User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Again with the bad archiving practice, but I want us to take this opportunity to talk about ways that Wikipedia might be improved after this incident. I posted this to wikien-l, and am posting here to generate an on-wiki discussion here. Please stay on topic, and please feel free to delete random trolling comments (personal attacks) that do not contribute to a positive discussion of how we might grow. Not everyone will agree with this proposal, and that is fine of course, we need a healthy dialogue around the verifiability of credentials. But random accusations of conspiracy and corruption are just boring personal attacks. Let's keep this productive and positive.--Jimbo Wales 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the EssJay scandal, I want to bring back an old proposal of mine from 2 years ago for greater accountability around credentials:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022085.html

At the time, this seemed like a plausibly decent idea to me, and the reaction at the time was mostly positive, with some reasonable caveats and improvements:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/thread.html to read the entire thread of "An idea".

Nowadays, I bring back the proposal for further consideration in light of the EssJay scandal. I think it imperative that we make some positive moves here... we have a real opportunity here to move the quality of Wikipedia forward by doing something that many have vaguely thought to be a reasonably good idea if worked out carefully.

For anyone who is reading but not online, I will sum it up. I made a proposal that we have a system whereby people who are willing to verify their real name and credentials are allowed a special notification. "Verified Credentials". This could be a rather open ended system, and optional.

The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with the general public. If you don't care to tell us that you are a PhD (or that you are not), then that's fine: your editing stands or falls on its own merit. But if you do care to represent yourself as something, you have to be able to prove it.

This policy will be coupled with a policy of gentle (or firm) discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up.

How to confirm? What counts as confirmation? What sorts of things need confirmation? These are very interesting questions, as there are many types of situations. But one thing that we have always been very very good at is taking the time to develop a nuanced policy.

Just to take a simple example: how to verify a professor? This strikes me as being quite simple in most cases. The professor gives a link to his or her faculty page at the college or university, including the email there, and someone emails that address to say "are you really EssJay?" If the answer is yes, then that's a reasonable confirmation.

We can imagine some wild ways that someone might crack that process (stealing a professor's email account, etc.) but I think we need not design around the worst case scenario, but rather design around the reasonable case of a reasonable person who is happy to confirm credentials to us.

(This is a lower level of confirmation than we might expect an employer to take, of course.)

For someone like me, well, I have an M.A. in finance. I could fax a copy of the degree to the office. Again, someone could fake their credentials, but I don't think we need to design against some mad worst case scenario but just to have a basic level of confirmation.

Signature

Hi Jimbo Wales. Now, there is a little matter which I would like to have it improved. Many users want your signature in there sign-books (even I do), but I am not very sure if you would be willing to sign all those sign-books; so, I come with a proposal. There is this transclusion sub-page called Universal Autographs, where users can post there autographs and share it with all who have got the transclusion code on there sign-book. So, if you were to sign there, then you would, in a way, be signing lots of sign-books in just 1 shot!

“ You keep asking how they [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to WP:EA. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. ” —Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what do say?

--TomasBat (@)(Sign) 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee, why not just copy it to your page...it would mean the same thing. See look, the coding is quite simple: --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

Wouldn't that work? If you want mine, you can copy it from here also...all the bits, only half the calories. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn´t sound very traditional. The user should sign his name, not have it copied.

--TomasBat (@)(Sign) 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But you're OK with transcluding? Maybe if I saw the point of the pages I would get it, but I don't. Transcluding doesn't seem any more "traditional" than copying the signature to your page—in either case, the user didn't actually sign your autograph page. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a way yes, because the user agrees to make his autograph available to all when signing in the transclusion; the user signs lots of them in one shot... --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but like I said above, you can copy my signature...so I'm agreeing to make it available...no? BTW, I like your previous signature better—per WP:SIG, "Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays." —Doug Bell ^talk 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of your signature yes, because you are agreeing with sharing your signature; but Jimbo Wales is not telling me that I can copy his signature... I suggest that either he signs Universal Autographs or that he himself states below that I can copy his signature, of which either option will certainly take less than a minuite...

(As for my signature, I just changed the font, I didn´t use any big tags) --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your signature, try removing size="4" from it—that has a similar effect to <big> and is covered under the such as qualification in the guideline regarding markup. Then you'll get TomasBat, which is less disruptive. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this?: TomasBat (@)(Sign)

Anyways, Jimbo Wales I await an answer... If you sign, it will certainly take less than a minuite... TomasBat (@)(Sign) 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets make it simple, Jimmy Wales, all you have to do is type the letter a right below this message if you give me permission to copy your signature to Universal Autographs; the procedure is extremely simple and it will certainly take less than 1/2 a minute, this way you will use up extremely little time and make many users happy... TomasBat (@)(Sign) 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I still await an answer...TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 01:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, you think maybe this is getting ridiculous? You're creating an argument here for deleting these pages. The community consensus in the recent deletion discussion was that while the pages might be OK, canvassing or other wise advertising to get signatures was discouraged. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose so... Yeah, this is getting ridiculous... I apologize to Jimmy Wales for making such an argument for such a minor matter.

But, ive got an idea which could be a logical solution to this situation: If Jimmy Wales does not reply before this post is archived, then I will take his silence s a yes, I am willing to let my signature be copied into Universal Autographs; but if he does reply before this post is archived stating that he does not give me permission to copy his sinature to Universal Autographs, then, of couse, I will take his answer as a no.

This way, if Jimmy Wales hasnt got any problems with letting me copy his signature to Universal Autographs but just is too busy to respond, then he auctually can respond without wasting any time! And if he has got problems with letting me copy his signature to Universal Autographs, then he can reply stating so if he is so concerned.

Now, I will stop posting here unless someone else makes a comment and I feel the need to respond to that comment.

Happy editing... TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

National Press

I think you should read this morning's British National newspaper the Mail on Sunday. Which devotes a whole page to the Essjay affair. Four high profile politicians and journalist expand their views on Wikipedia. While the page is not totally negative it is far from good or glowing in its praise. Edwina Curry describes Wikipedia as a load of rubbish. The entire inference is that Wikipedia cannot be trusted and relied upon. Giano 11:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No wonder Currie thinks that - our article on her is not exactly one of our proudest moments. I just checked it. Metamagician3000 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Peter Tatchell, Peter Hitchens were a little more complimentary, but only slightly the sad thing is they only reviewed their own mistake filled bios - Craig Murray was more positive, but the whole page was not good for wikipedia - very damaging. Giano 11:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to diminish WP's credibility problem in the least, this does rather support the notion there is also a public image thing to deal with here: Journalists have tended to make their own looming mistakes in reporting this, wontedly towards depicting WP as much more unreliable than it is and criticizing Wales for conflicting statements when in truth they've muddled chronologies and concepts themselves. I do think however that most of these publicity woes can be overcome in time if WP truly implements a simple way to thwart MUD CVs and stresses the need for reliable, verifiable support of article content (and I still think asserting a CV, even a vetted one, in an edit dispute should be banned). Cheers :) Gwen Gale 11:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Link to Daily Mail article is here.[1] Katalaveno^T_C 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Currie's remark about Wikipedia's tendancy towards gossip in bios is spot on. I could go on about it but won't, other than to let slip that hearsay reports published by down-market tabloids about romantic entanglements are not, shall we say, academically helpful sources (unless the topic's down market tabloids or whatever). Tabloids don't meet WP's verifiabilty standards and in my experience are but tools for trolls. Gwen Gale 12:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah...but you got to love it when she states that if anyone wants to to know the facts about her, they should read her website, since she wrote it herself...okie dokie. I think it is important that the general puplic knows that inaccuracies in bios can and will be adjusted...not everything about people is readily citable...but policy is to always remove derogatory information if it is unfounded.--MONGO 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[un-indent] While it's not much consolation, I can't help smiling at the story's (typically for the press) inaccurate account of the Essjay row. Metamagician3000 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, that whole thing (high profile people looking up their own bios to evaluate Wikipedia's accuracy) could have been more easily corrected by a wikipedia ban on bios of living persons since as a source of bad information, THAT is most easily checked and abused. I really do know more about my life than anybody else does, and if I have a bio on Wikipedia (which thank God I don't), that's the first thing I'm going to go to, to see how well they function. And if I should do that, Wikipedia is bound to come out the shortest THERE of anyplace you can possibly imagine, since they're writing about a subject in which I'm the ultimate authority, and in which I have the highest of the high in credentials that are relevent: to wit, I'm the guy whose life is being profiled. So we were asking for it, there. Just frigging ASKING for it. And so what do we do instead? We're now actually getting serious proposals to ban people's self-reporting of their own credentials! About which they are ALSO most likely to be authorities, if anybody is. Wacky. Wikipedia seems to be going out of its way to keep people who are likely to know most about a given subject, from writing about it, unless they can back it up by a published citation writen by somebody (like a journalist somewhere quoting one quick and checked source) who are (almost by definition) LESS likely to have the most acurate possible information. But Wikipedia worships the printed page. Who knows why. SBHarris 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The public image thing is usually best dealt with by proactive engagement and Wales' refussal to answer Larry Sanger's request [2] for an explanation as to why Wales(after learning about the deception) appointed Essjay to Wikipedia's most important ArbComcommittee will likely give the media even more negative fodder. So far the media (even the tabloids) haven't even noticed the "under the rug swept" edits here and I suppose they may never but it's the wrong approach, I think, if one is attempting to clear the slate and move forward. Any explanation would be better than none from a PR standpoint because then the Press could not start developing a "cover up" leg to the story. 70.48.205.221 14:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, as far as the press is concerned this is about to become yesterday's news - (unless "some-one" thoughtfully stirs the shit) can we not concentrate on dealing with the issue here, which is making it less likely to happen again, and how it will be addressed if and when it does Giano 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the focus seems to be entirely upon the credentialism aspect; which is absolutely important; but of equal importance is the judgement abilities of Wikipedia leaders; not of just Wales but also of the General Counsel as to how they handled the deception when it came to their attention. Just think about how this entire matter could have been quietly kept entirely out of the public eye if they had simply recognized the wrongfulness of the deception and worked with EssJay to reverse it, and THEN Wales could have initiated discussion into credentials verification procedures in a PRO-active way rather than reactive. Why should anyone assume that any future occurances on entirely different matters which require good judgment will be handled any better by them? By way of analogy, were Clinton's and Bush's problems solely related to conditons which need addressing (like faulty intelligence or intern policies) or did their judgment not play a major role in the consequences of those conditions? I know I'm rambling but hopefully there is a point here. 70.48.205.221 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot could have been handled differently - but it is too late for that, and for the ensuing recriminations - By the time the shit hit the fan it was too late for reversal and Essjay had to go. I would have sent him packing a lot more forcefully, perhaps the more subtle way Jimbo employed was an attempt to limit publicity - perhaps it even worked. The important thing is to have a policy and procedure in place for dealing with these things in future should they arise. Perhaps a complete ban on the mention of credentials would be a good start, and let people's work speak for itself. Giano 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, sounds instruction creepy. Does my username get blocked as inappropriate? And can I mention that I'm a qualified junior tennis coach, or do I get blocked for that? And what about my high school French? --Doc^g 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha I don't think so Doc :) So far as the "qualified junior tennis coach" thing goes, very borderline as a notable credential I'd say. Only chatting here, anything related to an average HS education I think could be asserted on a user page with no need to verify it (but if a user claimed to have graduated from HS at age 14 or whatever, that would be a notable claim begging for verifiable support IMO). Gwen Gale 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps a complete ban on the mention of credentials would be a good start, and let people's work speak for itself". It would be a very good start. I don't know if this "Citizendium Lite" proposal that Jimmy floated is still moving, but if it does move then it is going to be a big mistake. People will fraud the system - then we will have a very big mess on our hands (both in terms of the content and in terms of the bad press). SFC9394 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've advocated a ban on listing credentials as it serves no real, allowable purpose on Wikipedia. People use them to win arguments and make themselves seem more elite and as we have seen, they may lie about them. So far, the idea of a ban hasn't gotten far, but if enough other people think it is a good idea, I'd be willing to write up a draft proposal. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What if Richard Dawkins wanted to come edit the Atheism article? As long as he could stay neutral, his views would probably be better substantiated than those of someone like me, or most other people. Experts on the subject should be encouraged to add their information, because they will probably be the best contributors on the subject. Pretending that their views are not better than others is ignorant, because most likely, they are. The real issue is knowing how to identify false credentials, because those are what's harming the project. --Hojimachong^talk 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unless people are going to post their Graduation certificates complete with graduation photograpgs - I don't see any realistic alternative to a complete ban on the mention of credentials - it is the only foolproof solution if Wikipedia is to continue as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" Any other system would create a damaging two tiered system of editors creating articles in two categories - "pages to be edited only by the qualified" and "pages not to be trusted" , and sooner or later one of the qualified editors would be found to have bogus credentials. I suspect this is not the solution Jimbos is seeking - but I cannot see another way unless we are prepared for these scandals to be twice or thrice yearly occurance. Giano 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Giano. A ban on posting credentials and a ban on asserting them in edits would be the easiest to implement. I'd also be ok with Wales' proposal of a "vetting lite" or whatever for credentials posted to a userpage, but with assertions of them in edits banned like legal threats. Any true expert (moreover one with notable academic credentials) will tend to have a quick grasp of what published sources are available to cite in asserting almost any edit. Yes, editing an article with no recourse to authority can sometimes take hard work and patience but a reliably sourced article will stand on its own. Gwen Gale 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This doesn't really work with Wikipedia's "soft security" ideas. A normal user who claims to have credentials isn't going to change the project all that much, and besides, everything they say must be sourced as well. But when hiring people to work for a salary (ala Essjay), then yes, credentials should be checked. --Hojimachong^talk 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> If Richard Dawkins wanted to come and edit the Atheism article then he is more than welcome to do so - the conditions he must abide by are NPOV and Verifiability. Who he is makes not a dime of difference - those two conditions must be met. To set up a quick thought experiment - 2 contributors wish to add the exact same material - 1 is an editor named "woooo_wiki_woooooooooo" and one is named "Richard Dawkins". The former has no credentials and the latter has been approved to be who he claims to be. If the material they wish to add is both NPOV and Verifiable then what does it matter who they are? Credentials - by definition - do not matter, unless people are attempting to circumvent NPOV and/or Verifiability. Of course not everyone who wishes to display credentials will have these motives - but people who wish to are more likely to be - otherwise what is the motivation for doing so? This little bit of explanation doesn't even go near the potential for frauding the system - proving who you really say you are is not the easiest in the real world these days - in the online world it is frankly laughable. I have a degree in history from Harvard - disprove it. (of course the retort is - "ahh but you have to prove it - the burden of proof is with you" - that of course is junk, because the first thing I do is come up with some ropey fraud evidence and say "here's your proof" - to which you either have to believe me or start trying to disprove that I have what I say I have). It is a minefield folks - not only will it create a class structure of editors, but it will jeopardize some of the the core principles of this project (that the content stands on its own two feet - not on the reputation of its creator). SFC9394 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Giano, though how draconian can we realistically make a ban on referring to aspects of one's own life? Also, it won't help much for the immediate future with the PR dilemma that we currently face.

For myself, however, pending resolution of the issue, I've removed all references to my own background from my userpages here and on Meta (though I've found it a bit hard to avoid using my own situation as an example while taking part in this very debate!). Metamagician3000 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well they say all publicity is good publicity and this is the first real sign I have seen of the positive effect of the Essjay affair, Mail readers are just the sort of people we want to reach out to and who likely havent heard of wikipedia before. Neither Currie nor Tatchech are exactly Brits with a good reputation amongst Mail readers, ie they wont be tajken as seriously as perhaps non-Brits might think, SqueakBox 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the motivation behind "ban mention of all credentials" approach, I don't think it is the solution to wikipedia's real and perceived credibility problems. First of all, are we talking about only academic credentials or all biographical facts that can possibly be viewed as giving a particular editor's view some additional weight ?

• Given the breadth of topics covered by wikipedia the latter could be almost any biographical information - examples include mentioning that one is a helicopter pilot, army sargeant, plumber, speaks Japanese, won the Nobel prize in physics, or even just the statement that one is >50 year old (and hence, say, remember the day Nixon resigned). Note that this larger ban on mentioning any off-wiki identity/qualifications, would require that even Jimbo Wales edit articles only under a pseudonym.
• On the other hand, if mentioning of only academic credentials is banned, try explaining to a new editor (or non-wikipedians) why it is ok to say on your userpage that you give killer-manicures, but mentioning that you are an MD-JD-MBA, even if you provide clear evidence for the fact, invites a warning message ! Also, should we tell User:RichardDawkins that he should edit under a pseudonym since his credentials in certain fields are too well-known and thus may be thought to, (gosh!), add weight to what he says. That apparent "anti-intellectualism" is not going to help wikipedia's credibility problems IMO.
  

To summarize, I think a blanket-ban on the mention of credentials is an approach that creates more problems than it solves. Of course, I remain committed to the ideal that every statement of fact/opinion in an article needs to be backed by an external reliable source, even if the the fact is added by a super-duper qualified editor. Abecedare 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had said earlier that IMO any mention of employment background should be banned too. But I'm ok with CVs on userpages so long as academically (or otherwise) notable stuff is vetted and any assertion of credentials in an edit is banned (like a legal threat). Gwen Gale 12:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in an outright ban on most credentials, I've drafted a policy at Wikipedia:Credential ban. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A question

--Mr Wales. Quite recently I wrote an article about a Canadian Entrepreneur and Businessman in Canada and submitted the article into the wikipedia. Within days it was earmarked for deletion by editors. I contested, an admin stepped in and invited discussion. I presented the argument as to why it should stay, there were 3 comments and no rebuttals to the argument I put forth after which point it was deleted. It is not even in the logs anymore. Now, my concern is that you yourself have an article in the wikipedia and I don't see the difference between one entrepreneur or another. In fact, I see many articles in wikipedia about various entrepreneurs and yet for some reason my article, despite my reasonable debate and citing of other articles was set upon by editors and admins of this site. This does not paint a favourable light on how wikipedia functions. Either allow articles about entrepreneurs or don't allow them, including your own. Can this possibly be made clear as a bell in the rules and conditions pages? Thanks. djamieson

I suspect this is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Mosun. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well thank you anonemouse, that is the "debate" on the matter as you can see, if it's fair to call that a debate at all. Nevertheless, It serves to make my point so thank you for posting a link to it. djamieson

See if this helps. Regards. --Justanother 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

--Thanks for your input JustAnother, but that is my point exactly. THough one can site policies in this site and make these comments such as yours and provide links, it is rather indiscriminate isn't it? The article in question wasn't a who's who type article, it was more or less along the lines of any informative article about a person. By the way, your terse response is exactly the type of response that I got and that is so frustrating. People say one thing yet do another. So there you have it? I don't think so. The question I am asking has to do with are biographies of persons of import. Are they allowed or are they not? Plain and simple. I cite Mr.Wales article and would ask is Mr.Wales any more important than any other businessman or entrepreneur or is wikipedia merely a personal site for the personal agendas of wikipedians? I await an answer. I would like to continue my project without having to deal with the type of passive agressiveness that is apparently ubiquitous and deformative of the intent of this place which can otherwise be a wider resource. Thanks for your input. Djamieson

As an addendum, I would question the validity of all this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businessmen -- The category these articles exist within and so on. Djamieson

Hooray for you

File:Funkymodem.png		Super Funky 28k Modem
		I hereby award you this Super Funky 28k Modem for having a last name that begins with W. Smomo 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm...what use does this award serve? bibliomaniac15 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What purpose do ANY of the silly awards serve? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Naive tries at politics? (AGF, mind) Don't mind me though, I'm hardcore :) Gwen Gale 15:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear what this award's purpose is - for users that have a last name that beings with W. Nothing more, nothing less. Now stop being fanboys and go and do some editing! Smomo 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now stop being fanboys and go and do some editing!
The irony in that statement is priceless!  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, eyes rollin' :) Gwen Gale 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

;-) Smomo 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As another W person I dont think much of this. 28K? 10Gb would be better, people with W always come last and this slow connection just seems to sum that up, SqueakBox 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Autograph pages MFD

Hi. A lot of "Jimbo said ..." arguments are being cited at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books. Is it at all possible if you could make a current statement considering the developments at that page? While it doesn't make their arguments any more valid, knowing your current opinion on the matter may still help. Thanks. The Behnam 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's over now. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

In a current arbitration case, an issue has been brought up that may depend on whether a particular quote from you was ex cathedra, so to speak, or not. Specifically, should this[3] be taken to mean that good faith should not be assumed of users posting as IP addresses and effort should not be made to afford them the same process as others, and, if so, is it your personal opinion or are you speaking as project leader? --Random832 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Page renamed

Somebody renamed the article Sex. You can block him/her from editing articles and pages for Wikipedia. Send me a message please.--Jet123 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This page move (made without concensus but apparently in good faith) has been reverted. WjBscribe 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

voluntary degree verification

I assume previous discussion must have been archived, but I read the story in yesterday's The New York Times[4] that mentioned your idea for voluntary degree verification, and I think it's an excellent idea. I'm an attorney in Minnesota and it worries me (a lot) that there are people pretending to be professional experts on a whole host of subjects (law, medicine, engineering, etc) where a professional or graduate degree can make a difference. Early on in my time here I found myself having to post a direct link to my own name on Minnesota's online licensed attorney listing to gain even a modicum of credibility versus more experienced (but legally incorrect) users that wanted to simply marginalize an opposing opinion as "fake". I just wanted to say that there are a number of us that will support this idea, and thank you for having the strength to put it forward (once again). --Bobak 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'd love to help, I just want to clarify your suggestion: (1) this process is to try and create a repeatable template, starting with myself, or a general template? (2) I understand the idea of creating a userbox that links to a new userpage/subpage, but where would you want me to place the userbox: on my main userpage or somewhere else? I admit I have no experience with creating templates, but I'm willing to try --and then, if it gains traction, I'm sure someone will revise the template to make it more presentable (as always seems to happen). Before I make my first attempt I was hoping to just clarify those two questions. --Bobak 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: Do not privilege the scientific point of view

We have a fairly long discussion on the German Wikipedia on NPOV about the question, if Wikipedia should privilege scientific points of view, with a majority of about 80% agreeing, that we should. However, we were told that we couldn't do that, because you would not support this view and your vision on the core policies of Wikipedia would be decisive, no matter, how many Wikipedia editors might disagree with you. Are these two theses correct? AFAIK at least the latter (you determining the content of the core polcies) is not true, at lest not on Wikipedias other than en, which is the only Wikipedia I know of with WP:OFFICE. Fossa_?! 02:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion was scientific POVs vs. journalistic POVs. In some fields (cults, smoking, breast inplants, medical drugs) the scientific "industry sources" sometimes disagree with the journalistic sources.

And there was not an 80% consensus :-) --Tilman 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah more like 90%. 80.133.146.219 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just journalistic points of view that would be competing with scientific points of view, but also self-reported information by pseudo-scientific sources, such as articles about creationism, the ex-gay movement, etc. In cases where the scientific community has ignored pseudo-scientific arguments, there is sometimes a lack of disinterested information out there. Some people are arguing that these groups have a right to portray themselves without any criticism if no such criticism has been published; others argue that statements like "the consensus of most experts in psychology and the relevant professional associations is that this is nonsense" should receive more prominent billing than the numerous details the movement itself might want to promulgate. It would be useful if you could comment on Fossa's questions. We can always decide to ignore what you think, but only if we know what it is you think in the first place, and not just what some people say you think based on the way they interpret statements which might be more or less relevant to the situation at hand. :-) --Bhuck 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are to be the encyclopedia of everything of course we shouldn't favouritise the scientific point of view except when that is also the world's point of view eg the world is round and began 4.5 billion years ago, etc. How would science help an article like Gary Glitter? SqueakBox 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you are all besides the point: Discuss these issues in Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view or de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:NPOV, there is ample space for your input. This question is about (a) Jimbo Wales' point of view and (b) his insistence or not to implement his POV. Only he can answer this question. Fossa_?! 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive proposal failure

Jimbo, I don't know if you've been follwing this whole thing very much (I sure hope you have been though) but so far, just about all proposals relating to credentials seem to be failing, with the sole exception of the proposal to require ID for users with CheckUser access. The general consensus seems to be that we don't need a radical new policy, we don't need to appease the media, and existing content policy should be adequate. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Credential_Verification#Perhaps_the_best_proposal... for a current discussion about this. What we are asking is: Please don't override consensus just to appease the media. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think there are reasons why this has happened. Strong articles are built only through rigorous citation back to reliable and verifiable sources. Although I think your initial proposal about lightly vetting CVs on userpages was helpful, I've come to believe that banning the assertion of CVs altogether on userpages, along with making the assertion of a CV in an edit blockable, like a legal threat, is the only way to mix anonymity with article reliability. Cheers! Gwen Gale 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what I am proposing could possibly fail. It would require a policy change to allow people to be blocked for doing voluntary credential verification. The only things that are failing are ideas which I am not proposing. I was on a family trip for the last 2 days, so I haven't kept up with the discussions since then. --Jimbo Wales 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some policy changes would be helpful. Don't you? Or have I misunderstood? Are you saying no policy changes are needed? Cheers! Gwen Gale 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jimmy, you are mistaken. People have a number of problems with your proposal (yes, yours), including that it's completely unworkable/unscalable, will not address any real problems, and will have the negative effect of creating another class of editors. Mak (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your original proposal for the voluntary verification of credentials has inspired many alternative proposals, and virtually all of these proposals have been rejected by an overwhelming majority of those participating in the discussion as being inconsistent with the egalitarian philosophy that is at the core of Wikipedia's value system. As such, the only way that any system of credential verification could be up and running at Wikipedia in a week, a month, or at any time in the foreseeable future would be if Wikipedia were to rename itself Citizendium. As an alternative, I humbly offer the proposed policy of Ignore All Credentials in the tradition of one of Wikipedia's core policies Ignore all rules. // Internet Esquire 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In general agreement with the above, I do think a ban on credential posting and on asserting them in edits would be more than helpful. Gwen Gale 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as a ban goes, see Wikipedia:Credential ban. However, the only idea that is getting support in decent quantites is a proposal on meta to require users with CheckUser access to have their ID on file with the Foundation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I inadvertently made my last edit to an earlier version from the history. Apologies for that. What it said was the following: I'm still not in love with the proposal for reasons I've articulated in the past, but I've sent you [i.e. Jimbo] an e-mail (since there is confidential information involved about my real-life identity) asking you to carry out an exercise that might confirm the workability of what you are proposing and give you an idea of how flexible it would need to be. I'll be interested in your response. I think that some (not all) of the criticisms of the proposal are unfair and not seeing the bigger picture. Metamagician3000 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales should offer to resign

The Essjay embarassment to Wikipedia was 90% a result of administrative non-reaction (poor judgment) by Jimbo,Angela and Brad Patrick [5] and 10% a result of Essjay's misdeed. Policies can never prevent willful bad behavior nor administrative inaction when made aware of bad behavior. It's quite disturbing that even the Bush Whitehouse is taken to account more for its acceptance of wrongful behavior. The appointing of Essjay to ArbCom ( AFTER Essjay advised Jimbo of his misdeed) shows not only poor judgment but an overt acceptance of Essjay's misdeed; and to do so without even instructing Essjay to correct or delete his fabrications from Wikipedia exacerbates that acceptance. That is the obvious crux of the issue before the Wikipedia community, and debating credentialism proposals does nothing to address that. I'll be straightforward; I propose that Wales offer his resignation forthwith and that Brad Patrick be replaced as General Counsel unless he can show he took some action when Essjay advised him of the misdeed. 70.48.205.216 22:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. Irrelevant. --Rednblu 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A lesson learnt

I think the major lessons that have come out of this for the Foundation are:

1. Don't vouch for someone's credentials to the media when you have no idea who they are.
2. Don't announce to the media that we'll be implementing a credential verification policy without telling the community.
3. Don't be surprised when they reject proposals that would effectively divide the community into "editors" and "authors".

Why would anyone have their credentials verified unless they were going to use them to railroad other editors? Just last night someone tried to revert my edits to English Reformation because he is a parish priest and I have no identifying information on my userpage. This encyclopedia, as I am sure you are well aware, is largely written by students and amateur enthusiasts. If they feel made to be inferior, they will leave, and Wikipedia will collapse. All of these policies that have been proposed has an unwritten implication that having your credentials verified will allow you to assert your "authority". If someone is really reading an encyclopedia because it was written by graduates, they can go to Citizendium. We insist on references. I cite almost everything I write and where I don't, I provide sources whenever challenged. Whatever qualifications I may or may not have thus does not matter and should not matter. Any step towards a Citizendium style hierarchy will end in disaster. I hope the community's resounding rejection to these proposals will swiftly bring an end to any further steps. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any resounding rejection! I think a few people are completely hysterical about proposals which have not been made. I think voluntary credential verification is going ahead promptly. As with many things in Wikipedia, if you don't want to do it, don't do it. But don't get in the way of good people trying to do something useful, either.--Jimbo Wales 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, have you been able to review the responses to your proposal on its talk page (+ the archives)? I don't think you can classify the number of people expressing sincere and severe concerns with the proposal can be described as "a few people [who] are completely hysterical." It's a pretty wide subset of editors and administrators. That isn't to say you can't go ahead with your proposal, of course, but I'd certainly appreciate you not dismissing them and their reasoning completely out of hand as "hysterical". Yes, the proposal is voluntary. That doesn't mean it won't affect more than those who choose to participate — it will affect everyone, as has been discussed extensively. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a handful of reasonable concerns but I see no developing consensus against the proposal. I see a lot of hysteria, and a lot of support. I think it will go forward successfully in any event, and at that point those who are opposed will begin to see more clearly why this is a simple and overwhelmingly positive thing.--Jimbo Wales 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for classifying the many comments by long term editors, including myself as "hysteria." You are seriously out of touch with the community here. Absolutely no consensus to go forward with it was made. Of course you still may do it by fiat, but you are sadly mistaken in thinking the community supports this. pschemp | talk 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about if he just quoted pschemp's own classification of the many comments of long term editors last week, and called it a "hysterical bloodlusting lynch mob"? 150.203.2.85 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since that was not made in reference to this proposal, but instead to the actual lynchmob running around, that wouldn't be a correct thing to quote. Glad to see I have a fan club though. pschemp | talk 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the main discussion: I see no problem with those who want to give links to verify their credentials on their userpages, but a policy to say that they can is unnecessary. As long as we generally take credentials with a grain of salt, we don't allow them to be used in place of citations (we already don't), and the use of them in debate is discouraged or possibly banned (which may require a minor change to talk page policy) I see no reason for drastic change. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason Mr. Wales is referring to "hysteria" is that the majority of the opposition is in opposition to something that isn't actually being proposed. Namely, nobody is proposing that "I have a Ph.D. nyah nyah" will replace citing of reliable sources and rational debate; obviously it can't as a fair number of editors in fact do have Ph.Ds (at least, I think so, given they are telling the truth!). Nonetheless, when I read through all the comments, many people seem to think this is what is being proposed. Thus, I think Mr. Wales' interpretation is on the mark. In my honest opinion, the confusion is due to the fact that the proposal is really quite mild...in fact, some may even consider it ineffectual to address the "real issues" (whose existence is not yet firmly established).

As far as I understand it, the proposal is meant to address certain, perhaps very uncommon (but still occurring) situations when there is an extensive debate requiring some level of expertise in judging which sources are more reliable, standard, etc., or when some person, group, or organization is notable. Additionally, when there is already rational debate going on, people are generally willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when s/he says in his/her extensive professional experience such-and-such is true. Mr. Wales seems to be proposing that in those cases, we should verify that that person does in fact have such experience, when it is possible to do so. This is why as I said, some may consider this ineffectual. Generally, people take such comments with a grain of salt, and based on the editor's history, determine whether this person does in fact appear to be such an expert. Such determinations are made daily. The majority of times, probably, such determinations are easy to make correctly. So it seems likely to me that very little will change if this proposal is implemented.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a definite PR advantage. The person who only knows about Wikipedia from the newspapers will learn of this policy and feel it is more reliable as a result. In the end of course, we really have no good idea as to the reliability of Wikipedia before or after such a policy, nor really how it compares to other resources (I am aware of the couple studies comparing to Wikipedia to say, Britannica, but I'm skeptical of the methodologies not to mention the validity of comparing apples and oranges). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"Hysterical" sounds about right to me. And User:Chan-Ho Suh above provides about the right explanation in saying that "the majority of the opposition is in opposition to something that isn't actually being proposed." If I look again at the proposal, I find: "This policy will be coupled with a policy of gentle (or firm) discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up." There you have it. As User:Chan-Ho Suh says, I see no proposal that the editor's credentials would be given any weight at all in deciding whether the editor can insert credential bias to override neutral point of view. So there is no good reason for the "hysteria" or "sincere and severe concerns" or whatever we want to call the opposition to this proposal. This proposal looks like an effective step forward in dealing with our situation here. Nevertheless, we as a community have a lot of work to do in defining in clear and consistent policy text what NPOV means operationally in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." But as User:Chan-Ho Suh says, that work cannot be addressed in the very limited scope of this proposal. --Rednblu 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So, would someone like to clarify to me why people would verify their credentials? Because someone in apparent opposition to me said "Additionally, when there is already rational debate going on, people are generally willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when s/he says in his/her extensive professional experience such-and-such is true. Mr. Wales seems to be proposing that in those cases, we should verify that that person does in fact have such experience, when it is possible to do so" which seems strangely like saying because people are already asserting their offline authority over edits, and we are merely giving them the means with which to officially do so. It seems to me that credential flashing needs to be discouraged rather than enshrined in policy.

Additionally, these proposals make the assumption that people who hold such credentials are more objective than those who do not. This is not necessarily true. If this credential verification idea goes through, Kurt Wise is perfectly capable of coming to Wikipedia and setting himself up as an expert on evolution, as he holds a Phd in paleontology from Harvard. However, he also believes that the Earth is ten thousand years old. People would, as previously mentioned, defer to him in such matters, but the question is, should they? Similarly with David Irving; he has written thirty books on history but should we trust his opinion on Hitler? People like that are the reason we insist in citations, not qualifications. I really cannot not see what benefit this policy will bring to Wikipedia other than to set divisions between us and appease the media, all of whom use us to abuse us anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this policy has the following basis -- "gentle (or firm) discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up." That as I see it is the only argument in this proposal for "why people would verify their credentials?" I see nothing in this proposal which would change how we treat the edits of people 1) with or 2) without credentials. Can you quote the part of this proposal which would change how we treat the edits of people 1) with or 2) without credentials? --Rednblu 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Three words, the Essjay controversy. The reason Essjay was fired was because he used his credentials to win content disputes with other editors. He won those disputes because people deferred to his qualifications. Most people who push their qualifications in such a way are generally asked, firmly but usually politely, to not do this because we have no way of proving their qualifications. If this proposal goes through, and people can genuinely prove they have the qualifications with which they seek to smack around the heads of other editors, it's inevitable, like we did with Essjay, that we will defer to their views, whether they provide references or not. This will happen whether we write it down or not, and at all costs it should be avoided. Wikipedia is run by the collaborative power of millions, utilising the power of crowds, such power should not be harnassed by "experts". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal would not change how editors treat people who actually have the credentials that EssJay claimed. Is that right? --Rednblu 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would. It's not written into the proposal, but that is the intended effect. Otherwise why would it matter whether someone actually had those credentials or not? Who gave a toss that Essjay lied about being a doctor in canon law until it was discovered he had used false credentials to railroad other editors? Jimbo didn't. I didn't. Few people considered Essjay's lie to mean he should leave or stop editing, so who cares if other people lie? The issue at hand is that he used his credentials to browbeat other editors - which he shouldn't have been doing anyway. It doesn't matter whether someone who claims to hold a doctorate in canon law actually does or not, because they shouldn't be using it for anything other than as a point of interest and maybe to provide sources if they have access to a reference library. Thus the whole credential verification thing is only of interest to people who intend to say "Look, I have a doctorate in canon law, I know what I'm talking about, stop arguing." Which is a very, very bad thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested, and I do not intend to say anything like that. You must have missed the lengthy discussions in the archives of harmonious and constructive uses for credentials. btw, Essjay did not "railroad" or "browbeat" in the diffs I saw. Derex 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me. Why does it matter to you that people know you actually hold such qualifications? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't; I'm not interested in me having credentials. I'm interested because I'd sometimes find it useful to know when someone else is an expert. There are examples scattered all about the various debates on related pages, which someone should gather. But here's a few. [6] Derex 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasons provided largely down to being able to ask advice from people with certain expertise. I do so regularly, such as asking people proficient in other languages about translations. However, credential verification is not needed for this - someone being asked about a historical period on which they falsely claim to hold expertise will quickly come unstuck. And relying on someone purely on the basis of their academic qualifications rather than the sources they provide is a bad thing anyway. So that does not provide an adequate answer as to why this time-consuming policy is needed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP gets its editors for free and has no incentive to save them time. Mind, this is not meant as scathing criticism but only as an observation. Gwen Gale 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some do, and I think it's valid. But that's not the reason I personally gave in that section. Here's another, more to your point. [7] Derex 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your troll anaology works only if credential verification gives experts the right to "rule" on certain sourcing issues. Which is a very very bad idea. Go to Citizendium if you want to do that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

False, as discussed in the link. Derex 08:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you typed it with invisible ink then. In any case, my discussion with you have clearly rebutted the guy above, because he said that the policy would not result in a two tier system and your attitude clearly shows that it will. And the fact that no-one can agree on that is only a recipe for further chaos. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your remark. Derex 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If I have the vaguest idea what "no original research" and "must be attributable to a reliable source" are driving at, then credentials here (attached to usernames) are irrelevant: if you are indeed a credentialed expert and have something to say on a subject, say it elsewhere, in what can be cited as a "reliable source", and then cite that source when saying it here. Your name and credentials can be part of the content quoted here from the reliable source; they should not be something you wave around in any other context. Nothing in the encyclopedic content should be based upon anyone's say-so here, no matter what credentials they claim. Am I anywhere even vaguely close to the underlying concept?

This shouldn't even be restricted to academic credentials -- though of all people in the world, degreed academics should know how to cite sources and not base things on "Well, *I* say so" -- but should extend to any claim of special knowledge or expertise. You interviewed Dr. Sir Lord World-Renowned, PhD x 12, and he said THAT? Very nice; where did you get this interview published, so you can cite it as saying so? Hey, I've started the fire, by traditional means, thousands of times over my life, and let me tell you, the best way to do it is -- hold on, I'd better cite Firelighters' Guidebook for this....

What I've done, whom I've met, what they told me, what I've learned over my lifetime, and what I've got the paperwork to prove I know -- and you too, bub -- are all wonderful things to paste across our userpages.... but when it comes to putting it in articles, you and I had better be able to cite a reliable source in support, and our own say-so ON-WIKI won't cut it. Do I repeat myself? Very well, I repeat myself. I am a small entry on this page; I contain a single idea. (Walt Whitman fans, please wince in unison.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Ben. Perhaps these sentiments should be added to What Wikipedia is Not. // Internet Esquire 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. Yours is no single notion. This is spot on what I've been getting at. Gwen Gale 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, Ben. I share those concerns.

* But this proposal does not give editor credentials 1) more or 2) less influence than they have now. Hence, we should approve this proposal for just what it is, says, and does in preventing the EssJay problem from happening again. --Rednblu 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

* Notwithstanding all of my support for this proposal, I also agree that currently certain editors, because of their credentials, are able to organize a pack that rips out the NPOV that their original research denounces as "wrong." But that is a separate problem; I can see that EssJay tried to do that; from the history record, I don't think that EssJay was successful in doing that. But that problem of editors using their credentials to organize a pack to rip out the NPOV that they would like to "relegate to the dust bin of history" is a problem that we should deal with -- not here -- but in straightening out the murky and self-contradictory text on the current NPOV policy page. Would you agree? --Rednblu 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,Ben,for clearly expressing reality . I agree with you 100%. 64.229.185.22 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

hey

Hey man. I'm a australian wikipedia user and I love cleaning up vandilism and bad articles.

Keep up the good work!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cocopopz2005 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just felt like saying hello to the man who started it all. Thanks for Wikipedia and all that.--SUIT^양복 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too; hi! TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:-)

Hope you weren't including me in that edit summary. (→Netscott) 07:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and explanation. Back to the discussion. (→Netscott) 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some help..

Hello, I am a high school student with an assingnment to right a analytical research paper, but the thing is I can't use Wikipedia.. and I think Wikipedia's information is the most organized and correct I can find. My teacher says that your site is not a credible or reliable source. I would like to write my paper on how Wikipedia works, like if there is a screening process or what happens when someone puts false information on the site but I don't know where I can find the information I'm looking for without using Wikipedia itself. This isn't that big of a deal I can always find another topic, but if you have anything I can use to prove that your website is credible then I'm all ears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanke09 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey Jimbo, I answered this question myself as best I could, as I sensed he might have needed an answer quickly, but I'm sure you can provide a better answer for him when you next pop in.

And hi! Haven't left a message with you before. Nice to meet the maker! SGGH 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

<< I would like to write my paper on how Wikipedia works, . . . . >> (citation)

In my opinion, writing a paper on how Wikipedia works is a bad idea for you. I think it is a bad idea because there are not today enough reliable sources who have published analyses of how Wikipedia works. Could we have a short discussion about picking a good topic for your paper, perhaps on your TalkPage? --Rednblu 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to use google you can find stuff. For example using http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=-blog+Sanger+Britannica++wikipedia+wales+wikimedia+GFDL++foundation+law+freedom&btnG=Search I found http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:btMdgief8QkJ:www.sciencepub.net/0402/14-0142-mahongbao.doc+-blog+Sanger+Britannica+wikipedia+wales+wikimedia+GFDL+foundation+law+freedom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us which is not only an interesting read but also contains sources that can be used for further investigation; and I know there are some Harvard studies. WAS 4.250 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be used as a very good source. Even if you think the article might be a bit sketchy you can always look at the bottom of the article for footnotes. Very often the article will cite footnotes from very credible sources including books, magazines, and additional news media that you can use for your paper. Wikipedia used in this way should be a great help to any paper. Now, if you see, "George Bush is a ****," I probably wouldn't quote that particular section of the Wikipedia article.  :-) Have a great day! 63.3.15.129 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly how Wikipedia should be used, as a resource for finding sources that CAN be cited in your paper. Many of us work very hard to make sure that there are good footnotes, and request that sources be found for the sketchier claims, or get them out of the article. The main reason that Wikipedia is not considered "reliable" is because you can never guarantee what is going to be in an article at any random moment, since anyone can edit it. But for finding good sources on any topic, it really can't be beat. - Crockspot 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers are having fun with our unreliability, but I think the average wikipedia article is more reliable than the average newpaper article. WAS 4.250 08:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD on Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales,

An AFD on my Bio Rajkumar Kanagasingam is brought only to distract the offences at wikipedia after stealing my e-mail address and thereafter my wiki passwords by Netmonger and his/her group and nothing else. How this user can bring this AFD before he clears himself from the offences which is now under investigation under an Administrator’s supervision and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I found there was a detetion tag over the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which I founded. My own bio was nominated for AFD just two and half months ago, after heavy dispute over some issues on Anton Balasingham. The AFD was placed once again. Now I feel, I can't have my Bio(which was originally created by Wackymacs) like thisand same time be a Wikipedian also. My wishes for you ever. Thanks Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia reliable?

In light of recent dicussions on this page, you might be interested in the thread forming here [8] Giano 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea to utilize the Wikipedia framework in a new way. If it would be possible to setup a more private form of correspondence, I'd be more than happy to share it with you. --D 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145

Hey, I noticed you recently redeleted this archive, saying not to restore it unless asked. My guess is it was deleted due to trouble with homeontherange (I am unfamiliar with that stuation other then basic information), so would it then be okay to restore the archive, minus section 92?--Wizardman 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I am trying to be as courteous as possible with someone who I would like to walk away with dignity... with the emphasis here on "walk away". Let's be kind to him so he can be shut of us. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, would you mind if I (or another sysop) restored only the first nine edits (the ones not pertaining to HOTR)? Or would you just prefer it remain entirely deleted Glen 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Any variant which leaves him out of it would be most appreciated. I do not know if this will be successful, but I am hopeful that by doing him this courtesy, we will be done with this sad episode.--Jimbo Wales 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)