedia ethos.
If you have academic credentials, it's up to you whether you note them on your userpage or not. But you should never, ever refer to them outside your userspace. Just follow the policies.
Constitution
All men are created equal. Bloddyfriday 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)