Wikipedia talk:Credentials matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Certified Professional vs. Bachelor of (blank)

Wouldn't this include those who have certifications within a certain field of work versus those who have degrees of study in that field?

Take someone who has B.S. in Information Tech at Some State U versus the many A+, MCSEs, Net+'ers out there, or consider someone who has experience through a military background.. I would bet that editors of wikipedia articles fall under some of these categories, but who is to say who the 'expert' is?

There is the possibility that you can do something for ten or more years but be doing it very poorly. --RWilliamKing 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a contest between formal certification and informal credentials (e.g. work experience). Both are meaningful, and both are relevant. Mangoe 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials do matter, but they matter situationally. I would be much more confident in the value of a Ph.D. when the author is discussing an area that falls precisely within his field, then when he starts to range outside of his current area of expertise. Which, frankly, happens all the time. For instance, does an English Literature Ph.D. -- whose expertise was in 17th C. British Lit -- have any business asserting his credentials in a dispute over 20th Century American Lit? Probably not, and yet we can expect that to happen routinely and it would be very hard to vette.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.67.157 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 March 2007

[edit] Credentials DO NOT matter

The fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that a user's contribution is judged on the quality of that contribution, not on the credentials of the person making it (see, for example, WP:ATT). If a person with 'expertise' is making a valuable contribution to the project, then they will gain respect - the same way that a 15-year old high school student making the same value of contribution would gain a similar level of respect. 'I have a PhD, so shut up' is never an acceptable response, and that is the only way that credentials can ever truly 'matter' on a wiki with verification and no original research policies.

If you want a wiki where people are judged on their credentials, rather than the quality of their contribution, I believe Citizendium is accepting registrations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cynical (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

The problem with saying this, as usual, is in that passive voice. Who is judging? Well, for one thing, that same "15-year old high school student" who like as not isn't qualified to hold an opinion. And it isn't the diploma that makes him qualified or not; but the people who are awarding the diploma are, to some degree, awarding it on the basis of some demonstration of competence. If our putative 15-year-old is making good contributions on a subject, then chances are that the credentialled experts in that field are not going to be correcting his work constantly nor doing battle with him on talk pages. And if they are, then it's likely that his contributions aren't as good as he thinks they are.

I'm getting a little tired of the 'I have a PhD, so shut up' counterexample, and not only because I've never seen it done. What this essay is about the suggestion that a lot more editors should take the approach of 'I don't have a PhD, so I'll shut up.' Mangoe 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the "I have a PhD, so shut up" line used a few times over the years, the latest time (& the only one I can cite offhand) was by a former user known as EssJay. But this line doesn't work because the person told to shut up won't; & even if there was a rule was allowed experts to play this card, I doubt it could be effectively enforced. In any case, I agree with you that it's time to stop using this example.

The bigger problem is that a lot of academics, who might use this tactic in a class either to silence a know-it-all student or to end a digression that's slowing down the curriculum, are confronted with situations where they might use it -- but know they can't, & also can't think of how they should deal with the situation. (I'm not implying that an academic might be stupid: stress on Wikipedia can greatly weaken the imagination.) There's a culture or a mindset here at Wikipedia that I believe most experts run afoul of, get frustrated with, then leave. I further believe that the best way to deal with this problem is thru helping them learn the culture; there ought to be a "Wikipedia for experts" helppage. -- llywrch 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental problem

It appears to me that a fundamental problem with the project is egoism -- people don't seem willing to admit that experts actually do know more than they themselves know. Part of the appeal of wikipedia, it seems, is that the fifteen year old kid can assert himself just as much as the professor with forty years of experience. Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge the wisdom of those more learned? Honestly, given the choice between an article written by a fifteen year old vs. one written by a PhD in his respective field, which are you going to believe is more credible, well written, and factually accurate? I'd be willing to bet that those who rail against credentials are those who have no credentials to present, and that they gain credibility and authority from exactly that situation. People without credentials have absolutely no incentive to deferr to those who do, which is why it shouldn't be surprising that the majority of wikipedia resists credentialling. The only real argument I can decipher from the WP:CAI crowd seems to be focused on how "we can all do it just as good" and "everyone's opinion is equal" -- see the emboldened sentence above. /Blaxthos 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can look at their user pages and contribution histories, and see for yourself. One person is a 19 year old college student; another is a lawyer who most commonly edits articles having nothing to do with the law. Others don't leave enough clues to tell. But in general this gives every appearance of being strictly a dispute among amateurs. Mangoe 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. The WP:CAI crowd does not say that "everyone's opinion is equal" because here at WP, our opinion's don't matter. The WP:CAI crowd simply states that whether someone is a professional, or amateur, their opinion means absolutly the same, nothing. Only the opinions of those sources who you can attribute statements to matter. Chris M. 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, though, that it's not that simple. Every decision in the article-writing process requires an opinion -- most importantly, perhaps, "which source do I use?". Clearly, an expert is better qualified to make that decision, so to say that "everyone's opinion is equally worthless" is also false. -- bcasterline • talk 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... we have WP:RS to answer the 'which source should I use?' question. Where two (or more) reliable sources disagree on a particular fact (and there is not an overwhelming number on one side) then we note the disagreement in the article (see for example casualty figures in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page). Cynical 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of WP isn't to keep editors happy

In all this debate, we seem to keep losing sight of the fact that while we editors may get personal satisfaction out of editing WP, the purpose is to create a reliable encyclopedia. All of us editors are vastly outnumbered by the non-editors who consult WP. I choose to edit maritime archaeology under my own name. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have a positional responsibility that means that I have access to resources to ensure I use the right sources. This means that people who know of me from RL, know that when they are looking at an article I have edited I will have taken the trouble to check the facts. I recently had to make a complete change of meaning of an edit to the shipwrecks page. I suspect the edit I corrected was well-meaning but ignorant of the facts - but it was so wrong it could have been a troll. If I wasn't fully aware of the subject I might have been misled, like the editor I corrected, as there were very misleading news reports at the time of the original incident. The 'all opinions are equal' viewpoint, misses the fact that as in the case of this edit, someone could read in WP that it is perfectly legal to do what is in fact a criminal offence. Viv Hamilton 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The counter argument is not that "all opinions are equal", but that correct statements are of equal value whoever makes them. "Experts" often have controversial agendas, which will lead them to make misleading statements (which may well be backed up by references to biased academic sources, or to non-biased academic sources that are being used in a partisan fashion). Thus anything that undermines the idea that every statement in Wikipedia should be assessed on its own merits regardless of who made it, will tend to undermine the reliable of the encyclopedia. Hawkestone 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That presupposes that any of us can tell whether any given statement is correct, and with the emphasis given to citation in this, I presume that means by consulting with the cited work. Well, this isn't always true. Since we aren't simply copying the cited works, a process of interpretation is going on; and we cannot assume that this process requires no expertise. A lot of the time it doesn't; or more precisely, the level of expertise required is low. But often enough it may be that the amateur editor makes a hash of the material because he doesn't understand it, lacking the training to which credentials testify.

So what it comes down to is that credentials matter not as a trump card in disputes, but as a reminder to us amateurs that our faith in our own interpretation of the sources is not really justified. And I'm finding the "well, maybe they aren't really experts" argument less and less convincing. It's not just that I doubt our ability to tell whether they are real experts; it's that the spectacle of two amateurs disputing over an issue does not inspire in me confidence that they will get it right. Again, I'm not saying that they will get it wrong, because again the level of expertise required to get it right may be low. But if it isn't, then we could just as well end up with the choice between two amateurish mistakes.

Nothing that we formulate under WP:ATT is going to fully ameliorate this problem. There always will be times when the experts have to mediate the translation from the cited work to the encyclopedia explanation. That's when credentials matter: not when the experts have them, but when we amateurs don't. Mangoe 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials and Reliable Sources

One area were credentials matter is evaluating whether a source is a reliable source. Quoting from Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant:

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". (Revision as of 14:37, 15 March 2007 Awadewit (talk · contribs))
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. (Revision as of 21:06, 15 March 20 Bcasterline (talk · contribs))
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. (Revision as of 06:40, 16 March 2007 Derex (talk · contribs))

--Kevinkor2 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials and Paraphrases

Another area where credentials matter are in quoting or paraphrasing reliable sources.

With quoting, it is necessary to answer:

Which passage in the reliable source is "on topic"?
How much of the passage should be quoted so that it is not out of context?
How should antecedents be given for pronouns and other anaphora in the quote?

When paraphrasing, there are even more choices to be made.

Being an expert can help in making these choices.

For example, consider part of my recent edit to the Darrell Issa article:

Also in 1972, Issa was convicted in Michigan for possession of an unregistered gun. He received three months probation and paid a $204 fine.(California Recall Advocate Issa Once Accused of Theft (Update3)) (Recall chief held twice on illegal weapons charges)

In my paraphrase, I said "convicted". The actual words in the original sources were "pleaded guilty" and "pleaded either guilty or no contest to the charge". An expert in US law would be able to say whether my paraphrase was correct.

--Kevinkor2 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree, in large part because of the ambiguity in re what constitutes an "expert" in U.S. law. The almost universal credential among lawyers in the United States is the Juris Doctor (JD), which is for all intents and purposes a terminal degree. There are more advanced degrees offered by a small handful of law schools in the United States, but few people pursue them, and most of the recognized experts in a particular area of legal practice in the United States are garden variety JDs who base their expertise in a particular topic on their published works. Even in that context, legal expertise must be qualified. To wit, does your recognized legal expertise stem from the fact that you are skilled in selecting and annotating cases for a particular legal textbook? Or are you someone whose recognition as a legal expert has been obtained by compiling/writing a "hornbook"? Or are you someone whose legal expertise has been demonstrated by writing a law review article? Or are you someone whose claim of legal expertise is obtained by publishing a legal practice guide?

In all of these instances, the published works of an author -- and the frequency with which they are cited by other lawyers and judges -- are what matter rather than the credentials of said author. Indeed, one of the key ingredients in virtually all law review journals are student written articles wherein second- or third-year law students who have yet to be awarded their JDs are able to claim expertise on a particular topic. In such instances, a law student's demonstrated expertise is based on the fact that he or she has found accord with two or three other legal scholars on every factual/legal claim that he or she makes.

In the particular instance you note, "pleading guilty" and "pleading no contest" are more or less synonymous with being convicted of a crime in the general context of criminal procedure. However, that isn't always the case. It is very rare, but in some instances a court may choose not accept a defendant's guilty plea, as was the case recently with Lynndie England. On this note, there is a profound difference between a criminal conviction based on a guilty plea and a criminal conviction based on a trial by jury/trial by court. Even so, I'd be very surprised if more than one percent of the JDs/practicing U.S. attorneys whom I know would be able to make these distinctions without researching the issue.

(Please note that nothing in my post above or in any of my other posts on Wikipedia should be construed as a legal opinion or as constituting legal advice. Void where prohibited; verified credentials sold separately.) // Internet Esquire 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And the same expert would be required to cite a reliable source to back up his opinion - e.g. a legal textbook in your example. Just the same as an amateur would. That's how we decide whether a statement can be relied upon - it must be attributed to a reliable source - "I'm a PhD so I don't need to cite sources for my arguments" is also on the 'frowned upon' list. Cynical 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Kevinkor2's edit, in addition to the two sources cited, should also have contained a reference supporting his decision to replace "pleaded guilty" and "pleaded either guilty or no contest to the charge" with "convicted"? If so, why? And more importantly, where do you stop? Do you need references that all the sources cited are in fact reliable sources?

Anyway, I think Kevinkor2 was making a different point, namely that to reach the decision to replace "pleaded guilty" and "pleaded either guilty or no contest to the charge" with "convicted", one has to realize that in this context no important information is lost. That requires expertise. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the decision to use one term instead of another did not require expertise. I was stating that, where there is a content dispute (e.g. over whether to use 'convicted' in your example), I believe the dispute should be settled by reference to reliable external sources rather than a 'my credentials are bigger than your credentials' pissing contest.

This will not place credentialled experts at a disadvantage - someone with years of experience in a particular field will be able to cite sources to support their arguments without difficulty, whereas an amateur who does not know about the subject will, if his argument is incorrect, not be able to cite reliable sources to support it.

That is how WP:V and WP:RS work. A person's contribution is judged on their actual knowledge of the subject matter of the article, not on knowledge in a general field which they demonstrated to an examination board, perhaps years ago. If a credentialled expert has significant knowledge about the subject of the dispute, then they can exercise control over the content by virtue of that knowledge - without any need for credentials. Cynical 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And once again, we've fallen back into the (self-)assumption that amateurs and indeed random passers-by can make all these assessments. Mangoe 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

The following principles from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience are relevant:

[edit] Appropriate sources

4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experts

7) Historically, although a perennial subject of discussion, see, for example, the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Expert editors and the brainstorming essay, Wikipedia:Expert retention, experts were accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia.

Passed 4-1 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academically demanding subjects

10) In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.

Passed 5-0 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experts are required to cite sources

11) Experts are presumed to have an adequate command of appropriate sources for information they add or positions they take. Bare assertions of expertise without supporting sources are unacceptable, especially if there is conflict with other users.

Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experts are subject to the no original research rule

12) Wikipedia:No original research applies to users who are experts in a field and who may be engaged in original research. The latest insights resulting from current research are often not acceptable for inclusion as established information as they have not yet been published.

[edit] Conflict of interest

13) Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion, a guideline, strongly discourages editing which promotes the editor's projects.

Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I suggest that Wikipedians be given ribbons, like in church servers' guilds. A Wikipedian may display this 'ribbon' on their user page/talk page and use it in their signature.

See Wikipedia:Ribbons#Service_Awards; see also Wikipedia:Service_awards. // Internet Esquire 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But these can't be put into signatures, can they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Social Studiously (talk • contribs) 02:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Grading

Wikipedians should not be judged. Instead, they should be leveled on the quality of their edits and as they gain a reputation, their ribbons may increase. In church servers' guilds, applicants start a white (like some martial arts) and must pass a test to advance to the next level, and gain the privilege of wearing a 'higher' coloured medal. I do not suggest a test, rather a set of criteria.

That makes no sense... How can you possibly "not judge" and yet "level on the quality of their edits" and "gain a reputation." Those are subjective qualifiers in which some authority judges the quality. That's not what we're going for here... /Blaxthos 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levels and criteria

A user's edits may be found by using the Wannabe Kate tool. The colours suggested here are just that, suggestions.

[edit] White Ribbon

No requirements

[edit] Blue Ribbon

To be eligible for a Blue Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have been on Wikipedia for at least two weeks.

[edit] Green Ribbon

To be eligible for a Green Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

100 Mainspace edits

250 other space edits (excluding User: and User talk:)

[edit] Red Ribbon

To be eligible for a Red Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

250 Mainspace edits
100 Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk edits

400 Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk edits

[edit] Brown Ribbon

To be eligible for a brown ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

1000 Mainspace edits
200 Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk namespace edits
Significantly contributed to one or more articles reaching GA or FA status

Contributed significantly to Wikipedia every month for twelve months

[edit] Orange Ribbon

To be eligible for an orange ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

2500 Mainspace, Template and Wikipedia/Talk namespace edits combined

Nominated for the honour by another user

[edit] WikiProject Ribbon (yellow)

To be eligible for a yellow WikiProject Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

Been nominated by his/her WikiProject

600 edits to articles concerning that WikiProject

[edit] Maintenance Ribbon (purple)

To be eligible for a Purple Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

Completed at least 300 maintenance tasks

I may or may not write something in my Userspace about this. Please talk to me if I'm totally wrong, as I'm totally new.

Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

[edit] Administrator ribbon (grey)

To be eligible for a Grey Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:

Been voted in as an administrator or bureaucrat.

Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbons

I gotta say, we're not really credentialling edit counts. I believe we're trying to focus on ways to certify actual credentials (PhD, for instance), not give credentials to someone who has clicked "undo" 500 times. /Blaxthos 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but I think editors should have some system in place. Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 02:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not that anyone cares...

I've been reading this debate for a while. My primary areas of interest on Wikipedia are chess and Judaism. In multiple AFDs (I'll spare myself the bother of providing links), I've disclosed my expertise in those two fields, and made some kind of point relevant to the discussion. In one case, I was trying to prove that a certain concept did not exist, and for that, the only thing I could say was that I've read about chess for many years, and the concept ("ethnic chess opening") was never mentioned. How am I supposed to bring a reference to prove that something doesn't exist??? For situations like that, credentials matter.

In other cases, if I state credentials to make a positive assertion, I leave open the possibility that someone will challenge me to back up my statement with a reference. It hasn't happened yet, but it could happen. I'd either cooperate or drop out of the discussion, and at any rate not descend to the playground ethos of "I know something you don't know." But on a basic level, an informed discussion can work best if everyone knows how much everyone else knows. As for the Essjay story - nobody asked him to do what he did, and it doesn't destroy my argument. YechielMan 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what externally verifiable academic credentials do you have that you would consider relevant to your expertise in chess? // Internet Esquire 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

None. I don't have an academic degree, I haven't taught classes or coached individual players, and I've published only a few problems (one of them in a serious magazine) aside from my contributions to Wikipedia. So I can't prove that I've spent literally hundreds of hours reading and studying the intricacies of the game. But if it comes to a question of whether there is such a thing as an "ethnic chess opening", I have every right to cite my experience.

Regarding Judaism, I actually do have credentials that most users would recognize as legitimate. I am not a rabbi, but I've spent twelve years in an Orthodox Jewish day school, two years in a full-time advanced yeshiva, and four years in a college where Jewish studies stands on equal or higher footing (depending on whom you ask) with academic learning. So if someone living on the South Pole questions the truth of an unreferenced statement, or makes a misleading statement, I bring with me the knowledge and experience to respond to that. It's not "pulling rank"; I just think we come closer to the truth if we distinguish what we know from 24 years of living as opposed to what we know from a Google search lasting 0.36 seconds.

Normally what happens in these situations is that other knowledgeable editors come to help and overwhelm the uninitiated user. In the case of Orthodox Judaism, I could cite User:shirahadasha, User:IZAK, and User:DLand among others. In chess, we have User:Bubba73 and our friendly administrator User:Sjakkalle. But if I have to defend my position without their help, to uphold the standards of truth and encyclopedic content, I don't need to be reticent about what I know. YechielMan 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only to your concerns about quality control in re Wikipedia articles about the game of chess, your claim of expertise is clearly not based on credentials, and your objection to the legitimacy of "ethnic chess openings" seems to be based in the fact that such an article arguably constitutes original research. Credentials could not be more irrelevant to such a dispute. // Internet Esquire 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is untrue that credentials are unavailable. If nothing else, a non-trivial chess rating would serve in this case.

That this could be construed as original research is something of a subtle point. Subtle points are what generate arguments, and since it is a sure thing that nobody is ever going to admit that being able to do proper library research is something that can be (and is) credentialled, everyone will continue to be an expert on this, and the issue will continue to be contested. Indeed, the "keep" votes in the article in question failed to address any of this, and the consensus-tallier failed to distinguish between the kinds of reasons given. It would have been a lot easier if people had just accepted the word of the soi-disant chess experts and let the thing die. On the whole it would be better if people let the "experts" fight things out rather than assuming that they are competent to pass judgement themselves.

We also need to remember that, in the presence of Ignore All Rules, the most we can do is tilt the playing field one way or another. If we say that credentials deserve some deference, people will still challenge incompetent editors without regard to credentials. Right now the bias is already in favor of challenging editors without regard to credentials; making that a policy is simply going to make that worse, and isn't going to solve problems with abuse of false credentials or (perceived) inappropriate reference to them. Mangoe 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)