Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it's about individual experience as much as it is being able to credibly verify the source of the information, to possibly designate that you know a substantial amount in a particular field enough to VERIFY existing information without adding original research.--RWilliamKing 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NOR is well and good. The only "priviledge" that experts are accorded here is that we know the literature and judge cites better than non-experts. But often enough, we have to argue over the validity of the most basic refences with some editor who obviously does not know the area very well.Pproctor 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "I hold a Ph.D, so you should make me an admin"

No one has ever said anything like that. Wild hysteria over the attack of the straw men.

If I wanted to fill Wikipedia with disinformation, I wouldn't claim I'm a professor. Instead, I'd start falsely citing books (preferably non-English) which few libraries have, and thus which are hugely difficult to check. I'd then start bitching about the "elitism" of the professor who knows that I'm wrong, that after all being his job, but doesn't have the reference which I've purposefully chosen to be obscure. Further, I'd fill it with such odd disinformation that no standard reference rebuts it, because it's just too weird to bother with. The cherry on my triumph would be getting the professor blocked under the Wikipedia:Credential ban. I would laugh & laugh & laugh. That is, if I were actually a troll, rather than a professor. Derex 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the point you're making about WP:ATT, but I don't think situations like that ought to be a problem, as WP:NPOV caters for those. Let me explain. If Editor X adds a weird-looking and controversial statement to a page, which goes against the mainstream of opinion in that field, and backs it up with an obscure reference that no one's heard of, then you're quite right that it probably couldn't be deleted, due to WP:ATT. However, any experts hanging around the page would be within their rights to present the opposing/mainstream points of view; if necessary, they could also back it up by citing their own published research, as citing oneself is allowed. So it is possible to spread disinformation, but it's equally easy to spread good information. In writing this essay I'm not trying to attack experts, or drive them away from Wikipedia; I'm just saying that they shouldn't be exempt from following WP:ATT, and that their edits shouldn't be automatically treated as the unchallengeable truth, unless they are backed up with reliable sources. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But my troll by assumption put in a fringe theory that is not addressed in the literature. He just made the damn thing up and gave a false cite. Now, it may be entirely obvious to the experts that it's wrong, they may even be able to logically prove it's wrong (at least to other experts), but they can't trot out a reference rebutting some nutty thing because there won't be one. You're stuck with it, and you can't refute it without enormous difficulty; suck it Wikipedia, says my troll. ... Anyway, at least a dozen quite good examples of constructive and harmonious uses of credentials have been given in the various discussions. It's simply not true that credentials are useless, even on Wikipedia; if used *properly* they can be quite helpful indeed. For example, you want things backed up with reliable sources. Well, what do you do when there's a dispute about RS in physics? Might be nice if you could look up a list of 2 or 3 physics professors here and ask; at least I see that kind of thing as useful. I find this, and related discussions, to be enormous breaches of AGF. Derex 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Luckily we already have it covered: from Wikipedia:Fringe theories: In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual ... Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight as well. --WikiSlasher 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Troll says it's not a fringe theory. It's perfectly mainstream and cited to a book by a mainstream scholar. It's not his problem if your library doesn't cover it. Three experts here says it is fringe. I'll believe the experts on that, but no one else can because expertise is irrelevant. Derex 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, this is interesting... Revert the additions, insist that it's a fringe theory, explain how it is a fringe theory, ask for the name of the mainstream scholar, the book, the ISBN of the book and the specific text which verifies this information in the book. If it's about science ask why it isn't mentioned in any peer-reviewed journal. You can also debate what counts as "mainstream". Quote the notability guidelines as well. Take it to the WikiProject if applicable. WP:RS is good as well and since the disinformation is so odd, see the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" section. If the troll insists on not shutting up I guess there's always WP:RfC or WP:RfM. Make the arguments brief and clear to anyone with sense and all should be fine... hopefully. I agree that credentials are useful in some cases. --WikiSlasher 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"Take it to the WikiProject if applicable." Why go to the WikiProject? Oh, yes, because that's where the experts in the field hang out. Anville 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this page from my watchlist so I won't be here to respond, but as I said above I agree that credentials are useful in some cases. Bye! --WikiSlasher 11:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of trolling

From the article:

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Referring to your degree to win a dispute does not match this meaning, so it should be changed accordingly. Thanks! --WikiSlasher 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Change it if you want to. It's an essay, not a policy. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In point of fact, I've changed it myself. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I hold a Ph.D., you should read my c.v.

Or, "I don't hold a Ph.D., you should read my c.v. anyways." The fact of the matter is a bona fide expert is much less likely to make an "honest mistake" in his field of expertise than a non-expert. Where a non-expert might cite sources such as newspaper articles which turn out to be wrong, an expert will notice the source material is not correct and not cite it. In the event of an edit war over such a citation, an expert saying "the original source is wrong and here is why" will have more credence than a non-expert saying "the original source is wrong and here is why," assuming both "why's" sound equally credible. In such instance, someone posting "I have a Ph.D. in the matter" or "I've spent the last 5 years researching this very topic" on the flame-war-article's Talk page with more details and proof on their user page is not out of order. Davidwr 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is out of order, not because they're likely to be wrong, but because it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Under WP:ATT, all material must be attributed to a reliable published source. If the expert in question wants to cite their own published research, then that's fine - but they have no right to expect Wikipedia to accept their edits as gospel truth, just because they have academic credentials in the subject. The fundamental point of this essay is that credentials and expertise have no place on Wikipedia - they can be included on a userpage as incidental biographical information, but should never be used in content disputes. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The spirit of Wikipedia is building the best free encyclopedia possible. Anything that gets in the way of that is wrong. Derex 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Derex. The goal isn't to satisfy anyone's selfpride. It is to build a reliable and free encyclopedia. This proposal is going in the wrong way because it will drive experts away. This is a shame. I am no expert but I am fed up of people who seek revenge over experts because they are disgrunted with their own poor education / lives. Wikipedia isn't the place to do so. Poppypetty 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The utility of credentials

I have two remarks after reading the essay.

  • Where did the idea that anonymity is fundamental to the Wikipedia ethos come from? As somebody who edits under his own name (and thinks that more people should do that), I'm a bit surprised to be excluded.
  • Credentials can be useful; in fact, I use them. If I see a professor in mathematics changing a 1 into a 2 in a mathematical formula that I don't know about, I assume she is right. If I see an IP editor doing the same, I have my doubts and I'm more likely to check that. Perhaps that's unfair, but I don't have time to check everything so I concentrate on edits which are more likely to be misguided. And I'm not alone, as this section shows. Granted, this does not contradict the text of the essay, but it does contradict the title.

Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity is an important part of the principle that anyone can edit. A huge number of people would be unwilling to contribute under their own name so it doesn't benefit the project much to stop anonymity. #2 there states "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering" and well if you're not registering you're not giving any information about yourself at all aside from your IP address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiSlasher (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • It sounds like someone is regretting not going back getting their GED. Credentials are what separate the competent from the babbling idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uhhyeah (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you talking to me or Jitse Niesen? Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) --WikiSlasher 14:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It wasn't a comment directed at any single person. It was more along the lines of a general statement mixed in with my 2cents. Uhhyeah 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and beyond

As I have repeatedly stated on Jimbo's talk page, I am still ambivalent about this proposal, for many reasons. But this essay and all of the related posts elsewhere make several false assumptions.

1) All editors are equally capable of assessing the reliability of a source. This is demonstrably untrue. For example, during my recent experience reviewing the Ronald Reagan article at FAC, it became clear to me that the main editors of the article did not initially understand (I am not sure that they yet do) that an autobiography cannot be used as the main source for an article when there is plethora of other sources. Or, hypothetically, who is best suited to evaluate a source on gaps in the fossil record? A paleantologist who studies evolution or a creationist? I'm sure that the creationist can point to many sources which argue that the gaps in the fossil record prove evolution could not have happened but it is the scientist who can demonstrate why science has rejected that argument.
Adding another example. The editors writing the Cicero page have relied on one of the most recent popular biographies of Cicero, a "national bestseller," which was not written by a scholar. This biography was negatively reviewed by the chairman of the classics department from Rutgers in the New York Times. See my post at Talk:Cicero. I am not attacking the editors here. I am simply pointing out that those of us with credentials are more aware of the problems with genres such as the popular biography and are more likely to question their validity and thus search out reviews by experts in the field. Awadewit 10:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
2) All editors agree on the definition of NPOV. This is also demonstrably untrue. For example, there is an ongiong debate on the Muhammad page over whether or not there should be an image of Muhammad on the page. Is it anti-Muslime to include an image? Should wikipedia conform to Islamic law? Is it more about respecting Muslin beliefs? Are Muslim beliefs irrelevant to the article? Is the article simply trying to be descriptive? These questions are not easy and different sets of editors come to the debate with different sets of assumptions. Look at any page dealing with highly charged political issues (such as those in India and Pakistan or Israel and Palestine) and you will see these problems. NPOV is not a simple policy.
3) This debate is only about verifiable content. This point seems to have been larged missed. As my Muhammad example demonstrates, the questions that have to be settled on wikipedia are not only questions which can be settled with a source reference (in a way, those are the easiest). What if an editor argues that the formatting of a page is POV? I myself would argue this in many cases (criticism sections, marriage sections for men relegated to the end of articles but featured prominently for women, etc.) The point is, you cannot turn to a source on any of these issues--you must simply argue your point. Fortunately, there are people who study these issues for a living (art historians, literary critics, historians, etc.). I believe their views to be valuable because they think about these questions all day long. Too often, though, these arguments are dismissed under "Well, that's your opinion and I have my opinion" or some such nonsense.

A final point. I would like to condemn the strongly anti-intellectual flavor that I see in this essay and in other posts regarding this issue. To disregard the years of study that have gone into advanced degrees is insulting to those of us who have spent our lives in academic endeavors. We have also spent years teaching other people (often for tiny amounts of money, I might add). I would be surprised if the writers of this essay and those defending its ideas so staunchly elsewhere would really adhere to this policy in the real world: would they go to a doctor who hasn't been to medical school but who has read all of the books? I mean, that's just as good, right? Awadewit 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if the essay came across as "insulting" to people with advanced degrees or other higher qualifications; it was not my intention at all, nor, I trust, that of the other contributors to the essay. I may reword it for a more moderate tone, if you think that is necessary. However, I will answer your points as follows,
1) It's true that there is often debate over which sources are more reliable than others. My general response in this situation would be to include every point of view, supported by the appropriate source. So if Reagan's autobiography makes an assertion that is contradicted by another source, include both the assertion (sourced to the autobiography) and the contradiction (sourced to the other source). Likewise, an article on paleontology should include both evolutionist and creationist viewpoints, sourced to the appropriate sources.
I disagree. Reagan's autobiography does not hold the same weight as a scholarly biography. One must consider the source, as they say. Reagan's autobiography was written with a very different political agenda than a scholar's biography of Reagan. One reason autobiographies are so suspect is that it is very difficult to know why people are choosing to represent themselves in a particular light. For Reagan to present himself as a great leader or even a terrible leader is different than for a more objective scholar to do so. Reagan has a political interest in doing so. He wants to be remembered, for example, as the president who ended the Cold War. Whether or not he was responsible for doing so is a matter for debate among scholars. Just because he claims he did, does not make it so; but clearly he wants to promote that image of himself.
An article on paleontology should not include creationist viewpoints. They are not science and paleontology is a science.
2)I agree completely that interpretations of NPOV are a problem, but what does that have to do with credentials? Surely in a politically charged debate such as the images-of-Muhammad affair, people with credentials will not all concur on the correct solution; for instance, a Muslim academic with a degree in theology would probably take a different view from an agnostic academic with a degree in moral philosophy. So I don't see how credentials would affect this situation.
I am not saying they will concur, I am saying they will have thought about the questions longer and more deeply; they will have more nuanced and complex views. Those are usually the ones that get drowned out in debates, unfortunately. (And to be clear, I would not cite a degree in theology as a credential.)
3)This is the only point on which I disagree with you. Although someone with expertise might be more likely to be right about an issue, their viewpoints shouldn't necessarily be taken as the gospel truth, and they shouldn't be exempt from the normal Wikipedia discussion process. You make a fair point that credentials are taken seriously outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not RL, or a conventional reference work. This is mainly because we don't get paid for being here; if non-experts and people without degrees were excluded, Wikipedia would simply not have enough people to do the necessary work.
There is no right, I'm afraid. I'm not asking for experts to be exempt from discussion, either. As I stated at the beginning of my post, I am ambivalent about this proposal. I am just concerned about the tone that this whole discussion has taken. The title of your essay is "Credentials are useless," by the way. I am trying to point out that experts are far from useless, in fact they are an asset, because they are able to draw quickly on sources, analyze the reliability of a source, think carefully about complex issues but also "debate well with others". Which, I might point out, I am doing right now.
I also feel that there is a false dichotomy being set up between wikipedia and the "real world." This information is recorded and saved and read by others - how is that not "real"? And if wikipedia is not "RL", as you say, why does it obey copyright law? And clearly, real people's lives have been affected by wikipedia (Siegenthaler, essjay, etc.)
Once again, though, I want to reiterate that I did not intend to cause any offence or to project an "anti-intellectual" tone. I have the greatest respect for the years of work that goes into an advanced degree. In deference to your feeling, I will tone down the section on "credential trolling" - I am aware that my introduction of this phrase has drawn some criticism. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed the word "trolling" from that section of the essay, as I understand that it may be seen as a little too strong. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
For me, it is the title that is inflammatory. But, I have a feeling that you were trying to be bold, succinct and provocative. It works. Awadewit 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't come up with the original title - it was started by User:WikiLeon. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In a sense, it doesn't matter who came up with the title (it's a wiki, remember?). The fact is, when a reader like myself sees a sentence soliciting comment on this essay on the community portal, she or he sees the title "Credentials are useless." The reader does not see "'Credentials are useless' named by WikiLeon and written by WikiLeon and Walton_monarchist89." Or whatever the case may be. Awadewit 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll move the title ASAP. I also thought a little more about your earlier points. This is going off-topic a bit, but isn't it slightly dismissive to say that creationist viewpoints "are not science" and that a degree in theology is "not a credential"? I know very little about the natural sciences myself, and comparatively little about theology (my own field is politics), but from a political perspective I am aware that creationism/intelligent design theory is promoted as a science by some American scientists, particularly those in the "Bible belt". As to a degree in theology, how is that not a credential when editing articles about religion and religious philosophy? Although it doesn't detract from the validity of your point about the utility of credentials, which is a perfectly fair point, it does seem like you're approaching this from an anti-religious POV. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself; no editor can be expected to be completely neutral, and WP:NPOV states that "bias in editors is not a problem, only in articles". But it would be better, IMHO, to consider this debate from an NPOV position. On your point about Reagan's autobiography, I absolutely concur that it's likely to be written from a "get-into-the-history-books" POV, as are most autobiographies - but I don't see that it should be excluded entirely from the article, just that it should be supplemented with alternative points of view from third-party sources. For example, In his autobiography, Reagan claimed X. (citation) However, the political academic Fred Bloggs argues that Reagan's interpretation of X is flawed, and that in fact Y would be a more accurate perspective on these events. (citation). I would regard that as an appropriately neutral and academic method of writing. Likewise, in the Cicero debate, it would seem to me appropriate to include references to the popular biography, coupled with references to the criticisms of that work by academic experts. It would be inherently POV, and contrary to Wikipedia's principles, if a group of experts were to review the viewpoints on an issue, decide which were more "reliable", and write an article based on only those viewpoints. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to say this, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of research and reliable sources. Reagan's autobiography should not be "supplemented" with "alternative points of view." Scholarly sources should be the basis of the article because scholars have a distanced perspective on the events - Reagan does not. Reagan's interpretation of events in his politically-motivated autobiography does not hold the same weight as a carefully-researched scholarly biography. That is why wikipedia requires articles to be based on secondary sources, preferably those written by academics. See WP:ATT - I will quote the relevant passage: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
  • In regards to the Cicero debate, you are wrong again. The popular biography, written by a non-expert, is demonstrably wrong (dates, for example). A popular biography written by a non-expert does not hold the same weight as a scholarly biography written by an expert. Scholars spend their lives studying one field, that is why their books are more accurate. There are some popular biographers who simply write biographies, moving from one person to the next. They do not have the necessary background historical information to properly understand the person. In his review of the Cicero biography, the Rutgers classics professor criticized precisely this aspect of the popular Cicero biography - its misrepresentation of history. To understand a historical personage takes more than the two years of research that a popular biographer does.
  • I quote your last statement: It would be inherently POV, and contrary to Wikipedia's principles, if a group of experts were to review the viewpoints on an issue, decide which were more "reliable", and write an article based on only those viewpoints. - There is nothing inherently POV about scholars reviewing sources. They are the most equipped to decide what is reliable and what is not because they know the field. And I see nothing "contrary to wikipedia's principles" if a group of scholars in say, the English novel, decided to work on the English novel page. They already know what are the most reputable sources on that topic in their field, so it would be easy for them to write an article based on those sources and then post it (they would already know to include citations, by the way, because scholars use citations in their work all of the time). In many ways, this is what editors of anthologies like the Norton Anthology of British Literature do. It is a much bigger problem when someone who knows a little bit about the history of novel decides to check out a few books from the library that came up on an internet search and then uses those to write the page. How does he or she know that those are the most reliable sources? They might come up first on google for some other random reason than that they are the most reliable books on the novel. Scholars know which books are the standard works on a topic in their field.
  • "Scholars" with degrees in divinity or theology are in separate schools at universities (Seminaries or Schools of Theology) because their assumptions for the study of religion and religious texts are different from scholars who study religion in history or religious studies departments. More reputable works come from those scholars in history or religous studies departments because they do not begin with assumptions such as "Jesus is the Messiah." Their research is not constrained by these kinds of assumptions.
  • To address your last and most serious point. "Creation science" is not a science and no real scientist will tell you that it is. The reason that the "intelligent design" movement started in the first place is because conservatives in the United States could not convince the courts that "creation science" was a science (they wanted to ban the teaching of evolution and those kinds of things). "Intelligent design" is another name for creationism (see Dover school board decision). "Intelligent design," its progenitor "creation science" and creationism do not use the scientific method therefore they are not science. They do not belong in any article about science since they are not a science. They belong in an article about themselves, about politics and about religion. You would propose to create a debate where there isn't one. To argue that "some scientists say intelligent design is science" is to distort reality; even if a handful of "scientists" claim that intelligent design is science, their views are not taken seriously by the scientific establishment, therefore their views do not merit inclusion in the article. According to WP:NPOV, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all . . . We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." It would be like if I found a group of people (and I am sure they exist somewhere) that still argue that the earth is at the center of the galaxy and the sun revolves around the earth. They do not merit mention on the Earth or Sun page because their views have been proven wrong and are such a tiny minority; there is no debate over that issue any more, just like there is no debate in the scientific community over evolution. Awadewit 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to various points

  • I absolutely concur with your interpretation of WP:ATT that secondary sources are generally more reliable, and that every decent article needs to include some references to secondary sources. However, I don't quite understand what you are advocating - are you saying autobiographies should never be used as references in articles about their subject? Not even, for instance, to provide a citation for a quote/statement from the subject themselves? For instance, On the topic of X, Reagan said "Y". (citation). Even if this is followed by a statement such as Biographer Fred Bloggs criticised Reagan's statement of "Y", etc.
    • I am quoting myself from above: "an autobiography cannot be used as the main source for an article when there is plethora of other sources" and "scholarly sources should be the basis of the article because scholars have a distanced perspective on the events." Please note the words main source and basis. I am not sure how you could interpret these statements to mean "autobiographies should never be used." I meant exactly what I said. When there are scholarly biographies available, as in the case of Reagan, autobiographies should not be used as the main source for an article because they are highly biased. They can be used for anecdotes and to report some of the personal opinions of the writer, but they should not be used as the main source for the article. As I repeatedly stated. Awadewit 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, so where are we disagreeing here? I agree with everything you've just said. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As to the Cicero debate, I accept that you know more than I do - the classics aren't really my field within Wikipedia and I have never edited that particular article. I was only responding to your comments in a generalised sense that could apply to any article. However, I agree with you that the amount of weight given to one source over another in an article should reflect its acceptance within the scholarly community.
    • But that is not what you said: You wrote, and I am quoting from your post above, "Likewise, in the Cicero debate, it would seem to me appropriate to include references to the popular biography, coupled with references to the criticisms of that work by academic experts. It would be inherently POV, and contrary to Wikipedia's principles, if a group of experts were to review the viewpoints on an issue, decide which were more "reliable", and write an article based on only those viewpoints." You were not arguing that academic biographies should be given more weight - you were arguing that both should be presented, along with the criticisms, which would only be confusing to readers. The reason that academics review books is so that we know how reliable they are. Awadewit 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm quite aware that I contradicted what I said earlier; that's because, as I explained, I have never edited or even looked at the Cicero article, so I was giving a generalised response based on the information you stated about it. When you gave more information, I changed my position. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not arguing that groups of scholars should not edit articles within their field of expertise, only that they should not, by virtue of their position as scholars, have authority to exclude statements and sources that they regard as unreliable. It is perfectly desirable on Wikipedia that an expert editor should act to redress an imbalance of views in an article - but ideally they should do so by adding, rather than taking away. Once again, I'm not sure quite what you're arguing for here - are you advocating the formation of a kind of unofficial "scholars' cabal" for each article, that evaluates points relating to that article and deletes any references that they regard as unreliable? That might, indeed, produce a more accurate Wikipedia in some respects, but it would also be a much slimmer and much more unfriendly Wikipedia. Such a plan would undoubtedly drive away the many high-school and undergraduate students who make up a large proportion of Wikipedia's active editors.
    • Where in my post do I propose a "cabal"? Please look up the definition of cabal. And, also, sometimes editors must remove material to better represent the scholarly consensus on a particular person or issue. To force editors to add enough material to counter every insane proposition on a page would be ridiculous. Moreover, it would make the page unreadable. Again, I propose the idea of an earth-centric universe. Why should that idea not be removed from the Earth page?
      • I know perfectly well what "cabal" means, and I would not disagree that sometimes an idea should be removed. But your statement is really a reductio ad absurdum; the earth-centric worldview is an extreme example, because it's held by a tiny minority of people. However, I would argue that where a view is held by a substantial portion of the general public, but is dismissed by most experts (as is the case with creationism, and so on), then no group of expert Wikipedians should have the authority to decide to exclude that view from the article, against consensus, by virtue of their credentials and expertise. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not extreme. I was just trying to illustrate the point. Creationism is wrong. It should not be discussed on science pages since scientists have proven it wrong (by the way, not "dismissed it," proved it wrong). Consensus should not result in the inclusion of incorrect ideas in inappropriate places. Creationism belongs on a page about creationism, religion or politics. Consensus does not make something right. Awadewit 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The points about theology and about creation science are side points, as I said earlier, and are tangential to the main issue. As I said, I am not a scientist and so might well have been completely wrong about the science-related issues, so I certainly wouldn't intend to argue that point with you. But I accept your explanation and am satisfied that you were not motivated by an anti-religious POV.

I'm going to follow WP:AGF, and not be offended by the fact that you state that I fail to understand the "fundamental nature of research and reliable sources". If you like, you can review my recent edits to the articles on Politics, Left-right politics and Street-level bureaucracy and tell me whether you regard my use of sources in those articles as fundamentally wrong. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The irony of you asking me to check your sources and edits on pages where you claim to have an expertise is overwhelming in the context of this discussion. Why do you only edit articles on topics which you claim to have an expertise? Awadewit 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It was more of a rhetorical challenge, to prove to you that I do not misunderstand the correct use of sources within Wikipedia. Nor do I "only edit articles on sources in which I claim to have an expertise"; FYI, I have edited articles on topics such as Hereditary title, Spanish heraldry and the (fictional) Quirm College for Young Ladies. The whole point of what I'm saying is that you don't need to have any kind of expertise to write a Wikipedia article. Any intelligent person can look up some sources on a topic, process the information, and write an article using citations to back up their assertions. So there's no irony, and you've completely misunderstood me. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, then it is not a "rhetorical" challenge, it is an actual challenge. The fact that you chose only to list articles on which you claim to have an expertise is particularly revealing, though. Next, I do not think that it is very easy to "look up some sources on a topic," think about that topic and then write an article. Have you never written a research paper? The first batch of books always reveals a second batch that you need to read (at least) if not a third batch and so on. You don't get it right the first time because you don't know what you are doing. Also, students often ask their professors for advice on what books to read because they do not know which ones represent the scholarly consensus. Wikipedia editors have no one to ask. And, as I have found out, they tend not to check out the reviews of the books they do use. See Talk:Cicero. Awadewit 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking up your challenge. I will begin with the politics page. I do not know if you added all of these sources, but they are there for scrutiny. I did not check every source, but what I did check does not inspire me with confidence.

  • I would dispute the use of Tansey and European Politics Today. Why use an introductory textbook? Why not refer to the actual scholarship in the field?
  • The footnote on Thomas Hobbes is to www.gradesaver.com. Do I really have to explain the problem with this?
  • The page cites an online essay by Geoff Boucher. He may be reputable, but there is no way to tell that. All we have is the essay. Has is been published somewhere? Has it been peer-reviewed?
  • The page cites a self-published essay: "What is Rationality, What is Power." Publishing an essay on one's own website means nothing in the scholarly world. It has not been peer-reviewed.
  • The page references a company (www.12manage.com) to discuss the "cult of personality." Need I say more?
  • Footnote 25 brings the reader to a large pdf document that begins with an explanation that the paper is part a larger project that is a work in progress (the writer does not yet have a PhD). "Discussion" papers are not published academic works; again, they have not been peer-reviewed.
Where are the major scholarly works on politics? Arendt and Aristotle notwithstanding, the page is dominated by little references to obscure sources. Awadewit 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why credentials are useful

To provide a method for the verification of credentials is not to circumvent cornerstone Wikipedia policies like WP:ATT and WP:OR. If anything it's to make them more potent. As Awadewit said above, while not everyone is well-equiped to assess the reliability of a source, an expert with years of experience probably is. Credentials would allow experts to enforce the policy better, not get around it. The suggestion made in essays like this one that credentials will undermine other Wikipedia policies is misleading.

The danger that experts will use their credentials to win arguments, demand sysop priveleges, or make unverifiable edits is marginal. The culture here, which treats credentials without much reverence already, will never allow that kind of thing to happen. Editors will always challenge other edits factually, and other editors (even credentialed experts) will be pressed to provide facts in support of their edits if they want them to stand. Why would that ever change?

Even the fear that people will tout their credentials is unfounded. People who want to tout their credentials will probaby tout them with or without a process for verification, and, since it's not a widespread issue already, I don't see why it would become one. Verification just eliminates the possibility that someone touting their expertise is a fraud -- that's exactly why credentials exist in the first place.

Overall, I think the potential abuse of credentials is better than the potential abuse of anonymity, as Essjay illustrated so well. -- bcasterline • talk 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made a lot of valid points here, and I accept that the majority of editors with credentials will not tout them, or attempt to use them to their advantage in gaining privileges or winning edit wars. However, just consider the inevitable direction that it will take the RfA process in. On a subconscious level, most users are more likely to support someone for adminship who is, verifiably, a college professor with a doctorate, than someone who is, verifiably, a fourteen-year-old editing from high school. Although I don't think most users would go so far as to vote Oppose per lack of qualifications; he's only 13 at RfA, it would inevitably influence the amount of leeway/generosity they allow in considering an RfA - a credentialed expert with only 2500 edits might get adminship, when a teenager with 4000 might not. The same applies to other positions of trust on Wikipedia. I want to make clear that I'm not assuming bad faith, nor do I think most Wikipedia users would come out and say "I'm a Ph.D, so make me an admin." But a culture of equality among Wikipedians seems better to me. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. But, as you rightly say, it's a matter of culture, and I don't agree that a process of verification will change it. If it does, it's an indication that something else is broken. To take your RfA example: RfAs should be approved primarily based on the trustworthiness of the candidate and his proficiency with wiki tools, since those qualities are the most relevant to sysop priveleges. They're also qualities in which all Wikipedians begin with a clean slate. If that's not happening (e.g. RfAs are approved instead based on credentials), then the RfA process is broken and the culture there needs to change. I don't think opposing a process of credential verification, which is beneficial on its own, is the right solution to that problem. -- bcasterline • talk 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title should be "Credentials are irrelevant"

Isn't that what the essay is saying? That because of Wikipedia:Attribution, Ph.D.-thumping won't be taken seriously without support from reliable, third party sources, just as with any editor's contributions? We are not bashing advanced degrees for the sake of it, or in and of themselves, right? The message is, "Relax. There are already policies in place about how to add credible content. Hysteria about editors' claims to credentials is beside the point." If I'm reading that message right, it'd be ironic to disparage credentials in the title. -Fsotrain09 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that'd probably be a better title. --WikiSlasher 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also support moving the title - although I wrote much of the essay, User:WikiLeon started it and came up with the title. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now moved the title. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Always pushing the extremes

In the real world, experts are given the last word in things. I don't like this, so I am glad there's a place that forces even PhD's to engage in a thoughtful(i.e. non-condescending) defense of their positions. But now Wikipedia has gone to the other extreme, where Credentials are useless. This is misguided for so many reasons, articulated by great examples by Awadewit above as well as bcasterline and Derex, and I want to add some additional arguments to theirs.

  • 1) Wikipedians become admins by doing a lot of work and having good edits. Admins don't become admins simply by writing a well cited essay about how they deserve the job. So Wikipedia relies on credentials just as much as the outside world, they are simply using their own particular credentials.
  • 2) A lot of newly created pages aren't cited to the degree they need to be. This describes a lot of articles I see. It can take a long time for the necessary citations to be made, so I find comfort in being able to look at the user page of the creator and seeing that he is an expert in the field. I also don't want the article deleted or cut down to a stub until it gets better.
  • 3) No one, not even experts, depending on the subject, have access to all the possible references so creating a false reference probably won't be challenged to the extent that they need to be. It's far easier to create a false citation than the creators of this article would like to believe.
  • 4) Some topics are brand new and haven't had the chance for thorough scholarly study. I and many others still would like the subject covered in Wikipedia, and the only people qualified at this point to write about it are experts in related fields.
A good example of this is the Series of Unfortunate Events books for children by Lemony Snicket. Scholars of children's literature have not written much on these books yet (getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal can take years; let's not discuss books). Would wikipedia prefer that fans write the site or a literature professor? Awadewit 07:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The real world worships fancy degrees and gives experts all the power. This is wrong. But Wikipedia now has replaced this with citation worship as if that were everything. There are no absolutes in this world and to think that any one thing can settle a debate is foolish. In a debate, everything is a factor. Topics such as global warming, whether HIV really causes AIDS, and did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone have tons of important sounding references arguing all sides, and it's not enough to simply say cover the subject from all perspectives. Experts have a role in shooting down references as unreliable, giving counter points, and giving context to a particular reference.

We should respect experts more(though not slavishly) than to the degree we are doing so now. They're the ones who are responsible for a lot of the content and would rightfully resent it if they were truly treated no better than anyone else here. I think this attitude indirectly lead to the Essjay controversy. In the very least, creating false credentials must be considered unacceptable and can result in being banned from Wikipedia. You can't demand honesty and good faith in every aspect of the work done here, but allow for an exception in the way someone represents him/herself. CowardX10 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to pick up on just one of your statements here. On the topic of adminship, which I regard as the most important aspect of this dispute, you say ...Wikipedia relies on credentials just as much as the outside world, they are simply using their own particular credentials. This is exactly the point I was trying to make, in this essay and in the ensuing discussion. The credentials that are relevant to achieving a Wikipedia position, such as admin or bureaucrat, are those within Wikipedia itself - a high editcount, broad experience of WP policy, civil behaviour towards other editors, etc. If someone has those Wiki credentials, it shouldn't matter whether they are a 40-year-old professor with a Ph.D and years of research experience, or a 13-year-old editing from high school. But if those RL differences become a matter of verifiable record, then they will inevitably be taken into account at RfA and RfB, at least subconsciously. That's why anonymity is a good thing. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, let's assume the truth of that, and there's a slight influence when someone has RL credentials in gaining adminship. I'm still OK with it. Like if it turns out in the future that, statistically, it takes someone with no credentials 15,000 good edits to get adminship but only 10,000 for a PhD in the field. If voters subconsciously allow this degree of influence in their reasoning, I personally wouldn't mind.
I'm beginning to think that diminishing the importance of credentials in Wikipedia may be a fundamental problem with the system. By its nature, we are in the information business, and in general, the best information comes from experts in the field, particularly academics. Leaving aside all the counter examples(and I admit there are many), it's the academics who have a higher standard for honesty in information gathering than the population at large and those who haven't gone through the process of getting a higher degree. This is analogous to saying medical doctors, who are in the business of healing people, are far more able to treat the sick than the average person. For instance, take a random doctor and a non-doctor who happens to have slightly better knowledge about an illness. I would still rather be under the care of the doctor since he has taken the oath to do no harm, has worked with other patients, and knows how important doctor/patient confidentiality is. These things represent the qualities which exist beyond factual knowledge, and are fundamental to how doctors care for others.
I'm going to risk angering other readers and say all Essjay's most extreme defenders(including Jimbo early on) are/were manifesting the ultimate consequence of this failure to understand the demands of the information business. When providing information, the most valuable thing you have is your credibility, and you cannot separate the credibility of the information with its makers. The debate we are having here, whether credentials are irrelevant, still suffers from not acknowledging that a very big part of the information business is about having experts in the field working for you and that their opinion is respected more than others. In other words, we still think you can separate information from its creators.
Finally, I want to add that for general editors, we should assume good faith in the credentials they list. If we find out someone is lying, he/she may be banned, but I don't think there should be a verification process beforehand. And in granting adminship, we should leave it up to the voter whether he/she wants to take the editors degrees into consideration.CowardX10 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Support

This is exactly my thoughts. If credentials mean nothing (and they don't), then why verify them? The problem is that Essjay lied, and that he used his fake credentials to win arguments. This essay might need to clarify that wiki is not 'anti-intellectual', however. We don't think your credentials are useless, just that they don't fit with our editing ethos. We encourage people with qualifications to write articles, and be proud of their achievements. You just don't use them inappropriately. Iorek85 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely concur. That's a good summary of the message I was trying to project with my contributions to this essay. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am also in complete agreement. This is an excellent essay and sums up well the issues at hand.Joel Mc 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials can mean something to someone

On legal matters, such as copyright or fair use, I'd be inclinded to trust the opinion of a lawyer. On medical topics, the same with a doctor. I think there are cases where a contibutor's expertise is relevent, and if it is relevent, then verification is desirable. SmokeyJoe 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is that even the opinion of an expert is still an opinion, and therefore original research. Any opinions included in the article namespace need to be backed up by reliable sources per WP:ATT. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I assumed we were talking about talk pages. SmokeyJoe 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, that would certainly be a legitimate application of credentials on Wikipedia - however, I think the danger of creating an elitist culture outweighs the potential uses of credential verification. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not Ignore All Credentials?

I was wondering if someone might find a way to fit the Ignore All Credentials proposal into this essay, assuming they deem it relevant. // Internet Esquire 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're saying pretty much the same thing. I would support a merge. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they're saying the same thing, but I do think that IAC should be referenced on this page as a proposed guideline/policy. // Internet Esquire 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No Wikipedian's opinion is more valuable than another's" is not true

This is even worse than Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. The big problem, and the problem in the Essjay incident, was with people acting as if their opinion was as valuable as anyone else's when their own knowledge of their own credentials told them otherwise. The reality is that objectively not all opinions are equally valuable; saying that they all are is the same as saying that everyone's opinion is worthy, and that just isn't true.

This essay is just an open invitation for those who don't know what they're talking about to butt into any controversy that comes along. Verifiability isn't enough-- indeed, there are the twin problems that (a) if one doesn't understand the source material, one cannot really verify, and that (b) verified sources still have to be organized into a coherent article, and that generally requires understanding of the material. In my experience, it is these interpretational disputes that are at the core of most persistent controversies here. But we are all experts, and all competent to pass these judgements, because we don't need any credentials, because credentials don't matter. Mangoe 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree more. Thanks. Poppypetty 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Awadewit 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Years of study on a subject are extremely valuable in editing an article, as familiarity with a subject makes the whole process more efficient, but the fact that wikipedia does not allow original research seems to indicate that we are all ready washing our hands of credential verification.
I wonder how wikipedia would look if verification of "credentials" became standard practice? Probably pretty dead. I think its the lack of stratification in this project that makes it appealing, start passing out expert badges and criticizing editors based on there work outside of wikipedia, this place is going to become alot less popular. Jirt 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody said we should start "criticizing editors based on the[i]r work outside of wikipedia"? I haven't seen that. Many people in this discussion want to cite academic work but do not want academics on wikipedia, seemingly. I'm not quite sure why that is. And I cannot reiterate enough that not all decisions on wikipedia can be made by citing a source. An article is a summary of the knowledge about a particular person, idea, or thing. To pretend that that summarizing process doesn't involve important decisions is ridiculous. You cannot refer to a source to prove you as the editor made the best, most informed choices regarding what to include in the article and what not to include. That is why informed editors are the most valuable. And academic experts are often the most informed editors available. Wikipedia should embrace them, not denigrate them. Awadewit 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
When did Wikipedia start awarding advanced degrees? You misunderstood, "credentials" as we are discussing here, such as someones profession or educational background, are based on work done outside of wikipedia.
I agree that an indivuals judgement is very important in editing an article and experts on a certain subject will probably be able to edit an article in there field more efficently. However, I was under the impression that the community determined whether an editor made the best, most informed choices regarding what to include in an article. Not an indivuals claim to "credentials".
Informed editors are valuable, I dont think anyone is trying to "denigrate" them, rather it seems that some would prefer wikipedians be judged by the quality of there work in wikipedia. If they truly are "experts" than there work will reflect their expertise, and their is no need to rely on "credentials". Jirt 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. True, credentials are not a trump card with which someone can win a debate, but in any dispute it would helpful to know if any of the involved editors are actually accredited or published in that field.

This essay therefore draws the wrong lesson from the Essjay scandal. The lesson is not that credentials are irrelevant. The lesson is that anonymous, pseudonymous, or otherwise unverifiable claims of expertise should be regarded with suspicion. In other words:

“ Unless one has indisputable proof to the contrary, one should assume that any given Wikipedian is an unemployed college dropout in his twenties who lives in his Mom's basement. ”

Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-) —Kevin 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is tending to veer away from my point. I really don't see how disregarding credentials does anyone the least good in writing articles here. And it's obvious that demanding credentials is against the basis for the whole project, so that's essentially a strawman. Nevertheless, in reality, some people do come to the project with credentials, and their input should be deferred to by those who lack them. Claiming false credentials is just not a significant problem at this time; people acting as if they were credentialled when everyone can see that they aren't is the big problem. If these people deferred to those who assert credentials, Wikipedia would be a better place, even if they were deferring to people who claim those credentials falsely. It might not be more accurate, but it probably wouldn't be more inaccurate, and it would be less contentious. Mangoe 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just one sentence

I agree with most of it except, and this is being very picky, when you say: "you should never, ever refer to them (your credentials) outside your userspace." Why not? As long as you don't expect any special treatment then its fine to say, for example, in an article talk page. It at least makes what is said worth looking up / checking into. Think outside the box 13:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the wording to be less strong. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymity and Edit-checking

I'm newly-registered (to be precise, newly-returned), but, in my understanding, anonymity is simply an aspect of the wiki "ethos" (i.e. it is not really fundamental). Total anonymity would not allow for ip-address blocking (which is already utilized, obviously), because there would be no record of who changed what. Also, at some point, it is already accepted that anonymous edits, while they have their place, are not given the same initial value by the community as a registered edit (at least from what I can tell).

I support the idea of verifying credentials, if only as a method of assembling a database of experts in particular fields. A verified expert in a field could be someone to whom others turn when they have a question about an article/edit/what-have-you. That person is more likley to have the appropriate resources at their disposal and thus is in a better position to give an opinion than the average editor. Of course, one should require that this opinion be backed up with one of those resources of which the verified expert has access to; accepting their opinion solely on the grounds of their verified expert-hood should be avoided (on that, I agree with you). Whodan2 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials are relevant

I agree with some of the criticisms of this essay which multiple people have articulated. Perhaps is it is time to start a "response essay" titled something like Wikipedia:Credentials matter? -- Beland 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mangoe 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also written down my thoughts here. -- bcasterline • talk 07:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Completly Irrelevant

I don't mean to make some anti-intellectual propaganda, and it's not like I'm saying that credentials are not relevant at all; but they're irrelevant on Wikipedia. Here's my thoughts on why:

  • Two words: ad verecundiam. You are taking a non-reliable source (since, yes, everyone can lie and say they have whatever credentials they want to), and using them to validate any argument based solely on wether they know more than you because they have a PhD. Which results in my next point.
No, actually, I see the problem as being the other way around. It not that the other person has (or claims to have) a PhD; it's that you (not you personally, but editors in general) don't. If they may not be an acceptable source, you certainly aren't. Mangoe 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Under that same logic, Harry Edmund Martinson didn't had any acceptable work beacause he was home schooled (and, therefore, didn't deserve a Nobel Prize). Monet was a dropout from elementary school, so you're saying he can't come to wikipedia and have a valid opinion because he didn't have a PhD; or Jon Peters can't talk about moviemaking because he is also an elementary school dropout. On the other side, experts and PhD holders are often wrong; remember the awful supposed growth of crime rate in the middle of the 90s? Probably not, so how about Y2K? Mad cow disease? Stock crashing? killer bees invading the continent?. All unprecise data from experts and whatnot. Again, ad verecundiam; you are taking an unreliable source as valid and omniscient. Plus, what ensures you that I'm not a brilliant professional with a cool PhD that DOESN'T choose to brag about it on the internet? would that make me an acceptable source? Teresa.Fr 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What Teresa said. // Internet Esquire 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the problem with these examples is that they all have verifiable credentials. Martinson, after all, did win a Nobel; Monet is referred to all over the art world; Peters's work in the film industry is a matter of record. A PhD is hardly the only kind of credential. Mangoe 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how Monet has a credential. Teresa.Fr 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You can have all the credentials in the world and still don't know anything. You can be completly incompetent and have credentials. Having a peper that says you studied something doesn't mean you're smart or know what you're talking about. Just think about when you were in college; were all your teachers completly competent? not even one was an idiot? yes, you know it's true. You had teachers with credentials and titles and a good job, that doesn't mean they were any good or smart at all. You could have spent five years researching something and still not knowing anything about it. It happens all the time. Atkins told you to eat some food; you did because he is a nutritionist and he knows better. good, now ten years later here you are suffering from high pressure and kidney failure. NOT EVERYONE WITH A PHD IS COMPETENT. That's precisely why our knowledge evolves.
Perhaps they aren't. But if you know for certain that you don't have a PhD, that you're at best a well-educated amateur, and at worst a hack who is in way over your head, who are you to judge on their competence? As far as the Atkins diet is concerned, there is plenty of expert examination of it out there; your own personal experience of using it isn't a trump card that makes you competent to pass judgement. And after all your own experience wouldn't be any more verifiable that their credentials anyway. Mangoe 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying that all PhD holders are incompetent, I'm just saying they're not NECESSARILY more competent than any other person, thus making crediants unimportant for wikipedian users. Please see previous or posterior points. Maybe you'll get it the second time you read it. Teresa.Fr 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you fail to see my previous point, we'll look at it from a different point of view. We're assuming you didn't get the previous point or disagree with it. If you get it and agree, still pay attention. People's actions are based on incentives: you save money because you want a car, you tell your kids to do their homework so they can watch TV; everyone has an incentive, everyone wants something. What makes you think someone holding a PhD doesn't have an incentive? Yes, even if he/she was smart and competent and wasn't lying about his/her credentials, maybe he's lying to you now. After all, in Wiki you do have something to win (your fame and the respect form others, misinformation about something so people see your point of view). Confused? read Steven Levitt's "Market Distortions when Agents are Better Informed: The Value of Information in Real Estate Transactions" or his "Winning Isn't Everything: Corruption in Sumo Wrestling". You'll see what I mean.
  • OK, so you have a guy telling you he has a Mayor on Physics and he is absolutely positive that you can create a wormhole with your toaster. Or you have a psychologist telling you that you have an inherent sexual desire for your parents. Or better yet, the chef at the restaurant recommending the escargot. They know better, right? They have credentials, they've been working on it for a while now, they should know better, right? Well, you and I both know escargot tastes like snails. These are not objective or scientifically proven facts.
  • Anyone who relies on a PhD instead of in a valid argument, most probably doesn't have a valid argument. You don't go to a discussion board and say "Birds can fly because I have a PhD", you say something like "Birds can fly because they have a powerful muscule above the sternum that moves the wings, which are blah blah blah..." See my point? You're supposed to use valid arguments. Always.
  • You can edit with an IP address and be Einstein. You can edit with a registered account and saying you have a PhD and be an ignnorant teen. So not only are you listening to someone who may not know a thing he's talking about, you are also discarding probably a completly valid and competent point

I think most of this has already been said with different words, and the point is simply that you can talk about whatever you want on the internet, but it mustn't be used to win a discussion, specially in a web like Wikipedia. And it it is done, shame on us for listening to shuch an ignorant.


Teresa.Fr 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made a compelling argument that credentials should not replace WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. But no one is advocating that. You, and other people, seem to mistake "credentials are relevant" for a far stronger claim. -- bcasterline • talk 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Teresa is also right that if credentials are treated as relevant on Wikipedia, then some users with credentials (including some with false credentials) will use them as an appeal to authority to circumvent the requirements of WP:ATT. I am not asserting that all users with credentials will do this, or even that the majority will - but cultural changes are very hard to undo, and I'm happy with the culture of Wikipedia the way it is. No one is arguing that users with credentials should not edit Wikipedia, or that they should not use and apply their knowledge - that would be ludicrous and self-defeating. But I am arguing that users should avoid referring to their personal credentials during content disputes, and should instead rely solely on reliable sources and coherent arguments, much as Teresa is saying. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Too much passive voice. Some editors are inclined now to give some, maybe even a lot of respect to those who express credentials. Others do not. It is already documented that there is a problem now with the prevailing culture expressing disrespect of credentialled people— not because they are due deference per se, but because genuine experts are tired of having to argue with people who don't know what they are talking about. I'm not arguing that there should be formal, procedural deference paid to credentials; the temptation to game the system would be great, as those who support this essay suggest. But saying that credentials are irrelevant is overcompensation. Perhaps editors shouldn't stand on their credentials as an authority, but they aren't irrelevant. Taking the old 80-20 rule, I'd guess that at least 80% of the time, if an editor without credentials in the field argues with an editor who has them, the one without credentials is wrong. Editors should not be biased in favor of thinking they don't need credentials; they need to be biased the other way, towards assuming that, since they lack credentials, they are more subject to being corrected. Mangoe 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, no one is disrespecting credentialled people or anyone else; the fact that we do not see their credentials as a reason to consider their arguments valid doesn't mean they are being disrespected: they're just being treated as everyone else. Second, I don't know under what reason it is said that "genuine experts are tired of having to argue who don't know what they're talking about". I don't know any "genuine experts" because I don't know what a "genuine expet" is. And what is and un-genuine expert, for that matter? In this sentence it is also being assumed that this "genuine experts" argue only with people "who don't know what they're talking about". So, if I argue with a "genuine expert", does this mean I don't know what I'm talking about? So I only know what I'm talking about when I argue with an un-genuine expert? Finally, about the 80-20 rule, that's just a guess; not only because you can't meassure "wrongness", but because you can't exactly know which users are credentialled and which aren't. I must add that "credentialled" and "expert" are not the same thing. Just by the way. Teresa.Fr 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Accord with Teresa's perspicuous exegesis. // Internet Esquire 04:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you'll go and look at Wikipedia:Expert rebellion, you'll see numerous complaints that credentialled people are receiving disrespect. So I'm going to have to disagree with your first clause strictly on the facts. Disrespect is happening, and it is a problem.
I'm not as inclined as some people here seem to be to discount any and all claims of expertise. I suspect that most such claims are accurate and that the Essjay incident was an abberation. These are of course opinions, but until someone brings forth a lot more evidence of spurious credential claims, I'm going to conclude that the preponderance of the problem lies in the ill-treatment of real experts, and not in the appearance of phony experts. Indeed, to watch most controversies I've seen, it would appear that the curse of the internet- that everyone is an expert on everything- is alive and well here. Few people bother to present credentials, real or imaginary, because their supreme confidence in their opinions needs no such defense.
The point of Wikipedia:Credentials matter is that, yes, if you aren't an expert, there's a pretty good chance that some of the time, maybe a lot of the time, you don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter with whom you argue, so it's not important that they aren't credentialled. It matters a great deal that you aren't credentialled. People who are genuine, credentialled experts, as opposed to the poseurs one sees all over the internet, are going to be able to ratify the sources we use here; there's no guarantee that you or I can do so. That's at the heart of the problem in this discussion: the "ignore credentials" side is very much focused on other people's credentials, and they seem to assume that they can assess these other people's contribution even though they lack credentials that say they can do so. My point, on the "credentials matter" side, is that we need to focus on our own lack of credentials, and be more willing to admit that often as not that we don't know what we are talking about, and that we are unable to correctly assess the contributions of other all too much of the time, and that therefore we should be more willing to yield to those who express some kind of credentials. Mangoe 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's all agree people with credentials are being disrespected. Now, naturally, we all agree that's wrong. See? we all knew that already. That's not what we're talking about. On the subject again, I must quote the previous post: "Few people bother to present credentials, real or imaginary, because their supreme confidence in their opinions needs no such defense". That's why credential are irrelevant. Again on the "un-credentialled people don't know what they're talking about", please read all the previous post where I explain whay that's a falacious argument, I don't see why I have to say it again. Teresa.Fr 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No sale

Sorry guys, but I just can't buy into your assertions. No Wikipedian's opinion is more valuable than another's. -- this may be the fundamental flaw (of the whole system, perhaps), and represents the dichotomy of philosophies I currently have. On the one hand...

  • Experts spend years specializing in their respective fields becoming experts. With the vast amount of collective human knowledge, it is prudent that one respects the knowledge of those who know more about a particular subject. That's why courts accept only expert testimony, why corporations pay consultants for their expertise, why journals and publications have editors (and editorial oversight), and why academics post their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

on the other...

  • As long as the wikipedia community plays strictly by our own rules (most specifically WP:ATT) then, in theory, we shouldn't have to cross that bridge -- we're only going to quote reliable sources that have already published findings. We don't need to know what's true, but only what's verifiable (who needs credentials for that?).

As it all plays out, however, wikipedia loses credibility because we have no experts. With all opinions being equal, there is absolutely no incentive for experts (which we do need) to contribute to our growing encyclopedia of knowledge. Ask yourself this -- would you even consider using an encyclopedia that purposefully invalidates and ignores the credentials of experts in preference to a feel-good hey we're all the same here democracy?

I am not saying that wikipedia is fatally or inherently flawed, nor am I addressing the mechanics of how we should cross this bridge (regarding credentials). I am, however, saying that the "credentials are irrelevant" attitude hurts the project by alienating those who actually do have the expertise we desperately need.

I'm sure I could have expanded upon my ideas, and have been much more clear in conveying them. The hour is late, I apologize in advance for any typos, discrepancies, errors, or unclear logic.  :-) /Blaxthos 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not all opinions are equal. But opinions are irrelevent on wikipedia. You can't put opinion in an article, only referenced, reliable sources. And to do that, you don't need a degree. Iorek85 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So, by that logic, we're all qualified to write articles on highly technical subjects, like medicine or quantum physics, right? Hardly... /Blaxthos 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, opinions are relevant on Wikipedia: it's how we distinguish the valuable editors from the cranks. Someone who has contributed many articles, & shows that they know the subject & the secondary literature in a given area will tend to be more respected about that subject than an otherwsie undistinguished editor. However, since we are all human, all of us make mistakes; one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that anyone can fix those mistakes, & make the result even better. Unfortunately, it's one of Wikipedia's weaknesses: someone can always come along & remove valuable informaiton, or replace it with erroneous information. That is one of the reasons why we insist on providing citations for statements, so we can distinguish between the two cases. -- llywrch 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If credentials are irrelevant, we can get rid of a category

If credentials are irrelevant, then what do we need Category:Pages needing expert attention for? Mangoe 13:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have three responses to that:
  • Firstly, although credentials should not be referred to in a content dispute, or used in place of sources to support an edit, it is still useful to have experts editing articles. If nothing else, they are more likely to have access to relevant reliable sources, and to understand how to use them correctly. The point of this essay is not to drive experts away from Wikipedia.
The fear of many of us is that what this essay says, if adopted as a philsophy in Wikipedia, will drive experts away, because as written it supports groundless challenges by the undereducated.
But I never proposed adopting it as a "philosophy" on Wikipedia. Like I said, it's an essay. It's my opinion. Its main focus was to show that there are lots of us who do not want an obligatory credential-verification policy. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I personally would consider an essay written in the project space to be advocacy of a particular philosophy to the rest of us, and stronger than the expression of a personal opinion. But perhaps that is just my mistake. However, as written this goes far beyond opposition to obligatory credentialling. My complaint has nothing to do with obligatory credentialling, or indeed with credentialling at all. In the context of your stated aim, my criticism is that this essay is out of proportion and "compensates" for the possibility of required credentials (which I agree isn't going to happen, and which I see no reason to have happen) by encouraging bad behavior that is already a widespread problem.
Where I think we should be in all of this is that people who lack credentials should take this lack more seriously, and that people who have credentials and make them known shoould understand that they aren't a trump card. I don't see this as wildly out of step with your stated purpose, but it is opposed to what the essay says. Mangoe 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Secondly, there is a difference between "expertise" and "credentials". It is possible to be a de facto expert in something without having a formal degree in it; this is especially true of popular-culture topics, but it can apply to academic fields as well. For instance, many articles on trains are probably written by trainspotters rather than people with degrees in rail engineering.
This seems to me to be a hypothetical problem that isn't often realized in practice. As it happens, I edit as part of WikiProject Trains, and while I see a lot of conflict between amateurs there (in which I include myself) that could be attributed to limited knowledge, I have yet to see a rail professional flaunt his credentials. What I do see a lot of is article that suffer because our expertise is not what it should be. Some of us (and I hope I can be numbered among them) are aware of our limitations and try to avoid overstating. Others, manifestly, are not, and do overstep. My reading of this essay is that it can be used to justify such overstatements, because it can be interpreted as denying that you have to know anything about a subject in order to write about it.
  • Thirdly, WP:CAI is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and none of us are seeking to impose it on the community. It has served its purpose, which is to show that there is a significant body of opinion opposed to the introduction of a credential-verification process, and to prevent such a proposal gaining consensus. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:IAC is not an essay, and this essay is being used to support it. Mangoe 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not my fault. I didn't write WP:IAC and have nothing to do with it whatsoever. This essay is my opinion, and what people do with it is their own concern. Anyway, judging by the strength of feeling on both sides, IAC will never become policy. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I do hold you responsible for encouraging WP:IAC with statements that are considerably stronger than those of the proposed policy. If one advocates a position, one ought to accept some responsibility for the consequences of convincing others to agree with it. Mangoe 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it's necessary to make a polemical statement of opinion in order to demonstrate strength of opposition. This essay has served its purpose, which was to prevent the passage of a credential-verification policy. I would love to see WP:IAC become policy, and think that it would be best for Wikipedia. But it's not going to happen, due to lack of consensus, so I didn't see the point in campaigning for it. Walton Vivat Regina! 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On incompetent experts

A ways above here, Teresa.Fr said:

You can have all the credentials in the world and still don't know anything. You can be completly incompetent and have credentials. Having a paper that says you studied something doesn't mean you're smart or know what you're talking about.

and

Again, I'm not saying that all PhD holders are incompetent, I'm just saying they're not NECESSARILY more competent than any other person, thus making crediants unimportant for wikipedian users.

This is of course true. And even "good" experts can be wrong, though as the principles of Wikipedia state, we are here to recount the state of the art, not to guess who is right.

However, this is already covered by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. We do not need a special rule to justify ignoring incompetents with credentials. Within the scope of this project, it's obvious that credentials aren't all-determining. And even if they were given weight by policy (which is never going to happen), WP:IAR would give editors leave to disregard patent incompetents.

All this presupposes that you can tell who is competent and who isn't. I personally am going to assume that high school students and college students most likely can't, especially if they are working outside their field of study. The whole point of such education, after all, is to give its beneficiaries the tools to do proper research, and it is reasonable to assume that if their studies are incomplete, they are not masters of those tools. I'm sure a lot of people feel slighted by that, but competency is an aristocracy.

Of late I've been doing articles on types of sailing boats. I have a reasonable level of amateur knowledge, but I'm hardly an expert. So if someone comes along with some claim to expertise, I don't see any reason not to let them correct me, unless they say something that a consultation with references shows is completely off the wall. The truth is that my competency to correct them is rather limited. Likewise, we are stymied at the moment in editing railway signalling because, lacking someone with comprehensive expertise, us North American amateurs are having a hard time putting something together with the British amateurs that addresses both areas well. This reflects a realization on all sides that our competency is limited.

The problem of incompetent experts is being overstated. One need only go to Wikipedia:expert rebellion to find pointers to actual cases of know-it-all amateurs butting heads with credentialled experts . Where's the case with the incompetent expert? Mangoe 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And that's why acknowledging credentials is harmless to Wikipedia, if not obviously beneficial. Well said. -- bcasterline • talk 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strength is also weakness

Wikipedia's strength is also its weakness: its inclusivity - any deranged moron with two fingers can become an editor. Thus we have input from those normally excluded from the elitist realms of refernce material writing - this is a good thing and a bad thing. I think what is important is that the Admins have credentials and be required to put them forward as requested and when applying for admin-ship. This way good moderation of the submitted material from the two-fingered morons like myself might occur - or not, as is currently the case. In point of fact, though my personal credentials are scientific and medical, much of what I have contributed to Wikipedia has been in the realm of historic and arts facts. So, I reiterate my thesis that contributors should not necessarily be credentialled (beyond a basic ability to write a good comprehensible sentence reflecting an accurate fact - those that check such material should be competent by some objective measurement to do so.Lgh 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're proposing that people without credentials should not be allowed to become admins? How does that make sense? The admin tools have nothing to do with the writing of articles. They concern WP system tasks such as deletions, blocks, etc. A familiarity with WP policy is far more important than outside credentials in selecting admins. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make editors get a driver's permit first!

It seems to me that most of these editor issues could be resolved if Wikipedia would just require its users to pass a basic competency test before they can edit. It would be kind of like a driver's permit test. You wouldn't necessarily be qualified to jump behind the wheel by yourself so to speak, but at the very least you would have a good fundamental understanding of editing principles. I've seen so many instances where it looked like people didn't even have a clue when it comes to encyclopedias. This would make for a good screening test.Hanjabba 06:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as feasible. If I've learned anything in my time here, it's that "in stone" policies do not work. Too many users. Too many chefs stirring the pot for anything that rigid to work. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that plan would certainly be better than credential verification, and I would support it if it were formally proposed. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't really referring to anything that's "set in stone". I'm merely suggesting that before new users register they must first study over some sort of editing principles summary page then take a multiple choice quiz on the topics covered - nothing too hard, just the basics. While I realize this is far from solving the crendentials issue, this requirement would at the very least force newbies to know something about Wikipedia before editing. It would also have the added benefit of deterring vandalism. I don't think that many lazy vandals would have the patience to sit through a lengthier and more tedious registration process. However, people that are serious about contributing shouldn't mind at all.
There could even be more qizzes required for more advanced certification. For example, a new user would have a first tier ranking, then after completing additional requirements he could be promoted to second tier ranking and so forth eventually being promoted through as many tiers as he qualifies for. Law enforcement agencies do something similar to this when promoting their officers to higher ranks such as leutenant. Just something to think about.Hanjabba 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

Want to congratulate those who wrote this essay. It suns up my thoughts exactly. It's awful what Essjay did but credential verification is a knee jerk reaction...period. No need. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the congratulations (I'm the co-author). I'm glad other users agree with my view that a systematic verification system for credentials, whether obligatory or voluntary, would be unnecessary and positively dangerous for Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Published Sources

It's all very well to say that the only criterion is attributability to a reliable published source, but that gives rise to (at least) three questions. The first of these is how accessible does the source have to be - if the readers can't get at the source how do they know that the attribution is genuine? The second is who decides that the source is reliable - what happens if an editor decides that a series of articles published perhaps on the web, or on usenet, by a complete nutter (perhaps one of those who claims that it's possible to prove the generalised continuum hypothesis from the accepted axioms of GNB set theory becasue it's a direct consequencs of Occam's razor) is reliable - but I expect that question will be done to death by a lot of people. The third question is what happens when there is no reliable source, or no sufficiently accessible reliable source, or no sufficiently well attested accessible source? The WP includes articles on subjects where that third question is relevant = for example the article on "Scottish Gaelic grammar", where the editor (who isn't, I think, a native speaker) has relied on two very old books (Calder and Gillies) which are fairly accessable but pretty unreliable, reliable material (like inald Blacks "Cothrom Ionnsachaidh") is either pretty inaccessible or (like Micheal Bauer's Akerbeltz web site) not well attested, not visibly subject to peer review ("visibly" is an important word in there) or both pretty inaccessible and not well attested. I could rewrite that page and improve it a lot (and maybe will when I have time - I've commented heavily on its talk page in the hope of getting reaction to my ideas from other "experts"), but how would anyone know that what I put there was better than what went before? Obviously I would refer to Black and to Bauer, and to Cox (his school dictionary "Brigh nam Facal" has an excellent table giving the conjugation of gaelic verbs) and maybe to Clyne (all his stuff is out of print, though) but how many people can get hold of the books an check that the references are genuine and how many people can be sure that MB's website is as good as I claim it is? I'm not saying that credentials are any sort of answer to this (because they aren't), but I am saying that the view about attribution put forward in the essay (and in some of the comments above) is perhaps a bit naive. --Micheal--MichealT 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and agree that attribution to reliable sources isn't a universal panacea, particularly as reliability can be partially subjective. However, I think this problem is more relevant to the discussion going on over WP:ATT; all of our policies on attribution and so on are presently in a state of flux. So I'd advise you to repeat your examples over there, since I think it raises an important point about the way Wikipedia works. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a limited case for using credentials in some circumstances. When a disagreement over article content takes place, experts in the field should normally be able to 'win' with the sheer quality of the argument they present (about the quality of the sources they want to claim as reliable) without needing to make any claim about their own expertise. Only if they find opposition that is being obtuse or awkward and a barrier to producing an accurate article, should they think of fielding their credentials (in support of their claim to be a good judge of the reliability of sources). And if they want to do that, they should be prepared to have their credentials evaluated. Bill F 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More evidence for why there should be no identity-verification policy

Take a look at this diff. If this kind of thing becomes more prevalent, I will leave Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we've changed topics again. I personally refuse to involve myself in the whole adminship game, but maybe it is reasonable to suggest that admins, as agents of the corporation, ought to be of age. Reading the rest of the page, it is clear that a lot of people have concerns about this person's maturity, age or no age. And at any rate, until we have a policy that says "admins must be 18 or older" (which we don't and which I don't think we ever will have), the judges of these votes are perfectly free to ignore people who vote strictly on the basis of age.
This has nothing to do with editing articles, though, and this essay is directed at editors. I don't know that many people would care about age per se in talk page debates, but I do think that the typical 16 year old has to admit to himself that his own credentials and expertise are pretty limited. Mangoe 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As someone who is frequently mistaken for being much younger than he is nowadays, I can say without hesitation that credentialism and ageism share quite a bit in common. The core issue is competence/expertise, and many people mistakenly use both credentials and advanced age as proxies for such competence/expertise. Ironically enough, advanced age more often correlates with fossilized thinking and a lack of creativity in certain fields of endeavor. To wit, most math genuises peak well before the age of 16, and are over the proverbial hill by the age of 25.
When I was 16 years old, I was able to secure a full time position at Barclay's Bank that I held until I later secured a job at an engineering firm just before my 18th birthday, trafficking in the facts that I looked much older than I was at that time, had taken an equivalency exam to get out of high school, and was in my second year of college when I was 16. As my resume grew and my actual age increased, my appearance remained youthful, and (paradoxically) I started to encounter even more age discrimination than I had encountered as a teenager, a fortiori in light of experience and credentials that I obtained at a very young age. In sum, people pay way too much attention to things like credentials and age. // Internet Esquire 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Internet Esquire's just summarised what I was going to say. Credentialism and ageism are two sides of the same coin; it's all part of the same problem. Users should be judged only on their demonstrated competence with editing Wikipedia, not on any RL factors. And to reply to Mangoe's other point, I would say that this essay was as much aimed at adminship debates as at content and talkpage disputes. A situation where younger or less-qualified users can't become admins, despite having demonstrated competence on Wikipedia, would be a sad one, and it has always been among the major reasons why I believe that credential verification is a bad idea. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As to "demonstrated competence", I'll be bold and say that many, maybe most people here overrate their ability to assess competence. Considering the number of articles I find which border on sheer incoherence, I have to figure that a lot of editors can't tell that their writing is bad, never mind their research. Credentialism may be bad, but anti-credentialism is worse. As it happens, I'm also one of those people who went to college early. And I think I would have done better there if I had jettisoned my sense of superior competence earlier in my academic career.
I can understand some of the feelings about administrators, and I would have no objection to a specific policy saying that credentials and age should not be a factor in selecting and approving them. I'm fairly indifferent to the adminstrator thing anyway, but it also seems to me that competency in dealing with the rest of the editor community is something we can all observe directly. I don't know how competent we all are at assessing it, but one has to give up somewhere.
What bothers me is that the admin aspect keeps popping up coupled with verification, when my concerns are unrelated to either issue. I don't care about credential verification, not at all. If it happens, I may take advantage of it (in evaluating others, and not for myself), but if not, that's OK too. And as I've said above, I don't care about administrators. What I do care about is the ordinary business of the project: article editing by patent amateurs. This proposal doesn't advise them to recognize their limitations; it tells them to ignore them. And that's why we have the "assume that any article is written by a high school dropout living in his mothers house" level of credibility here. Mangoe 19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the educational background of editors, or ignoring thereof, is the source of Wikipedia's lack of credibility. It's more the susceptibility to vandalism, hoaxes, and POV-pushing that threatens Wikipedia's credibility (all of which might be solved if we only allowed logged-in users to edit articles, but that's a side point). Most long-term good-faith editors, excluding those who only edit to promote a POV or to create a pretty userpage, are capable of writing decent, well-sourced articles. As to the incoherence/poor writing style of some articles, there are plenty of editors who are capable of copyediting, and work hard at that task (often for little recognition or reward). You don't have to be an expert of any description to clean up someone's poor spelling and grammar. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The credibility problem here has lots of sources, and if you'll look in some of the essays cited in Wikipedia:Expert rebellion you'll see that the ignorant edits of amateurs are a big problem. I'm not going to make any blanket claims to the competence of editors, but I would also note that the credentials issue only really applies to a subset of articles anyway, articles of something of a technical nature. Huge number of articles here require no particular expertise to write in the first place, such as all those record albums; and a lot of others cover fields in which credentials are impossible to produce, such as all those videogame articles. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that a substantial majority of all articles fit into one of these two classes. If these are not well-written, that's another story.
I am one of those unthanked people who goes around looking for articles to copyedit. I don't as a rule edit band or recording or place name articles, but even then I find that more often than not I don't understand the content of articles well enough to attempt to copyedit them. And other times the syntax is poor enough to where I can only guess what it is trying to say, because I don't know the field. But never mind all that. There is some trivial level of copyediting that most anyone can do; and there's a somewhat higher level that only people who can write decently can do; and there's a still higher level which requires actually understanding what has been written at high level. But someone has to write the stuff first. Mangoe 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead

I've marked this historical - technically this is an "essay", but of course the whole credential verification thing is dead (and I've marked them as such as well). If this offends you, feel free to simply undo my action, though perhaps you would consider also updating the essay to reflect reality. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)