Wikipedia talk:Credentials (proposal)

Point out some implications of declaring one's credentials

There are some implicit risks with declaring one's credentials which should be mentioned:

• If you are supposed to be an expert in a given field and make a silly school-kid error, you deserve to be mocked. Ever so gently obviously…we're all nice people here, right, and the mocker could become the mockee at any time
• If you declare your expertise in a given subject, you also implicitly declare your potential conflict of interest. This might or might not prove to be advantageous.

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Of course the current culture surrounding COI is that people are better off not saying anything about themselves as then people will view their edits in a different manner. Kind of like a Placebo effect I think. Ansell 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A few problems I have with this

I'll admit I'm mainly negative on the idea as a whole, but a few more specific comments:

• Would we require fully public detailed disclosures, such as "I am Professor Realname, who earned his PhD in Chemistry from Universityname"? Or will it be possible for someone to state a more anonymous claim, such as "I have a PhD in Chemistry", and then verify this via OTRS or something but not disclose the details publicly? The former approach has the problem of discouraging people who for various reasons may prefer to have their details remain private. The latter approach, on the other hand, would require us to come up with an official list of institutions that "count" as PhD-granting, excluding diploma mills. That seems like a huge minefield, especially since the quality of a PhD is actually more of a continuum than a binary distinction between "real" and "fake" institutions. As a compromise we could require full details about the institution but not their real name, like "I have a PhD in Chemistry from Foo College"; that would allow OTRS or whoever to just verify the credential and let everyone else decide for themselves whether Foo College is reputable or not.
• Even if we take one of the more-disclosure approaches discussed above, there may still be pressure on us to refuse to verify diploma-mill or otherwise sub-par credentials, since not every user will go read up on Foo College... if they just saw "Verified: PhD from Foo College" and took that as some sort of official affirmation of credentials, then later learned that Foo College credentials are actually worthless, they would probably blame us for allowing a Foo-College graduate to be verified in the first place. It gets even worse for religious credentials; will we give an official "Verified" status to religious positions in the Church of the SubGenius, and Church of People Who Love Delirium's Posts Even When They're Long, or will we have to come up with a list of "real" religions and refuse to verify those not on the list? The former leads to making a mockery of the whole process, while the latter is a huge can of worms.
• Will this have the effect of promoting credentialism? My guess is that it would, by both making credentials more reliable (and therefore encouraging people to rely on them), and more importantly by giving them a sort of official imprimatur with the formal "Verified!" designation, however it actually gets implemented in software.
• Or on the contrary (or simultaneously) will it provoke a crude sort of anti-credentialist backlash, as people with PhDs, rather than friendly community members who happen to know more on a subject, instead come to be seen as Official People Who Have Credentials Officially Verified And Duly Noted, a sort of oligarchy with which the proletariat will wish to interfere?
• In the real world, lots of credentials are judgment calls, not officially granted. In software engineering, "25 years experience in software engineering with [list of notable firms]" is actually a much weightier credential than "officially licensed software engineer" or "MCSE certified" is. But it looks like we would verify the latter and not the former. This would tend to discourage people who are genuine experts in a subject, and encourage people who merely have some fancy pieces of paper related to the subject—because pieces of paper are easier to verify, of course. Companies know this and will hire accordingly, but they have a whole interview process they use to verify those more subjective, paper-less parts.

As full unverified disclosure, I'm neck-deep in academia and will have a PhD myself soon, so I would personally benefit from PhDs being given a lot more weight (though not from that last possibility), and hopefully also more money. I don't think it would be a good idea, though (except for the money part). But, on the scale of "Wikipedia proposals I dislike", I would rate this as only "moderate dislike". --Delirium 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles first

After all, we're regurgitating existing information. Of course, we should avoid any new cases of people claiming to be someone they're not, but it should be made perfectly clear that it should be irrelevant to the reliability of someone's article edits. Article edits should stand or fall by referencing.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the idea that qualifications should indicate an authority over verifiable information, or any authority at all, just seems wrong. How many so-called experts have we seen make mistakes. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately referencing alone isn't a particularly good judge of the quality of an edit, since (1) the authority and relative importance of various sources is often difficult to judge for someone without relatively high immersion in the field, (2) articles need to be NPOV in addition to being well-referenced, and someone with inadequate command of the literature on a topic can easily make mistakes of undue weight without really knowing it. Which isn't to say that experts can't push agendas or that their words should be taken at face value, but nonetheless, it is not a perfect world where everyone is equally competent, and the quality of referencing alone is not a sufficient basis for judging edits. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A real name is a credential, of sorts

In Jimbo's original post about the credentials idea, he mentions Amazon's "Real Name" idea. (How they can claim a trademark on "real name", I don't know.) He says:

In order to increase the public perception of trust in [Amazon] reviews, they made it possible (but optional!) for people to go through a process to identify themselves by their Real Names.

This would benefit us as well. It's been proposed before, and I would like to encourage further discussion both here and on the discussion page for that proposal. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It would cause a big split in the community and make editors have some kind of authority just because they are willing to provide their real name. Wikipedia can't work like that. --WikiSlasher 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed modification

I would modify the proposal: You only need to verify the credentials if you're in a position of trust (adminship or higher).

• Reduces the number of necessary verifications
• Has less of an impact on the social dynamics of Wikipedia
• Gives us a good response to media ("user was not in a position of trust") when other editors use fake credentials
• Gives editors a sense of perspective when looking at userpages

Even in a position of trust, you'd still be free to state no credentials, of course.--Eloquence* 13:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd even go a step further: there is absolutely no need to verify any claims made on a user page unless the person behind that account takes it upon him- or herself to make any public statements in a (semi-)official capacity. Period. Since this seems to be motivated mainly by an attempt to deflect potential harm from the foundation when outsiders take someone's claims on a user page too seriously, all that is needed is a policy stating that one mustn't lie on one's user page if one engages in public acts (speeches, interviews, etc.) in relation to Wikimedia projects. That's all. No need to go around demanding random people (or even just admins) to give up their anonymity. Just a reminder not to lie because it may have negative consequences for the user and might also reflect badly upon the WMF. Lupo 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think not lying about credentials is something we should generally require as a matter of policy -- but the question is in which scenarios we realistically want to verify and enforce that policy.--Eloquence* 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea

This policy proposal is a fundamentally bad idea and defeats the whole point of Wikipedia, for several reasons:

• 1) Per WP:ATT and WP:OR, we don't encourage editors to use their own knowledge in articles anyway, even if they are experts. Even those users who are recognised as experts in a field can still have their contributions removed if they fail to cite third-party sources, or if they give undue weight to their own viewpoint. So I don't see that verifying a user's credentials would be any use to article writing.
• 2) It would fundamentally change the culture of Wikipedia. Those users who are adults and hold academic degrees would start acting superior to those who are children or adolescents or hold no formal qualifications. Before long, "Oppose per not enough qualifications" would start appearing at WP:RFA, and the precious anonymity and culture of equality that presently characterises Wikipedia would be irretrievably lost.
• 3) I understand that it can be a problem when a user makes a statement on a talk page along the lines of "I have a PhD in this subject and you are wrong", but I personally feel that such users should simply be ignored, or treated as trolls. Even if a user genuinely does have qualifications - or even if they're a world-renowned expert, which has happened before - they should not be treated as superior to other Wikipedians, nor should their statements be regarded as authoritative.

Fundamentally, unless given a position of trust by the community (such as adminship or bureaucratship), all Wikipedians are equal, and all have the right to anonymity. Those who boast about their (real or fictional) credentials when editing articles should be ignored, even if their credentials are real and verifiable. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The whole lesson we should take from the Essjay controversy is not to take what credentials people claim on their user page as necessarily true and realise that we should all treat each other as equals. There's not much more to it than that. --WikiSlasher 06:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't disagree with your point about the equality of all Wikipedia contributors, but I think you have seriously misrepresented the case for verification of credentials. When contributors provide credentials, they are not necessarily boasting, and they are not necessarily asking to be considered superior or authoritative. When they are, then, just as you say, their credentials should be ignored. But most of the time they are neither boasting nor claiming superiority or authoritative status. Stating academic credentials is a traditional way of indicating that one has training in evaluating evidence, in weighing contradictory claims, and in exposing one's ideas to intense criticism from peers. The point of a verification policy is to eliminate false claims, not to eliminate boasting or feelings of superiority. The latter will continue no matter what Wikipedia does, but the former can be drastically curtailed by a verification policy. From a personal standpoint, I have found that my credentials, which are freely available to anyone who clicks on my user name, have not reduced the frequency with which my edits are corrected. Quite the contrary, Wikipedians continue to be quite happy to make corrections to my work, and I accept and learn from this feedback. — Aetheling 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To repost what I said on wikien-l, for the benefit of those not there

Frankly, this proposal is impractical and unworkable. I am not about to go through all this nonsense to verify stuff - all it's going to do is to make people less willing to state things about themselves on their user pages.

For instance, I have a B.Eng. in Computing from Imperial College, London. I have stated this on every job application I've submitted throughout my professional career (thirteen years or so by now) and have NEVER been asked to verify it. To be honest, I'm not sure I could, easily; I don't know where my actual degree certificate is. I suspect my parents have it, actually. I guess I could phone up the college and ask them to fax something, but this is way too much of a pain in the behind to actually be worth doing for uncompensated volunteer effort at Wikipedia, especially since it's of complete irrelevance to what I'm actually doing here.

If we start requiring that admins must verify every single statement about themselves they make - or even if this is restricted to only claims of professional expertise - this is going to result in the following:

1. Admins will simply remove any statements that aren't worth the effort of verifying. Net gain for the project: zero.
2. People with expertise won't want to become admins, widening an already-existing gulf. The perception in some circles that people become admins because they don't write articles will increase.
3. Only those seeking greater authoritativeness than their writing and argumentative skills already command will find the cumbersome process attractive. Thus, the querulous, the trolls, and those with dubious

qualifications will be the ones getting that 'verified' badge to wear to use as a stick in arguments.

I am, since I occupy a position of responsibility, quite willing to verify my identity to the Foundation/Jimbo in private - but verifying other stuff is frankly not worth my scarce time and effort. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My university gave me an alumni email address that forwards mail to my personal account. While that doesn't verify what my specific degree is, it does verify I graduated from the university. I'd image most if not all other universities have the same thing, no? Anyhow, even if you don't have your degree on hand to fax to the foundation, the proposal wouldn't effect you in any way so long as you don't tout your credentials on your user page. This is all voluntary for people who would like to announce their area of specialty. Regards, --Jayzel 17:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials v. Indentity

There are two issues that I believe are being mixed in this discussion, and that may require a different treatment.

1. Identity

2. Credentials

1. Identity -- The Amazon.com RealName (TM) is designed to guarantee the *indentity* of the person, by the simple means of providing a credit card account that Amazon uses to verify the account holder name via CSV.

The main idea behind RealName is that if you are willing to put your real name up there with your comments, reviews, etc. you will be extra careful on what you write, and readers of your reviews will take that into account when reading them.

A "Confirmed Identity" system could be easily added to WP. If we had such a system in place, the Essjay scandal would have never happened ... TNY fact checking team would have only needed to run a check on Essjay "RealName"... rather that take his user page at face value.

This "Confirmed Identity" can be displayed alongside the username in edit histories, as well as an icon on the user's page. Implementation is quite simple.

2. Credentials -- This is a tougher one to implement and somewhat against the grain of the community culture; most of our content is not developed by experts with credentials, but by people that are passionate about the subjects they edit.

Going for an "identity" system, rather than a "credentials" system will also remove the possible negative consequences in edit disputes: "I have a PhD. in Greek literature, and I tell you that you are wrong about Parmednides". After all, if you are Joe Blow, tenured professor at the University of Guam, and you have a "Confirmed Identity" tag certifying that you are indeed Joe Blow, your credentials can be easily verified by whomever wants to make the effort to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And there's absolutely no need for any bureaucracy to implement this. People willing to reveal their real-life identity may already do so. Those who don't want to do so shall continue to be allowed to edit anonymously or pseudonymously. Otherwise, shut down edit access for people editing as IPs only. This whole thing is purely a PR issue, it has nothing to do with the trust the community places in an editor, and it has nothing to do with the functions an editor assumes in a project (admin/b'crat/steward/ArbCom/...) It may have something to do with functions someone assumes in the WMF. The only thing that might perhaps be needed is a policy stating that

• editors who intend to make public speeches or give interwiews about Wiki[mp]edia projects may be asked by a WMF official to reveal their identity to the foundation,
• that the foundation is bound to keep that information confidential forever, and
• that such editors shall be absolutely truthful in their statements on themselves on their user pages, and that they may be asked by a WMF official to provide verification for their user page statements to the foundation, who again will keep any such information confidential forever.

But such a policy would be foundation matter. It should be part of the PR policy of the foundation (and that policy should also make adamantly clear that any statements made by random editors may not reflect the official WMF position and shall not be construed to imply any endorsement by the WMF). We don't need any red tape to police identity or credentials claims in general for this. Lupo 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find all this "credentials checking" very much at odds with WP:AGF. Make it clear that editors who intend to speak publicly about Wiki[mp]edia projects should contact the PR representative of the WMF (take a look at the WMF press contacts) for guidance beforehand, and otherwise rely on the good sense of the people involved. It may not work always, but it's actually all we can do. We can't just forbid people to talk about our projects. And judging from the recent (grossly overblown) case, it appears that if it doesn't work out, the individual in question takes most of the risk and faces most of the consequences. Lupo 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:Jossi: don't you think that implementing a "RealName" system on Wikipedia would mean that those of us who don't want to give our real names would be penalised? One of the good things about Wikipedia is that we can all be equal in our anonymity - since no one has to give their name, age or qualifications, a high-school student of 15 isn't treated as automatically inferior to a tenured professor with a PhD. The ultimate impact of your proposals would be that someone's RL credentials would be factored in within Wikipedia decisions; before long, we'd start seeing Oppose per not enough qualifications at WP:RFA. This would completely destroy the entire culture of Wikipedia, as I've said earlier. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and feel the same concerns about the "credentials" part. But I am amicable to the idea of "identity", in particular for positions higher than sysop, such as bureaucrats, ArCom members, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipidia:You are not my better

For many of the reasons that have already been outlined on this page, I do not feel that credentials have any place in the editing of this project. Credentials on a user page are fine for "boasting" but we should not allow function creep into mainspace. This would alter the whole balance of wikipedia away an egalitarian effort to one where money and age reign supreme. After all why should those who can afford to go to college and who are older be any better editors than anyone else.

I would like to suggest an alternative solution that would have prevented the Essjay controvercy.

• A new wikipedia policy wikipedia:You don't know me or wikipedia:Don't quote me on that

Details the fact that we are all anonomous and facts about our selves cannot be taken at face value. If someone wishes to be interviewed, they are required quote this to the interviewer or alternatively, they provide full factual information about who they are and their background. I.E, we are anonymous within project but this anonymity is removed outside project

• A new wikipedia policy wikipedia:You are not my better or wikipedia:I don't give a sh*t

If any one tries to use their qualifications to over rule an argument then editors have the right to place a template beside the offending comment and on the users page. Admins and above who continue to use their education to attempt to gain favor would risk losing thier admin powers or face temporary blocks. Editors who continue to attempt to gain favor in a similar way would be aware that this may result in them being turned down for admin or risk temporary blocks.

This I feel would keep the project ethos yet protect against the current situation we find our selves in.

Regards - Munta 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• How about Wikipedia:Prove your point without throwing your weight? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest, of course, User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Remember that readers don't trust you. Uncle G 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • In essence, I agree with Munta's posting above. User credentials need have no place in Wikipedia procedures; every user, whatever their qualifications, still has to follow WP:ATT and provide reliable sources to support any controversial edits that they make. Anonymity promotes equality and a positive working environment. If users want to describe their credentials on their userpage, then they can, but they should not be treated any differently within Wikipedia because of their credentials, even if such credentials are real and verifiable. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Benefit?

What benefit do we gain by having this process? If so-called "experts" are not given any editorial advantage (and rightfully so, in my opinion), why should they even be recognized? I think it would be better to outright discourage editors from recognizing "experts" at all. If an expert is better than the common Internet user, it will be shown through their actions (i.e. edits). Don't get me wrong — I don't think we should be "colorblind" and act as if every person editing Wikipedia is somehow equal. But from my experience, it is much better to look at a person's edits and do the research yourself and give no heed to claims posted on their user page. --- RockMFR 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems and concerns with proposal

1. I don't care how many Ph.D.s someone has; "trust me" is not acceptable verification for Wikipedia articles. Everyone has to cite a reliable source for content asserted in an edit. So asserting a credential is basically never necessary, so neither is verifying it.
2. Let's say that a "non-expert" makes an edit that they, in good faith, think makes the article better, but unfortunately introduces a subtle error to the page. Under the current system, the person who catches the error fixes it (hopefully in a way that still addresses the first editor's concern) and maybe leaves a polite note on the editor's talk page encouraging them to keep editing but to discuss potential changes on the article talk page first. That works fine. Why is a change necessary?
3. If this change does happen, people without credentials may become afraid to edit sections written by a credential holder in that field, even though there are probably ways to improve the section.
4. Do we have to create a rule or procedure every time someone finds a way to abuse the Wikipedia system? Anyway, the EssJay problem has now been resolved, and now we're all aware to not take someone's asserted credentials at face value. That whole "fool me once..." etc. thing.

To be fair, this proposal may raise the legitimacy of Wikipedia in the eyes of others, but at what cost? This policy should be simply about not using one's credentials (real, asserted, or otherwise) to try to dominate a content dispute, but simply to use one's knowledge in the field to find and cite reliable sources. If it's a question of "fact," and you're right, you will be able to explain why and back it up, but there's no need to belittle another editor just because you have a Ph.D. in that field. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I think the proposed policy is dangerous and counterproductive. Verifying users' credentials will give users with credentials an unnecessary degree of perceived superiority. All users, whatever their expertise, must follow WP:ATT and cite reliable sources to support any controversial edits that they make; their own opinion, however informed, constitutes original research. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Simplified voluntary model

After some more thought, I would suggest an almost completely voluntary model, where the only requirement would be that a user claiming credentials should put one of five templates on their user page:

1. "This user's stated credentials have not been verified." => If placed by another user
2. "This user's stated credentials have been verified." => could link to a protected page where the user is listed, just to avoid pseudo-verification
3. "This user's verification of stated credentials is pending."
4. "This user does not wish to verify their stated credentials, and asks you to assume good faith."
5. "This user does not wish to verify their stated credentials, because they should not matter to you. Please judge edits on their merits."

(Potentially the last two could be generalized into an abstract template that lets the user provide an arbitrary reason.)

For verification process, I would suggest to keep the office completely out of the loop -- doesn't scale. Instead, verify exclusively by emailing credentials evidence to OTRS (mail from an institution address [requires reply to confirm], scanned diploma / PhD, etc.). This would be similar to the permissions queue we already have for copyright, or the general inquiries queue, and seems to scale reasonably well.

Using this method, we have a more obvious disclaimer present in cases where users do commit fraud (the Essjay page would have said "Does not wish to verify"), and at the same time, users with identified credentials can be found easily, which may be helpful in cases where you're looking for an expert on topic X (think categories).

I have some connections that could help to check for diploma mills etc., if we want to go that far; for now, a simple system should suffice.--Eloquence* 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. First, your #4 and #5 are utter nonsense: they are the default, and don't need to be explicitly mentioned. If I have to ask people to assume good faith, then AGF has failed. If anyone wants to reveal his identity to and have his credentials verified by an open and changing collective of essentially equally unknown pseudonymous volunteers handling OTRS, well, so be it. Personally, I don't see why I should.

We don't need any such "credentials verification " policy or process. The community here at the English Wikipedia has not had any problem with unverified claims users have made about themselves, whether true or not. It has only become a problem because the foundation made a big goof: recommending someone whose real identity was unknown to an outsider as a press contact. That should've never happened. (And the reporter should not have taken any claims by a virtually anonymous person at face value.) The foundation needs a policy that people who want to give interviews or be recommended by the WMF to give interviews need to make their true identity known to foundation officials. But the community doesn't need any such "verification" policy. It may be a good idea to state somewhere that it's a bad idea to lie (as if that wasn't self-evident!), but that's it. Anything more would be a gross overreaction to a PR problem that could have been avoided if the WMF people handling this had been a little more careful.

Introducing a new class of "editors with verified credentials" is a divisive, counterproductive measure and misses the point completely. The PR problem was not a Wikipedia problem, it was a WMF problem. It should be solved there. Lupo 14:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the media would be all over this story even if the recommendation had not come from WMF, but simply from looking at the list of admins with high functions (admins, arbitrators) etc. Simply put, if someone with a reasonably important official role in the project (and that does not equate to any role in the organization) is found to have been lying blatantly about something that matters to a lot of people, that's not going to be seen as acceptable conduct by the public and the media.

That said, perhaps a completely voluntary system will be sufficient for the time being. This gives a little more visibility to the issue, and helps to instill a sense of healthy skepticism about all statements of credentials. You may object if some users choose to participate in such a system, but I believe that this is completely their prerogative, not yours. As for divisiveness, there are much more serious factions of belief in Wikipedia, primarily centered around WikiProjects and portals.--Eloquence* 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jimbo's model would be voluntary too, with the exception that claiming credentials without verification would be discouraged (not prohibited, just discouraged). --bainer (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Since there are some proposals by Jimbo and Erik, I want to point out to make it clear that these are not proposals by the Wikimedia Foundation. The WMF has not received a proposition, nor discussed it, nor voted on anything. Two board members have openly indicated their desire to set up a policy for credentials, whilst two others have mentionned a position from dubious to very dubious. In case this needs to be clear, this is a decision to be taken by the community, the Foundation is not involved in this and the office will NOT deal with this (eg, we will not look at diplomas send by fax). Jimbo is perfectly free to make a proposition to the community as well as Erik, but this should be seen as a one person proposition. In case this is adopted by the english community, this does not mean either than all communities should adopt that as a rule edictated by the Foundation.

Last point, I am supportive of people holding checkuser, oversight and steward position having to mandatorily provide their real identity information.

Florence Devouard

Chair of Wikimedia Foundation

Anthere

Well at least we're keeping up the tradition of news reports being misleading (or Jimbo being intentionally vague in interviews). --- RockMFR 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I copied this comment over to Wikipedia talk:Administrators accountability which is where the discussion on the administrator identity disclosure is taking place? --Barberio 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A corrollary essay: Wikipedia:Honesty

There is a corollary effort to define what community expectations are vis a vis honesty with on-wiki dealings. This may be of interest to some folks following this article here considering the similar background. It is available at Wikipedia:Honesty - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move in from Wikipedia:Administrators accountability

I've moved in a suggested section that was in Wikipedia:Administrators accountability in interests of keeping the issues separated into that of Handling Credentials, and handling Administrator Accountability. --Barberio 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A competing proposal

I've put together what I think represents the views of most wikipedians at User:MikeURL/Credentials. I would welcome suggestions on the discussion page there.MikeURL 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Expert retention

Perhaps Wikipedia:Expert retention should be added as a "see also" link as well? - jc37 10:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG

One time there's something wrong and en:WP will change the whole system, that works for so long time? In such an undemocratic way? I know, all in all en:WP don't like academics - but in this way you will kick them all off very fast. and at the end - a title is not important, important is only, which work somebody does in the project. You don't need any title to be an great contributor. The whole idea is (sorry) idiotic. It's like cutting the tree you're sitting on. Marcus Cyron 11:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let this grow organically without a policy

If a person thinks it's important to prove their credentials, they can put them on their user page. Where the credentials involve published papers or some types of employment, links can be provided. If the person is a college professor he can link from his home page on his university account back to his Wikipedia user page. This should solve most of the problems right there.

IF YOU MUST HAVE A POLICY, AUTHENTICATE EACH CREDENTIAL INDIVIDUALLY and indicate the level of trust

If that doesn't solve most of the problem then I recommend Wikipedia provide a "confirmed" tag for use on personal pages to mark individual credentials, including name, employer, degrees, work history, affiliations, etc. as "confirmed" along with the type of confirmation, e.g. "confirmed by claimant," "officially confirmed by credential granting authority," "confirmed by a third party" such as a college degree confirmed by a current employer, or "officially confirmed by an accredited third party" such as an undergraduate degree from University X showing up on University Y's transcript received directly from University Y.

In the case of confirming a name, a notarized copy of a driver's license, elementary-school ID, or other official ID, sent by the notary, is "officially confirmed by an accredited third party," where a faxed copy of the same document sent by the editor is "confirmed by claimant." Davidwr 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article vetting by accredited editors?

Go to Citizendium, if you want to pursue this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel this will increase systemic bias against people from developing countries, undocumented people, and people too poor to get an education.

See my addition here. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I shortened the addition by Armed. I removed " There are many intelligent people, especially in developing countries, who are unable to get a good education, if any education at all, due to economic reasons. While people who get a good education certainly are more educated, it is offensive to say that they are inherently more intelligent than people without a good education." If a persson is intelligent yet uneducated, it may be that they are not as good a contributor to the encyclopedia. It may not be. Either way, no evidence has been presented. Johntex\^talk 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a reaction to the quote at the top of the page:

"people wonder, and not unreasonably, who we all are. Why should the world listen to us about anything? People think, and not unreasonably, that credentials say something helpful about that... although we never want Wikipedia to be about a closed club of credential fetishists, there's nothing particularly wrong with advertising that, hey, we are *random* people on the Internet *g*, but not random *morons* after all."

It seems to be saying that uneducated people are morons. I find this offensive. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote from Jimbo should also go. Please see below where I propose exactly this. Johntex\^talk 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Jimbo quote is gone, then there is no need for me to respond to it.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Credentials are useless

I would advise everyone currently commenting on this page to read the above essay. Written partly by another editor and partly by myself, it summarises my view of why this proposal is bad. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are experts always good editors?

One of the worst editors I know bears the name and identity of a professor in his field at an accredited university; I believe he is that person. He is nevertheless extremely tendentious; and, while he cites good sources, he consistently cites them for what they do not say; sometimes for what they deny. This proposal would only give him more authority, and be bad for Wikipedia.

Our present practice is that claims of authority should be ignored, and that you are the sum of your edits. This is a good thing; and should be continued. As far as I am concerned, if the editor who provoked this page had been able to substantiate his edits with sources, well and good; if not, he deserves to be "edited mercilessly", professor of theology or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but this proposal isn't about that anyway. It's about our readers. Any system that allows credentials to be validated would not privilege those who have done so, and our culture would operate to resist this should anyone try to do so - and this is how it has always been. The main idea is to elicit greater trust from readers. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The same argument applies to readers: offering credentials is a false assurance, because credentials do not validate edits. And any reader who "trusts" Wikipedia is being foolish; many articles are PoV, many articles are ignorant, and any article could have been vandalized immediately before the reader sees it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for the quote by Jimbo

I believe we should remove the Jimbo quote from the top of the policy. The policy should stand on it's own merit, not because of some quote for Jimbo. If you want a quote from Jimbo, here is one to ponder:

...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."[1] - Jimbo Wales

We don't need to start any policy with a quote from Jimbo unless it is an outright command from him. Johntex\^talk 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

When drafting the page I added the quote to illustrate one key reason why such a proposal might be desirable. I just think it's a good expression of that point of view, it's clearly not a mandate or an order or anything like that. --bainer (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that quoting Jimbo has too much of a "God-King-has-spoken" aura. Also, the quote has already been found to be offensive to at least one editor who posts (above) that he interpreted it to mean that those without credentials are morons. I don't think that was Jimbo's intent at all, but the point is the policy/process can be formed without carving Jimbo's words in stone at the top. Johntex\^talk 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, including a quote from one of our own, such as Jimbo, is needlessly self-referential, even on a policy page. Johntex\^talk 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is an illustration of the point (the proposition that validating credentials may well help to elicit trust from users). I thought including the quote would be livelier than including another slab of prose. If you can find a better illustration of the point of view, by all means add it instead, but don't misconstrue the quote as some sort of directive from on high, when it clearly is not. --bainer (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-references are permitted in the Wikipedia namespace, however, I support removing Jimbo's quote because I found it offensive.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Moved comment to correct section 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are permitted but that does not mean we have to have them or that they are a good idea. Besides, this is not just a self reference, it is self-referential. What I mean is it sounds like "we decided to do this because our founder thought it was a good idea". That does not get us anywhere. Johntex\^talk 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for the quote by Delerium

1. Delerium's quote does not make clear what the Economist example has to do with us. He even says the cases are dissimilar.
2. The quote is under a heading called "Potential problems" yet the quote does not speak to any potential problem. None is suggested in the quote itself, and there is no connection made between the quote and any "potential problem".
3. The quote has a mis-leading lead-in which states there are "advantages" to not checking credentials. There is no connection made from the quote to any so-called "advantage" for Wikipedia
4. Including a quote from one of our own editors is needlessly self-referential. The same is true for Jimbo's quote.

Johntex\^talk 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-references are permitted in the Wikipedia namespace, however, I support removing Jimbo's quote because I found it offensive.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC) This is the wrong section for this comment... moving to above section. 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The implicit point of comparison is that the Economist does not attribute authors, but rather lets the work stand and fall on its own merits - currently the most prominent argument against validating credentials in Wikipedia. I thought the comparison would be obvious, but maybe it needs to be more explicitly explained. --bainer (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing this page into an information page

I'm editing WP:Credentials to be an information page, so that users can know that Wikipedia has no credential policy. It isn't quite clear from the rest of the policy and guidelines. See this discussion. Zenwhat (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)