User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification/Archive 1

Comment

MD's would be an easier place to start than PhD's. Most local accreditation agencies list credentials. See http://www.cpso.on.ca for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, for example. 74.12.73.87 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MD's would be an excellent addition to the first attempt at this policy.--Jimbo Wales 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes?

Are you kidding? pschemp | talk 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Anyone who wants can google me to find out who I am. I have no desire to have any userboxes on my user page. CMummert · talk 12:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy suggests putting forward a set of userboxes which are strictly optional. Those who wish to use them, may. Those who don't, don't. If you don't want to have verified credentials on your userpage, then don't. --Jimbo Wales 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Er yes, but after the userbox wars, one might remember that many userboxes are seen as divisive in the community. These certainly would be, separating editors into a class of "verfied" and "not verified." pschemp | talk 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea

Credential verification is a Pandora's Box that should remain closed here at Wikipedia. Those who think that credentialism is a GoodThing(TM) should sign up for Citizendium. // Internet Esquire 03:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. You thought user boxes were bad...adding something that will become a bragging rite is going to be trouble. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - a terrible idea. I have a PhD myself, and that doesn't keep me from being wrong. Fact-checking should be based on evidence, not on credentials. If I send an article in to a peer-reviewed academic journal, they don't care what my qualifications are - they don't even *look* at what my qualifications are. They ask other people (not necessarily with credentials themselves) who have published good papers to look at whether they think my argument is logical, and if they don't think it is they have to explain why not. Neither their credentials nor mine matter in the process at all.

This is a brilliant idea

This is how the real world works and its a proven system. But there must always be checks and balances. You don't just let anyone off the street and (ahem) claims to be a MD to do surgeries. You check their credentials. Same with all the other professions. I rest assured knowing that the car I drive in was signed off by engineers with proper, proven credentials. In addition, an institution like a special prosecution division and anti-corruption unit is badly needed in Wikipedia. 74.112.107.145 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that credentials are important in certain settings. If a person is a college professor, for example, you want that person to be an expert in their field so that they can teach not only known material but engage in original research. You also want that professor to have done some prior teaching at the graduate/post-grad level and the right credential does ensure that. There are 1000s of examples where the right credential makes perfect sense. The question is not whether credentials have value but whether they have value in the context of the work of a wikipedia editor. The answer is yes! A Ph.D. in biology will be a superb editor of biology pages. Why? Not because they say "I'm a Ph.D. and I know better" but rather because they will be able to cite reliable sources like a citation kung fu artist. If a crank challenges them they have a very viable dispute resolution process to follow and bring along their mountain of RSs with them, FTW.

Now, why, you may ask, does that make a verification process bad? First, it creates the appearance that they have official wiki support for an "I said so" argument. People can put up caveats until the end of time but an official policy that makes credential verification a reality will make appeals to authority carry more weight. Second, any credentialing process on wikipedia, that does not include hiring new FT professionals to do it, is very subject to gaming of all sorts. I think this policy would be corrupting to the project and I hope it goes on the very slow track.MikeURL 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Going Through The Users.

I posted this to User Talk: Jimbo Wales:

*I have some questions though, assuming this policy is put into action, who is going to go through all these users claiming to have credentials? How would they do it? My apologies if this sounds improper, sir, but these seemed like decent questions. Acalamari 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the message. Exactly how are we going to find all the users who have credentials? Who will have time to do all that? Acalamari 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is that users self-identify, then others use Special:Whatlinkshere from the special userbox templates (or see them in the course of their normal activities), check the subpage, and, if it is lacking verification, verify it. I didn't get the impression that there would be any trolling through, looking for claims to have PhDs and doing this for all of them. —Krellis (Talk) 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Even so, who's going to want to do that job? Also, not all users use userboxes to say things. On my user page, I only have a few userboxes; I use text for the rest. Some users will probably use text to say about their credentials. If they do, Special:Whatlinkshere will be useless. Acalamari 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are entirely correct, and in fact, I edit conflicted with you saying pretty much the same thing, acknowledging that I missed the point in my first reply. In theory, there might be some group of people out there interested in doing this, but those people are probably people who would also contribute in other areas, so you're losing part of their contribution through this, which you have to weigh against the gain, and I'm not sure what that is, or if it balances out, in the long run. —Krellis (Talk) 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the mainpage (last few sentences), Jimbo has written that this is meant to be a gentle introduction to a tradition of credential verification. I hate to say it but, human nature being what it is and AGF not being what it is supposed to be, it is likely that users who claim leverage in debates because of the credential will continue to do so in the future. God forbid, but there may be more Essjay situations as a result. On a smaller scale of course, because we cannot assume that a large number of those "powerful" are all lying, but on a smaller scale of rank-and-file editors there may be more Essjay situations. Consequently there is a reason to foresee a creation of a "Credential Panel" or something, a group of Wikipedians who will dedicate their service to following up credential claims. Why not? A lot of users already patrol Newpages and RecentChanges, we have admins continually patrolling AN/I, we have Dispute Resolution and ArbCom for major issues, it is only reasonable to assume that this credential-verification tradition will similarly evolve and bring about a group of (appointed?) users who will take up the task of verifying credentials. Ekantik ^talk 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way to prevent EssJay situations is to confront people who try it with a "put up or shut up" attitude. This provides a mechanism whereby that can happen. If someone claims credentials on their userpage, they now have the opportunity to, in a systematic way, validate those credentials. This will help to cut down. In general, in terms of "who will do this", I think the answer is more or less the same as who does anything around here: anyone who feels like it. :) --Jimbo Wales 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand; thanks. It'll still be a long task to find all the users who say they have credentials, though. Acalamari 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"User:Krellis/I think the idea is that users self-identify, then others use Special:Whatlinkshere from the special userbox templates" - No Whatlinkshere necessary - this is what user categories are for, at least if we decide it's useful to keep track of who has a PhD or not (which seems to be the direction we're going towards) --Random832 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Who vets?

I am opposed to users vetting. It should be someone in the office - I am happy to entrust my details to a real, accountable person, but not so happy to entrust them to a mere username, however responsibly that username has acted so far. Yes, I do have a Ph.D and other quailifications and publications, but I am reluctant about proving it to someone who is not an accountable, known officer or employee. I'd give Jimbo or the legal officer the details immediately if asked - it makes a huge difference. Metamagician3000 04:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does make a difference. And it makes a class of privileged editors, which is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Issues should be solved with cited, verifiable facts, not credentials. pschemp | talk 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That applies to any scheme of credentials. I'm not that happy about the scheme at all and think it misses the point. But my point is that if it is introduced our privacy needs to be protected. I'd actually prefer it was not introduced - see below. Metamagician3000 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. pschemp | talk 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So it sounds like for someone who prefers to remain anonymous while still claiming credentials that there is going to be a slight difficulty, which is of course to be expected just from the nature of that desire. But right now, if you claim to have a PhD and you have no means at all of proving it, then we are in a bit of a bind. Certainly one option would be for you to reveal your personal information to anyone of your choice... either me, or any other wikipedian you trust and whose testimony you think would carry weight with the broader community. That would keep the unfortunate bottleneck of the office out of it entirely.--Jimbo Wales 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if we have the option of contacting you personally in such a circumstance that does solve one problem. My idea wasn't so much to drag in the office for its own sake as to find some way that people could protect their privacy. I suppose the number of people who might want to demonstrate high level qualifications, such as a PhD, while also feeling some sensitivity about revealing their identities might be fairly small, so that might work. If this scheme came in, I probably would do exactly that if you didn't get cold feet about it, even though I also have some other misgivings (as we're discussing below). (Actually, my own situation/attitude is probably a bit unusual in various ways, and I'm happy to talk to you about that privately, but I wouldn't be raising this if I didn't think there are probably other people with PhD's and so on, but wanting to guard their privacy.) Metamagician3000 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Misses the point

I'll try to cooperate with this scheme if it is introduced, though privacy concerns worry me (see above). However, I still think it misses the point. It's much more important to vet the bona fides of (the relatively small number of) people who are held out by Wikipedia as having authority. I'd introduce vetting (by the office) at an early stage in Wiki-functionary careers, e.g. make it voluntary for admins to demonstrate their bona fides ... and compulsory for bureaucrats, user checkers, arb com members, people to whom the media are referred, and anyone else who is given special responsibility. Metamagician3000 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So I think I disagree with you, but let's think through this together. First, take as an exampe arbcom members. This is a purely community function which does not require a degree of any kind, and the community-generated qualifications for this position generally have to do with being a great wikipedian, good at conflict resolution, trusted as a clear headed judge of what is going on, etc. So certainly for some positions where private information is handled (checkuser) knowing real identity is important, but even there credentials per se are not important.

Second, I totally agree that the process should be voluntary, but not open just to admins, but to anyone who would like to do it. If someone is a mere editor and doing amazing work in a particular area because they are an actual bona fide expert in that area, and if the EssJay scandal has made it suspect for them to talk about their credentials at all on their user page, that's a huge loss for Wikipedia. If they want, I think they should have the option to go through this kind of process.--Jimbo Wales 13:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my comments. I guess it depends on what we see as the moral of the story with Essjay. What I think is most embarrassing is that we promoted someone to such responsible positions and held him out to The New Yorker as someone to talk to, when all along he'd been faking his identity in this way. I think we can make it difficult for that to happen again by putting in a scheme that prevents it and only affects a small number of people - checkusers, maybe bureaucrats, maybe admins who volunteer. I think it's important to pick up arb com members if we can. These people are sitting in judgment over others, so if it comes out that one was not of good repute I think that looks very bad. Likewise it looks terrible when we tell the media to talk to some trusted person, who then turns out to be a liar (regardless whether the lie is about academic credentials or something else).

The mere fact that a user is blustering about having a (non-existent) qualification and uses this to win content disputes, by contrast, seems much less embarrassing to me. It's the sort of thing that anyone with any experience of internet forums would assume happens all the time. I don't like it, of course, or condone it, but I don't find it as shocking as that someone sitting as an arbitrator (and having a lot of other responsible positions, but this one really rankles) was himself someone dishonest. So the aspect that your proposal addresses just seems to me like a lower priority, and I can see it being cumbersome with potentially a huge number of people being involved and problems such as discussed elsewhere on the page. I can understand why you might want to go down that path anyway, but I don't think it is demanded by the Essjay scandal ... or at least what I see as most significant about the Essjay scandal. But by all means let's keep talking. Maybe there is more than one problem to be addressed and we need to separate them. Metamagician3000 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician3000 here. If Essjay had been just another user, it wouldn't have been a notable scandal, just a problem that we could have resolved in house. (He actually hadn't been contributing to content significantly for months; his last 50 main space edits go back to August 06, and none of them are described as a significant content edit.) But he was in positions of special trust, and had been offered to the press as an exemplar of the community.

An editor who is lying to the community about who they are is not worthy of special trust, so should not be in a position of special trust. There is nothing wrong with being in such positions without making claims about real world identiy, but if claims are made they need to be true. Someone that lies about who they are can't be relied on to tell the truth about what they are doing, and the actions enabled by these positions can't be checked by the average administrator, much less the average user. (We've hidden the oversight log so that users can't even tell that something has been oversighted, much less what it was.) Because the holders of positions of special trust are seen as the public face of Wikipedia, they also can damage Wikipedia in the eyes of its readers and potential future contributors far more than the ordinary editor. The same logic applies to those offered as a contact to the press. These are the people that we need to know are not lying. This issue is more important than the in house content disputes.

There is some value in knowing who the experts are. Most of the time, though, all we really need to expect of our experts is the ability to make a persuasive arguments from the authoritative sources. I've seen some cases where real experts were ignored by people who considered their viewpoint too elitist. (The deleted history of Talk:List of major philosophers is an example.) But those disputes wouldn't be any better if the experts were certified, as they are about whether the experts should be listened to, not whether or not they are experts. As Arthur Rubin suggested on Jimbo's talk page, there is a legitimate role in listening to experts to know if something is not even wrong, or pseudoscience that is so ignored that sources refuting it won't be available. But outside the cases where what the expert would be saying is that it is so poor that there won't be good sources saying that it is poor, an expert demonstrates expertise by making arguments from sources. GRBerry 14:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus giving their opinions more weight in a content dispute, which is exactly what we want to avoid. The answer to this is that you cite sources that refute the others. Otherwise, you are asking us to rely on the Original Research (ie opinion about sources) of the expert. pschemp | talk 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Voluntary?

The proposal should include a passage like one of the following, depending on which one is intended:

(1) Voluntary: A user who claims to have a Ph.D. or other credential covered by this system may assert the claim in text on his or her user page, without incorporating the userboxes that link to a verification subpage.

(2) Mandatory: This system is the exclusive method by which a user may assert a credential that is covered by the system. The credentials currently covered are: ____ (The policy would then list whatever the credentials are. They might initially be only Ph.D.'s as per Jimbo's example, or might be any post-baccalaureate degree, might include various professional certifications, etc. The point is that, if part of this system is to prohibit the bare assertion of credentials without a verification process being at least available, then people have to be put on notice about what assertions are covered.) No user page may state that the user has such a credential except through a userbox linking to a verification subpage. The assertion of a credential is acceptable even if the verification subpage is blank.

In the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, there was some sentiment for prohibiting assertions of credentials. I don't agree with that idea; I'd prefer version (1) above. My reason for not being bold and adding it to the proposal is that I'd rather wait and see what the community sentiment is. JamesMLane t c 08:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally support the voluntary system. Mandatory raises a whole host of issues that I think we don't need to address right now.--Jimbo Wales 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, I can't see the need for a voluntary system of credentialing -- what would be the benefit to an editor (or the cost to not be credentialed) if any pseudonymic user (i.e. EssJay) can continue to claim expertise without a requirement that he/she provide validation of accreditation? Optional credentialing does not actual "solve" any of the issues raised during this controversy. I'd be more in favour of a blanket/general "Integrity Policy" of "do not claim credentials which you do not actually have" (which should be obvious, but apparently isn't to some) and leave it at that. Failure to abide by such a principle could be grounds for community/administrative action. --Leflyman^Talk 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia no-one knows if you're a dog,

and indeed one of our well respected admins is a puppy (at least she says she is). It's helpful or interesting when editors give a general indication of their background, but if experts really want to gain some recognition to overcome the admittedly tedious problem of dealing with ill-informed pov pushers who rubbish well sourced contributions, they should have to give their real names and some means of verifying their claim to expertise.

In my opinion this information could be given in confidence to the mediator or arbiter when the dispute is taken further, or if placed in user pages should be under a strict rule that such claims to expertise are not to be used in talk page arguments. If such claims are made in article discussions, the post should be moved to the user's talk page with a reminder that repeating such claims can result in a short block. dave souza, talk 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) minor correction dave souza, talk 15:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it really needed?

I think the Essjay-situation could have been avoided if he had understood much earlyer that claiming false credentials is really frawned upon here and that it could come back and haunt him later. I don't think he understood that, and that if he had he would very early have stopped making such claims. Many people are used to pretending to be someone else on the net, and they might be doing it here simply out of ignorance. I think we can come a long way by simply make it very clear to all editors that make-pretend is not accepted here. This and why could be summarised on a policy page, maybe with userbox stating something along "This user doesn't lie about himself, because it's wrong", with a link to that policy page to get the word out. In addition we could have a standard question to admin-candidates "Have you ever given false information about yourself while editing WIkipedia?". All this should catch a lot of cases and might be enough to avoid new scandals. It won't be bullet-proof, there will always be liars out there, but maybe it would be enough. At least for now. After a scandal it's easy to overreact, and I think we might be doing that now. Shanes 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit..."

As pointed out in the pre-amble "I'm a Phd, so shut up" is not a valid argument. Therefore verification on whether an editor is lying as well as rude and not showing Good Faith is also invalid. If an editors contributions are flawed it doesn't matter how brilliantly, or otherwise, they can argue their case (well, alright, it shouldn't) then it should be removed without recourse to checking any other qualification. LessHeard vanU 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize this point; 'I'm a PhD so I know' is a strawman; there needs to be WP:V/WP:RS (WP:ATT) to back up the statements. Even if this guideline isn't meant to help or hinder this kind of discourse, it will certainly pop up more often if a credited person has a way to wear it on their sleeve. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No Official Status

I think it would be a mistake to assign credentials any "official" status (a la Citizendium). A system for backing up claims is fine, though. --Random832 14:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stable versions

So because stable versions is taking too long, we are starting this bumfluff? Ludicrous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I am a great advocate of 'stable versions' (if done 'correctly') I don't think they would address what I see as the underlying concerns driving this effort. The claims which Jimbo seeks to devise a defense against would be along the lines of, 'this person lied about who he is so the content he added is probably false' and 'this person is a highly ranked Wikipedian and lied about who they are so the Wikimedia foundation is untrustworthy'. Frankly, both of those seem like ludicrously invalid leaps of 'logic' to me, but they are in fact the major complaints being lodged. Stable versions would not prevent either of them... 'oh, so this version was verified as correct and unvandalized... by the guy who lied about who he is'.

The root problem is that revelation of deceit by a user is being (unjustifiably IMO) spun into suggestions that Wikipedia's content and the foundation are unreliable. It's a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of how Wikipedia works, but that doesn't stop people from running with it. I don't really like this proposal as it introduces some new problems and I'm not sure it will solve the concerns (if our 'verification' turns out to be wrong then we're right back where we started except worse because we have officially 'vouched' for the person)... but I don't think it is about the accuracy of our content (ala 'stable versions') so much as protecting our reputation. --CBD 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that stable versions is something entirely different, aimed at an entirely different set of concerns. What I am concerned about here is trust within the community. Now, I think if our verification turns out to be wrong in some case, we are not necessarily based to where we started, nor have we officially vouched for someone. Instead, we have taken reasonable precautions and been duped, and that's a much more ethical place to be than to have thrown up our hands and not tried at all. It is partly about protecting our reputation, of course, but it is also much more about protecting our community vibe, i.e. the idea that we can and should trust each other, because we are Wikipedians. Not just random users of a website but people who have a certain kind of commitment to quality, freedom, etc. Right now that trust is, for many of us, badly damaged.--Jimbo Wales 13:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how submitting your credentials to a random member of the community builds trust. Trust is built by citing your facts with verifiable sources. Trust is doing work that you know others can check and will be found correct. Trust is not built by waving "credentials" in other peoples faces. pschemp | talk 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Does pschemp really play field hockey? Is Fred Bauder really a lawyer? You know, it really doesn't matter. If I found out tomorrow that it was all lies my reaction would be, 'huh, too bad they felt they had to do that'. Dishonesty about anything is, of course, detrimental in some degree to trust... but frankly their 'outside Wikipedia persona' is one of the least important things for a Wikipedian to be honest about. In most cases it is not going to make any difference whether a user is a college student, doctor, teenager, or astronaut... none of it makes their contributions any more or less valid. I trust Essjay, yes still, to be accurate in his contributions to the encyclopedia and generally impartial in judging disputes. If he told me he just bought a new Porsche I might now take it with a grain of salt, but... so what? Alot of people 'embellish' their credentials - even moreso in the online environment. It doesn't mean they are dishonest in all things, or that people who tell the truth about their credentials are more honest overall. I don't see verification of identities and/or credentials making me trust my fellow Wikipedians any more or less. I do see where 'due diligence' in identity verification could help our reputation... I can certainly foresee this leading to people saying things like, 'What do you mean Wikipedia has no expertise? There are 732 verified PhD's on the site!'. I just don't like the idea of 'importing' those 'status values' into Wikipedia. Right now we talk to each other as Wikipedians. No matter how hard we try I can't see that being quite the same in a 'verified' world. Is a 'verified U.S. Army Corporal' going to feel as free to dispute a 'verified U.S. Army General' as he would another "random user"? Is a 'verified professor' going to be as likely to listen to a 'verified student' about Wikipedia procedure as they would when that person was just a 'random admin'? The page says all the right things about not letting this change our culture, but 'easier said then done'. --CBD 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote: What do you mean Wikipedia has no expertise? There are 732 verified PhD's on the site! This actually can be even more misleading than not having any verification at all. Because Wikipedia at present has about 1.6 million articles. What can a couple of hundred Ph.D's do in that avalanche of articles? Second since Ph.D's can easily be reverted by anyone and articles are not protected having these few hundred Ph.D's can lead to a false and misleading sense of security. Dr.K. 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose?

As it stands I see little benefit in the proposal, since it explicitly states that ones qualifications are inappropriate as justification for content inclusion, or deletion. If there was an explicit purpose then I might be more supportive of it as anything other than knee-jerking. Given the current policy someone putting up something claiming S with something else saying and I can prove it just leads me to a so what response.

It also doesn't really allow for the pseudonimity allowed by elective usernames, unless this becomes associated with a username strategy which mandates transparency. If pseudonymous accounts are permitted then we do run the risk of two tier editorship, which leads quicly back to the so what response. To be useful the approach needs to apply to all, and I think that would be enough to deter many.

In addition I'm not convinced that the proposal at present is extensible, even within Academia. Many Masters dissertations are on restricted availability for commercial or national security reasons so would not be available. Outside academia then protection of association becomes an issue. As an example I would not wish my management consulting firm to be associated with my identity within WP; most of the privacy debate centres around admins being stalked, but for others there will be personal security, commercial or social reasons for privacy.

Finallly, what sort of credentials will require validation; fairly clear cut in the hard sciences, but a lot more difficult in other areas. How about a current or former Officer in a military unit seeking to remove sourced, but inaccurate material, from an article about that unit?

In summary this strikes me as knee jerk reaction to the mismanagement of recent events and adds little to the knowledge development effort.

ALR 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example of "sourced, but inaccurate material" is a good one. Presumably, the military officer could provide a source for the correct information. In some instances where there are two contradictory reliable sources, we would include both in our article. I don't think we're obligated to repeat every error that anyone makes, though. If the editors working on the article decided, on the basis of all the available evidence, that one version, although cited to a source, was inaccurate, they might well decide to remove it. The available evidence could include what is said by a contributor, whether or not his or her credentials were verified. The verification option might be one factor in the decision. JamesMLane t c 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional thoughts

How is it envisaged that this proposal would relate to the content policies, which I suppose are where my real issues lie? If a credential policy could be developed which was both robust from a personal data perspective, extensible outside academia and could be used to remove material on the basis of expertise then I can see some value in it. To do that would need an overhaul of how the policies relate to the ecology of knowledge and how each of the policies fit together as a cohesive portfolio underpinning the content. I think there is probably some value in limiting opportunities to evolve policies without a robust system around their implementation as well. I appreciate this moves outside the immediate issue and cuts more to the heart of how WP is intended to represent the existence of knowledge in the round.

ALR 14:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even need this?

I think we are all agreed (well, except those who have already left for Citizendium) that a person's credentials are completely irrelevant to this project. So why do we need to verify something which is irrelevant? Should the WMF set up a special 'verification queue' for users who say they are allergic to peanuts? After all, a person's peanut allergy gains them the same level of on-wiki respect as credentials (ie none).

This 'scandal' only arose because the WMF reccomended Essjay as an interview subject without actually knowing his real identity (despite Wikia employing him). Why should the English Wikipedia be turned into a Citizendium-style pissing contest just because of a screwup by the Foundation's media relations department? Cynical 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We need this because a long-time, respected user claimed to have a Ph.D. and used this claim to gain the upper hand in content disputes. That cannot happen again and with Wikipedia's current policies, it easily could.↔NMajdan•talk 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So, shame on anyone who gave him an upper hand because of that. In general, the role played by Jimmy Wales in the EssJay affair is far more disturbing, and in the grand scheme of things more damaging to WIkipedia, than anything EssJay did. Gene Nygaard 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the lesson is pretty well learned with this snafu. I don't see what the dire need is for this capricious guideline. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion and others suggests to me that editors would not be opposed to a guideline that discourages the use of any credential for any reason on wikipedia. If you put a credential in your userpage it will be assumed that you may or may not have it but in any case it will be irrelevant to your edits. If you solely use appeals to authority in edit disputes you will likely be labeled a crank and will almost certainly lose in DR. This is an opportunity to further depreciate credentials on wikipedia--not the other way around. I thought it might not be a bad idea to start a competing guideline so I borrowed Jimbo's text and flipped it at User:MikeURL/Credentials. If that gets some traction I'll move it to the village pump.MikeURL 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that even users with Ph.D.'s must provide reliable sources for any factual assertion they want to include in an article (i.e., the credentialed user's unsupported say-so is not sufficient). It's quite another to discourage or even ban "the use of any credential for any reason". There's a fairly large area in between those extremes. JamesMLane t c 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the word "ban" in general. In my proposal I did use the word "discourage". It seems you have to look pretty hard to find anyone on wikipedia who thinks credentials are relevant in content disputes. IMO wikipedia is all about the content so if credentials are irrelevant to the content then it seems to me that a guideline that suggests they not be used at all is a pretty good idea. The important question here, I think, is would such a guideline have prevented the EssJay scandal. I think it very possibly would have. In fact I think it would have had a better shot than Jimbo's proposal because creds are rather easy to fake and "official looking" verification will only lend even more weight to credentials and increase the incentive to fake them.MikeURL 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a dedicated and skilled individual could find their way round any verification of credentials system but that can be said for anything on the internet. Just as MySpace have had to act to prevent paedophiles and to be seen to do so, and that doesnt mean that no paedophiles will slip through, so in this case wikipedia needs to be seen to do something after the Essjay controversy so I think the question why do we need this doesnt need asking, and that it is an excellent idea to help restore whatever credibility of wikipedia has been shaken through the Essjay controversy, SqueakBox 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't "need to be seen" doing anything; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a PR machine (ie, this could be WP:NOT (soapbox) or WP:POINT, or both). JoeSmack ^Talk 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect I think that is naive given how huge wikipedia is, SqueakBox 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility does not and will never come from having a list of confirmed Ph.D.'s contributing to the site. It comes from and will continue to come from properly attributing our articles to reliable external sources, which is our present policy. It just needs to be followed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing to always be aware of is what behavior you encourage when you institute a policy/guideline. I would argue that Jimbo's guideline (or is it a policy) would encourage that which it is trying to stop. If Jimbo's policy goes through you can get a shiny new template that says "yes indeed I am Dr. EssJay and wikipedia agrees. In fact, wikipedia considers my credentials important enough to have a whole process devoted to verifying them. Respect my authoritay."MikeURL 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point indeed, we should address this, SqueakBox 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, lets use my proposal instead.MikeURL 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it will make it less likely that people will fake qualifications. This has happened and surely wikipedia needs to respond, SqueakBox 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, why does Wikipedia need to respond? JoeSmack ^Talk 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We should not encourage any revealing of real personae

Speaking just in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor and not as a former President of France, WWI flying ace, inventor of electricity, and 1963 Miss World, I would say: anything that makes a person's real identity easier to find is bad. In no way should Wikipedia be encouraging people to post any information that could lead to a person's meatspace identity, rather this should be strongly discouraged. Herostratus 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I came into Wikipedia being pretty open about my real world identity, having come from several years immersion in an on-line environment where most users edited under their real names and many of us met face-to-face at conferences, and even became real life friends. That has made things a little uncomfortable for me in Wikipedia, what with a couple of editors who live in the same county making threats against me (nothing serious, yet). How open an editor is about his or her real world identity is, and should be, a matter of personal choice. I don't think Wikipedia has any business trying to shape that decision. It would be easy for me to prove that I have four degrees up to a Ph.D., each in a different subject area, but, you know, I don't care, you don't care, and I've found I would much rather work on subjects that I don't have a degree in, because it is so much more fun learning about those subjects by reading the books and articles which I then use for references. So, I am not in favor of pushing either anonymity or transparency (including credentialling). -- Donald Albury 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We should never discourage adults from revealing their real identities here, SqueakBox 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then having no guideline for Credential Verification would be the best way to keep matters neutral. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Has the AP closed discussion?

The following hit my RSS feeds recently. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_credentials Does the AP have a time machine? I have emailed them to tell them that this is still only a proposed policy AND that EssJay did not create thousands of articles.MikeURL 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the AP has jumped the gun, as Jimbo seems to have fallen in love with this (very bad) idea, and there is every reason to believe that he intends to move forward with this idea after letting the opposition have their say. Announcing such a policy before debate has ended is also an effective way for Jimbo to redirect media and blogosphere attention away from the issue of admin accountability. // Internet Esquire 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?

What relevance do "credentials" have in any case. Everybody keeps spouting that we are supposed to make our decisions based on "verifiability" and as the the note just below this edit screen says, "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. And Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Gene Nygaard 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia:No original research, not "no original research unless you have verified credentials posted on your user page". Gene Nygaard 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say I agree with Gene. I have no idea why this is at all necessary. If you have to resort to pointing to your own credentials in a content dispute, then you're not following WP:ATT. If this isn't designed for someone obtaining more authority in content disputes, then what is the point? Essjay's errors were primarily in using his fake credentials along with the trust and favor he had curried from the rest of his good work in order to gain the upper hand in content disputes. In my mind, this is taking us a step closer to Citizendium, which is... horrible, in my humble opinion, and entirely contrary to Wikipedia's aims. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the use of credentials in content disputes is always inappropriate. This is not about that, and I think this policy will help to strengthen that tradition. The point is, if you are going to claim to have credentials, then you really ought to be willing to prove them. We owe this to the general public, our readers, as well as to each other. The reason is clearly shown in the EssJay case. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but let's not be naive. Credentials will be used in exactly that manner in disputes. For what other purpose do they serve? Correct citations prove facts. Credentials aren't needed for that. pschemp | talk 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Superficially, the Essjay case was about falsified credentials; at its core, it was about an elaborate deception that Essjay rationalized as being necessary because he held positions of trust at Wikipedia. Verifying credentials will not address this core issue. All it will do is validate a Larry Sanger-esque type of credentialism and create an attractive nuisance for credentialists and impostors, and I'm not really sure which type of appeal to authority is worse. What I do know is that Essjay outed himself to the powers that be at Wikipedia because he felt that he had to so when accepting his position at Wikia. As such, the best remedy for the sort of deception that Essjay perpetrated would be a policy that forced people seeking administrator privileges at Wikipedia to provide the powers that be at Wikimedia with their true identity; if administrators wish to remain pseudonymous to the rest of the world, that's their prerogative. // Internet Esquire 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How will this *not* create a privileged class of editors? I understand the need to checkusers to have their identities verified, but how will this not be divisive to the community of regular editors? pschemp | talk 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How will this created a privileged class of editors? Nothing in the policy proposed gives people who have verified their credentials more power in the community. All it is doing is setting forth an option for those who would like to have credentials on their user page to ALSO volunteer to have others sign off on the validity of those credentials.--Jimbo Wales 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the proposal says this no, but we've seen time and time again that when you split off a group of users and give them a title, "verified", "admin" "arbitrator" whatever, people being human immediately see them as a separate class and afford them different deference according to their perceived status. Thinking this won't happen is naive. In fact, the only benefit of claiming credentials is so one can give more weight to views in debates. Anyone can cite sources, expert or not. If sources are cited correctly, there is no benefit to the verifiability of something by having "credentials". Therefore, this proposal will only be used for purposes it was not intended for should it be implemented, as it has no real benefit in practice other than letting Wikipedia brag that it has "verified experts." If we can't prove on our facts with citations, we shouldn't be writing an encyclopedia in the first place. pschemp | talk 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to remind Jimbo of the very ideals he got so many of us to buy into in the first place. Credentials should be even more depreciated in the wake of the EssJay situation, not elevated. While it is easy to say that a verification process will not elevate the importance of credentials in edit disputes I think it ignores human nature and is, therefore, almost surely the opposite of what will happen. I think this proposed policy goes in the wrong direction and wikipedia would be better served by discouraging reference to a user's credentials at all.MikeURL 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gene. Don't see the point of it, and the consequences of such proposal will do more harm than good, despite Jimbo's warning "under longstanding Wikipedia traditions, the fallacy of appeal to credentials is firmly rejected". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I agree. There is no reason to strictly verify credentials. Also it can create privacy concerns for Ph.D. holders. Why everyone else is allowed full anonymity in Wikipedia while the Ph.D. holders must reveal all kinds of information about themselves? Even if they are willing to do so what does a Ph.D. mean? Let's assume the Ph.D. is in Engineering. Does that mean the degree holder cannot but edit only Engineering articles? Arguments are not won by invoking degrees. Arguments are won by proper citations, research and logic. A Ph.D. degree is useless as a verifier of the integrity of an article's contents. The whole idea of Wikipedia's openness is a guarantee that even if someone makes an edit that cannot stand scrutiny then someone else will reveal the weakness. The degree or lack thereof of the editor is irrelevant. Finally what if the Ph.D. holder makes an edit and then another editor without a degree reverts the edit? Is he (she) going to be reverted automatically in deference to the Ph.D.? Conclusion: As long as someone does not use his degree as the sole criterion to win arguments or edit contests one does not need to be certified. Finally what if the Ph.D. comes from a degree mill? The fun someone can have in endless discussions as to what constitutes a degree mill or not can seriously hamper any other form of editing in Wikipedia. Dr.K. 04:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy as proposed is entirely optional. No one is saying that PhD holders must reveal anything. No one is saying that PhD holders will be restricted from editing articles outside their area of expertise. (Did you even read the proposal?) No one is saying that PhD holders get any additional revert powers: all existing rules stay the same. And finally, if someone has a PhD from a diploma mill, well, that is precisely what this kind of policy is designed to discover.--Jimbo Wales 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. Thanks for the clarification. I did read the proposal. I did not imply that editors with advanced degrees get special revert powers under the new policy or that they will be restricted from editing other articles. I just wanted to point out the logical incongruity that if the rules stay the same (i.e. no special tratment for Ph.D. holders) then why disclose the Ph.D in the first place? As far as degree mills are concerned I'm afraid that's just the tip of the iceberg. What if people sue us for calling them degree mills or not accepting their degrees? What about discussions such as: My Ph.D. is better than yours because my Alma Mater is more prestigious etc. This obviously could not reflect any kind of a real debate between serious academics. And why have this debate in the first place? So that we can edit articles so general in nature that anyone can edit? If specialised articles need attention then the interested degree holders can always try to prove their bona fides on a case by case basis. Even then outside, anonymous even experts, can point out their mistakes by citations and, if needed, equations. Ph.D. verification is therefore even under the most stretched of arguments still not needed in my opinion. Finally verification of credentials on a massive basis does in my opinion involve disclosure. Disclosure always leads to privacy isssues. Anyway thanks for the opportunity to participate in this debate and for providing the hospitality of your talk page. Take care. Dr.K. 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my CJ degree does me any good here, credential wise, I think I've only edited one law enforcement page so far and that was to add an abbreviation to a DOJ wiki. I do plan to go through and look over the different LE topics and see if anything needs editing, but I'm not sure that would be any different if I had no little piece of paper with my name on it. I am still going to have NPOV and cite credible sources, how encyclopedic can we be without that? If anything I believe it would only be plausible for Checkusers(there are around 14 aren't there, would be nice to make sure someone who shouldn't have access to my IP doesn't) Dureo 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with Gene, I want to note that the reason academics use their credentials on WP is because they are impatient to argue with people. Rather than look up and cite something, its a lot easier to say, "my PhD says you are wrong." WP is getting to the point where some articles can only be improved by people with specialized, even PhD level knowledge. We need a way to allow them to trust that their edits won't be changed by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. A class of "citers" (see WP:FACT) similar to our "Vandal Fighters" can't do this. This might. Hopefully, as articles improve and citations are more prevalent, academics will no longer see WP as informal and will be more likely to cite reflexively in an argument. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that anyone with that level of specialized knowledge can usually cite everything in the field ever written about that topic, and grabbing those cites is easy for them. They've already used them in their Literature reviews of their dissertation or thesis. Anything else is OR and not eligible to be included here anyway. I would be *extremely* suspicious of someone with a PhD in their field that can't cite sources. pschemp | talk 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than licking our wounds after the EssJay incident, I'm saying that there are reasons why this might be proposed. As for citations, many edits will be tangential to an academics research, so citations aren't necessarily already in their bibtex file or whatever. But my point is, sometimes people don't want to cite something because they are a bit lazy, and this seems like a way to forgive the laziness of the sorts of people who can provide some of that last 10% to some articles. As I said, hopefully WP will soon be a place that isn't seen as informal enough to allow such laziness. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

pschemp hits the nail squarely on the head. The value of having academics involved in Wikipedia is that they (OK, disclosure, "we") have a familiarity with the literature in their fields that the average person doesn't have. Typically, they will also have access to libraries, journal subscriptions and the like that aren't convenient for laypeople. This gives a valuable ability to buttress Wikipedia with reliable sources. "Because I say so" would get you laughed out of any decent academic journal, no matter how smart you are. It should get you laughed out of Wikipedia as well. What this boils down to is that there's no benefit derived from an academic disclosing their credentials and having them verified. Instead the benefit derives because academics have the skills and resources to do the things that all Wikipedia editors are supposed to do anyway. Raymond Arritt 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm weighing the costs and benefits, and I don't see any benefit of verifying credentials. Just disregard claims of academic degrees, and, as said above, let the encyclopedic content be attributable to a reliable source without citing original research. Wodup 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think disregarding is a way to go either, but I can see this idea as becoming huge, bloated, and not working at all. Having other editors verifying people? I wish I could trust people like that but I just can't, to many chances at sock puppetry. I agree with pschemp the people this is going to affect will have access to sources to back up the edits. EnsRedShirt 04:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"I wish I could trust people like that"... well, we do trust people like that. We trust each other to monitor each other.--Jimbo Wales 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment was based on the last criteria: Some totally hypothetical entries might look like this: I have known this user in real life for 10 years, and can certify that he was a professor at Las Vegas State University for 7 of those 10 years. As he is now no longer in academia, his status is not provable via the web. I give therefore my personal testimony.--Jimbo Wales 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC) What is going to prevent that from being abused? It makes the whole rest of the proposal pointless as one could create a sock puppet to verify themselves in whatever they want, or just by going down to the local library and using the annon IP there to verify themselves. It just seems far to easy to circumvent. EnsRedShirt 12:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a PhD and I don't see why this verification is needed either. :) If someone believed Essjay because he said he was a professor, that is their problem. They should have looked at the contributions, the arguments, and the references, and not at the supposed credentials. I can usually guess whether the edits from other users in my field are "PhD-like" or not because of their quality, but I don't care much if they have the actual degree. --Itub 13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't have my degree posted on my userspace and never reference it, because, well, it doesn't matter. I never leverage it, and those who know me would probably be hard pressed to guess what it is. But, if someone DOES want to leverage it, then there should be a means to verify it. Philippe Beaudette 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that under present Wikipedia policy, there is no possible way for someone to "leverage" a degree. Policy requires attribution to external sources and forbids original research. If at any time during a dispute or discussion you have to say, "I have a Ph.D. in microbial biology and you're wrong," then you've lost. Show us, using verifiable means from credible sources. Credentials simply have no place under our current policies, and should this become policy, they will start to have a place. Citizendium is devoted to the idea of credentials, but Wikipedia is not. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC News made fun of Essjay, saying "It should have been obvious that he didn't have a real degree in theology because he edited Star Wars articles". Um, what? Does this mean that if you are a credit-proven "expert" (whatever that means), you will only be allowed to edit articles in your specialty, or be made fun of if you have a PhD in Physics because you are editing television show articles? Corvus cornix 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was to believe you can edit any article you like, as long as you don't vandalize it. Even if you somehow had an IQ of 1000 doesn't mean to say you can't edit articles like spud. Acalamari 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts from Yamla

I think it is important to remember that the majority of Wikipedians don't use credentials. There's no need to verify my degree, for example, because this is the first time I have mentioned it. However, if someone is claiming to have a degree and using this to add weight to their statements, it would be useful to verify that this was accurate. Note that we already require that famous people verify their identity. Someone recently claimed to be Larry Flynt (excuse me if I have the name wrong), the head of Penthouse Publishing. This account was blocked until the user proved his identity via the least intrusive manner unblock-en-l could think of. In this case, the person was only able to provide faked emails. The process of credential verification is a natural outgrowth of that. I believe the privacy concern is a non-starter (and this from someone who requested oversight today to remove information someone posted about me); you only get your credentials verified if you first choose to reveal them to Wikipedia at large. Note that in the Essjay case, the credential verification subpage would likely have read something like, "User has not revealed name or university so the claim that he holds a PhD cannot be verified." My only concern here is the web-of-sockpuppets raised above, for which I don't have an answer. --Yamla 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is all very insightful. I think the web of sockpuppets issue can be dealt with, although I do not have a clean answer for it either. I think the core answer is that, well, we deal with webs of sockpuppets voting on AfD and so on all the time, and so there is a pretty good chance we can deal with it here as well.--Jimbo Wales 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where he said. "if someone is claiming to have a degree and using this to add weight to their statements" - this is the very thing that you said this proposal wouldn't do, give weight to experts statements. pschemp | talk 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although adding "weight to their statements" may be a secondary effect, we need to keep in mind that userpages also exist to describe the editor. A credentialed editor may simply be interested in full disclosure, and it is in our interest to verify that. Thanks, Yamla, for the comment, GChriss <always listening><c> 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A few problems

First of all, this is still an appeal to authority. Who cares if someone has a Ph.D. or not. All the rules still apply to everyone (WP:V, W:OR, WP:A, etc.), regardless. At least, in theory they do. They have a tendency not to in practice, but that's besides the point.

Second, there is still ways to forge or make false evidence to support erroneous claims about education.

Third, the last idea of "I knew the guy for 10 years" is simply a dumb idea, for obvious reasons. ~ UBeR 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the second point. I agree; for instance, "I have a Degree. I can even give you a copy the invoice..." LessHeard vanU 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What timeline are we talking about here?

I believe the idea has validity, people shouldn't claim that they have false identification and if they use this identification to back up their assertions, which is common, they should have to prove what they are saying. It may not be the easiest thing to implement, but it will help. MrMacMan 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, create the userboxes can be done immediately, and the process can begin immediately, since it does not conflict with any policies already in place. Users who want to do this can volunteer for it. Later, after we have seen how it is working, I would expect it to spread quickly if people find it useful.--Jimbo Wales 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that it does conflict with our cores values of not making divisive userboxes and treating all editors equally. Those may not be stated in policy, but they certainly are not something to be ignored since they were developed with community consensus. So far, there is no community consensus on this proposal. pschemp | talk 14:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a poll ought to be started sooner rather than later.MikeURL 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Expertise relevant to negative evidence

As Arthur Rubin pointed out at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A mathematician's perspective, expertise is relevant to a claim that something is so far out in left field that no reliable sources will exist refuting it. "We may need expert advice as to whether to remove something which is cited in fringe publications, and not discussed in mainstream publications. The basic concept of Wikipedia means that we cannot "publish" something which is not from reliable sources, but we may refuse to publish something from marginally reliable sources if an expert reports it is "not even wrong". I believe these claims have further value, in helping us sort such things into piles like 1) total junk (out), 2) notable pseudo-science (in with description as pseudo-science), 3) non-notable pseudo-science (out), 4) discredited former theory (in, described as historical with description of what replaced it and why), 5) legitimate but not of great interest (fine if attributed), or 6) too new to have been evaluated yet (be very careful of original research). Most of these will suffer from a paucity of useful sources, and a verified expert's claim could help make sure they are handled properly. GRBerry 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus giving that "expert" greater weight in content disputes, which is exactly what we want to avoid. The answer to this is that you cite sources that refute the others. Otherwise, you are asking us to rely on the Original Research (ie opinion about sources) of the expert. pschemp | talk 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If we want to create an enyclopedia, we should give greater weight to experts. The preferred means of doing so is citation of sources, because our readers can go check those to continue their research. Where the issue is what an absence of sources means, we should give weight to an expert. Otherwise we are creating a blog that anyone can edit, not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Realistically, the type of situation Arthur and I are describing will occur in one of two ways. In the first, someone who is not an expert and knows that stumbles across a source that is baloney (Chariots of the Gods?, Brinsley le Poer Trench's book on the Temple of the Stars, or the like), thinks it is reliable, and adds content. They should be happy to defer to a verified expert who explains that it is baloney. In the second, someone who is an adherent of the theory, and already knows that it is fringe theory, is trying to add it to Wikipedia in a way that presents it as accepted truth. They won't listen to an expert, but in subsequent dispute resolution RfC responders, mediators, and the like should be informed by the expertise of one of the parties. Doing this will make it easier for us to retain experts, making the encyclopedia better in the long run. I put the encyclopedia far ahead of "anyone can edit", that phrase is a modifier phrase, not the primary purpose. GRBerry 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, okay. But what happens if two experts disagree on a subject, and then try to out-credential each other? Also, what if the subject is not an "academic expert" topic like blacksmithing? Also, what happens if an expert tries to pull their credentials to protect "their" version of an article and say the sources suck even when they may not be? ColourBurst 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the first, Arthur and I are talking about statements by an expert that relevant sources don't exist to show that something is junk because of just how junky it is. If two experts are disagreeing about that, one can find sources saying that something is junk, and one didn't. I think the answer is obvious then. If they are disagreeing about whether it is junk, we are into your third question.

I'm not sure that verifiable expertise generalizes beyond the academic subjects. I don't even believe it is useful for all academic subjects. I'm reasonably certain it is useful for mathematics and the hard sciences. It probably is for some soft sciences but almost definitely is not for some of the humanities. It might be useful for a historian of medieval art but useless for a modern art critic or movie critic. Probably the best solution here is to let anyone verify expertise in whatever field they can do it in and think is worth the effort (I'm not going to waste energy verifying my bachelor's degree; it is meaningless), but always leave it up to editorial discretion as to whether any individual editor will listen to any claim.

We have discussions about the quality of specific sources all the time around here. If the source is reliable, policy is clear that it can be used. When there is a specific source under discussion, if it is junk the expert should be able to show why it is junk without relying on their credentials. And that should be evident to any Wikipedian that is a decent researcher and takes the time. Once we get to the point of having sources to evaluate, we are beyond the area that I see a use for validated expertise. GRBerry 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If we kept the encyclopedia from being on equal ground with 'anyone can edit', we would have become Citizendium loooong ago. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't experts those people who are most likely (outside of the lunatic fringe) to hold an opposing view to accepted theory/interpretation et al? An expert may consider current theory unproven or obselete. No matter how elegantly they may argue their case, or criticize current theory, without citable references they are presenting either or both opinion and/or original research. Expertise should only be recognised so far as the references they are able to provide, given their knowledge of the field. LessHeard vanU 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So what happens when a "verified" Doctor of Theology comes in and blanks the Evolution page because he's an expert on such things? Corvus cornix 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New Users Unaware Of This Discussion or Essjay: An Issue To Avoid Biting.

As well as older users having credentials, it's safe to assume that new users will list them too. You see, I've recently been giving some advice to a user called Mhaadwpphp (no, I don't believe this username is just a sequence of random letters, but that's not the issue here). It seems that she doesn't think she's notable enough to have her own article, so she's writing it on her user page, and she says she has many credentials. However, this user hasn't signed up just to create a user page in the hope that it'll become an article, as she said she's been reading the help pages I gave her, so it seems she wants to become a good contributer.

I do not believe she is aware of this discussion, or about what happened to Essjay. There could be many new users like her. How are we going to go about dealing with new users with credentials, as they have little experience with Wikipedia? How will they know how to confirm their credentials? Older users won't be so bad, as they are more likely to be familiar with bigger situations. I want to avoid people biting new users who say they have credentials. As for Mhaadwpphp, though; I believe she might be notable enough to look up in order to confirm her credentials; but many other new (and older) users won't be so lucky. Acalamari 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this topic? I included it here because I thought it was an important topic to bring up. Acalamari 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Weighing In

I think Jimbo has covered all the main points. A few more for your consideration:

• The real world is filled with inherent uncertainty: Wikipedia is no exception. "Is this subject real?", "Does a source even exist for this claim?", "This article looks pretty good, but given time constraints what parts shouldn't I believe?", and "Who wrote this?" are all questions that go through my mind daily as a Wikipedian. In light of inherent uncertainty, every bit of information about how "this particular information" came to be is useful in making a validity judgment. For example, I am more likely to trust a reputable professor that has been teaching for years about the topic in question than a random person. That doesn't mean that I believe everything I read, that I am an ostrich when presented with sound logic, or that I will not check on citations when needed.
• This policy strikes me as a reworked version of the Wikipedia Web of Trust. While not a popularity contest, the Web of Trust was somewhere between populist and an internal straw poll, as in "I like and trust Jane." Wikipedia Credential Verification is simple identity management, as in:

"I vouch for Jim's identity and his claim of holding a J.D. from Stanford University. Supporting documentation is located here. GChriss <always listening><c> 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"

And how do we prove that the person calling himself Jim is really Jim? Jim would need to add something to his .edu homepage to claim, "Yes, I am indeed User:Foo on Wikipedia", but some schools would probably discourage such actions. Corvus cornix 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't trust editors who say they know Jim, have them show you that Jim is to be trusted.

• "Using a pseudonym, choosing not to state your credentials, or a lack of credentials does not make you an inferior editor." Perhaps this can be added directly into the policy?

(I am reminded of a certain sonnet.)

• "Credentials" is not limited to academic degrees. Perhaps we can explicitly state this in the policy? I don't think it is immediately obvious to the general public.
• Userboxes may be replaced with icons or tabs built into Mediawiki. Just a thought.

Hope this helps, GChriss <always listening><c> 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To follow up: I think this is an editor-level policy, not an administrator-level one. Unfortunately, some of our better admins are poor editors. Fortunately, some of our better editors make for poor admins. I think improving admin culture is a separate discussion, and this policy is a good idea. GChriss <always listening><c> 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Issues

The way I see it, there are two issues being floated and treated (primarily) as one: the first being the ability to claim expertise based on academic credentials; the second is community trust in those who are given special userrights. It's important to seperate the two issues.

I *support requiring that those in whom the community places extraordinary trust should be required to confirm their identity. Frankly, that's simple due-diligence. If you are made a 'crat, checkuser, etc, then you should be required to confirm your identity to Wikimedia.
I *do not support madatory academic credentialing, and neither do most of you, I gather.
I *support a voluntary credentialing program, whereby a user can say "look, I'm a particle physicist with 20 years of training in this highly specialized field. There's a mistake in the entry on particle physics, and I can prove it to you if you have 20 years to learn from me, or I can ask you to trust me and prove to you that I have the credentials that I say I have." In that case, we've gone from that person being an editor to them being a particle physicist in whom the community has placed extraordinary trust.

There are times, in highly specialized articles, where I can see this situation arising. I think they should be the EXCEPTION rather than the norm. Voluntary credentialing should only be used in instances where sourcing is proven to be extraordinarily difficult (and right offhand I can't think of ANY examples of this).

Given all of that, though, I can see that a situation might arise whereby we would need a mechanism in place to deal with it, and I think a voluntary credentialing system could come in handy.

I do not envision that it would be a protocol that would be used every day, week, or even month. Philippe Beaudette 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read "Particle Physics for Dummies." I'd stake my invisible friend's reputation and Ph.D. on it. // Internet Esquire 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippe, your reasoning is compelling and your example is a good one. However, I must please ask you and everyone else to remember that wikipedia is a project that is intended to span generations. We, in fact, DO have 20 years to listen to that particle physicist and even to wait until he has information in a reliable source that can be used to make a good edit. If the article absolutely had to be right tomorrow then you're point would take on a lot more weight in my mind. As it is we have the luxury of time and WP:ATT to act as a filter that inevitably finds its way toward the truth. The moment we use "because I said so" as a valid argument we have failed. Any time we give more credence to the "because i said so" argument we have failed a little bit more.MikeURL 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Accord with MikeURL. In light of the fact that experts are not given the deference they feel they deserve, I can see why many experts might not want to contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, whenever I encounter even the slightest opposition from another Wikipedian regarding the appropriate content for a particular article, I retreat to the article's Talk Page. This is an inherent problem with quality control that is intrinsic to certain topics on Wikipedia and can only be overcome by raising the lowest common denominator. // Internet Esquire 00:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What disturbs me most about this proposal

Is that Jimbo has already announced to the press that we are going to do it. (As above) If he is going to make policy by dictating it to the community, then pretending to care about the opinions of the community by soliciting feedback after he's already made the decision is disingenuous at best. It certainly doesn't build trust. pschemp | talk 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I echo these sentiments. // Internet Esquire 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont agree, it strikes me he needed to be seen to act and he has acted. Sorting out the details is down to the community. It strikes me whatever he did some people will shoot him down, SqueakBox 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't see the need for doing anything at all. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As one who has dealt with the press on several occasions, I'm quite distressed to say that sometimes they selectively hear and write. I can certainly imagine that he could have said "we're considering..." and they wrote "Wikipedia will soon be enacting..." I think that, of all people, we could AGF from Jimbo. Philippe Beaudette 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I heard that he did indeed instruct our press contact to say we were doing this. In the mean time, the question looms. If that is accurate, that's most distressing. pschemp | talk 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From personal experience, I've been quoted in a newspaper four times. They were right twice. The other two were close but not quotations. (All of those years before Wikipedia started.) I know that we have to treat newspapers as if they were reliable, because there really is no better alternative, but they are far from perfect. GRBerry 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I've had a reporter/columnist deny responsibity for the headline his piece appeared under, since he didn't get to write that. Setting aside the headline to the article linked above, from the body of the text it cites Jimbo in phone and IM interviews as saying "contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified." Those against this proposal still want contributors precluded from citing expertise: so the quote is justified even if the mechanism isn't established. In my opinion a ban on claiming expertise in article talk is fully justified, if hard to enforce. However there's a problem of experts feeling put off by the belligerence of the ill informed, which is why it could work better if lightly verified credentials could be taken into account when dealing with mediation or arbitration when good citations are denied a fair hearing. Thus experts would have a choice of anonymity and patient application of WP:A on its own, or verification of their credentials which can only be used when a content dispute goes to conflict resolution. .. dave souza, talk 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This could solve one problem, but...

I guess my concern with this proposal is that it "fixes" a problem that only applies to a small number of wikipedia editors. Very few people on the wiki post their credentials, fewer will ever have them checked, so how useful is this tool going to be to the rank and file?

It does nothing to help the real problem we all face, trying to find out if the person on the other end of the edit is reliable or not. I've seen a number of proposals to address this problem. For instance, if admins RVing vandalism marked such edits, and those marks were recorded to the user records, everyone on the wiki could immediately improve their decision-making process when seeing something that looks like vandalism. That would be a far more powerful tool than the one being suggested here, and would be much more universally applicable.

I can't help the feeling that this is a knee-jerk reaction to a single-case problem. I'd much prefer to see a more general solution to rating editors. This would help solve this problem, and so many others as well.

Maury 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I hate this idea

My concern (which has probably been mentioned above) is that we could end up with a Citizendium-esque two tier society here, with the "experts", verified by WMF, and the non experts, who only end up with the right to fix typos (ok, extreme example, but you see what I'm getting at). I've been proud of Wikipedia not making any differentiation based on qualifications, which has enabled more people to get involved. I've always seen Wikipedia editors as having the job of taking info from verifiable sources to create a nice article, perhaps using their own background experience to explain things - this really doesn't need a PhD! The crux of the issue is that I would personally be uncomfortable with releasing my real name publically, whichever role I may be in in the future, and will instead use a pseudonym (as I use for all community internet activities). My discomfort stems from the fact that I have had death threats posted on and off wiki towards me based onmy activity here, and I know that there are some vandals who could, if they have my real name, make my life a living hell. Now, this proposal is about verification of qualifications, but to do this one would need to release one's real name (probably publically). To make it clear, I would have no objection to giving details confidentially to the foundation, but no more than that.

This whole proposal goes against the work ethic of Wikipedia - "anyone can edit". Alright, so in theory anyone can edit, but with this proposal, we'll have some guy saying that he's a professor of Nuclear Physics, and he'll then (with a group of others) take control of Nuclear Physics, making it his own and (probably) reverting changes by others, keeping it how he wants it, just saying "I know more than you". This sort of thing could go on to a different scale across the 'pedia, and we'll end up losing the attraction we have to new contributors, and alienating current members. To summarise, credentials should never matter (ever) on Wikipedia, by virtue of the ethic by which we function. Making credentials an offical part of Wikipedia policy would, for me and many others, ruin Wikipedia. Martinp23 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to sound elitist, but don't we want actual experts editing sensitive subjects as opposed to someone that believes they are an expert? Yanksox 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in short, no. In full, an expert will have significant biases in a sensitive subject area, which we really don't want. Of course, an expert will provide invaluable background knowledge, but the point that I'm making over and over again is that claims made in an article must be backed up by neutral sources, and in theory it should be possible for anyone, using sources and time, to write an article on anything, which could well be as good as, if not better than, the same article written by an expert (look at the Nature survey, for example). A certified expert being given free range over an article will be far too susceptible to WP:OR, and replying to criticism with "I'm an expert, get lost!". Martinp23 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An expert's "significant biases" in a subject area are certainly things we DO want. For one thing, an expert will have good sense about what crank opinions are trash, from the outset. Thus, our expert in thermodynamics will have an elitist opinion, regarding "free energy machines." And so what? We want that. And yeah, in theory, any Joe Blow can write an outstanding article on general relativity, without knowing any math whatever, much less tensor analysis, just by citing "reliable sources." But how's he going to know which sources are even reliable, without asking somebody at some point who has some formal training? The idea of a completely general tech writer (any subject) is cute, but in practice is about as useful as the idea of a completely general business manager (any business).

It's important to realize that we already at Wikipedia rely completely on experts, expertise, credentials, and credentialism. We simply do it at the non-writer (non-editor) level, through our cites (although we still rely on editor POV in choosing cites). Thus, when our policy is Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. what we're saying is that we've given some publisher the task of checking credentials, facts, and author-credentials, and author-authority. Well, maybe we're too lazy to do it ourselves. Fine. But that's a completely different matter than saying that this whole matter of credentials and authority is baloney, not worth a fig, and dangerously elitist and morally bad. Of course it's not. It's very important. In fact, presently, we (as a matter of policy) fob it off onto some other system(s), right now, when we let the citation mechanism do it, under the table. But we don't necessary entirely have to. It's just that we CHOSE to.SBHarris 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The sticking point

Let's start form the position as stated by Jimmy: this is not going to be compulsory, it's going to be a way for people who want to name and prove their credentials, to do so. If someone does not wish to verify their credentials, that's fine, we will just treat them as any other editor. Whatever the precise words Jimmy used, I'm pretty confident he would not have implied or set out to create a culture where we must state our credentials, since by my reading that's one of his philosophical differences with Larry Sanger and the Citizendium model.

And in those terms, with no coercion, I think people will either embrace it or ignore it.

But...

Along comes a new editor, call him Jayess. Yes, hard cases make bad law, but that's what we're all talking about while we're not talking about it. So, Jayess comes along, stating he has a PhD in something-or-other, and people decide to ask him to *prove* it because he's relying on it to confer authority in content disputes. Do we have a "put up or shut up" clause?

That's the sticking point for some, I think - and there will be those who think it's useless without, and those who think it's evil with, so it's not an easy call. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The sticking point for most, from what I can tell from this talk page, is that if he were to prove his credentials, he should not be "conferred [extra] authority." It's entirely contrary to our core policies. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If they don't verify their credentials, they should either remove them, or not edit any articles related to them. Acalamari 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about that. I don't have a problem with them staying up - but the absence of verification is something I'd tend to take into account. Philippe Beaudette 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, there you go. You've just proved you'd treat people with credentials differently. That is absolutely not what we need here. pschemp | talk 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never denied it. If they have credentials in zoology and are editing an article in zoology, sure I'd treat them differently. If they're editing an article on astro-physics, their credentials in zoology don't do much good. (as an aside, I followed Jimbo's logic on Dr.Nixon, and went to his page on the university site. He spelled "curriculum" as "Cirriculum" on his official website. I'd take that into account too. I look at a lot of factors, many of them subconsciously, as I'm sure you do as well. This is one more piece of information to add to that equation. Philippe Beaudette 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we want users with false credentials telling other users "you are wrong," whenever someone makes an edit to a page related to those credentials? That to me seems heavily bad faith. Acalamari 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember: credentials don't matter - sources do though! If someone comes into a dispute and tells me that they've got such and such a qualification in the subject in question (whether verified or not), I would completely and happily ignore any statements they made based on their expertise. It's not the place or the time, and smacks of [{WP:OR|the policy which people seem to have forgotten]]. I fear now, having read the yahoo story, that Jimbo is merely playing to the press. Although it may protect Wikipedia in the sort run, the harm is immesurable in the long run. Please, Jimbo, withdraw the (bad) idea - there's a very negative perception of it in the community, and I hope that we can trust you not to over rule consensus. Martinp23 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, I think there is a place for credentials. Not in mainspace edits, in mainspace everything should stand on its own merits and those of its sources, but in meta debate, especially in respect of how much weight we give to things, whether a given subject is considered significant by experts in the field and so on. The Mathematics and Physics Wikiprojects, to name but two, rely quite heavily on people with in-depth knowledge of the subject. In meta debates we should give respect, although not deference, to relevant qualifications. Mostly it's not necessary to duke it out, because the professionals can always cite better sources, but sometimes it's good to know who you;re dealing with and somtimes there is no hope of a lay person ever understanding the argument. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A few unclear things

IMO credentials don't belong on Wikipedia at all. What's the use? This is supposed to be a place where we are all equal: Jimbo = the newest editor = any admin = a PhD = a high school diploma = any editor.

That said, I see a slight problem with this proposal. I think that some sort of final verification of all comments should be done. This should be done by an admin or someone else trusted. The reasoning behind this is:

"I have known this user in real life for 10 years, and can certify that he was a professor at Las Vegas State University for 7 of those 10 years. As he is now no longer in academia, his status is not provable via the web."

How many comments like this would be necessary for verification? What if a former prof or someone doesn't have any friends who edit Wikipedia? Will comments by anons be accepted? What about possible spa's or sock puppets? Would a scanned image of a diploma/teaching cert be accepted?

Also, this is all voluntary. Does this mean that editors can keep their credentials on their userpage if they aren't verified? If they do, would they be somehow reprimanded if they use them like verified credentials (though I'm still not sure what that use is)? Would verified credentials be allowed in content disputes? Would unverified credentials be removed from disputes? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with credentials occurs when there is an Essjay like situation, with contributors using their credentials in diputes within/in letters out of wikipedia - but this is heavily discouraged, especially recently. This would cause alot of time of energy to be diverted from encyclopedia building - check userbox links, talk to user, check uni web site, email through uni web site, wait for reply, confirm on wikipedia. Are we to assume that if they can't be found on the website/the website doesn't have the details they are discounted from the verified pile? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Jimbo can read just as well as the rest of us, and he can see what the consensus is. Please discuss rather than polling. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Polling isn't a substitute but it can be used in addition to discussion. I won't object to archiving it except to say I think it is a mistake.MikeURL 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jimbo has intimated he wants to fast track this. We should vote because my read of all the above indicates strong disapproval.

• oppose This policy encourages users to lie about credentials by elevating their status on WP.MikeURL 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• support it aint perfect but its a good start and we can deal with the inevitable problems as they arise, SqueakBox 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Did Mr. Wales or anyone else ask for this poll? Wikipedia is not a democracy, so unless someone can tell me who allowed this poll, I don't think anyone should give any votes to it. Acalamari 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, someone can tell me who allowed this poll should read someone who can confirm this poll. Acalamari 21:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Voting is evil, I suggest that this poll is closed. We do things by discussion here, not by meaningless polls before arguements have been understood. Martinp23 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Jimbo is consulting with us in good faith. I see no reason for a poll. Metamagician3000 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• As long as Jimbo doesn't then do it anyway, based on the huge level of non-support for the issue.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Surely any user has ther right to start this poll, why would we need somebody who is more than just an editor? We use polls all the time. 2 examples are to vote for asdmins and in the arbcom decisions, SqueakBox 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ignore credentials / Patch to enforce.

In practice, on wikipedia, people shouldn't be presenting credentials at all of course. Everyone has a headache and flubbs something once in a while (even Albert Einstein or Steven Hawking, I'm sure), so we're not absolved of checking edits from anybody anyway.

Verifying peoples credentials actually gives credentials more weight, while actually we should be ignoring them. So, intuitively, this rule would make Essjay-like situations more likely to happen, not less.

So here's how I'd propose to prevent the downside damage this guideline might cause:

Anyone should be permitted to subject their credentials for verification. However, individuals are not permitted to edit any articles in the field they personally claim to have credentials in, (verified or not).

This could even be an unofficial rule, if sufficient admins are willing to ban on sight anyway. The objective is to prevent people from using credentials to override our guidelines on neutral point of view original research, article ownership, and etc.

This is roughly how wikipedia tends to work anyway. Have you ever heard "You're an expert, so you obviously have no idea what you're talking about" ?

--Kim Bruning 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) This post contains my initial position, I may edit it based on information I aquire in future.

I hear that all the time. It's called Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy. // Internet Esquire 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is going to verify something that will merely result in some kind of arbcom-style banning from their articles of expertise. This idea isnt practical. Many subjects are crying out for expertise, we could do with a Rastafari Phd to edit Rastafari movement and were we lucky enought to find one the last thing we would want is for he or she to be uunable to edit the related articles, SqueakBox 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very opposed to this policy, but I can't agree with disallowing people with credentials in a particular subject from editing in that subject. They presumably know the subject well, they know where to find sources, they know where the best sources are, they know how to properly summarize those sources. As long as they follow our policies on attribution and original research, they're doing nothing wrong. It's when they rest on their credentials rather than sources to support their position that a problem arises. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

Oh no no no, you get me wrong. I'm not saying people can't have credentials, *far from it*. I'm just saying that people should not be using credentials to lend weight to their arguments (over and above NOR, NPOV, Verifiability, etc). So what the patch does is on the one hand, we can tell people "see, we verify claimed credentials", and on the other hand in reality, we're simply not going to use them. :-)

For similar reasons, I don't mention my own (somewhat pitiful, I'm sure ;-) ) credentials when editing articles either. I want to make sure that people view my additions on their merits, and to prevent any kind of bias.

--Kim Bruning 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This goes along with what I've been saying all along. As I said above:

What's the use? This is supposed to be a place where we are all equal: Jimbo = the newest editor = any admin = a PhD = a high school diploma = any editor.

Credentials have no place on Wikipedia. Experts are more than welcome though. So far, I have yet to see a good reason to have credentials publicly dispayed here except to win arguments. Giving credentials weight in editing can lead to a Wikipedia controlled by experts as some proposed on Jimbo's talk page and like I believe already exists on the de:wikipedia. I wouldn't quite support Kim Bruning's proposal as I think it would deter experts from contributing. But I would support banning the use of credentials altogether. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea of banning the advertiement of credentials is a great one, and resolves the problem highlighted by the Essjay fiasco. Perhaps a draft policy page could be, erm.., drafted, and discussion take place (in a focused manner) there? Martinp23 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's roughly what I had in mind, would you be able to improve the wording of the patch? --Kim Bruning 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Quick, ban something!

First, Wikipedia at best considers credentials irrelevant (at worst, despises them). Secondly, therefore, an editor's credentials or lack of them are irrelevant to their editing, as is their place and date of birth, favourite colour, liking for cats, interest in topless chess, etc. Thirdly, therefore, the notion of banning the mention of credentials is as pointless as setting up a system to verify them — it's just more negative. (What, no plans to ban statements of one's liking for kitties and country of residence?)

I believe that Citizendium demands verification of credentials, because it gives qualified editors more responsibility; without the latter, what's the point of the former? A much more useful scheme than Citizendium's would be to give more responsibility to those who edit lots of articles responsibly, and who show themselves capable of working as part of a community of editors. Any chance of that? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on principle here. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise :), though I do feel that community (and the media) will only be appeased if we are seen to be doing something (maybe not banning, but just a policy, or whatever). I'm opposed to us playing to the media, though change may be neccessary in any case. I'm not sure right now... Martinp23 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, isnt that what adminship is? SqueakBox 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agree, but this could be an opportunity to address the concerns of experts who often complain about being put off by whe edit warring culture, giving an opportunity for their expertise to be considered in dispute resolution *provided* they aren't anonymous and don't wave their credentials in article talk page discussions. ... dave souza, talk 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How... disturbing. I agree with everything above. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Much work for little gain

In short, any verification system is pretty much rendered to be a lot of effort for very little gain. Users who hold verified PhDs can't go ahead and write whatever they like around their field, without citing sources like the rest of us. If they say 'I proved this myself', it contravenes WP:OR. Waving 'I have a verified PhD' userbox at other editors doesn't give them exemption from following basic standards, like citation. Then there's also the issue of, how many users hold valid PhDs, and how many times will it be necessary for them to defend something in their 'field' whilst on Wikipedia? Verification is too much work for too little payoff. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The intention is for the community to make the effort, which in an ideal scenario would be no different from checking up on article citations. However, the danger is of buddies or sockpuppets producing fake verification: so who do we trust to produce good verification? It's another source of argument waiting to happen. .. dave souza, talk 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, it's much easier to just stick to our current citation methods, correct? --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes. However see my suggestion in the section above, with mediators or arbiters being trusted to run a light check on the verification provided by the "expert". ... dave souza, talk 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifying credentials need not be complicated

I've kind of been ignoring this particular discussion, as I am somewhat indifferent to the idea and would like to see priority #1 addressed first. But, I don't want to see mention of credentials "banned". And I do not think a complex verification system is needed. It's fine with me if a user mentions credentials on their page, and it definitely shouldn't be prohibited. Userboxes are fine too, if someone wants to do it that way or the way Jimmy suggests. But, it need not be that complex.

Right now, how do I know if a user's credentials are real?

1. Sometimes a user will give their real name somewhere and have links to their work/academic pages which seem to (but not 100% guarantee) confirm things. User:TimVickers, User:William M. Connolley, User:Raul654, and others come to mind. If I care to, I could locate their academic/professional e-mail and verify things. But, don't think it's necessary at all because...
2. The manner in which someone edits (able to cite relevant scholarly material, explain/argue the topic, etc.) is also important and helps demonstrate expertise and make their credentials believable to me. If someone is editing in their area of expertise and is lying about their credentials, I think it would be apparent. I never really interacted with Essjay on subject matter pages, but had I and given it any thought, I think it would have been obvious.

Either of these do not 100% guarantee credentials are real, but are enough for me. If there is some doubt about credentials, then they should be taken with a grain of salt. Credentials DO NOT trumph policy, but are not all negative either.

I think option #2 is a MUST, but don't have a problem with users choosing option #1 in combination with option #2.

Having users with expertise (acquired through credentials or some other way) involved with editing Wikipedia is an asset for us, as they know the body of literature covering their topic, have access to it that the general public may not, can help judge what is a reliable source and tell what is baloney, and can help when debate over WP:NPOV#Undue weight (towards pseudoscience) comes up. So being completely anti-credentials and not allowing users to mention them is not good, but a complicated system of verification for regular users and admins isn't really needed at this point either. --Aude (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By an odd coincidence, the TechnologyGuardian supplement of today that also incudes an opinion piece which is their coverage of the Essjay affair has a news item The evidence mounts on the need for expert witnesses about Gene Morrison who appeared as computer forensics expert in over 700 cases on the basis of dodgy BSc and PhD qualifications. The problem is being addressed by a register assessed on past caseswork and not on qualifications... as you say! ... dave souza, talk 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I was checking the Credential Verification proposal and it now has a new key element . It explicitly states that it is a voluntary process and users have a choice of two userboxes. One userbox links to a verification site while the other does not. If a person chooses to be verified they can. If not they can choose the non linking userbox. This addresses the privacy concerns. It does not address the elitism concerns etc. but that's why I call it a compromise. On the other hand given the egalitarian climate currently prevailing in Wikipedia credential verification not backed up by solid edits does not appear to be able to go too far. Dr.K. 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused

Does this mean the end of anonymous User IDs? Are we all supposed to prove our real names before we will be allowed to edit? Corvus cornix 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's credentials we're to prove. Unless you create a username which is the name of a famous person, then you won't have to prove what your name is. Acalamari 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So I can't say, "I live in Caifornia" unless I give you my street address, my real name, and a Xerox copy of my last phone bill. Corvus cornix 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying that you live in California? If you live in California, you live in California. That's not a credential. To my knowledge, there's no Degree of California. Acalamari 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered reading all that

But are the recent edits to my user page, User:Hamedog, what you are looking for?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww! That's cute. I want to put up my GCSEs now.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 21:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that was people are wanting or something else is more of what I was asking. But if you think it looks cute, thanks! :)--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary of course

I suppose that this is voluntary of course. If an editor wanted to make a claim he could continue to do so, but if he doesn't provide proof of what he claims, then there is reason to suspect that what he claims is false....very confusing. Serious issues with privacy are my biggest concern here. The answer to this problem is to simply ensure that all of our highest level contributors provide proof of their claims in private to the foundation...that way, if they are acting in an official capacity as a spokesperson to the press or similar, then we won't have a repeat of what we recently have had. But how are we really going to prove these credentials? I respect that this may allow us to be able to state that, yes, this editor has provided sufficent proof that they do have the education/experience/training they claim to have...but then we need a disclaimer...basically providing some sort of margin of error...I mean, close examination demonstrates that people misrepresent their skills and education all the time.[1]. I'm definitely not against this proposal, especially if it is voluntary, and it might even help our credibility, which is underrated to an extreme. But I would have to caution folks about providing any of their personal information on the web...the risk of identity fraud is but the least of problems that might happen to those that innocently provide their personal information simply to appease anyone who might question their expertise.--MONGO 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So in general one theme I am seeing here is the conflation of two issues which I think you are sorting out quite well. First, there is the question of trust with private information and the need to know who real people are in relation to that. That's a great question, an interesting question, but not the question that credential verification is designed to address. Second, there is the issue of people claiming to have PhDs or MDs or whatever. This goes on right now, and traditionally we have simply trusted people to tell the truth. The EssJay case shows us that merely trusting it without checking is a bit problematic. So I am proposing that people who wish to do so, can indicate on their user page a willingness to be verified. A quick look at the list of people in the Wikipedians with PhD shows that most of them are quite easily verifiable... there is no issue of any additional private information being revealed publicly. In other cases, where someone wishes to claim a credential, and to verify that claim, while also remaining anonymous... well that's a real challenge. But those are precisely the high risk cases that we need to be most concerned about.--Jimbo Wales 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with this. I just hope that if someone claims to have a higher educational/experience/etc. attainment and chooses to not provide verification (for the sake of privacy or for a similar reason), that they won't be construed to be dishonest. I do know we will continue to assume good faith about what editors claim about themselves....I know I will. As you have stated, a mistake made about Essjay was definitely an honest one, one done from an assumption of good faith and I have never doubted that you ever had any reasonable justification to either doubt him or to forgive him, as you have done. I hope that for those who want to provide their personal credentials yet keep this information as private as possible, that we can figure out a way to protect their privacy and still allow them the opportunity to be able to post their data with some sort of "review" by the foundation or similar...a sort of statement that their information has been checked to be correct. I know this would involve manpower and is probably not feasible.--MONGO 06:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Priority #1

I think priority #1 is to have more stringent proof of identity for checkusers and people recommended to speak to the media. --Aude (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty much where I am at too...but I am not opposed to the voluntary idea that I believe is Jimbo's point here.--MONGO 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons why this proposal should be rejected

First, this proposal actively encourages appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Even a Ph.D. working in his area of subspecialty is not infallible. In my professional life I am a tax attorney. When I make a recommendation, it is not enough to say, "Trust me, I'm a lawyer." I am expected to provide a reasoned memorandum explaining why I am suggesting a particular course of action. There is simply no substitute for this careful reliance on sources. I fear this proposal would draw attention away from what the sources say about a topic to what a particular editor says about a topic, in contravention of core policy WP:Attribution. Second, a true expert in field should already be conversant with the scholarly work being done in that area. It should thus be easy for the expert to simply back up his position by referring other editors to such-and-such monograph. There are editors here I consider experts in tax law and I have no clue what degrees they hold: I consider them experts because of the quality of their work and the knowledge they obviously possess in that field. Thus, this proposal strikes me as unnecessary. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, you will have noted that WP:Attribution is merely a complicated instruction-set for how to appeal to (i.e., cite) authority, so if doing this involves some kind of a logical fallacy, as you claim, I fail to see why using present policy provides you with any satisfaction. SBHarris 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense! There's an obvious difference between relying on sources for basic facts and relying on sources for opinions based on those facts. When we do the later, we should always identify it as the opinion of the source. Of course, your assertion that the whole project is based on a lie has me thinking... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the first to note that you have to go a LONG way down on the chain of sensory perception to get to "basic facts," which are free of "opinion" (ie, filters and interpretation). Perhaps you could favor us with some examples? What kinds of statements in (say) astronomy qualify as "basic facts," unsullied with the author's opinions and biases in what they are detecting? My own sense (as in most of science) is "not bloody much." Old joke about scientist and child, driving in the country: Child: "Oh, look, a bunch of cows!" "Well, they appear cow-like on the side which faces us..." SBHarris 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I heard the joke was a bunch of wikipedians on a train saw a cow outside their window and said:

1. Look, the cows around here are white.
2. No, the cows on this farm are white.
3. No, that cow is white.
4. No, the side of that cow that is facing us appears to be white.

(actually, the way I heard it contrasted a math guy, physicist, etc) WAS 4.250 07:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question, and possible fly in the ointment

What about negative verifications? What if I (for argument's sake), or a troll or POV pusher, were to go to User:ClaimedExpert's verification page and say something like:

• I've known User:ClaimedExpert for years, and I can testify that he doesn't have a Ph. D at all! He really sweeps floors at the local Wal-Mart.

Such claims might be sourced--or they might be unsourced. Unsourced ones can probably be dealt with; sourced ones might be more problematic. They may be false accusations by someone trying to discredit an expert opposing their POV-pushing...

...or they may actually be instances of someone outing a fraudster.

The easiest way is to ban negative verifications as personal attacks, unless a specific process is gone through--though the ArbCom probably hasn't the bandwidth to investigate claims of this nature.

Thoughts? The proposal doesn't mention this directly--but a page where people can assert and verify credentials might be construed to imply that these can be challenged. --EngineerScotty 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why we need a find a decent way to verify credentials. Someone saying "this user isn't a brilliant scientist, he's a nutter," is not verification. Acalamari 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently, posting details of that sort is likely a violation of WP:ATTACK and/or WP:HARASS, even if true. Just because someone might be able to find personal information on me rather easily (I've been called at home by a spammer before after I AFD's their junk on RC patrol), much of it still can't be posted here by other users without asking me. Perhaps an official claim of expertese as documented by this would create an exception to the above--users are allowed to debunk (with reliable sources, per WP:BLP) claims of expertese made. Such debunkings should go no further than denying specific claims (like "I have a PhD from MIT")--calling someone a nutter or an idiot, or pointing out irrelevant skeletons in the closet--would not be permitted. --EngineerScotty 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know; I was exaggerating a bit there. Calling someone a nutter or an idiot is a blatant personal attack. Acalamari 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen scientists referred to as nutters before on Wikipedia; in some cases though the statement probably has validity. There are numerous quacks and cranks who nonetheless posess degrees of various quality, and occasionally use those to promote wacky and wonderful theories of how the universe works. We must tread carefully. --EngineerScotty 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gordon Watts claims to be an expert on the Teri Schiavo case, and has proven his credentials. As a result of his contentious edting, he has been community blocked for some period of time. Proven credentials solve nothing. Corvus cornix 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gordon Watts has been proven to be unreliable. I have far far far stronger words that I belive to be true about him, but let us have compassion on people like him. WAS 4.250 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your argument is that proven credentials didn't solve anything or help anything in THIS case, therefore IN GENERAL they don't help? I don't think I like the reasoning. Sounds too much like "Grampa X smoked every day to the age of 100" (ergo cigarettes are harmless). SBHarris 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use your real life credential provide your real life name and CV. Degrees alone means almost nothing for validations of an opinion and should mean exactly nothing. Alex Bakharev 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Some do not have a problem

Some users who are perfectly qualified in their field of expertise may well edit under the real names. Such a user is Richard Dawkins. I came across this profile a couple of weeks ago after someone mentioned it to me, apparently because of a minor controversy regarding Dawson's editing his own article with correct information. However, there is ample evidence on the talk-page that shows how users verified if the user really was Dawkins. I believe this is the sort of thing that Jimbo is trying to propose. Richard Dawkins is proof that it can work. Ekantik ^talk 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. Why should wanting to be a Wikipedia editor make any otherwise citable source person somehow untrustworthy? If somebody else can cite your work as a reference, under present WP:ATT policy, it would indeed be odd if you couldn't do the job properly for yourself.

What a lot of WP policy really comes down to, is that there's some kind of unstated bias that people are not to be trusted to operate on their own, when it comes to their POV about the world, unless it's a pre-published one. And even then, it's a little fishy, and causes surprises, as in the case of Dawkins. Gosh, he operates all on his own! SBHarris 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too carried away with this, though. All he did was correct a claim that he was associated with a particular journal that he was not, in fact, associated with. Pretty anodyne. Imagine the fuss if he'd started making substantial edits to the article on God or the article on Richard Lewontin. :) Metamagician3000 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Word of caution and counterproposal

I am copying and amplifying remarks I made on Jimbo's main talk page. Strictly from a feasibility perspective, without getting into desirability, I would urge great caution about any proposal for Wikipedia to certify certain contributers as experts. It's not a simple problem, and contrary to Jimbo's comments, I believe it is important to prepare for worst case situations. Indeed, the EssJay scandal is precisely that. The more reliance the outside world puts on our certification, the greater the temptation for someone to game our system and the more embarrassing a fraudulent certification becomes.

I would suggest for now a simple variation of Jimbo's proposal. Those who wish to add outside credentials to their Wikipedia reputation should include a link on their user page to whatever site or sites they feel verifies their bona-fides (e.g. their home page at their place of employment), and add a link from that site back to their Wikipedia user page, or include a statement such as I sometimes edit Wikipedia under the user name "so and so". Other editors could then consider their claim of expertise and add what ever weight they deem appropriate. Most of us will do the right thing -- WP:AGF. My modification to Jimbo's proposal does not require any action on Wikipedia's part, beyond perhaps mentioning the dual link suggestion in some guideline. No new bureaucracy is required.

Beyond that I would suggest we try to establish a more formal system in one specific area, M.D.s. As an earlier poster mentioned, there is considerable infrastructure available in this area, at least in some countries. And there is at least an argument that articles dealing with medical topics are particularly deserving of some expert input. I propose asking interested editors who claim to be M.D.s and are willing to help develop a verification system for M.D.Wikipedians to submit credentials in writing to the office. I would also suggest we get some editors with expertise in authentication systems to also establish themselves and add them to the committee. The group should be given a reasonable amount of time to develop a proposal. This is not something we should rush into. After this system is working, we can see what it would take to extend it, if we feel that is desiarable.

At the very least, before we venture to create an expert certification mechanism, let's vet a few experts on the issues involved with building such a system,--agr 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated your second paragraph to User:MikeURL/Credentials. I'm still not too fond of the 3rs or 4th paragraphs. I would really like to see wikipedia remain credential agnostic, so to speak. Oh yeah, the WMF said early on that they would have no part in verifying credentials (not sure if that position has changed).MikeURL 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily fond of them either. I'm merely suggesting that if there is going to be a push for certifying experts on Wikipedia, then we ought to pilot the idea in a more constrained problem space and involve experts in the system design. If a bulldozer is coming at me, I'd rather try to redirect it in a safe direction then stand in front of it hoping it will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 March 2007

Endorse your comments ...awesome --luke 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki of Trust suggestion

I am very worried about the necessity of revealing personal identification data to people we do not necessarily know or trust, yet the need for some form of verification seems to be needed. Instead of clogging up Jimbo's talk page with my suggested changes, I've placed them here, User:Avraham/Wiki of Trust, and would appreciate responses to them as well.

Thank you.

-- Avi 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be intentionally deceptive

I'm starting to think this proposal exists merely to get the media to shut the hell up and make them believe that Wikipedia is suddenly going to be written by experts. No active editors will give a crap about any credentials a user might have, as hopefully they would know that credentials don't mean anything. And the rest of the editors (anons, casual editors) probably won't run into any editors with "credentials". This process isn't for the Wikipedia community — its intent is to deceive our readers and the media.

I'll give this page one week before a higher-up moves it to the project space, slaps a policy tag on it, and fully protects it. Please prove me wrong. --- RockMFR 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well calming the media down is an excellent reason to have this page, nothing deceptive in that. Credentials dont mean anything? Speak for yourself. As an experienced editor here I dont agree with you myself, SqueakBox 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "2. The policy must emphasize that under longstanding Wikipedia traditions, the fallacy of appeal to credentials is firmly rejected" is RockMFR having problems with? Evidently this is something that would have to be spelt out to anyone putting "credentials" on their user page, and understanding of this would presumably be required before getting the "verified" tag. Handled carefully this could be a way of giving some recognition or comfort to "experts" while reminding them that their expertise must be demonstrated through quality of verifiable contributions, and going over with them the relevant policies. Obviously to meet this part of the policy the detailed procedure has to be carefully framed to avoid, as it also says, the "I am a PhD so shut up" syndrome. ... dave souza, talk 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see where the deception in the policy is. I think that the policy should encourage two behaviors:

• Avoid naming credentials if you wish to remain somewhat hidden from the world, and
• Do not claim credentials that you do not have, particularly if you are unwilling to have them verified.

I think that the policy should essentially be something that says, “it is okay to omit details regarding your life given the context of the Internet at large, but it is not okay to lie as that undermines credibility and can create extra work for other editors on the site by making them feel that they have to go out of their way to validate contributions by the user.” Of course, that is quite generalized and far from complete, but it (like the present draft) is something of a beginning, I think. —Mike Trausch ^{Fd0man•Talk to me} 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

The threshold for inclusion here (for content in the article namespace, our raison d'etre) is verifiability, not truth. While I would never dispute that a tenured PhD is more likely to be aware of both the verification and truth of a claim in her area of expertise, I do not see what advantage there is in identifying contributors' credentials at all. Certainly, there is value in encouraging users to share their areas of study -- to facilitate collaboration -- but I am not convinced that verifying academic credentials is going to do much besides create a "privileged class" in content disputes.

I think there is a significant risk to undertaking a credential verification proposal as well. It's one thing when a scandal like this occurs, and Wikipedia has no policy regarding credential verification. It would be an entirely different and much more damaging matter if we are fooled after such a process has been implemented.

Let's discourage editors from employing credentials and encourage them to focus on finding subject areas where their research focus is valuable, and reinforce our commitment to verifiability. —ptk✰fgs 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Not having a guideline about cred verification has indeed in retrospect had some advantage, both in leeway and in time/energy spent on a process that yields little benefit. I don't think editors should be encouraged or discouraged in mentioning their shingles, but their value should exclusively be that of personal description/pointers to areas of study they might be knowledgable (hey, anyone know about Thermodynamics out there?). JoeSmack ^Talk 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but let's implement this well

Wikipedia has grown into a large website. In the early days, we didn't really need this because it was a lot easier to trust fewer editors. Now that Wikipedia has grown into a substantial website, there are a lot more users, and certainly there are those that are dishonest. I still think that the vast majority of editors (say 90%) are reasonably honest with who they are, and while they may still be 'anonymous', aren't claiming credentials they don't have. But it's the 10% of dishonest editors out there that we probably have to worry about (that, and all those pesky anon-IPs, but that's a different story).

Basically, what this boils down to is the need for some type of verification for the users with some type of authority or responsibility on the wiki; administrators, members of the arbitration committee, stewards, etc. There should be a solid policy that verification be included in the process of obtaining any of these volunteer or paid positions of responsibility (this should actually be obvious). I don't think any particular credentials should be required for any of these positions, but if a person claims to have particular credentials on their user page, and (for example) applies for admin status, that needs to be verified. I also think the verifying a person's real identity should be required for this positions as well.

But for the vast majority of regular editors on wikipedia, credential verification is unnecessary, difficult to implement on the wider scale, and is probably just going to tick off more people as bureaucratic nonsense rather than being of use. Dr. Cash 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

The one thing that I have not seen is any discussion of why we need to check on credentials. I think it would be far easier just to ban listing credentials in the first place. Who needs them~ Blueboar 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They're just something to put on a userpage if one has legitimate credentials. Yes, we could ban listing credentials on user pages, but that simply hides the problem rather than fixing it. Acalamari 16:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a purpose for this, but I don't support banning mentions of credentials. If someone wants to say that they have an M.S. in foo, let them, but don't let their claim influence how you view their edits. Wodup 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So what legitimate credentials are we actually interested in? in my case I'm sure my Chartered Engineer and Chartered Manager status could help in some debates......ALR 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alumni email addresses

I mentioned elsewhere that my university offers me an alumni email address that forwards mail to my main personal email account. Now, the email address doesn't prove what type of degree I have, but it at least proves I graduated from said school. I'd imagine most all universities have the same service nowadays, no? I think this should be taken in consideration in the verification of Bachelor and Master degrees. It's simple and not too intrusive. --Jayzel 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google search for "alumni email account" and received 1,070,000 hits. I don't think many people realize that if they are a graduate of a college or university they are entitled to these free email forwarding accounts. You can even get email accounts that specify you are an alum of a grad school. I think this is the perfect way to verify someone has a degree and they never even have to give Wikipedia their name. Just give Wikipedia their university or college email address, have Wikipedia send them an email asking them what their user name is and have them answer in return. Very simple, no? PhDs and MDs can be easily verified by other means described by Jimbo. --Jayzel 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Some colleges, not all. And most people don't use them if they have a current professional email. So not having one doesn't mean you weren't there. DGG 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it could get messy. That said, it's a positive contribution to point it out. More generally, with enough flexibility most people could probably get "verified" one way or another without losing their anonymity. I think that the flexibility would be very important if the scheme got going, but of course this assumes we are really addressing the main problem raised by the Essjay imbroglio, and that the other problems are all overcome, and that the messiness would be worth the gain. Metamagician3000 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that. In a quick search, I saw the service was offered by the smallest of schools to the largest of schools; in the United States, UK, Canada, and Australia -- and it took but 2 minutes for me to register for mine. If a person is capable of graduating from a university, logging onto the internet, and editing at Wikipedia, they are capable of spending two minutes of their life to sign up for a email forwarding service from their alma mater. And again, this is only optional for those who choose to announce their credentials on their user pages. Regards, --Jayzel 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone have to tell or verify what school they graduated from? Heck, the best programmer I have ever known didn't go to college. He was a bartender who decided he didn't want to be a bartender the rest of his life, so he taught himself VB. If I cite my sources, it doesn't matter if I really graduated from Virginia Tech or if I am lying to you and I am really from Mr. Jefferson's school for snobs. --BigDT 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

SIGH. Good luck, Jimbo. --Jayzel 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Having an alumni email account from a given university does not prove that you graduated from it. For instance, at MIT, all alumni and current students can get one of these accounts - and "all alumni" includes people who dropped out before graduation. FreplySpang 08:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading the site. MIT does not give out @alum.mit.edu accounts to everyone. They say a current student can also get an "indefinite email account". --Jayzel 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was misreading too, because it does not say "indefinite email account", infinate email account. However this page says "Email Forwarding for Life will activate when you graduate, so grab your favorite username and register your @alum.mit.edu today!" --Jayzel 15:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been able to track down a strict definition of who counts as alumni. But when I was there, people who had dropped out complained that the Alumni Association considered them alumni (for fundraising). And I looked up someone in the alumni directory whom I know did not graduate, and he was listed as an alumnus. I don't know precisely whether my non-graduating person has an alum.mit.edu email address, but I think there's enough grayness here to make alumni email addresses a weak form of verification. FreplySpang 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, why I think this proposal misses the main lesson to be taken from the Essjay Situtation

Jimbo, in our limited and few personal interactions here at Wikipedia, I have found you to be a patient and sincere person. I think this proposal is a sincere and thoughtful answer to events of the last few days.

However, I strongly believe that this proposal misses the mark, is addressing the wrong lesson we should be taking away from this, and fixes the wrong problem.

Several others have already expressed here above some of these sentiments better than I could. I think if you read the comments that have been left on this page in totality, they add up to an emerging consensus around a basic idea that tracks with what I too consider the real lesson we should take from this, and around the real problem we should fix.

This credential proposal supposes that the real underlying issue and problem in this situuation is that we have some editors that claim academic credentials they don't actually have, and that these claimed credentials will sometimes influence an editing argument, despite our general attitude that edits should speak for themselves.

I, and apparently many others, think this is not the main problem in the Essjay mess. As someone else said, if any rank-and-file editor had been caught lying about academic credentials, we would have quickly fixed the edit problems, if any, and promptly dealt with the editor (in a much less punative way than what happened with Essjay, I truly believe). There would have been no press, no outside fuss (or not much).

The real problem, and the issue we should do something about, was Essjay's high level and number of trusted positions here - and the fact that someone like that had lied about his credentials and relied on them in editing discussions. Those positions of trust made him very special at Wikipedia, and made him and us very newsworthy when this thing started rolling.

If Essjay had had to disclose his identity to hold B'crat, or CheckUser, or Oversight, or ArbCom positions, his deceptions would likely have come to light quite a while ago. We could have dealt with it internally, and without the Huge Fuss.

If you, Jimbo, only appointed people to the Arbcom who had stood in the election and received high approval and vetting there, Essjay wouldn't have been sitting there when this situation broke.

I think the real proposals we should be putting forward have been stated elsewhere, and I hope you give thought to sponsoring them as you have this credential proposal. The main idea that seems to be gathering some real support is that positions of high trust on Wikipedia should require disclosure of identity - regular admins could do so on a voluntary basis if they held no other trusted positions.

While mentioned on another talkpage, and having of course no support yet here on this page's discussion, I would also add a proposal that Jimbo should not appoint people to the Arbcom who did not stand in the most recent election and receive high community approval. (I would personally go one step further, and suggest these positions might be directly elected rather than appointed, with Jimbo holding a veto over any candidate he felt wasn't appropriate. Jimbo could formally vest the community election process with the authority he currently wields in making the appointments himself.)

I don't have a real problem with this credential proposal, and don't think it will cause any real harm - frankly, in the wake of EssJay, I suspect that any editor appealing to their credentials (legitimate or otherwise) in an editorial argument will find their fellow editors much less swayed by that appeal.

Jimbo, I know you are following the comments here closely, and replying much more than normal for you - and I appreciate that. Please consider these ideas as the basis for a Jimbo-sponsored proposal such as this one on credentials, and I think we may come much closer to fixing what actually went wrong here.

Thanks, --Krich (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I incorporated what I hope is the jist of this at User:MikeURL/Credentials. I'm giving ground a bit on my initial position because I think the middle ground of subjecting high ranking member to verification (still not mandatory) is a good compromise. We can have the page I've put together as the general statement on credentials and the verification page as a subpage of that one to address high ranking users.MikeURL 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a sober and responsible analysis of the situation and I second it both in broad principle and in particulars. --Richard Daly 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing with every particular, I generally support the excellent essay from Krich, which aligns pretty well with my own comments elsewhere on this page. I also sympathise with much of what MikeURL has been saying, except that I think the lesson is that verification of their bona fides (though not publication of their identities) should be mandatory beyond a certain point in the hierarchy of Wiki-functionaries. As Krich says, we don't want someone "like that" serving as, say, a checkuser or an arbitrator. The only way to stop this is to have a mandatory system. Jimbo or somebody else in authority needs to be satisfied that there are no more Essjays in such positions. Metamagician3000 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As Krich said, "The main idea that seems to be gathering some real support is that positions of high trust on Wikipedia should require disclosure of identity - regular admins could do so on a voluntary basis if they held no other trusted positions." I'm not sure how much support this idea enjoys, not having been able to read all the pertinent discussions without my eyeballs glazing over. That said, I believe it's a very sensible plan. Comes a time when privacy must be traded for accountability, and folks, that time is nigh. We can't give "experts" special privileges as far as editing is concerned without overhauling our basic policies and adopting some pretty radical innovations (e.g., signed mainspace contributions) which just aren't gonna happen at this late date. The place where credentials can be considered is not in content generation, but in decision-making: dispute resolution, Arbitration and so forth. Anville 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think I can sign on to a mandatory system for high functionaries only, but keep it 100% voluntary (with no internal credentialing mechanisms) for everyone else. This feels reasonable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, if somebody high in the levels of Wiki-functionaries (e.g., ArbCom or CheckUser) wasn't willing to put their real name forth, I'm not sure I'd want them exercising any sort of authority. Would you vote for a politician who was known only by a pseudonym, even for the local school board? Attend a university where all the deans, trustees and tenured faculty refused to give their names and demanded to be addressed by AIM handles?

Seriously. Anville 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion raises the issue of what a high-level function within Wikipedia is. ArbCom? Absolutely. Board of Trustees? Absolutely. Admin? Possibly. CheckUser? Possibly. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does raise that question. My gut reaction says the following: ArbCom? Yes, absolutely. Board of Trustees? Again, absolutely. CheckUser? Yes. Admin? Optional, but strongly encouraged. Anville 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I've argued from time to time that the Internet is merely an extension of humankind, not an escape. Ethics don't stop when they transition into electrons. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think ethics do change in cyberspace. It should be perfectly acceptable for an editor to refuse to reveal their identity, so long as they are more or less completely disembodied in their edits. We should strongly discourage lying about real life identities, but we shouldn't demand their availability except for legal reasons (someone is being hired or something). A metaphor I like is cartoon violence: if it is ridiculous, we don't find it offensive, but if it looks real, we are more cautious about its display around children. If I claim to be a Martian interested in editing articles about roads in Mexico, no one is going to care about my claims to be a Martian, and I might someday become a bureaucrat, if the roads lead me that way. But if I claim to be a minister in a Bavarian parliament, someone ought to check it out. And if I make no claims about my identity, then I should only be judged for my edits. If you don't like my (hypothetical) anonymity, you can vote against me or whatever. But I don't think anonymity is unethical in and of itself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing against a straw man. If you read my other posts, you will see I'm not in favor of eliminating anonymity in the Wikipedia. And anonymity in and of itself has nothing to do with ethics. It's about if you apply for a high position, you had better not lie about your credentials, the same as in real space. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see that, but I wanted to put in a few words in support of anonymous users, and when trusted, anonymous users in high positions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point. Metamagician3000 wrote, "Jimbo or somebody else in authority needs to be satisfied that there are no more Essjays in such positions." I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, except that I don't think it goes far enough. Jimbo erred, my fellow Wikipedians. Because he did not have all the evidence available, his first judgment was mistaken. Even assuming the best faith in the world, we have to acknowledge the possibility that it'll happen again. Try to verify the credentials of a hundred users, and you'll screw up at least once, particularly if people seek to game the system. (I've been watchdogging Bogdanov Affair for too long to have high hopes about this. People with impure intentions and inflated egos will try to credential themselves and make an awful lot of noise before we proles can shut them up again.) And it's the people who are the least honest — the people most likely to try subverting the system — whose credentials are hardest to verify. (Exhibit A: David Berlinski.) I won't have a jot of confidence in the credentialing system if it hinges upon the judgment of a single individual, even if that individual is Jimbo Wales.

The materials necessary to verify a user's credentials should be available to everyone. The user page can link to a faculty webpage hosted on a university's site, for example, with that page in turn linking back to the person's WP identity.

In a word, the process must be transparent, or else it's much more likely to go wrong. Anville 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anville, I think it will thin the talent pool unless we trust Jimbo (or whoever) to perform due diligence and vouch for people. Take me: I don't want to put my identity right there on my userpage, or to a page linked straight from it, or in a list somewhere, where any passing vandal can easily see it. Many other admins will be much more, rather than less, guarded than I am. I don't think it matters that Jimbo made one mistake; he is now very sensitised to the issue, n'est-ce pas? Metamagician3000 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. I've seen too many instances of harassing and stalking at the Admins' Noticeboard, from death threats to admins receiving angry phonecalls from trolls and vandals who can't stand to see their "work" reverted. I am very wary of revealing my real life identity to Wikipedia, but I most strongly refuse to disclose my identity to the outside world. My personal life, my safety and yes, my privacy are more important to me. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I worry about thinning the talent pool, and of course I'm not eager to jeopardize anybody's safety. However, being the pessimistic sort that I am, I have to wonder if we have to accept cutting the number of willing ArbCom candidates, in order to have a reliable system. Imposing additional conditions upon the most exclusive job in the community doesn't sound prima facie absurd to me. Anville 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here, but I don't really see how this is relevant. It has been established that Essjay (ab)used his fake credentials as an editor of Wikipedia, from his fourth edit onwards. But I sincerely hope that he was promoted to CheckUser and ArbCom on more than just his edits. And I still don't see how Essjay abused those privileges. He wronged as an editor and as a community member, but I don't think he wronged as a CheckUser and an Arbitrator. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what's there to be upset about? (From context, I think you might've meant to say, "I sincerely hope that he was promoted to CheckUser and ArbCom on more than just his credentials", which is a sentiment with which I agree.) If his petty dishonesty didn't affect his performance in his position of trust, then this whole business begins to take on the aspect of a Clintonian love affair. Anville 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I brought this up, so I can only blame myself, but we're digressing. I suggest we leave the specifics of the Essjay controversy aside for the moment, and focus on the credential verification again. My apologies. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I'm still thrashing out my ideas on this subject (as if what I think makes a difference at all!). I just posted a few paragraphs under Anti-intellectualism, down below, which try to summarize my thoughts about when, where and how credential verification can be useful. Anville 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Jimbo freely admits, he goofed during the Essjay train wreck. But I trust him not to goof again in a similar way; he's a smart guy, and we all learn by our mistakes. That, and the thinning the talent pool thing does worry me. A lot of people are not willing to make their identities publicly known for all sorts of good reasons, but most would probably be willing to vetted in private if they wanted to be arbcom members or whatever. I do think it matters that Essjay had all those positions of authority while actually doing dishonest things. He was still a great contributor to Wikipedia in many ways, but it just looks dreadful when someone who has shown blatant dishonesty is in such positions, especially arbcom where he would have been sitting in judgment on the conduct of others. Whether he has at some stage had consensual oral sex with an intern of adult years in his workplace would not matter, but this does. Metamagician3000 01:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Credential “signing”

I do not know how many people on Wikipedia are users of PKI technologies such as GnuPG, but I thik that it might be suitable for use such as this. There can be people who “notarize” claims, and if those “notaries” are heavily involved in the web of trust, the credibility of the claims can go up. I don’t know that it should be a requirement for people to use things such as OpenPGP or GnuPG simply because not every editor is going to want to use such tools. As an example, though, I use an GnuPG key, though mostly only amongst friends at this time, as I don’t have many signatures on my present key (in fact, just the person I communicate mostly with has signed it and verified it; which isn’t that big an indication in the web of trust that I am who I say I am). That having been said, if there is an editor in the metro Atlanta area, I (or any person who has better participated in the web of trust) could verify that persons credentials by verifying their identification, and verifying degrees and certificates and the like personally. Then, their claim could be signed with the key.

Let’s say that Jimbo Wales wants me to certify his identity to the community, and let’s say that he makes the claim that he has a Ph.D. in Physics, a BS in CS, and an Associate’s degree in Business. I would arrange to meet him at a place on a given time, ask him to bring proof of his credentials, as well as identification that can be verified—such as a state ID, driver’s license, or (preferably) a passport, possibly along with other documents that can corroborate the information. I would then inspect all of the materials, looking for the original seals that accompany diplomas and the like, for example, and, if I find them acceptable, be willing to grant him a signature of trust based on how confident I am that the documents are valid. If, on the other hand, he shows up with nothing but photocopies of things, I am going to deny any sort of signature at all based on the fact that I can’t verify any sort of authenticity of the original document. No ID? No signature. One ID and one credential without corroborating material? I would probably grant a signature that conveys less than full trust, but more than none. The web of trust works that way, and it is quite flexible. You can make “low-quality” signatures, and you can even revoke them if the situation changes.

I must say that on the whole, I agree with this idea, though I think that it needs to be refined, and if there is some way in which the Mediawiki software can help simply the process of OpenPGP signatures on claims, that would be great. That way, there is a verifiable signature placed, and the process leaves something of an audit trail so that the credibility of signatures is at least somewhat measurable.

There seems to be a great deal of debate on the issue, and that is not unexpected; though I think that the only real purpose this would serve is to create some measure of trust within the community amongst its members. It is something of a fiber that must be relied upon, even giving the policies against no original research and similar things. I believe myself in complete truth, and for me that also means complete disclosure. I can understand where in some circumstances, some people would be unwilling to completely disclose information regarding themselves, but I also think that omission is as far as that can be reasonably taken; if a claim is made, it should be something that can be trusted. And, if there is a low level of trust with regard to a particular person, it becomes necessary to go over their material, I think, to see if they are acting within the letter and the spirit of the rules that are here. Put simply: if you don’t want to come under fire for lying, don’t put the information out there to begin with, and if you’re going to claim something, ensure that you’re claiming something that is true.

Therefore, I think that this policy will be a good thing when it is refined and more of the “how” issues are addressed. It certainly could not be harmful to require that people back their claims with evidence. —Mike Trausch ^{Fd0man•Talk to me} 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• See User:Avraham/Wiki of Trust -- Avi 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In my part of the world there are very few Wikipedians in any proximity (and are involved in the same WikiProjects that I am, those relating to the local area, so there would be the question of impartiality). If we were all to certify each others credentials then who is going to certify that any one of us has the credentials to certify anothers credentials? Some Wikipedians are much more remote than others, so credential review (especially where most or all parties already interact) is problematic. This again gives rise to the perception that some editors will be regarded as more equal than others, even within the Wiki PhD holding community.LessHeard vanU 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Thumbs Down

If this were to be adopted, we would have to abolish the "no original research" policy and morph into Citizendum v2.0. Definitely not something I want to see... TML 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, why would we have to do that? "No original research" and "prove you are who you say you are" don't seem contradictory at all. --Richard Daly 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

only verify real names, that's all that is needed

I am concerned with this creating a false classification for users. Will users who don't wish to use credential verification be looked down upon? Will users who do use credential verification get an unfair advantage in discussions where credentials are not an issue? If you want some validation system, just make it so we can validate real names. We are far more accepting of the idea that some users show their real names and some don't. This way we get the best of both worlds, some form of verifying who users are (if they opt in) with a far less risk of creating user classes. Verification for individual credentials seems needless and has way too many possible problems. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Verification anxiety is, like beauty, in the mind of the beholder. Credential verification for those who consider it meaningless will not be an impediment to serious work. Same applies to class system worries. Dr.K. 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who use nicknames on Wikipedia. They may wish not to disclose their real name or where they graduate and you certainly cannot force them to comply. But does that mean their degrees are fake or invalid? I don't think so. Besides, same common first name (e.g. David, Mary, Jane etc.) and last name is not a rare scene in any university considering that there're so many graduates per year. It is totally possible to have many search results of Mary Smith (making up a random name here) so how can you tell if this Mary Smith is the same Mary Smith posted on the website? It's too hard to vertify. OhanaUnited 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Consideration for Wikipedians who do not have a PhD (and wouldn't say that they had, either).

I have come to realise that I am getting angry whilst reading through these arguments, and I think I now know why. I don't have a PhD. I have never claimed that I had a PhD. I have never previously considered the possibility that an editor (as opposed to a vandal) might invent such a claim. I certainly would be offended if I felt it was suggested that I would contemplate such a deception.

Outside of the arguments of why verification of claimed credentials is a good or bad thing, please consider the potential reaction of the larger group of Wikipedians who do not have letters after their names, do not belong to Professional Bodies, or have no qualifications outside of general education and a willingness to contribute the Wikipedia community; both Admins and "mere editors" (I take it that the Degree isn't in Diplomacy, Jimbo?!) Has any thought been given to how the news that some editors will be able to indicate that the qualifications they choose to display on their userpages have been certified to the satisfaction of Wikipedia might be received by other editors/Admins? I can give an example of a case where some editors cited their professional background as a reason for their request for a change of policy (which was only allowed when they then provided good references) and the rancour that ensued when such qualifications was used as a justification. The suggestion that Wikipedia may consider some contributors more equal than others may rankle with some, the inference that someone without such a qualification (the larger amount of contributors) may consider lying about having one, for whatever reason, may even offend a few.

I don't see any of the above being taken into account. LessHeard vanU 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Idea

I would have to leave if you starting to have credentials Because I simply do not want Anyone here knowing who I am or where I live for the Fact that if I make someone mad they could burn my house down, Kill my dog, or kill me Bloddyfriday 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No Wikipedia arguments have led to murder. Salad Days 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but they have led to harassment, stalking, death threats and people receiving phone calls at home. 99 out of 100 people doing this may be bluffing, but I don't wanna come face to face with the 1 person who is serious. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find the reasoning of violent behavior due to Wikipedia editing slightly ludicrous. If that was the case most journalists would be unable to go out of their houses Alf^Photoman 15:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read this article. Can you guarantee that that will never happen on Wikipedia? 99 out of 100 people, or perhaps even 999 out of 1000, will not be serious with any death threats they make, but the one person who is serious can do serious damage.. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

... of which the probability is slightly less then the one of being hit by lightning while siting on a latrine. There is no absolute safety and if someone really wants to know who you are to beat you up a little web-savvy is all he needs to find you. You are not as anonymous as you think. ASnonimity is one of the great web myths. Alf^Photoman 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather be safe then sorry... or dead. Bloddyfriday 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then for your sake you should not cross the road or drive a car or climb a tree or... come on now.... Alf^Photoman 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue,I gave my own opinion okay? Bloddyfriday 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts

I've already added my ideas above, but there's two more thoughts I've been having after reading others' thoughts above. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to the press

It seems to me that this whole matter really blew out when Essjay lied to or didn't correct his credentials when speaking to the New Yorker for a story. Another way of looking at this might be to have policies with how Wikipedians (as representatives of the Wikipedia) talk to the press. Perhaps we should have a policy where Wikipedians *must* be truthful about who they are when speaking to the press, and if they would rather be anonymous, then they need to refrain from speaking to the press. Wikipedia is an open organization, but I don't see any issue with saying that Wikipedians are to adhere to some minor expectations for behavior. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Acceding to authority in the United States

People in the United States have been groomed over a long period of time by our corporate masters to accede to authority, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. This has become ingrained into the American psyche, and thus there's a widespread expectation of authority (rather than egalitarian collaboration/cooperation) in every walk of life. There is a natural public bias against the Wikipedia because of this, and the media naturally has an easy time exploiting this, due to how "brainwashed" the American people are. In other words, the American people tend to suck this shit right up without much question. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)