User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1, Straw poll


All discussions here please. Use the other page to edit my mumblings into a coherent proposal. :)

Please read Microcontent: how to write headlines, page titles, and subject lines before creating a section header.

Contents

[edit] Just no.

People shouldn't be appealing to authority - credentials, real OR imagined, shouldn't matter. --Random832 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every mention of credentials is an appeal to authority. Lots of our community are extremely well qualified experts. The Essjay affair has blackened what it means to say "PhD" on a user page, this is an effort to have that actually mean something beneficial.--Jimbo Wales 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me how a PhD is relevant (I mean, I know how it's relevant and useful for someone to HAVE one, perhaps, but not how it's useful for others to need to know for sure) given the attribution policy (or, in the past, the NOR/V/RS policies/guideline) - maybe you could offer some examples where this could be useful? --Random832 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
A Ph.D. is relevant because when there are conflicting sources of material, it requires a Ph.D. to know which one is more valid. Not every source is created equal, and it may take a Ph.D. to know that, say, Nature is more respected than JAMA, or vice versa. KyleGoetz 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot fully agree Kyle. A PhD should know but I think the same claim could be made about any person well versed in a given field. The problem here is that a PhD may be considered an expert in their field but unlearned in another. The PhD may overstate his credibility to some. Now, there may be some arcane areas virtually off-limits to those without terminal degrees but those are quite rare. Just my two cents. JBEvans 16:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Jimbo, the problem with the Essjay affair was only superficially about credentials. I have recommended several experts to Wikipedia who wear their impeccable bona fides on their chest, and they have not received a particularly warm welcome -- e.g., Lawrence Taylor, Esq. (For a longer tome on my views on this topic, please see this blog post.) The Essjay case was about deception, and Essjay rationalized his deception as being necessary because of the positions of trust he was given on Wikipedia. As your current policy on admin anonymity now stands, there are about 1,000 anonymous admins in positions of trust who will have no trouble moving up the ranks at Wikipedia to even higher positions of trust. I have repeatedly defended your lack of culpability in this matter, and I am very disappointed to see you offering up the red herring of verified credentials rather than addressing your failure to properly vet Essjay before appointing him to ArbCom. // Internet Esquire 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devil's advocate section

I think it is a reasonable start, but:

  1. How would one verify anonymous editors who claim credentials ? Would attestations such as "I know this person in real life and attest that he is a professor" be allowed/carry weight ? ... or will anonymous editors not-be-allowed/discouraged from claiming credentials?
  2. How would we guard against sockpuppets, or more problematically meatpuppets attesting each others PhD's, MD and JD degrees. Won't we simply facilitate weaving of a "Web of Deception" (which by the way, will likely be the headline in the NYT article when (not if) the first such web is exposed) ?
  3. What happens when (again not if) a troll enters a comment like "I emailed the university where A claims to have obtained his PhD, and they denied it" on the attestation page ?

Note: I am intentionally playing the devil's advocate here to make sure that the proposal undergoes the strictest possible scrutiny. Hope my comments are read in the right spirit. Abecedare 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and these are great questions. First, I would suggest that we try this and see what happens in practice rather than prejudging it. In general, I would suppose that claims from anonymous ip numbers would carry zero weight so that the community would tend to remove those over time as irrelevant. Second, in terms of web of deception, with an army of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, it seems pretty straightforward to detect this. Virtually ALL of these credential verifications should be done with readily available public information, or at the attestation of trusted wikipedians. In terms of trolling, well, we deal with trolls already in all kinds of contexts, and it will be not much different here I think. Again I think we should think about how to minimize it but also not try to a priori solve all problems before they actually occur.
After all, a priori thinking might very well suggest that Wikipedia itself is impossible. But it works. So we have to try it and tweak it and find out how to make it work.--Jimbo Wales 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've warmed up a little more to the idea after you mentioned web of trust, but I am afraid that this might increase pressure for people to voluntarily put themselves up for scrutiny. I know you say the scrutiny is optional, but we still might breed a culture where people who volunteer themselves for scrutiny have more credibility - and thus people might use it as a deciding in RfAs, etc. and we can't back out of the Pandora's Box once the culture is in place without a lot of effort. ColourBurst 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Could it be that "accredited" people, or recognized wikipedia experts, change the structure of Wikipedia forever? At least there would be people inclined to go by the expert opinion instead of their own research just like in the real world. We are in fact on the brink of a mayor restructuring of how wikipedia is run. Maybe we should be a little bolder, like instead of AfDs we should have AfI (Article for Inclusion) debates. That at least would save us the time of mulling over the same subject every few weeks and discourage all the self-projectors. What is evident is that a Wikipedia Hierarchy will be created of expert and non-expert users, expert and non-expert administrators expert and non-expert sysops. Maybe we should just limit this whole thing to user identification. Every registered user puts his full name on his talk page (with a few exceptions for prominent people) as I have, all you have to do is enter the name into Google and bingo you know who you have in front of you. Accreditations are only required if the registered user uses an academic degree (or claims having one during the course of AfD's or other discussions) AlfPhotoman 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppets

I have a couple of ideas for dealing with this.

1) Require publicly verifiable information. For example, an academic posts their wiki username on their university-hosted web page, and a link to their webpage from their userpage. This establishes that they are the same person. Further claims can be verified as any employer would in the real world.

or

2) Use a kind of Erdos number verification system, where you can only act as a verifier if you are already verified by at least N others, and you can only verify people you know in real life (someone like Jimmy would have to start the chain). Once you verify their existence, you could sign off each of their claims. Giving false verifications would be a bannable offence, and would immediately remove any other verifications made by that user.

There are possible loopholes in both, but someone else might think of a way to make them more robust. 99of9 06:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these are both excellent suggestions. Andrew Lih suggested to me that this might work something like PGP key signing parties, a web of trust. But publicly verifiable information is an excellent starting point because, like NPOV, it is pretty straightforward to figure out.--Jimbo Wales 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we may end up with a problem of systemic bias: i.e. it may be relatively easy to implement some kind of verification for US or UK credentials but this would prove much more difficult for people with a different origin. I personally think that some kind of digital signature or web of trust is far too complicated and unfair in the sense that would result on an inbalance in the current international character of the English-language wikipedia. --Asteriontalk 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Any wiki on a technical subject could in theory have a linkable section (like the TALK page) which consists of that article's real-world "stewardship" or "advisory" committee, which consists of links to real-world academics or people with recognized credentials, who've agreed to take some responsiblity for its content. I'm thinking EXACTLY like those stretches of public highway, for which various groups have agreed to contribute to trash-pickup, in exchange for public recognition (but no money). And I'm not suggesting we give any of these guys any kind of ultimate veto power on content, either-- all that is necessary is SOME kind of minor edge (I don't even know what they might be, yet-- I'v suggested easement of some but not all 3RR restrictions).

Academia has pooh-poohed Wikipedia. But give all those academics and grad students and junior faculty, who all have web pages up on their favorite subjects, some stewardship (however minor) of ANY wikipedia content (however minor) and watch how fast they all become fierce defenders of Wikipedia, and are all, in the future, to be found in Wikipedia's corner! SBHarris 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There we go. "stewardship". Appeal to authority already, and this hasn't even been implemented yet. Corvus cornix 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... That sounds eerily like Citizendium to me. Torgo 10:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So how do we verify that the person claiming to be Professor Jones with a link to the university's website which shows that there is a Professor Jones, really is the person they claim to be? Credit cards? Driver's licenses? Corvus cornix 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Read option 1 of my suggestions above, all this needs is a reverse link from the webpage back to the username or userpage. 99of9 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple solution

There is a simple solution for this.

  1. Require everyone that has access to personal information about editors (like checkusers, developers, etc...) to verify their identity with the office.
  2. Require everyone else to cite their sources.

This way, when people say Wikipedia isn't reliable, you say, "there's the source, check it for yourself." If there isn't a source, we make no claim to its authenticity. If Essjay's identity had been verified when he became a checkuser, the credential issue would have come out in the wash. There is no need to change a core value of Wikipedia, when a simple and easy solution is possible. Everything else smacks of overreacting damage control. pschemp | talk 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. That should be SOP anyway. There is no need for me to prove my credentials to anyone ... especially since I can probably count on one hand the times I have edited articles having to do with my field. --BigDT 06:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like this. However, it doesn't address the desire of editors to say something about themselves on their user page, which is more to do with how to encourage expert editors than this issue, and may be addressed by guidance that these are the core values, and if they use credentials in an argument such comments will be deleted, and blockable for a short period if repeated. When disputes come to mediation or arbitration it would be nice to have greater weight given to those with expert credentials, so it would be useful then for the mediator to have access to light checking, but it shouldn't be standard and listing degrees etc should be discouraged. . dave souza, talk RIBA, ARIAS, BArch, ESSC (the last one being Edinburgh Schools Swimming Certificate) 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Me too. Really, credentials alone have no value without the full CV: Education, Career, Main Publications. Current Employer, Financial interests. All these can be verified only if the user disclose his/her real name. There is no problem to check the user if the real name is provided. On the other hand, people on the positions of trust should be known to WMF. It already checks the RL-identity of the board members. I think the checkusers and arbitrators should be checked to. There are not that many of them, so it is an easy job for WMF Alex Bakharev 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this simple idea wholeheartedly. It addresses most of the concerns raised as for the need of verification of credentials, without burdening the community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well said, I support this as well. If the issue is "why should people believe us," WP:ATT really seems like the most direct and productive route, and ultimately the only route to Wikipedia's credibility. This "who we are" line, I'm concerned, could very well just be frought with more and bigger problems in the future. I'd really hope the message would remain what WP is, how it works, and what it provides. That said, I think Krich's essay above makes a compelling case for why verification of those in positions of trust is very important, and possibly the appropriate response to the EssJay situation. Mackan79 14:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMHO, the point for us and the rest of the world is this:

Disclaimor:


Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on a foundation and fountain of human knowledge; derived from sources that are checked by responsible human beings, and thus, are believed to be reliable. All of us are editors. Some of us are young; some of us have more life experience than others. We are all here to help the world find a reliable source of knowledge and information.

Our field of experts share their experience, strengths, and knowledge, and we verify their credentials to the best of our abilities.

Thanks, Lee Nysted 05:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimor:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we mean anyone. Would you trust just "anyone"? Blueboar 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse the crass phrasing, but abso-fucking-lutely. That is what is brilliant about wikipedia: you CAN trust anyone and everyone. JoeSmack Talk 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)e
The Essjay case seems to have proven this false. Corvus cornix 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That's absolutely untrue, and that's maybe the whole point of this. As has been said above, what do I care if Essjay is a PhD or not, or even if he lied about it? Maybe it means I can't trust him personally if I meet him on the street (and I suspect that I could anyway), but his contributions to Wikipedia have been far greater (and better) than my own, who have lied about nothing. So, yeah, I trust him. Even if you were Ryan Jordan editing this page under a new user name, I don't care, if your edit is good. The fact that this has become a small "media scandal" is only a demonstration of how easily and eagerly the media builds a story of moral corruption and embarrassment out of anything that sounds remotely bad ("omg, one of wikipedia's editors is a liar!- scandal!"), when in fact, it only matters because it became a story in the first place, and is potentially bad PR. Torgo 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


We can trust 95% of everybody, so we have a netto improvement over time. That's all really. --Kim Bruning 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restating: Trust, but verify

To restate some of Jimbo's points, I think we need to reiterate that first and foremost, we assume good faith, and trust in the good intentions of editors, no matter what standing they may or may not have in academia. The prerogative of remaining an anonymous or semi-anonymous editor is paramount. However, just as we would ask for verification of factual assertions in articles, editors who wish to assert a special expertise or academic accreditation, should be willing to demonstrate the validity of such claims-- by whatever means is deemed appropriate/satisfactory. Those who do not wish to reveal personally identifying information should forgo claims of special credentials. Even still, we should clarify that being "credentialed" does not instill a greater authority in discussions, nor trump the requirements of Wikipedia policy. The bottom line should always be that honesty and integrity is a virtue in all editorial matters, even when editing under an assumed name/identity.

On that note, might I suggest developing an honor code-type statement of expectations of editors, that they should sign onto when initially registering? --LeflymanTalk 07:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Addendum: as I note below, if credentialing is intended to be optional/voluntary, my restatement is inaccurate and perhaps pointless. News articles that have picked up on this discussion seem to believe that it will be a mandatory process:

Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopaedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud... Mr Wales said the site and its users will soon devise a scheme to adequately check credentials of those Wikipedia editors who claim to possess them. But Wikipedia, by its nature, is self-policing and its experts are not required to have credentials, so a valid check will be hard to implement.

– The Times, 6 March 2007

I'd still suggest a general statement/policy on credential integrity, either an adjunct to or instead of the optional verification.--LeflymanTalk 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I've only read this far so I won't comment yet on this proposed policy, but what's with that Times quote?? Why the f*ck are we still always called things like "controversial" and "army of faceless internet editors"?? Talk about assuming bad faith! K. Lásztocska 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implications for articles of "personal testimony" and web of trust

I like the proposal. This is way way premature and off-topic, but if we are allowing this sort of thing for credentials, does it open the door for material in articles that would today be prohibited as original research? E.g. "So-and-so's oral history is as transcribed by Wikipedian A. Wikikpedian B testifies that he has heard substantially the same story." Or "Thus-and-such fact is referenced to unpublished document XYZ, as shown in the attached image. Wikipedian C says that the image is an accurate copy of the original." Or (a real example) "This information about the current status of the Babson Globe is based on an email I have received from Babson College in response to an inquiry."

I have no idea whether this would be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, but once we start building a web of trust it might eventually lead to other places. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing. Right now the policy appears to rely heavily on verification through attribution. Wikipedia itself is the most pure form of peer review: anyone who cares about a subject can participate in forming the article on that subject. I support some kind of attribution method that would include a user statment as a source. 129.19.6.125 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I'm a Phd, so shut up"

Based on the idea that almost everyone is saying that title up there is a non-logical and useless argument - should we add some nice, clear text to Wiki:Verification that says something along the lines of "All contributors with a good level of higher education are more than welcome; as with all contributors however, all contributions must be factually verifiable. All contributions from any editor must be verifiable and have citations if needed."?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I call this kind of discussion "Proof by Intimidation". --WiseWoman 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never once seen an example of this here. You'd think it was an epidemic the way everyone talks about it. 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why academic credentials over others, then?

I live in a part of Cornwall. I belong to a WikiProject covering that part of Cornwall. Do I need to prove where I live to be able to edit on the basis of "Well, it wasn't like that last Tuesday!"? Should I be allowed to edit on the basis that "...it wasn't like that last Tuesday" if my real name and address were verified? I say no.

So, where is the difference between my local knowledge and the knowledge gained from study and academic awards? The only thing that the academic and I have in common is probably better knowledge of where the relevant references can be found. LessHeard vanU 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the section just above, it would might be harder for you to prove #1. But, through #2, your claim can be believable (or not). In my case, I have provided photographic contributions that may be consistent with where I say I live, and the quality of my edits should be consistent with what I say on my user page. Still, my edits need to come with reliable sources and meet our policies. --Aude (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Any edit backed by a reliable source should not be reverted by me simply because I have previously indicated that I have knowledge of the subject matter, which has been accepted by my peers. I need references citing my understanding of the subject (and even then I should not revert, but note the difference) to make that edit. As such my qualification is irrelevant to the editing process, whether it was verified or not, except that I may be aware of a reliable resource not generally known. What I can prove about me and what I can verify about a subject are different matters, surely? LessHeard vanU 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, reliable sources come first. But your local knowledge (acquired in whatever way and if demonstrated through quality of your editing) can help in some "editorial" decisions, such as helping judge reliability of sources, helping makes decisions regarding which photos to put in an article, and some other somewhat subjective decisions that do come up sometimes. Again, proof (#1) is definitely not needed but if you demonstrate through quality of your editing that you have local knowledge, it might carry some weight among a group of editors on that particular article. Same goes with academics... if they can't demonstrate their knowledge through quality of editing, then they should not carry much weight in working on articles and credentials would be taken with a big grain of salt. --Aude (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So, the article says (this is an example only) <quote>Joe's bar is a popular place at 1st and Main</quote> and it is attributed to a newspaper article from 5 years ago. Our intrepid local-knowledge editor happens to walk by that corner every day. He edits the article to say <quote> Joe's bar, formerly at 1st and Main is now a pet store.</quote> So far I can find no mechanism for our local-knowledge editor to provide the equivalent of a "personal communcation" attribution. Because of the NPOV and attribution policies, our best source of accurate information is quashed. 129.19.6.125 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons expertese is useful...

...that cannot (in many cases) be replaced by a large number of laypersons quoting reliable, published sources:

  • Knowledge of how to structure an article, a section, or a series of articles on a complex topic
  • Translation of highly technical literature into layman's terms
  • Access to literature and sources which isn't published freely on the Web, or inexpensively and readily available in commerce (but which is nevertheless published).
  • Knowledge of the literature--where to look, where not to look; whether a given source is reliable or not.
  • Relevance or irrelevance of a particular bit of knowledge to a given subject
  • Being able to spot questionable or outright false claims without having to go pore through the literature.

Now--in many cases, expertese isn't necessarily to produce a good article. And it isn't sufficient; many experts aren't good writers, copyeditors, photographers, or graphic artists. But having experts around is frequently useful.

While the relationship between expertese and credentials isn't deterministic--we've all met imbeciles with Ph. Ds and genius garbagemen in our lives--I'd wager the correlation constant is closer to unity than to zero. So having users identify as experts increases the likelihood that we can be confident they know what they are talking about. Having some way of vouching for claims of expertese--which will most often be claims to possess a certain credential or level of practical experience--further increases our confidence level.

--EngineerScotty 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but someone's mind can't be used a source for information on Wikipedia. If someone who claims to be a doctor, edits articles related to medicine, but doesn't source their information, how will you know they're right? All because they say "I know it's right because I'm doctor," doesn't mean their information is correct; one doctor doesn't speak for all. Acalamari 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone's mind could be used as a basis for editorial decisions, however--and the only source of editorial judgement here is our editors. There is no source that can declare the proper way for a given topic to be organized. --EngineerScotty 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No, but if two other editors place contradicting sentences in an article about medicine, the doctor can tell at a glance which is crud and which is real, and can easily point out when theories are being given undue weight. We've all seen sourced documents that are just plain wrong. Philippe Beaudette 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If edits aren't sourced, then they should be removed. Reliable sources really isn't optional. But, if someone demonstrates exemplary editing on a topic (a must) and optionally provides some believable credentials, then I might defer to them or give them more weight on subjective decisions. I'm not sure what I would have done if I ran into Essjay in editing articles, because I don't know that subject matter. But, if someone came along to my subject areas, had false credentials - couldn't demonstrate them, couldn't provide good sources, etc. then I wouldn't give them much weight. --Aude (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't take a doctor to see a conflicting statement or nonsense. All it takes is a bit of researching to find out which piece of inforamtion is real, and which one is a lie or joke. Acalamari 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think anyone's disputing that expertise is useful. However, expertise can and should be demonstrated without the need to rely on credentials. That is what I see as the core problem with this proposal. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with what you say. Editors should be judged first on the quality of their work on Wikipedia. Anything else is secondary. Credentials are one way to develop expertise, but credential in itself isn't enough and there are other ways to develop expertise. --Aude (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
'Course, credentials don't develop anything. They're just pieces of paper (or electronic data) that say "X considers Y to be skilled at Z", or "X authorizes Y to perform task Z". Whether they are worth anything or not depends on first and foremost whether you trust X. On the other hand, we have the concept of a reliable source; whereby we consider the output of certain publishers or authors to be sufficient to document a claim as true. --EngineerScotty 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Which leads us inevitably to the next question, which is why should a person's status as an editor at Wikipedia necessarily impact in any way his or her status, as a "reliable source" of encyclopedia information? I know it's been grudgingly admitted that when Wikipedia editors who are experts in their fields edit and cite their own published works, that this makes their edits "verifiable," and removes them from the clutches of NOR, but the fact is that this kind of thing is actively discouraged. Which suggests heavily to me that we actually have a reverse WIkipedia bias going against the writing of honest-to-God experts, in their own fields. Now, why IS that? Scientific American actively encourages and commissions famous scientists to write about their own work, as public service, and pays them. Wikipedia acts as though this kind of thing is some kind of marginal public vice. SBHarris 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We've had numerous instances of well-known academics using Wikipedia as a means to promote their own research and greatly exaggerate their importance to the field. And we're not talking kooks and crackpots here, but distinguished scientists who are widely considered to be influential in their fields; and in some cases are leading researchers. Currently, Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit citing yourself per se--however it does urge caution; and citing yourself in excess of the reliability of your work can get you in trouble. For some editors, any citation of themselves would be inappropriate; for others, their writings are impeccable.
One thing I've wondered--and this is beyond the scope of the discussion, but perhaps this proposal, if adopted, could be a prerequisite: What would happen to Wikipedia were (verified, vetted) experts permitted to engage in OR? Or if a separate wiki (or other format--a wiki may not be an appropriate repository for whole original works which the author doesn't intend to be community-editeable) were set up by the WFM for that purpose, which Wikipedia articles could then cite as a reference? WP:NOR was originally intended to be a means by which to exclude crackpot theories of cosomology and proofs that circles can be squared, and other such rubbish; it evolved into time into a policy that anything nontrivial must be cited elsewhere. In practice, most Wikipedia non-trivial articles covering non-trivial subjects contain some level of non-trivial synthesis.
--EngineerScotty 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A wiki would still be a useful format - you can then fix spelling and grammar errors, add wikilinks, format, change the layout, add further references, etc. --WikiSlasher 09:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No and please dont

Wikipedia is what it is today because people could edit it whenever they wanted to, it was just a click away. I don't mind people saying if they are professors or not. I really really think there should not be ANY rule about this. There is only one thing to learn, don't believe some one because some one says so... "ask for citations!" and that is it.--Scheibenzahl 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems the instruction creep is seeping in well. Making people prove their credentials or take them down is disruptive and is just going to drive good editors away. --WikiSlasher 10:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point?

I have raised this concern numerous times here and elsewhere and have yet to receive a decent answer. What is one good, logical reason to have credentials publically displayed on Wikipedia? The only reasons I have seen are the reasons why it should not be allowed. "I'm a PhD so shut up" and to give more weight to comments/contribs. IMO, there is no point in verifying credentials if credentials have no place on Wikipedia to begin with. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is demanding that credentials be shown. Only that if you want to claim credentials, you need to verify them somehow. For example, I state on my user page that I am a casualty actuary. If I wanted this to be respected, I would have to divulge my identity to someone and proof of my credentials. -- Avi 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree more which is why I made a proposal of my own that reflects this sentiment.MikeURL 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to Avi: Perhaps my original statement wasn't quite clear. I'm not asking that credentials be displayed. I'm asking Why do people display them? I'm asking for the purpose of: If there is no reason to display them, there should be no reason to verify them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Marketing, networking, socializing, and telling other Wikipedians where your strengths are so they would know that they can ask particular questions of you, given your demonstrated expertise. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, finally. However, I don't think that those require verification. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am for an all-voluntary approach. If somebody wants to list credentials on their user page, that is their choice, as they can put just about anything on their user page anyway. However, I don't see any need whatsoever for Wikipedians, who should be spending the vast majority of their time creating and enhancing Wikipedia articles, to be engaging in credential verification of any sort. I can support the infinitely scalable approach that those who list their credentials can voluntarily link to external sources (such as university webpages) that back up their claims. That is as far as I'm willing to stomach. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Further, let me define "all-voluntary" -- this means no new policy or guideline, but perhaps somebody could write an essay about it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone claim credentials except to say "Shut up?" --Tbeatty 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that's a truly stunning failure of imagination and embracement of bad faith. As but one small example, see "Expertise and deletion" on User:David_Gerard. Derex 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are some more examples of the potential benefit of users advertising their true ceredentials on their userpage:
  • Fictional example: Say I am editing an article on Graph Theory, and based on an undergraduate math text on the subject I write "Graphs are classified into two groups: directed graphs and undirected graphs". But then I start to wonder if that, even though attributable to a reliable source, is universally true or just an oversimplification for beginners in the field. On searching I find that David Eppstein, a established researcher in the field, is an an editor on wikipedia, and so I ask him to review my edits. The alternatives would be either not to make the edit at all in fear of being wrong; or simply adding that sentence and waiting till somebody better versed in the subject chances to come along and corrects the potential mistake - both these alternatives are, of course, acceptable, but surely not preferable.
  • Semi-fictional example: Through a source I know that "કલિયુગનાં ચાર આશ્રયસ્થાન" spells "Kaliyug's mainstay" in Gujarati, but I want to know which part of that hieroglyphics spells "Kali" in order to add that to a wikipedia article; so I go looking for editors who lists Gujarati among their language skills (again a credential), and get the answer in a jiffy.
In both these cases, wikipedia as an encyclopedia gains in the process and there are no "Shut up"s involved. :-). But seriously, let us not conflate the issue of editors arguing from authority (which anyway is covered by WP:ATT) and editors (truthfully) identifying their spheres of knowledge and expertise. Abecedare 08:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Most editing here is harmonious and based on good faith. Most of the controversy here is based on the assumption that credentials are only useful in conflict, "shut up" as you say. However, knowing someone else has strong credentials may help *me* in deciding how to allocate my efforts effectively. Sometimes I might keep an eye on some editing, not from worry about fraud or pov-pushing, but worry about whether someone truly understands technical material sufficiently. Lots of economics editing is done by college students who sometimes in completely good faith get something wrong, because the material is challenging. However, if I know an editor is an expert in macroeconomics, which is not my specialty, I'm not going to waste my time and his scrutinizing every detail because that person clearly has a stronger understanding than me. I want to know this, because I don't want to waste time that could be more efficiently spent elsewhere. That's just common sense, and has nothing to do with pulling rank. Derex 09:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The best example I've seen is the language example. It's more of a resource to find experts to help with articles. However, this whole proposal was supposed to address the illegitimate claim of expertise to solve content disputes. The example you have given, while beneficial, doesn't really address the problem that the proposal was floated to address. If you have an editor claiming they are an "uncredentialed" expert on, oh say "Catholicism" and they insist on a particular wording, and they are opposed by a "credentialed" expert, what is the community to do? Say "shut up" is the correct answer but it is explicitly not allowed. How did this policy help us, then? Your examples are good overall improvements to process, but they don't really address the problem that got us here. I was flip when I asked why anyone would claim credentials except to say "shut up" but my point is that this policy would not have stopped anything that it is intended to stop. I am not worried that someone will falsely claim credentials, but rather that they will use their credentials to alter content improperly. This was the crux of the EssJay problem. I fear that giving people "credentials" may exacerbate this potential for abuse without really solving anything. I, personally, am an expert in a very narrow field of specialization. But I have very broad academic credentials. My fear is that errors by "credentialed" experts will do far more damage to project credibility than the errors introduced by 24 year-olds in their basement. Imagine the press report if Siegenthaler was vandalized by someone with "credentials". Or if EssJay had a credentialed userbox. --Tbeatty 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The community's supposed to come to a consensus on the better wording, or come up with a suitable compromise. --WikiSlasher 11:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The examples I've seen of Essjay (which may not be all) seem to be quite consistent with a harmonious and constructive use of credentials. He didn't tell someone else to shut up; he didn't overrule a citation; he just indicated that he had it covered. People let it go because it wasn't a dispute; it was uncertainty. That actually would have been a very useful approach if Essjay had been authentic, and people's reaction in paying attention was entirely sensible. So, I think I actually am describing the Essjay problem. The problem wasn't his use of credentials; it was his fraud. Had they been real credentials, his actions would have been constructive, exactly as everyone thought they were at the time. Doug Bell sought him out to help with a tough AFD — what could be more sensible than to ask the theologian about the suspect article Essene Christians since the author wasn't around to defend it? Credentials can be very constructive and harmonious, and so far as I've seen that's exactly how Essjay presented his uses. Solution: eliminate fraud with verification. Derex 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Trust but Verify (and I never took you for such a Reagan fan :) )But this proposal doesn't require authentication. EssJay could still have put unverified credentials on his page. This proposal doesn't forbid that. He could still have risen to bureaucrat through the community based on trust (or if he couldn't have, then this proposal means more than I think it does). I don't human nature would discard him as someone to be sought out for expertise if he is a trusted member of the community regardless of whether his creds have been verified. He would simply be believed as part of AGF especially because of longstanding contributions. If he was a complete stranger being sought out for expert input, I would agree with you but this was not the case. This does not address people who will lie because it doesn't have enough teeth. --Tbeatty 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah T, I was a huge Reagan fan as a lad; growing up privileged in the Deep South will do that to you. Yes, trust but verify. Anyways, no this proposal wouldn't have required Essjay to verify, nor should it. But then I wouldn't trust an unverified claim, that is if verification were a simple semi-anonymous procedure. Right now, I simply assume all claims are valid, unless given reasons to believe otherwise. With this proposal, I'd flip that around and simply ignore any non-verified claims. Derex 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And that was my original point (except flipped around). Instead of saying "shut up" to the unverified guy, we end up listening only to the verified guy. I guess it's politer but we end up letting the unqualified guy blather on and on and on and on and on and on and on and in the end, ignore him. --Tbeatty 03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you just invite the unverified guy to go verify. If he can't be bothered with a simple effectivly anonymous procedure, why should he take insult? Really no point in discussing though, because clearly nothing of the sort is going to gain consensus. The elephant in the room is status, and many people are afraid of losing it. Absolutely silly, because credentials have always been here and always been believed without a class system arising; this proposal would change nothing except repairing the distrust caused by the Essjay affair. Derex 07:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I endorse this proposal

I would like to state that I endorse this proposal. We are the tenth largest website in the world, and the largest scientific/educational website. With that position come responsibilities. Responsibilities towards the subjects, towards the content, towards the community and towards the readers. As Jimbo has indicated at Wikimania 2006, we need "a turn towards quality". Although we are supposed to remain "vigilant" (for lack of a better word), the reality is that claims of authority and expertise influence the content of this project, e.g. through the assumption of good faith. The proposal for credential verification as it stands does not require such verification (if it did, I would oppose it), but it simply provides a higher scientific standard to this project, to make sure that we meet the responsibilities that come with our leading position. AecisBrievenbus 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify some of my statements made on this page, which might seem contradictory: I endorse the possibility of voluntary verification, I am wary of compulsory verification for certain positions within Wikipedia, and I'm opposed to making private information public. If a CheckUser comes back negative, we take the word of the CheckUsers for it; if a credential verification comes back positive from the foundation we should imo take their word for it. AecisBrievenbus 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
scuse me, but could we just cut the red tape then and just take their word for it? AlfPhotoman 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-intellectualism

I would just like to comment on the above discussion. As a person working towards a Ph.D., I am not sure what I think about the proposed plan. I am sympathetic to the privacy argument and I am also concerned that a culture of verification will develop. If this happens, Ph.D.s may not feel it is appropriate to contribute without verifying themselves. In the humanities, where wikipedia is viewed with skepticism, being coerced into publicly revealing yourself as a contributor (if such a culture were to develop), would be nothing but detrimental to the project. But, on the other hand, while reading the above threads, I felt a strong sense of anti-intellectualism. The "I'm an expert, so you should listen to me" argument was viewed with great skepticism. I agree that such an argument is not enough, but experts have reached their positions for a reason - they have studied for many years and are very knowledgeable. To act as if this is irrelevant and that someone who has not done the same is likely to be able to contribute at the same level is absurd. This is why wikipedia demands that its articles be based on the research of experts. I find it interesting that at the same time a group of people are defending wikipedia's democratic culture to the death on this page, others are complaining vociferously on the featured article candidates talk page about the problem of non-expert reviewers doing FA reviews. There are real tensions in wikipedia regarding the necessity for "expert" editors and reviewers. I would also like to point out that the increased citation requirements that have irked so many people at FAC are a way to avoid implementing something like credentialling. Awadewit 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having survived a few discussions about the role of "experts" in our fractious little family, I've been mulling over these questions for a while. All in all, I'd have to say that I'm an elitist. In fact, I love my elite so much, I think everybody should be part of it.
I don't think expert qualifications can play a direct role in generating encyclopedic content. I include in this category the normal, day-to-day sort of disputation which happens on individual articles' Talk pages: "Section X needs references", "The description of entropy is wrong", "We should reference Hume instead of Dawkins", and so forth. Anybody who tries to have their way on a Talk page by saying, "I've got a PhD in metaphysico-cosmonigology, so shut up" is not a nice person. They won't get anywhere, and nor should they, even if their claim of being a tenured Ivy League professor is blessed by Jimbo Wales and open for all to inspect.
"Experts" still have a great advantage, of course, in that their walls are lined with bookshelves, and they can point to the page numbers which back up what they say. They know how to organize articles, they've taught and written about the material before, and in a word, they're competent. If all you want to do is contribute encyclopædia content, I don't think you need to get your credentials vetted; it doesn't really bring you anything. So what if you still have to cite your sources like those amateurs down in the proletariat? It's the custom of the land, and it's easier for you than for anybody else (unless the amateurs really know their stuff, in which case you have nothing to crow about!).
When we consider dispute resolution, however, we become less concerned with competence and training than with trustworthiness. The higher I look in the structure of Wikapparatchiks, the more I want to see evidence that the functionary is a reliable servant of the community. And I want this evidence testable by all, just in case Jimbo's stressful schedule led him to make a slipshod judgment. (This is a point in which I suspect some ideological streak may be making me a bit too fervent an advocate of radical transparency.)
There is still a role for expertise in dispute resolution. One example I can think of right away is if the ArbCom has to consider a case where one group of editors accuses another of pushing pseudoscience POV into science articles. It may happen that certain pseudoscientific claims have not been debunked in the reputable literature. Normally, such claims could be rejected on notability grounds (WP:FRINGE), but there are always cases where one has to weigh academic journals against pop-science magazines, or judge if bogus references are being added to give a spurious air of notability. In such thorny tangles, the pragmatic solution is to find somebody who knows their stuff and whose background we can verify. The procedure for validating credentials should be open to all, including ordinary users who aren't even seeking Admin status, although a "background check" should only be mandatory for those seeking positions of trust. Anville 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


If you were referring specifically to my comment above, no, wasn't anti intellectualism - it was anti-anti-nonintellectualism; the perception that somebody without a PhD may be perceived to carry less weight in argument. I don't have a PhD, but I do have a Mensa tested IQ of 144 (which is a bastard because all I have is a piece of paper saying that this score means I cannot join Mensa - try verifying that!) so I would argue that a PhD is not the only criteria defining intellect. It is certainly not the only criteria defining worthiness in contributing to WP, but it and similar qualifications are being proposed as being currently the only ones that WP will accredit and approve. This might be a source of resentment within the non-expert grouping of contributors, one that WP:ATT might not mollify. I only ask if any thought been given to the possible response of the "non experts" to this proposal, given my growing emotive response? LessHeard vanU 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As a person with a degree or two which I never mention in argument on a subject or AfD page -- nor do I mention my IQ-- I congratulate Anville on his excellent statement of what I think to be essentially the correct position. A person with greater knowledge should intrinsically be at an advantage within his field. The only caveat is that the WP level of debate on some topics is somewhat infantile; anyone with knowledge, however acquired, will not make an impression on the editors with a junior high school level of understanding (and some of those guys are highly-educated adults, in formal respects). The only solution is for a great number of knowledgeable people to come and to stay, until they outnumber the others. This will not be done by putting barriers in their way.DGG 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG. You know, if tenure committees counted Wikipedia edits as much as journal articles, all these problems would be solved.  :-/ Anville 01:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I used to note my IQ on my userpage (back when I joined and thought it might impress someone... Hah!), but removed it as irrelevant and boring. This is the first instance I have ever mentioned it in a discussion, specifically to comment as regards the verification of credentials and to avoid consideration of anti-intellectualism. As an argument it remains irrelevant. :::That is also my position regarding Degrees, Doctorates and membership of professional bodies; it is irrelevant to the community, where only the application of ones intellectual properties within the guidelines, rules and practices of WP should be given account. Smarter people may often be good editors (not always the case), sometimes better than average editors, but also slow and methodical (in thought and deed) editors get the job done just as well.LessHeard vanU 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that is the bottom line. Any person can do a good job writing an article by just researching the subject and using a spelling checker to write it. Formal education is completely meaningless for that. That is the beauty of Wikipedia as it is, no matter who you are, if you can support your article with secondary sources you are right not if you wave around a diploma. AlfPhotoman 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
In theory all of this might be true. Frankly, though, most people need to be taught how to read and write. Most freshmen coming into my freshmen composition classroom don't automatically know all of that. Also, I wonder how often disputes here are really decided on the basis of evidence. You are assuming that all of the editors are rational and are basing their judgments on the same kinds of evidence, but that is clearly not the case (if that were true, wikipedia would not need its various arbitration committees). Moreover, and here we can start to get into philosophical and political disputes, what kinds of evidence and debate are going to "count"? Some feminists might have very different accounts of history than those presented in many of the articles I have seen here; relegating those accounts to the "feminist account of history" is not NPOV, it only proves the feminist position. Also, I noticed that there was quite a bit of debate over the inclusion of a picture on the Mohommad page. I don't want to argue these particular issues, I just want to point to them as examples of a larger issue. The whole point I am making here is that the process of reading, writing and interpreting is not as simple as some people on this page are making it sound. Those of us who are trained in that area, for example, are highly sensitive to issues that to others may not even appear to be an issue at all. One concrete example that I can point to is an FAC that I am involved in, Ronald Reagan. In this case, the article's editors began the FAC with almost the entire article sourced to Reagan's autobiography. In this case, the editors are having a difficult time selecting appropriate sources. Commentators above have argued that anyone can support their argument using secondary sources, but how well-equipped are they to evaluate those sources? Do they know how to choose secondary sources? Not all sources were created equal. Some are more equal than others. :) Awadewit 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
We also have the problem that, in almost any technical field, the sources one can find which explain a topic of interest can only be understood by people already somewhat familiar with that field. You don't have to have a PhD to understand a textbook on quantum electrodynamics (otherwise, nobody could get a PhD), but you have to have a substantial physics background, probably at least two or three years of rigorous undergraduate education. You don't have to be an expert, but you had better be a competent student. If you don't have the requisite background knowledge, you won't even be able to verify that the sources cited in an article actually say what the article implies they do. Anville 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problem isn't the credentials, the problem is the bureaucracy

What is the issue here? That Essjay lied about his credentials? On Wikipedia we are all supposed to be equal; from the anonymous IP only editor, to the newest account holder, to our co-founder Mr. Wales. Credentials, or the claim thereof, have nothing to do with the quality of the edits one makes in the article space, which should be the only criteria for respect here.

Is the issue that Essjay held a position of “power”, and that his fake credentials are now an embarrassment to someone? The solution is to do away with, or greatly tone down, the thicket of titles and positions that have been growing on Wikipedia over the past few years. These titles, and the illusionary sense of “authority” that go along with them, only take us further away from equality. When did admins become sort of Wiki elite? Did we forget that being an admin is akin to being a janitor? Yes, you get the keys to the building, but that doesn’t mean you are anybody special. Who cares if the janitor fakes their credentials, so long as it doesn’t impact their ability to mop the floors?

I vote no to this proposal, and no to anything similar that in any way creates yet another tier of wikipedia users, including a new class of “real name” users. Instead, we should be looking for ways to make it clear that while Jimbo and the board may speak for the foundation, nobody speaks for all of wikipedia. - O^O 07:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The janitor where I work has no unilateral authority to fire me and lock me out of the building. Since wikipedia is not a pure democracy there will continue to be a need for a fairly large # of users with greater levels of power than other users (lots of judgment calls have to be made in disputes). If it were a pure democracy then you could have just a few superusers close votes and carry out the will of the majority (not that I'm arguing for that).MikeURL 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You bring up an interesting point which hasn't been addressed, which is that locking somebody out of a building is a very different act depending on whether or not he's worked there in good faith for years, putting in hundreds of wo/man-hours; or has just entered to use the bathroom or waterfountain, or maybe to spraypaint something obscene on the wall. And yet, wikipedia allows anonymous administrators to block nameusers without regard to their edit histories. Sure, they're SUPPOSED to look, but it's not even a matter of policy that they do. I think Wikipedia would be a different place if it was a policy (not written in stone, but a convention usually expected to be held-to), that no sysop place a block on any nameuser with more goodfaith edits than he or she himself has. Any sysop even considering this should see that it's a trigger for getting another more experienced sysop involved, and time for a community review.

Finally, I note that the question of anonymity relates slightly differently to arguments and power struggles in Wikipedia regarding CONTENT (what an article says) vs. meta-content (how an article is written, or how an editor has acted, other than his perhaps off-beat factual opinion). It's a shame that we've let arguments of the first time bleed over too often, and with the same punishments (banning), as arguments of the second type. The issue of expertise in a subject applies far more directly to the first class of problem than it does the second, and I think the community might accept some face-less power-weilding far more readily in the second class of "meta-disputes," where the problems are more apparent to all laymen following, than in diputes over content, where the real core of the problem may not even be understandable except to the highly educated person within the subject material. SBHarris 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if pushed I would say that I do think wikipedia should be more of a democracy and then you would not need an army of anonymous admins. I'm not going to make that case, however. Regarding your comments I'd note that others have pointed out that other websites are creating encyclopedic content and DO place great importance on credentials. If their model is better then one would expect them to "win" in the long run. Wikipedia has adopted an agnostic view of credentials and I don't see that changing any time soon.MikeURL 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use real identity if you represent Wikipedia in the real world

The only issue with Essjay was that he lied in the real world. Whether he lies on Wikipedia itself doesn't matter much, since edits should be treated on their merits. Lets not get the two things muddled up. So I would just suggest that anyone who speaks for Wikipedia to the press, etc. should say who they are for real. That's an issue of public relations. It's also common sense, because good journalists will research your identity and fact check your comments.

As others have said, qualifications are neither here nor there when editing. I have come across Wikipedians who say they have doctorates but who can't even spell, so I take all blag with a pinch of salt. Rank-pulling tends to happen when people are defending inscrutable material against those they see as not fully understanding the subject: in my opinion, such editors should continue to be harried into writing clearly for the general public, whether they like it or not. qp10qp 10:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

More than that, a Wikipedia representative should be a verified foundation employee. Sending just some user and/or anonymous administrator means that we would be playing with our reputation every time. The rule should be : You may use Wikipedia, you may edit Wikipedia, you may administer Wikipedia but you don't represent Wikipedia. AlfPhotoman 12:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that oveburden the few paid employees of the foundation? Maybe there should be a group of PR volunteers who are verified and can speak to local media when they do stories on wikipedia? They could meet with the foundation via IRC or on a private E-mail list so everyone is kept on the same page, and obviously should, and could pass higher levels of questions up the chain. I agree that Essjay wasn't a problem on the wiki but off it, and this proposal is a bit of an over reaction, to a problem that isn't really a problem. EnsRedShirt 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
as far as I know, most organizations with the approximate budget of Wikipedia have a professional PR person, some of our public perception problems come fro the fact that the "outside"representation is made pretty amateurishly, which is no wonder because its made by amateurs. AlfPhotoman 12:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
True, but looking at the foundations press page it doesn't look like they have one, and honestly I don't think they need one. I think a group of editors can represent Wikipedia in a far better fashion then a PR person who has never made an edit. It contributes to, and represents, the community we built here. EnsRedShirt 12:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they should only send or recommend stewards or Wikimedia Foundation employees to the media. --WikiSlasher 11:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's viewpoint

You know, this whole thing must look very different from Jimbo's viewpoint. He must be a bit surprised at the serious "fakes in authority" emphasis bubbling up from the community. Conversely, some of us editors and admins are a bit surprised at the way he is pursuing something that does not seem like the main issue for us. But the real damage in the press is not coming from the "fakes in authority" issue - to us that may be primary, but the press and the public don't even properly understand it - but from the issue that our expert "Professor" didn't have genuine expertise. I can kind of understand why that is the big worry in Jimbo's mind. Things must look different at the top, looking out, from how they look to us inside. Just a thought - something to remind myself of. Metamagician3000 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

True. But Jimbo doesn't want to make credentials compulsory, and so I don't think this idea will affect Wikipedia's overall image with the public or stop more Essjays rising to authority and spokesperson level. All that needs to be done is for Jimbo to insist on checking out the people in authority on Wikipedia; the public will probably never then hear about the fakes lower down. qp10qp 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Nod. That's what I've been saying elsewhere on the page, as you may have seen, but it struck me why issues and priorities might seem different from Jimbo's perspective - or maybe I'm still misunderstanding him. Perhaps he'd like to comment on this. Metamagician3000 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry qp10qp, but you are ignoring Daniel Brandt and his compulsion to burp into any available microphone with the most trivial reasons AlfPhotoman 13:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to address everyone's worries at once? Say, by putting in place a policy which says, "All users with higher authority than X who claim credentials must have those credentials validated, and validation is optional (but encouraged under some circumstances) for all other community members." I guess I'm just finding it hard to believe that the same splattering of press coverage would have happened if Essjay had not been elevated to some positions of trust. "Wikipedia User Claimed to be Something He's Not" is an Onion headline, but "Wikipedia Decision-Maker Lied about Qualifications" sounds a little more serious. People understand authority, even if they don't get our multilayered system of administrators, arbitrators and so forth. Anville 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is probably a good argument for rationalising the authority and hierarchy, rather than bolting on a specious diversion which lacks any underlying justification other than must be seen to be doing something.
But Metamagician is right, when the view from the top is must be seen to be doing something then we have to do something, even if the long term utility, or impact on the wider project, of said something is dubious.
ALR 14:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


The length of this page is an indication of the angst. Three main elements among the consensus seem to me important: (a) a concern about the value of a credential process which does not (and never could) cover all credentials; (b) the fact that some people have expertise without credentials (for example; someone who lives in Cornwall being able to write about Cornwall in a different but no less valid way than someone living elsewhere who has studied the county academically but may never have set foot there); (c) a concern about privacy and identity being known.

Against these is presumably the worry about the negative image that Wikipedia gets if the Essjay problem repeats itself, and the feeling (perhaps?) that we might be creating a monster. And it is true, as Metamagician3000says, that for those of us far from the hot seat it is difficult to gauge how this feels.

My strong feeling, having read all this page, is that there should be some checking system on people higher up the Wikipedia ladder (those who take decisions for all of us or who speak publicly in our name), but that for the rest of us who edit, it should be entirely a matter of choice. Who should do the checking? It doesn’t really matter, so long as there’s a consensus around either the person or the process. As a number of people have said here, in our own fields we can tell if someone is a real expert – because of the way they edit and the sources they cite. If they want to claim a PhD, well and good – let them! It won’t change how we look at their edits, and many of us will not check anyway. And that’s what really matters.

In the long run, whatever we do, we shall be overtaken by a fraudster again and it will all happen again. It happens regularly in universities and hospitals, where credentials are supposed to be checked before anyone is allowed to pick up the surgeon’s knife; it’s going to happen to us. Will a voluntary system help us then? Probably. Let’s give it a try. Raggio 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the minimum

Given all this, we ought to take advantage of the opportunity to actually do something useful . In line with the above comments, I suggest

  1. People who refer to their credentials on a talk page or in an argument must list them on their user page.
  2. People who list credentials on their user page should be as specific as possible--If a degree is mentioned the minimum is the university and the subject of the degree. Further detail is very strongly encouraged. The use of true names is also encouraged.
comment: For a degree, the exact thesis title destroys anonymity completely. The year in connection with the subject and the university will often have the same effect.
Could be self-enforcing--claims without this information could be simply ignored. DGG 15:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to reinforce that, especially if you talk about little universities or universities with small student groups. I could probably - if hard pressed - recite all 30 names of those who were in my courses in 1973 AlfPhotoman 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I must reiterate what I said further up the page. I feel that such a process would discourage humanities scholars from contributing. I already feel that I have to hide (that is, not mention them to anyone) my contributions to wikipedia because wikipedia is greeted with extreme skepticism in the academy. For untenured faculty members or graduate students, being forced or encouraged to reveal who they are might be detrimental to their career (the situation is less tenuous for tenured faculty). I really am not kidding. Think about it this way. Humanities scholars tend to write single-author articles and books. If a colleague went to a page that that a user had worked on or would likely have worked on, they might say "this page is crap" not realizing some vandal or uninformed editor had altered it - they are very unused to collaborative work. There is a lot of ignorance out there. Such things can affect hires. The stories that exist in academia of why people are hired or not hired are legendary (read The Chronicle of Higher Education's "Career Chronicles" section if you want a taste of the insanity). A quick survey of those who claim to have higher degrees on wikipedia (via userboxes) revealed to me an overwhelming majority of science, engineering and computer degrees. I think that this proposal, which I am still ambivalent about, would decrease the number of humanities scholars already on wikipedia (I tend to think humanities scholars cite their credentials a lot; see David Lodge) and would discourage others from joining. Awadewit 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand the policy (or perhaps I don't understand you). No one is saying this will ever be compulsory, except perhaps for higher level accounts and even then AFAIK it may be information held by the foundation only. What we are saying is if you do claim to have credentials you should verify them. Whether this should be compulsory or voluntary for people who claim to have credentials is still up for debate. However if you claim to have credentials and it's not verified, people can and will probably disregard that aspect completely (why shouldn't we). This doesn't mean we're going to ignore such contributors, rather it should tell claim something, you should offer proof IMHO. Put up or shut up so to speak. Personally if what you say is correct, I would suggest this policy will in fact help humanities contributors not hurt it. The EssJay kind of story as well any similar case of someone claiming to have credentials they don't have, regardless of whether they attempted to use those credentials is more likely to hurt wikipedia then harm it. If say we get a paedophile in jail who claimed to to have Ph.D in Human Sexuality or whatever it's just going to increase the level of skepticism of wikipedia in humanities sources. Nil Einne 15:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of Awadewit's comment is that whilst editors have the theoretical choice of i). not noting qualifications, ii) noting but not verifying qualifications, and iii) noting and verifying qualifications under the current proposal, it maybe that some editors (as exampled by her/him) do not have that real world option. Under Jimbo's proposal this should not matter in article writing, as everyone edits equally, but the discourse here indicates that expert comment and opinion is a premium talent. Thus those people who feel constrained to operate without divulging their area of expertise may not be given the weight of consideration that those not so constrained may have. Again, it should not matter if the arguments are well presented and backed by cited sources, but that argues against the need for verification anyway.
I would be sceptical of any userbox that declares that the editor has a "verified senior qualification, but is unable to provide details" or "I have a Phd/MA but refuse to advise what in", and any such editor in that position may find it worse than useless. LessHeard vanU 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
and there is the point where theory collides with reality ... we cannot have anonymous accounts with verifiable real-world degrees, because the degree always leads to the holder AlfPhotoman 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the above comment by, I believe Alf, has reiterated my point. I do not misunderstand the policy (I can read). I have also stated elsewhere on this page that a culture of verification may develop, encouraging people with degrees to verify themselves (thereby making it coercively prescriptive if not actually prescriptive). And for LessHeard not to acknowledge that there can be consequences to those of us in the academic world who contribute to wikipedia is simply naive. Several years ago I went to a panel at MLA (the Modern Language Association, the big conference of English professors) during which they were trying to figure out how to convince tenure committees that developing extensive websites should be counted as real work. It still does not; it is often considered a waste of time. For an untenured faculty member in the humanities to acknowledge extensive work on wikipedia would, at many institutions, be dicey. Awadewit 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... Small point; Nil Einne commented that you (Awadewit) may not have understood, I was supporting your claim that anonymity may be a reasonable basis for not wanting to publish/verify qualifications and thus having less weight in dispute debates should this proposal succeed.LessHeard vanU 11:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't tell who was signing what. Awadewit 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Um, surely this is missing a basic point: People should not refer to their credentials on a talk page or in an argument. With that sort of background they should already have the advantage of ready access to reliable sources making the point they consider should be included, or discrediting points they oppose. If they want to list credentials on their user page, that should have no weight in normal interactions, but they should be ready to verify such credentials. In my opinion the much trailed argument about professors being put off because they can't just override vocal youths could be met by allowing mediators or arbiters to take account of credentials in assessing which side to agree with in mediation or arbitration cases which are taken as part of normal conflict resolution, but the learned professors must understand that their credentials don't give them a free pass to override valid references. .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, of course, everyone should be able to have a calm, rational discussion with verifiable and reliable sources. But, as I argue further down the page, this does not always happen. In fact, are these the kinds of debates that occupy the majority of wikipedia discussions? My experience makes me skeptical. Citing reliable sources and making logical arguments does not convince those with a determined political, religious or other ideological agenda (e.g. Arab-Israeli conflict, Scientology, and creationism). Furthermore, editors unfamiliar with the research process may not be able to adequately judge the reliability of a source and can be reticent to accept criticism along these lines (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan, for example). Finally, it is not even always clear what the rules of the debate are; there is no real consensus about this. For example, what counts as evidence? What should the assumptions of the argument be? If you want to see a good example of this problem at work, look at the debate on the Muhammad page over including a picture. Those of us who are trained to ask these difficult questions have much to contribute because we have thought about them a lot. Looking at the disputes of the arbitration committee, it is clear that writing for wikipedia is not simply a book report; rhetorical decisions can have profound political implications. Asking someone to "cite their source" is not the end of the debate. An article's format, images and phrasing can all contribute to its meaning, therefore wikipedia should welcome people who are experts in analyzing rhetoric and images. Awadewit 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course we should welcome such experts, but how do we reliably identify them? Phd waving seems a pretty poor way, and giving priority to those with assessed credentials and background is the way to the successes of Citizendium... dave souza, talk 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong way: reliability is based on references not professors

I think that after this incident, we choose the wrong way and try to focus on this credential verification. It’s my fault if I can’t decide whether an article is reliable or not. Why? If I find a statement, data, number in the article without a proper reference, I’ll not trust that sentence even if a professor wrote that. And I trust a well-referenced article even written by a teenager. Reliability must be based on references, not on credentials. I won't consider an unreferenced article reliable even if it's written by experts.

That's why this whoole process is unneccessary. Focus on references! NCurse work 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A "reference" is just a pointer to a bit of writing which is supported and certified at every level by a bunch of people's credentials. Plus the credentials of the publisher and the publication. If you think you can get away from the problem of credentialism with "citation", then please re-think. You can't. SBHarris 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly right. Consider our source policies themselves - an anonymous blog post isn't considered reliable even if it's very well-referenced. On the other hand, what about an impromptu quote given at a videotaped lecture by an esteemed professor? That's not ideal, either. Only somewhat better is the "celebrity academic's" popular book without footnotes or citations. Best is an acknowledged expert writing in an academic style with references, coherent arguments, etc.
If our goal is that Wikipedia should become a reliable reference, we must aim to emulate our best sources in these respects. References and expertise are not in dichotomy: they are instead two independent and entirely valid metrics of quality, and we should pursue them both.Proabivouac 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is a repository of what is known, and by known it should mean by that which can be found independantly elsewhere and has been reviewed, criticised and proven (as far as is possible). Expert opinion is just that, opinion. Even expert knowledge is not sufficient if it has not been put to peer review. I agree with NCurse, anything that cannot be cited has no business in an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You could peer review a statement HERE (yes, right here on Wikipedia). The problem is that you have 1) no willingness to admit to the very concept of "peers", and 2) you have no means to verify identities for the purposes of #1. Both problems could be dealt with, if you were willing to. But first, you'd have to recognize and admit to them. SBHarris 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
True. However, let us for now content ourselves with observing that, from the assertion that material must be cited does not follow that expertise doesn't matter, only that expertise doesn't abrogate the need for citation.Proabivouac 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I accept WP:NOR both as fundamental to WP and to be applied universally. To have certified experts examining and pronouncing on theory or new discovery is not the job of an encyclopedia, IMO, and is not even considered in WP:Not. I cannot believe that Jimbo was considering expanding the definition of Wikipedia into a review body on certain subjects by certified "experts", and it is not mentioned in the proposal. LessHeard vanU 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There is this very common misunderstanding about what constitutes prohibited original research. Evaluating the credibility and relative importance of sources on talk, and determining how best to represent these (or not) in the article, is one of many jobs we have as editors. It might be construed as a form of "original research," but is not the prohibited variety; otherwise what are we doing here?Proabivouac 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Something like a peer revision is happening already, only we call it AfD debate.It is systemic that items get in to Wikipedia before being revised but mostly between creation and first debate the time is less than a week on average unless the article looks very watertight. AlfPhotoman 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely we are assessing whether an article meets certain criteria in the way that it is presented, and whether views are properly cited and referenced rather than examining the views themselves? In cases where there is a strong belief in the real world for something that does not bear scrutiny we still mention it and reference the sources that refer to it. We may also include the sources that "debunk" said viewpoint, but only to note them and never to comment. Even locating these sources does not constitute original research, just research. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Then again, an encyclopedia is not the place for original thought. That is the part that magazines and expert debates have to fulfill. The encyclopedia simply tries to answer question as tertiary source referencing secondary sources. If we were to add original thought, that could not be published without peer revision, we would end up being a incoherent monstrosity of opinion and fact that would hardly serve as reference AlfPhotoman 22:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wasn't that what I just said (if not as well)? :~) LessHeard vanU 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, have that tendency to translate everything into popular terms AlfPhotoman 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with NCurse. If a guy really is a professor then s/he should be able to back up his/er claims with multiple references. After all, all of the PhDs I know maintain extensive libraries of material related to their field. Galanskov 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And that is an additional danger, unless of course, somebody is willing to go out of his way to actually counter check the given references. AlfPhotoman 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that goes for any situation in which references are used. It's an unfortunate flaw in the system, I admit, but what else can be done? If someone seriously wants to verify a statement, then at least a citation gives the name, author, and publication data for the source to look for, so theoritically it can be done. Galanskov 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Then again that is part of the peer revision system, somebody checks the references instead of just accepting them. Many times it is also done during an AfD here. Not so long ago I had a flawed one during an AfD and because another editor had a closer look than I had we could see that I was saying the right thing for the wrong reason. If I would have flaunted a PhD, would somebody have dared to counter check my references? AlfPhotoman 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
People shouldn't refer to any PhDs at all. The references should be examined regardless of who put them in. As I've said, a correct citation makes such a fact-check possible and desirable. PhDs should appeal to their libraries, not their degrees, on Wikipedia. Galanskov 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who can't agree with me: if an editor with a PhD writes an article then you'll consider it as a reliable work even if it's not referenced properly? A reader who is absolutely not included in any kind of work here, just reading the articles, will look after whether who wrote that article? No way. He/she will just search for proper references at the end of the statements. That's why credentials are far less important then references. NCurse work 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your right but your ignoring the fact that so far, I haven't see anyone say credentials are less important then references. What some people are saying is credentials help in some situations (such as trying to decide whether something is complete bull), working out how to organise articles etc and since people are going to claim to have credentials, we should verify them. Given the way a lot of people on this talk page seem to think, I would suggest in fact if you claimed to have a Ph.D even a verified one, people are going to be more likely to check your references. But regardless, I think a lot of people are missing the point. Editors can and do rely on a whole host of things things when trying to decide how much trust to give someone and how much to check something. Nil Einne 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This point has come up many times in the post-Essjay discussion, but this thread is the most current, so I'll reply (again) here. This is really quite tangential to the credential issue (which, itself, is really quite tangential to the Essjay issue). Neither 'references' nor 'credentials' substitute for being conversant with the literature of a particular field. It is possible to write a nice-looking article in which every individual statement has a little footnote at the end, with a reference to a perfectly reliable-looking source, but the overall article is grossly inaccurate. Anyone checking that each individual reference supported the claim in the article would find that it checked out perfectly. But the sources themselves could be discredited, or out of date, or just chosen in such a way that they do not fairly represent the consensus view in the field. This will not be detected without someone who knows the field well, and that can really only be judged from an editor's contributions.

It's trivially obvious that no one is going to let a 'verified' PhD spin out loads of nonsense into an article and justify it with 'well, look, I have a PhD/MD/whatever', any more than they do under the current 'honor system'. While I think verifying credentials is a pointless waste of time, the fatal flaw isn't this one. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither 'references' nor 'credentials' substitute for being conversant with the literature of a particular field.
A person who provides references with his/her claims has clearly done some research and read some of the relevant literature. S/He is therefore at least minimally conversant with the literature in the field.
It is possible to write a nice-looking article in which every individual statement has a little footnote at the end, with a reference to a perfectly reliable-looking source, but the overall article is grossly inaccurate.
The editor who wrote the article is probably a troll or a crank or something, since finding all those citations would involve going through plenty of literature, which would lead to awareness of the "consensus view in the field." Wikipedia is built on the assumption that the editor would strive to the reflect the consensus. Nevertheless, if someone did in fact wish to ignore the consensus opinion, another editor could go through the majority literature, find the consensus, and adjust the article accordingly. If you look at the history pages of most of our larger articles, you'll find that hundreds of people can be involved in its creation. Surely this would lead to a reflection of the consensus in the field.
This will not be detected without someone who knows the field well, and that can really only be judged from an editor's contributions.
Wikipedia is one of the top fifty most popular websites in the world, so such a reader should be along sooner or later. And as you've said, such an editor will be detected by contributions, not degrees. Galanskov 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are fields in which it is possible for a well-intentioned but inexperienced writer to create a 'well-sourced' article that is inaccurate. See also Awadewit's comments in this subthread below regarding subtle bias that can be introduced through matters of presentation. The wiki-fiction that enough editors of different perspectives will eventually produce a roughly neutral article is mostly wishful thinking. Opabinia regalis 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I echo these sentiments. During my tenure on the UC Davis Law Review, I frequently encountered legal citations in respected legal journals that were very poorly sourced. Assuming good faith -- i.e., no deliberate obfuscation -- the only explanation that I can offer is that many people rely upon the citations of other experts rather than checking the original citations for themselves. Over time, a once valid citation will be taken totally out of context, and (consequently) all sorts of legal fictions will emerge. // Internet Esquire 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 wrote a pretty good essay on this topic that I thought would be good to mention: User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials. It pretty much echos NCurse. -- Where 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Opabinia regalis: Awadewit didn't provide adequate examples to back up his claims. He mentioned the Ronald Reagan article and how it got fixed through the FA review, but when I checked the userpages of the people who provided criticism in that discussion, I did not find anyone who claimed to hold a degree in a relevant field (if I missed someone please point it out). Those who pointed out the biases were no more credentialized in the matter than those who created the original bias. Therefore it was in fact amateurs in the field who generated a brilliant article. His other example was the Muhammad picture issue, but that whole thing is a stylistic, not a content-related matter. Anyway, most of the people I know who have studied Islam are aware of the problems surrounding depicting him in illustrations, whether or not they have a degree. I therefore hold the "amateur bias" claims to be unverified. Your rejection of the different perspectives arguement is also debunked by the Reagan article example, as having editors of different perspectives clearly did solve the matter. Galanskov 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has mostly moved on, so I won't reply extensively here. You're taking those examples too literally and if you think the Reagan matter is 'solved', you should probably read the FAC again. Opabinia regalis 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legalities

I have been thinking a little about the anonymous editing of Wikipedia. If the author of an attack page cannot be established and for some reason this page escapes detection (happened before, probably will happen again) isn't Wikimedia responsible for the damages that could result from litigation?

And, if so, should it not be a matter of policy to protect the foundation from the actions of irresponsible individuals to know editors by name and register the IP's they are using to edit to trace them?

The past scandals could just be the shot in front of the bow about things to come in the future. AlfPhotoman 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well ... what do you suggest? Besides WP:ATT and WP:LIVING, there isn't much we can do besides requiring registration (which most likely will never be approved) or making sources mandatory for all new articles and edits, which would mean that everything that isn't sourced would have to be immediatly removed and new unsourced articles would have to be speedy deleted. For new articles, this wouldn't be a problem but for edits it would be. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Now let me put my helmet on and have the band playing It's a long way to Tipperary... There are only two ways out of this and both will be a hard sell. The first is that users remain anonymous but articles gets debated prior to inclusion while at the same time the recent changes patrol is considerably reinforced. This could be a logistical nightmare but do-able. The drawback is that the whole responsibility for safeguarding the foundation would lay on the recent changes patrol. The alternative is, as you mentioned, to discontinue anonymous edits and increase the logging capabilities of the system so changes can be effectively traced to their originators (i.e. IP numbers and so on) This would also include a much stricter control of open proxies and tunneling. It is a myth that actions on the internet cannot be traced (see all child porn rings that have been busted recently due to IP tracing), but the foundation would have to be willing to include the adequate software. AlfPhotoman 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The matter of attack pages is only the tip of the iceberg. Vandals can insert attack segments into existing article with relative ease (I assume that you know all about the Seigenthaler case). The answer isn't so much a closer regulation system for new articles but an expansion of the recent changes patrol. This would of course be quite difficult, and it might be wise to set up a special recent changes page listing changes to articles identified as being about living people, or to just make all such articles semi-protected. All in all, I think that requiring that Wikipedians shed their anonymity would just cause many of them to leave the project, myself included. I therefore support closer regulation of the existing system rather than radical changes to it. Galanskov 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this will do more harm than good

I'm firmly against this proposal. and i really don't see what this is supposed to

Our current philosophy is that credentials doesn't matter - no matter who you are, what credentials you have, you don't have any more of a say in content disputes.

However, the truth of the matter is that they do. We officially say they don't. But it's not uncommon for people to bring up their real-life credentials on article talk pages. Although credentials 'officially' don't matter, they do in practice because very often, people are more likely to be believed when they back up their opinions on content debates with real-life credentials. This is especially true for new users (who are not familiar with the culture/policies here) when experienced and established wikipedians bring up their own (self-claimed) credentials.

And that's why we have people wanting credential verification. We don't have anyone wanting to verify editor's age, or gender (just as examples), since it's well-recognised that these things don't really matter to someone's edits on wikipedia. Claiming to be any certain age doesn't make much of a difference, but claiming to have certain credentials does, even if the official stand is that credentials don't matter.


So what is verifying credentials going to achieve?

Nothing. If our philosophical stand is that "credentials don't matter", then the only thing verifying credentials will do is cause a split in the community. Allowing people to verify credentials when we say credentials don't matter is a bit of an oxymoron. When people can verify credentials, it'll only encourage people to pull them out in content disputes, and it'll only encourage the feeling that credentials give people more of a say.

For example, if you where asked to give a third opinion regarding a content dispute between two people. One of them has on their usepage that they've been 'verified' to have a PHD and be a professor in that area, and the other one has released no personal information about himself. Yes, our policies say the fact that one of them has a PhD doesn't matter, it's verification that matters. But to be realistic, a lot of people will be drawn in by the fact that the first person has a PhD, and that will affect their judgement. Newer people who aren't familiar with our policies, or wikipedians who personally believe credentials do matter, will almost defintely be more inclined to believe the PhD person and not do any more further research themselves.

In that case, people having verified credentials will only create even more of a 'gap' between what we're supposed to do (credentials don't matter), and what we actually do (credentials do sort of matter). I can also see it create a lot of negative feelings between people who verify their credentials, and people who have credentials and for various reasons don't want to or can't have them verified. It'll create problems in content disputes where you have people who 'trust' another editor because of their credentials, and people who stick with the "credentials" don't matter philosophy. It'll also further disadvantage newbies - since most of the credential verification will be done for established wikipedians who're already in the community.


This entire thing was set off by the Essjay contraversy.

The problem i see is that although we say "credentials don't matter", Essjay had been a highly trusted member of the community, and people where willing to believe his 'credentials' dispite the fact that Essjay has always refused to reveal his real identity. Then those credentials where revealed to be false, which contributed a LOT to the entire fuss that got kicked up. So the entire situation is like this -
1. Essjay is found using fake credentials to advance himself in content disputes
we try to avoid this from happening again by creating a way to seperate fake credentials from real ones. But we are completely missing the point. The problem here isn't that Essjay's credentials where fake. His credentials where indeed fake, but the point is - credentials don't matter in the first place. Meaning him citing his fake credentials in content disputes shouldn't have been a problem. Yes, it was unethical. But since credentials don't matter, citing fake credentials shouldn't matter because credentials hold no real weight in content disputes.

However, clearly, they do. Because people believed his credentials, and believed his arguments, and then felt betrayed when those credentials turned out to be false. If "credentials don't matter" is our philosophy, then we should stick to it. Proposing a process to verify credentials shows that credentials clearly DO matter. Having someone call him "Wikipedia's foremost expert on Catholism" in an ArbCom case shows how a lot of people still do hold credentials in high regard. We need to send out the message more clearly, Have some clear guidelines or at least a good essay on how credentials do NOT matter. We probably already have these (guildelines/essays on credentials), but obviously, it's not something people take seriously enough. We also need to send the message out to the media and to wikipedian readers. Something like an additional disclaimer saying that because Wikipedians do not need to identify themselves, everything wikipedians say about themselves are not nessasarily true.


If we want a credential verification process to work, we need to change our philosophy.

We will need to scratch the whole "credentials don't matter" to "credentials do matter". Otherwise, credential verification does nothing good, will possibly be bad, and completely misses the point which set this entire episode off (Essjay's false credentials). But do we really want to change our philosophy to giving people with credentials more of a say? I personally don't. One of the things i like most about wikipedia is that it doesn't bow down to people who claim expertise or authority.

If we do want to change our philosophy, credential verification isn't the way to do it. We've got a lot of work to do if we want to turn wikipedia into a place where credentials and experitse do matter.

But really, who here actually wants to scrap the "credentials don't matter" philosophy?

--`/aksha 04:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me. That's for sure.
Bravo Yaksha! Long live Wikipedia and the age of Information Democracy!
Statements at Wikipedia should rely entirely on the strength of their citations, not the statements of "expert" Wikipedians.Galanskov 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oh, that's what I'm exactly talking about in the last section. :) That's the point here. This whole page is unneccessary. NCurse work 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: SCRAP THE PROPOSAL! If it doesn't matter, then why bother with verifying it? I don't want it, you don't want it, we don't want it. It's only Jimmy (and the odd few) who does. Jaser 12345 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Jimmy really wants it. I'd say he's a bit baffled himself at how this whole Essjay drama turned out. He doesn't really have time to follow these things in detail, so he probably figured he'd just try throwing something like this at the community and see how it turns out. From his point of view, it must have seemed like the whole "Essjay was using fake credentials" was the thing that turned a small issue of using a false identity to a huge contraversy. Hence this in an attempt to address the problem, but i'm afraid i have to say this misses the point completely. --`/aksha 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Scrap most of the proposal, in its entirety as far as the "normal" user is concerned, but triple check those that will represent Wikipedia to the outside. As seen in the previous discussions, all other problems can be solved by tweaking the rules a little. AlfPhotoman 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Excellent, Yaksha, with one little further comment relating to

It'll also further disadvantage newbies - since most of the credential verification will be done for established wikipedians who're already in the community

which is, "especially those without qualifications to be verified". I am still not seeing any regard to the perception of (existing) editors like me; I don't have any qualifications, and I am uneasy that those who say they do can get that fact qualified. WHY? LessHeard vanU 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More or less?

I actually have to say, I disagree with the apparent widely held view that this is going to encourage people to use the "I have a Ph.D so shutup". Perhaps I just have an overly high view of the academia since I'm from that background (I don't have a Ph.D) but I don't think a lot of people who do have Ph.D use it or would use it in that way. I'm not saying there are none, there are definitely some but IMHO in fact a lot of people doing it probably don't actually have one and/or have one of those ones you get from spam e-mails (which is basically the same thing). Also, by creating a link between their real life persona and their wikipedia one, even if it is impossible to actually know who they are, I think it will in fact reduce the likelihood that they will do it since this extreme-elitist attitude is embarassing and this helps remind them of that. I'm not saying that people with a Ph.D don't ever use it rather then only use if within a certain context. If someone accuses you of knowing nothing (of course this a a NPA violation but it may help or it may make it worse if you point out you do in fact know something, or at least other people think so) or goes on a long rambling which makes no sense (and keeps countering when you point this out) or asks you to to prove something trivial like 1+1=2 then yes, they may say effectively I have a Ph.D so piss off (obviously you need to do it civilly but I'm just trying to make a point here) but not in the context of every single argument (such a person will be seen as a bit of a tosser, and righly so). Plus the philisophy we're adopting in the rule change IMHO actually helps remind people it doesn't mean much that you have a Ph.D. So in reality, I think this will in fact reduce the number of cases not increase them as some people think. Nil Einne 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No, no, no no and no

We're tending to become Citizendum. But we are Wikipedia! Easy thing. IGNORE papers. :) But really. Papers, claims are not relevant. Do you remember the basics? IP's are regulated since, users even more, now again. Pretty same thing happening here as in the US. Regulating evrything to the very last point. Please, no. --91.120.109.243 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We should concentrate on references, not users. Falsification of sources are common here. User:X Claims "A" in an article, and gives 10 sources for proving it. But when you check those, you realize, that those sources do not even mention, or worse (!!!) - claimes the opposite of "A". I've met tons of this, especially in articles related to politics and (almost any kind of) ethnic issues. --91.120.109.243 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And what will you do when someone falsely cites an uncommon book which your library doesn't carry? Certainly can't ask any of the experts here. Derex 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem in the new policy is that the second stipulation of "Basic Principles" precludes using experts in a manner that would shut the false editor up. The 19 year-old auto mechanic who incorrectly makes a conclusion about quantum mechanics still, according to WP policy and even this new policy, has as valid an argument as the certified PhD physics professor. Without being able to be content arbiters, this new policy is just a bureaucracy. And I can't wait for the battles between tier 1 school PhDs and tier 2 school PhDs. Or even better, practicing experts with advanced degrees and academics with PhDs. Political candidates vs. policital scientists. Philosophy PhD's arguing with Physics PhDs over cosmology and the meaning of the uncertainty principle. Great fun. At least now, when you call some one out on their viewpoint as being idiotic, you can chalk it up to some guy living in his parents basemement. With these new userboxes, you get to realize that the idiot is actually teaching your children for the low price of $20k a year in tuition. Should we color code the user boxes? --Tbeatty 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not as if people have been open about their credentials before, and I've never seen anything remotely like that. Remember, the proposal is not to introduce credentials. It's simply to stop fraudulent claims. Hence, absolutely nothing is changed by this proposal except that you can be reasonably confident you're not being lied to if you as an editor decide it would be an appropriate time to pay heed to someone with expertise. It does not require you to do so. I have never seen such a mass assault of strawmen in my life as the army launched in this debate. Derex 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
And it solves none of the concerns with EssJay. He was a trusted member of the community. Are you going to postulate that he wouldn't have been trusted if he had simply chosen to post his credentials without verification? Even after becoming a Bureaucrat and a Foundation employee? Would anyone have reasonably chosen to not seek out EssJay simply because the credentials he claimed weren't verified? We're not asking anyone to take their credentials down. The people who are lying today will have the same lies on their page when the policy is implemented. Which editors do you trust today but won't tomorrow unless they get themselves checked out? And if it changes your level of trust, why do you trust them today? I agree that seeking out expertise from a complete stranger it would be helpful to have verified credentials. But if the goal is to prevent another EssJay incident, this won't do it. --Tbeatty 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My life experience has shown to me that tight rules won't stop this kind of thing. They simply create new lucrative opportunities for lawyers and others to identify hidden mouse holes tucked in hidden corners of those agreements, giving them new windows of opportunity to sue in court. I don't want wikipedia to falsely lull its readers/editors to be more "confident" in relying on the authority of its editors, I want them to be convinced by its content, as viewed with their own sharp nosed judgements, and the quality of its cited sources. That's the real power of wikipedia. It's not anywhere nearly so impenetrable as conventional sources.Professor marginalia 09:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My 2 cents

I honestly don't know where to add my thoughts on the matter, since this page is so long. But if anyone reads this, I want them to take away one thing: like citation in general, this is something where the default should be that if otherwise things seem ok, it's kind of DICKish to go around demanding citations for every last point, but all the content should nevertheless be of such a nature that another editor could provide acceptable citations should someone be that dickish. Similarly, if an editor is participating and seems as knowledgeable as his credentials claim (note that Essjay's participation in articlespace was fairly limited), then we shouldn't be dickish and demand proof or risk being blocked, but if not, then we should follow up.

An example: User:DrFoo says he is a PhD of mathematics, and his page mentions he's a professor of math at Bar University. As it happens, Bar University is a small liberal arts college or something, and has exactly one professor of math (let's say his email is listed on the college website). This is fine, and as it should be; no action is needed and nobody should be going around wondering whether this is another Essjay. But let's that then User:DrFoo promulgates a mistaken definition of the Mean-Value Theorem, which makes some other editors suspicious. They wonder whether he is really a PhD after all, and email the listed account (being industrious editors, it is no problem for them to find it), and get back an affirmative reply that yes, I am that account on Wikipedia, thanks for asking. At which point this policy should step in: once verification/validation/confirmation is felt to be needed and is actually performed, how do we reliably guarantee that it was actually done with positive results? We already face similar issues with authors who release their stuff under a Free license through email, and what I think is done is an email is also sent from the official email address to an OTRS account where it can be reliably looked at later. --Gwern (contribs) 01:01 12 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] My opinion

I really feel this a wonderful idea. The most important thing wikipedia needs right now are people with credentials. The site is an encyclopedia for god's sake. People are turned off by its complete openness and that their knowledge in a field doesn't matter and they must waste hours at WP:RFC (as an example) just to shut up a 13 year old kid with little intelligence but a big mouth. People need to see that wikipedia respects their degrees and so forth. Why would anyone oppose this? Is wikipedia really composed of a mass of diluted people who believe in insane left ideology that we must not dare recognize that a biologist might actually be knowledgeable in biology in order to make sure "all users are equals"? Same goes with this "community responsible for operating this policy" idea, I'm sure the foundation is that stupid that they can't send a couple email's everyday. Not like we are flooded with intellectuals. The community already showed their interest in doing essential work, only the hard-working few are up for it. Just look at the shape at some of the most essential articles. Every week Article Creation and Improvement Drive is a testament to this, that most are here to be part of a community rather than write an encyclopedia. Thank you. 74.113.107.4 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you quite get this proposal. This isn't a proposal to require credentials or even require verification. Nor would this in any way allow the use of credentials in arguments or as a substitute for the content policies like WP:ATT. If this were to succeed, all users would still be equal. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Nupedia (sister site of Wikipedia, discontinued). Everyone in Wikipedia is free to contribute, while Nupedia requires extensive peer-review progress before publishing articles. Nupedia ceased its operation because it requires a long process before an article is published. It certainly encounters a lot of difficulty in editing if people must have huge knowledge over the matter that they want to edit. Anyways, I think I got off track. People (at least some) wish to be annyomous online. If they claim to have Ph.D, let it be. It won't harm your health. OhanaUnited 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've read through this page, watched the Essjay controversy and I am horrified at how this thing is growing. Essjay lied. That was wrong and I can see why people are upset. He used this to help his case but in the end he was still a good Wikipedian. But the sad thing is that it was just a statistic. If Essjay was to say he was a 12 year old child at school would we be upset? A credential is just a single statistic and a statistic is not the basis of an arguement. I approve of the fact that someone with a credential would be able to understand complicated jargon or formulae that go with that field of study. So maybe that person verifies that they are a professor and can help with the article. People can come to them for help. But it is their edits, the knowledge not the statistic that proves this.

Quite frankly I can say that a few people I know with degrees are, for want of a better word, idiots. I also know a person who is in high school who was an admin before he quit. I do not have any degrees at all, I'm a junior Wikipedian and I and this comment might not be noticed. I'm not an admin or Jimbo. But what counts is the fact we all want to make Wikipedia a better place. I can't verify the above facts and they are POV and OR. If Jimbo decides to go ahead with this I would respect his judgement. But I just can't get rid of this feeling that it is a case of everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. -- YuanchosaanSalutations! 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the argument at the top of this section. And in reply to Yuanchosaan, I'd point out that Jimbo is only proposing that those who claim credentials should be ready to prove them, not that stating credentials be compulsory. Most people on this page aren't dissing young editors or editors without degrees, or whatever. Time and time again people have said here that edits should be regarded on their merits. Your edits will not be judged by who you are. qp10qp 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Jimbo floats the idea that there could be a verified version of a qualification userbox (so any initial query regarding bone fides can be quickly checked). It may not matter in editing, and shouldn't be used in argument, but it runs the risk of becoming a badge. LessHeard vanU 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me who is this Essjay and what was the issue? I see his name brought up numerous times but I don't know what happened. OhanaUnited 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See Essjay controversy. Anville 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: We have no problem with 12 year olds being admins or bureaucrats, so long as they are like Ilyanep and are forthright about it. --Gwern (contribs) 02:42 13 March 2007 (GMT)
After reading the controversy, I think I should take back what I said early. As per Gwern, I also have no problem of having a person younger than me holding a position higher than me. I just cannot take when someone obtains a position as a result of lying to the community. What I believe the solution is that credential should not be posted on any userpage. OhanaUnited 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A bit of confusion here, Essjay, and hopefully no one else, has obtained a position because they said or actually do hold a PhD. Lying about your job really doesn't help you become an admin, but it can help you in a content dispute, which is what got everyone so mad (that and the interview). -- Ned Scott 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I believe Essjay become an arb. only after Jimbo knew that he was actually just some 24 year old guy, and not a professor. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] even simpler proposal

Let's deal with what was the worst of the problem. Let JW be required to verify credentials before he puts someone in a position of extraordinary trust. DGG 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you might actually want to know what you are talking about before commenting. The fact that Essjay wasn't a professor wasn't the issue, it was that he used that lie in content disputes. Had this only been about the Newyorker interview and nothing else, then there wouldn't be a "real" issue. Someone's real life job has hardly any real weight on trusting them with admin, checkuser, or arbcom type access. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You really are kidding aren't you?
Representing Wikipedia under false credentials is less important than the fact that some people chose to accept personal claims contrary to the existing content policies? Who does it reflect worse on, Jordan or those who chose to accept his appeals to authority?
The reason this isn't required is because the content policies already cover it. DGG has managed to capture the issue in two sentences, the foundation should not have recommended Essjay as a spokesman without being sure of his identity, and Schiff shouldn't have just accepted his say so, although it could be a reasonable assumption on her part that the foundation knew.
The concept that internally the policies were not adhered to is more significant than the fact that Wikipedias reputation was influenced by mismanagement at the foundation and misuse of credentials is laughable.
ALR 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"the foundation should not have recommended Essjay as a spokesman without being sure of his identity" <<<and since when did we ever have a "internal policy" of checking people's identity? The only people who *need* to use real identities are the ones who're actually hired by the foundation, and that's cause you can't pay (and therefore hire) someone without their real ID.
HOwever, what we *do* have is guidelines saying that people shouldn't be pulling out credentials, much less fake ones, in content disputes. The only 'internal policy' Essjay broke was using cheating content disputes with fake credentials. We've never had a internal policy about needing identity/credential checks, no matter what position of authority or community trust an editor has. --`/aksha 11:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
He was identified as a spokesman, whether he was paid or not, that measn that the foundation used him as part of the corporate communications strategy. There are lots of reasons for assuring identity, and inviting someone to speak on behalf of the foundation should be one of them. Hopefully that lessons has already been learned, in which case this discussion is so much, proverbial, hot air.ALR 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, according to our Signpost article, Danny Wool, who recommended the interview candidates said "'In suggesting Essjay to Stacy...I stated that one of the appealing things about his story was the extreme anonymity". So i don't see what the foundation did wrong here. They didn't recommend him for an interview as a foundation respresentative. THey recommended him as a anonymous member of the community and told the New Yorker that he was anonymous. --`/aksha 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to user pages as well as article pages in that one can not defame living people anywhere on wikipedia. And the policy is not just about defaming but about any contested claim about a living person. Soooooo, we could simply enforce our existing BLP policy and anytime someone contests a user page PhD or such they have to adequately source it or delete it. We can start with only enforcing big claims like PHds and even then only when someone is actually contesting the claim and let this new practice spread naturally rather than at a forced pace. WAS 4.250 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

which comes down to what has been proposed before several times AlfPhotoman 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Do I detect a developing consensus? Let's judge each other by the strength of the evidence we use in articles rather than uproven (or proven, for that matter) claims about our credentials. Galanskov 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about consensus, since I haven't noticed a proponent or opponent retracting their position, but I think a clear majority is emerging. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how a wiki user can "adequately source" their own claims about credentials. --JWSchmidt 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To LessHeard vanU: Okay, I guess it is a little early to talk about consensus, but still, I think this proposal is going to be defeated.
To JWSchmidt: The proposal talks about a system of checks-by-email, which would also require a certain degree of trust. Anyway, the whole thing is pointless, so the mechanism really dosen't matter. Galanskov 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats not true if using BLP. WAS 4.250 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BLP doesn't apply here at all. BLP is for articles, the bit about not making "contentious claims" about living people even on userpages applies to personal attacks and deflamation. Which is just an extention of "userpages can't be used to launch personal attacks against other people" where "contentious claims" would be considered a personal attack. Hence calling the president a murderer on your userpage is not acceptable - because it's deflamation and a personal attack.

Secondly, claiming to be a PhD is not a contentious claim since it's not supposed to matter whether or not you have a PhD. If claiming to have a PhD is really so contentious, then it's time we start thinking about our "longstanding Wikipedia tradition" of not putting any weight on credentials.

Trying to get a credential verification system going when we preach about how unimportant credentials are just doesn't work. It's like saying "Here on Wikipedia, we judge people by edits. Age doesn't matter, Gender doesn't matter, Credentials don't matter. But oh...wait, we do however, have a system of asking people to verify their credentials, since it's a bit contentious to claim your a PhD without any evidence. ....even though, credentials *really* don't matter." --`/aksha 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Solving this problem using the BLP policy entails using the exact same mechanism and criteria for contentious claims about living persons on user pages about users as we use on user pages about famous people. Calling the president of the US a murderer on your user pages is no more acceptable than on our article about him, yet it still takes someone to raise the issue of adequately source or delete so in practice a lot is let slide by on user pages just like we used to let things slide by in wikipedia article pages on living people. Wikipedia users are living people and contentious claims either for or against them are theoretically subject to the same standards of attribution as any other living person, yet for historical and practical reasons, those claims are not being challenged under our WP:BLP policy. If Essjay's wild claims had been challenged and deleted under our BLP policy, this whole scandal would not have happened. If a wikipedia user does not give his real name then he has no way to verify anything and must remove claims the community feels are contentious claims for him to be making. I suggest we define this at the start as Ph.D.s and broaden in accordance with community desires over time if that seems to be useful. Meanwhile if Wikimedia foundation wishes to verify checkuser identities (they apparently do), they can publish a list themselves and perhaps some users who wish to not reveal their identies can none the less be confirmed by sourcing their Ph.D to a wikimedia press release. WAS 4.250 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


When I called the whole pointless I meant that users should'nt be putting forth claims to Ph.D.s (true or not) in the first place, so verifying their claims is irrelevant. BLP applied to what users say about each other is a different matter entirely. Galanskov 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Then lets proceed to a watertight formulation please. AlfPhotoman 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to respond to ALR's response to me before leaving this little section to collect dust in the archives: "You really are kidding aren't you?":

The fact that he lied to the Newyorker greatly pissed off a lot of people, indeed, and it is what started the issue. However, it would have not gotten as far as it did (Essjay leaving, being asked to step down, etc) if it was only the interview incident. As questionable and as "morally" wrong as his actions may or may not have been, at that point he didn't break any rules. I'm not saying I agree with that or not but take what I said in context to the message I was responding to. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add link to user page on university webpage.

Instead of the complicated email system, if a user wants to include their credentials on their WP user page, let them edit their university webpage to say "I edit the English Wikipedia under the name User:Example.", and then also link from their WP user page to that page. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-12t15:29z

Not every PhD or MD has a university page, besides, with all then uncontrolled university pages that exist worldwide I could get myself a Dr.Mirabilis page and nobody would notice for a long long time AlfPhotoman 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If a web page is available, this is still simpler than having a person be emailed dozens of times. A list of reliable universities could be created. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-12t21:43z

[edit] May not move us in the right direction

  1. Four classes of editors: 'This proposal may created four classes of editors: (i) those who have verified credentials, (ii) those who have chosen to post unverified credentials, (iii) those who post nothing about their credentials, and (iv) those who have no credentials to post. Those who have verified credentials may be looked on with contempt by some because they may be seen as trying to influence others with their educational degrees. Reality is that people routinely do check out user pages to see just who is it they are talking to and having verified credentials on their user page may be enough to influence others during discussions. Some of those who have chosen to post unverified credentials may be looked upon with suspicion because the have chosen not to follow Wikipedia official policy. Some of those who post nothing about their credentials may feel pressure from the use of this process by others, which counters the idea that this policy will be voluntary. In addition, this proposal may put pressure on others to post identifying information about themselves that they otherwise would not post. This especially is true because the policy originated with the founder of Wikipedia.
  2. Various comments: The option proposed here already is available to editors: one person can ask another to sign off on the validity of credentials. Why does it need to be turned into official process (an official policy of all things)? We already have a process for someone holding themselves out to be a particular living person (see WP:U#People). I do not believe that the EssJay case warrants making credentials more important than user names of living persons, which is what this policy may do. As for credentials, the community already frowns on anyone using false credentials on user pages. If the EssJay case shows us that merely trusting a user page content without checking is a bit problematic,[1] then merely do not form an opinion one way or another about that user page information. Also, it is stated here that this proposed policy is designed to discover if someone has a PhD from a diploma mill. What would be the purpose of that? Embarrassment? To discourage them from contributing to Wikipedia? Neither is a nice outcome.
  3. Hold tight and weather the storm: Other than a handful of people like some of those in the Foundation, Wikipedia is not about its members. It is about the content that we present to the world. The members of Wikipedia generally do not owe anything directly to the general public or our readers. We owe respect to Wikipedia, respect to each other through our contributions to Wikipedia, and civility towards each other as participants in Wikipedia. When done right, the result of this benefits the public and our readers as third party beneficiaries to the Wikipedia process. Wikipedia's standing in the world is evidence that we are doing things right. Traditionally we have simply trusted people to tell the truth on their user page and should continue to do so. Most people in and outside of Wikipedia were not involved in the EssJay. To these people, the EssJay case is merely a small bump in the road. The importance of the EssJay case will diminish with the passage of time so long as we do not let it consume us.
  4. Ways that Wikipedia might be improved after this incident Create a public relations group to provide advise on Wikipedia's image outside of Wikipedia to those making public statements about Wikipedia. Most major business leaders do consult public relations people and I'm sure Wikipedia has many members who are employed in the public relations community who would be happy to volunteer. This public relations group could include a rapid response team to address EssJay type situations.

-- Jreferee 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (expanded remarks Jreferee 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

  • as mentioned we already have MfD for challenging a user page. But if all potentially questionable material on user pages were routinely challenged, we would probably see more highly credentialed people doing what they already sometimes do, which is to simply have a blank user page to avoid seeming overbearing. That would be true anonymity. Disclosing the data in an MfD amounts to destroying anonymity. Citizendium has a policy that CVs must be included on the user pages--this is appropriate for them, not us. DGG 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The media is starting to get this right

It was noted above that the media was reporting this all as a "done deal". However, today a couple of sources are getting it right (mostly). http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6166300.html and http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/12/business/wiki.php

Some may not think this is relevant but I do think how the media perceives our process is important. It isn't just edicts of fiats as earlier reporting suggested.MikeURL 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice finds – the International Herald Tribune discussion of alternative views is good, and they note the main point, describing Wikipedia as "a worldwide phenomenon that has become a default research tool for many people using the Internet." A research tool, not a source to be cited, nor a place for professors to present their original research. Experts have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, but not handing down edicts or presenting delicate jewels of information that aren't to be subjected to robust questioning and requirements for referenced sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Another http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/technology/12wiki.html?ex=1331352000&en=668e67bce73bf6c6&ei=5089MikeURL 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier reporting? They are still doing it. Because Jimbo announced we would, even though we aren't. Why this doesn't seem to disturb anyone is bizzare. The NYT blog here [2] Editor and Publisher here [3]. The media isn't anywere close to getting this right. "Wikipedia Enacts Credential Reform" "Wikipedia To Check ID’s". An this wonderfully misleading headline "Wikipedia Stays Popular Despite False Sources" [4]. Sources were not false. pschemp | talk 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

As some users have indicated that they would support a ban on listing credentials, I have drafted a proposal: Wikipedia:Credential ban. Please discuss it on its talk page. Thank you. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP or ATT solution

Solving this problem using the BLP policy entails using the exact same mechanism and criteria for contentious claims about living persons on user pages about users as we use on user pages about famous people. Calling the president of the US a murderer on your user pages is no more acceptable than on our article about him, yet it still takes someone to raise the issue of adequately source or delete so in practice a lot is let slide by on user pages just like we used to let things slide by in wikipedia article pages on living people. Wikipedia users are living people and contentious claims either for or against them are theoretically subject to the same standards of attribution as any other living person, yet for historical and practical reasons, those claims are not being challenged under our WP:BLP policy. If Essjay's wild claims had been challenged and deleted under our BLP policy, this whole scandal would not have happened. If a wikipedia user does not give his real name then he has no way to verify anything and must remove claims the community feels are contentious claims for him to be making. I suggest we define this at the start as Ph.D.s and broaden in accordance with community desires over time if that seems to be useful. Meanwhile if Wikimedia foundation wishes to verify checkuser identities (they apparently do), they can publish a list themselves and perhaps some users who wish to not reveal their identies can none the less be confirmed by sourcing their Ph.D to a wikimedia press release. WAS 4.250 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sounds good, but I would say that it is not limited to Ph.Ds but all academic and/ or other titles requiring credentials. AlfPhotoman 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just exactly as with BLP deletion of contested claims in articles, it all depends on whether the community supports that it is indeed "contentious" (or whatever synonym has been edited in last). The prior experience of going through all this with various degrees of contentious-ness and sourced-ness in BLP articles gives us a feel and precedent for doing this right here in this new context of user claims about themselves. WAS 4.250 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should use existing policy. We can simply extend BLP and ATT to user pages. Don't make any contentious claims about living persons, yourself included, without good sources, and any material challenged or likely to be challenged, on user pages as elsewhere, must have a reliable source or may be removed by any user. That would solve it right there. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
sounds good, now someone has to work out a proposal, or reword the project page and submit it for consensus... who volunteers? AlfPhotoman 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How about simply adding this new section to WP:ATT? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think its absurd. This requires sourcing every factual claim. There won't be much left in the way of user pages. There is a place for footnotes, but that is in article space. A dramatic over-reaction to a dramatic single event. There are a number of user pages stating who the person is in real life. All of them are unsourced, and unsourcable, as was discussed many times earlier in this discussion. Picking a page at random, the user claims to live in Texas. This would require a citation of at least his telephone book entry, and could not possibly be done without out maintaining confidentiality. Another user claims to be a Catholic. How would this be proven? A third claims to be an atheist. A 4th claims to have attended a particular college but did not graduate. Unless we accept FaceBook as a source, how is this to be sourced? We should think about it some more. DGG 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
how about tweaking it a little excluding confessions and expressions of loyalty and sources that can easily found, like by googeling a user's name AlfPhotoman 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It says "professional expertise or academic qualifications" so it wouldn't affect those other things anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Are we reading the same section? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am, but I thought that DGG would need a clarification. In any case we could just include the reference to googling the users real name because that would solve many future conflicts. It may not be good to use myself as example, but if you look at my page everything can be verified by simply entering my name (in quotes because my last name is too common) into a Google search AlfPhotoman 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite disturbed by this proposal (as I am by many of those on this page). It would essentially eliminate the category of anonymous academic Wikipedians. I don't see that as a positive step (not least because I would obviously have to remove what little is on my userpage now). Chick Bowen 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It would not, it just would eliminate the unattributed use of an academic degree, which is a felony in most countries anyway. AlfPhotoman 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A felony!? As if! // Internet Esquire 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Check the appropriate laws of The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Austria, France..... AlfPhotoman 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll be sure to do that, once I get up off the floor and stop laughing. This is precisely the sort of unsourced legal assertion in which I put no faith, a fortiori in light of the various other dubious legal opinions that you have offered in this discussion. // Internet Esquire 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Which proves again that it is useless to ask for credentials:
Germany: StGB § 132a Mißbrauch von Titeln, Berufsbezeichnungen und Abzeichen can be read here and if you let me a day time I can cite the laws for all other European countries AlfPhotoman 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the relevant law in the Netherlands is the Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, articles 7.19a and 7.20. However, using a fake title is not a felony here, no penalties are set for those who use fake titles. AecisBrievenbus 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Switzerland discontinued § 284... so I have to give you that one AlfPhotoman 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Spain, Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal can be read here AlfPhotoman 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
France CODE PENAL ABUS DE CONFIANCE Article 314-1 can be read here AlfPhotoman 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Portugal art. 205º do Código Penal de 1982 a very well written work why using a false title is considered a breach of trust and persecuted as such can be read here
Ok Alf, we get the message. Let's please get back on topic. AecisBrievenbus 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No it's not. I don't have to produce my freakin' diploma every time I sign a letter as Chick Bowen (or rather my real name), Ph. D. Chick Bowen 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole point, Chick, is that people should stop claiming to have qualifications unless they show they actually do have them. Why people want to claim certain qualifications is a bit odd anyway, given it makes absolutely no difference on this site. So the very least we can ask, in my view, is that they show that what they're saying is true. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to contradict, you may sign everything with Chick Bowen, that is beyond dispute, but you would have to produce your diploma once if you sign Chick Bowen, Ph.D.
Seriously, I present myself as a PhD without attribution all the time. I send my CV, for example, to conferences, and they take me in part because of my credentials. They don't make me prove them; they take my word for it. As for Slim's comment above: I put my job on my user page because it seemed like an interesting fact about me. Otherwise I'd have nothing. I guess that's what I'll go with. Chick Bowen 01:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment came off as too sharp, Chick, or if it seemed directed at you. It's just that this issue was a bit of a problem even before the current situation. We frequently get people turning up at politics and history-related articles saying or hinting at having expertise in some area in order to win an argument. They often do this while peppering their posts with spelling and grammatical errors, and so the claims shouldn't be convincing, but unfortunately they are to people who don't spot the writing problems. Yet the only way to counter it is to point out that they're unable even to spell the topic they say they wrote their PhD in, which would of course be cruel and a personal attack (and anyway, it's just possible they have dyslexia or something). So all we've been able to do until now is grin and bear it. This at least gives us an opportunity to put an end to it, or strongly discourage it or something. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that, the thing is if you send a CV to a conference with your real name (çause I don't think they'll accept a handle, it can be checked without a problem. All it takes is a phone call to the registrar of your alma mater. And when you send your CV you expect that it could be checked. Here we cannot. In view of the Essjay scandal it is evident that we need to do something. This something is either remove all reference to academic and/or other titles or prove them. AlfPhotoman 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly disagree, and I defy you to call up the registrar at U.C. Davis to verify my Juris Doctor. Absent a court order, they won't do it unless they get a signed release from me. Notwithstanding the fact that I have taught at several MCLE seminars, no one has ever asked me for such a release. // Internet Esquire 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Then ask him mhat would happen if I send in the aforesaid CV and ask if it is true AlfPhotoman 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have come across with this line of thinking is why, exactly, would you only extend the BLP and ATT coverage to credentials? Why are credentials getting special treatment?MikeURL 01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So to the next question, sorry Mike I cannot concentrate on two things at once, too old for that. We are talking about professional credentials, and that is not only academic credentials. For example, a German claiming to be a Master Mechanic, which is also a professional degree in that country, would have to prove it the same as a Ph.D. or a Brit who claims to be a Pharmacist's Journeyman (is that title still used?). This is not about certain higher up professional credentials, it is about professional credentials period AlfPhotoman 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, but why only professional credentials? Is it not obvious that singling them out for special treatment on user pages lends them implied importance? BLP and ATT should be extended to everything on a userpage or it should not be extended at all, IMO.MikeURL 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Reading this talk page is like watching hundreds of knees jerking at once. And it just gets worse the further down you get. The 'Essjay issue' is much more about claiming fictional credentials in the real world than claiming them here; I'd guess that the reason the deception went on for so long is that Essjay rather quickly ceased making content edits, which would likely have given him away. One high-profile case in no way makes it 'evident' that anything should be done about credentials on userpages. That said, with regard to this specific proposal: there is an enormous difference in scale between using one's userpage as a place to libel people and using it to post personal information. Never mind that there is no meaningful way to provide sources for personal information while remaining anonymous: that's an implementation question, and this idea is so bad it doesn't really merit implementation questions. Maintaining BLP as narrow but inviolable is a much higher priority than dealing with people's userpages. Maintaining ATT as a content policy is only slightly less important. Also, in the 'told you so' department: approximately ten minutes after this proposal is implemented, a group of users appoint themselves the userpage police and run through everyone using the PhD-related userboxes demanding sources for their claims. That's a smart way to keep expert contributors feeling engaged and valued. Opabinia regalis 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then lets put on Essjays shoes for a moment (if that is possible). Here we are and have gotten away for a long period with our homemade Ph.D. We even got to a certain esteem in the community, to the point that when a real world journalist wants to talk to an esteemed community member all fingers point in our direction. Are we going to confess to that journalist that our user page is just something we dreamed up during a two-night wake? No. The problem is that the real world journalist, to the contrary of us, isn't going to take anybody's word for anything, they are going to check and bingo here we have a problem...again. AlfPhotoman 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
He could just as easily have not talked to the press. I haven't seen anyone in this discussion explicitly oppose the idea that the foundation should know the identities of those editors they recommend as press contacts. Opabinia regalis 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I've never engaged in an elaborate and/or highly publicized deception like Essjay's, I am by nature a very private person, and I've been in Essjay's shoes on more than one occasion in the sense that online stalkers often make erroneous assumptions about me that I make no attempt to correct. (See my recent blog post on this topic.) However, on more than one occasion, questions have been put to me about these erroneous assumptions by members of the mainstream press, and I have always answered such inquiries truthfully on the condition that my answers only be used on "deep background." While "no comment" might be an option if I felt that I could not trust a particular journalist, the idea of lying to a member of the press would never cross my mind, for reasons that should now be obvious to Essjay. To wit, when speaking to a member of the press as a source, the social consequences for averring to the truthfulness of false assumptions are at least as bad as the legal consequences of perjury. // Internet Esquire 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:ATT are policies Wikipedians made up for the writing of encyclopedia articles. Our user pages and talk pages, and everything outside the Mainspace and Portals are not a part of the encyclopedia, but simply a tool for collaboration to aid in the making of the encyclopedia. We don't need the same content policies. I find it hard to imagine someone on the outside thinking "Wikipedia isn't reliable, I mean look at the article User:Wikipedian, nothing in it is verified." Making experts verify their credentials could deter them and we certainly don't want that. --WikiSlasher 06:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to end discussion and take it to the final decision

Folks, really, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAttribution&diff=114686317&oldid=114598041 is all that needs doing to solve this whole dilemma. I move we declare consensus on the content of the link and end this whole debate over with right here and now. C.m.jones 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. 304k of discussion in four days, which you want to end based on a proposal made a few hours ago? Opabinia regalis 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Work toward it. Right here. Right now. Stop proposing fifty-million things. Lets deal only with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAttribution&diff=114686317&oldid=114598041 because it will solve this whole mess. C.m.jones 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But not tonight, its 4:45 here... going to bed.. AlfPhotoman 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I mistaken or is this talk page for Jimbo's proposal and not Slimvirgin's? Besides, wouldn't this change need consensus on the BLP and ATT talk pages?MikeURL 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how this this solves anything. --JWSchmidt 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh fuck no. That is a horrible idea. Good idea in spirit, maybe... but.. holy crap no... If you want to know what the "real" issue is, it's that people felt lied to by someone they trusted. It had nothing to do with lies actually affecting AfDs. For all we know the lies themselves had little to no impact on those discussions. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, that's not the point. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were in place on the day Essjay placed his bogus credentials on his userpage, they likely would have been gone within weeks, and moreover, no one would have forwarded Essjay to a journalist without his credentials on his userpage verified per the addition to WP:BLP. Also, no one will WANT to post bogus credentials, knowing they will be challenged. And when one knows the challenge will come, they will cite their credentials in the first place. This solves every core issue of Jimbo's proposal but in another, much more simple way. C.m.jones 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because it can solve the problem doesn't mean it's a good idea. There are a lot of unintended side effects I can see this causing.. It's just too broad and.. needless. Also, that's a policy page for articles. NPOV and NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, just articles. From an organization standpoint, the proposal should go somewhere else. -- Ned Scott, Professional Space Cowboy 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the proposal is much too messy. I can see all sorts of problems in trying to implement it - it's much more cumbersome than Jimbo's original suggestion, which is flexible, regardless of what other problems it has. Also, it also has little to do with the underlying purpose of BLP. Metamagician3000 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] compromise?

Adopt the proposal, but let it apply only to admins and higher . People with that degree of discretionary power need to prove their responsibility. And--the only evidence of misuse has come at that level. DGG 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But Essjay was waving his credentials around ages before he became an admin. And there's no evidence that he ever abused any of his administrative (bureacratic, etc...) tools. As a general policy proposal, maybe; as a reaction to the Essjay situation this is really a total non sequitur. It has been proposed many times here (possibly hit the consensus mark, even!) that anyone entrusted with private information - those with Oversight and Checkuser rights - should disclose their identities to the Foundation. Opabinia regalis 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay's falsified credentials are a red herring. Superficially, the Essjay case was about falsified credentials; at its core, it was about an elaborate deception that Essjay rationalized as being necessary because he held positions of trust at Wikipedia. As such, the best remedy for the sort of deception that Essjay perpetrated would be a policy that forced people seeking administrator privileges at Wikipedia to provide the powers that be at Wikimedia with their true identity; if Wikipedia administrators wish to remain pseudonymous to the rest of the world, that's their prerogative. // Internet Esquire 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Hall meeting

Up to now we had a very lively, interesting and largely civilised debate and that's as it should be in a diverse and brainy community such as Wikipedia. However I think we missed an angle of approach. We keep talking over our heads. All kinds of arguments are flying all over the place and in all directions. We hear urban myths such as some Ph.D. will say I'm a Ph.D. ergo shut up (don't forget most Ph.D's know a bit of Latin), people will say I know better than thou without the need to cite etc, Therefore I propose that we hold a Wiki Hall meeting where people can meet the Ph.D. guys and ask them questions. I volunteer to be at the meeting to answer questions and meet people. If anyone else agrees please let me know. Thanks. Dr.K. 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Following the above comment, I have an idea to expand that. Keep the verification of credentials optional. But if that person wants to show they have that then they can do so. But don't use it as an arguement. Instead as Tasoskessaris/Dr.K said above, use it to show that they know about that subject and want to help with the articles involving it. So either place on the userbox or template page, "This user has a (insert degree) in (insert subject) and is interested in helping out with that subject" or something to that effect, without using compound sentences(place all additional information on the template page?). The userbox then places that user onto a category page. This will then let users know who they can go to for help with that subject and who(hopefully) knows what they're talking about. A Wikihall meeting also seems to be a great idea. So here's a completely hypothetical situation:

User:Danjac has a Ph.d in Archaeology. He/she verifies using the stated method that this is so. He/she then posts a userbox stating that on his/her userpage. However Danjac does not significantly add information on articles relating to his/her subject. But User:Hypous wishes to do so but does not have the expertise needed. Hypous is now able to look up the category and directly ask Danjac or ask for help at a Wikihall meeting. Hypous could also ask Danjac about conflicts, good places to cite from, confusing information etc. Then if needed Danjac him/herself would be able to comment on talk pages or act strictly as an advisor.

This is a compromise but I would suggest keeping it strictly voluntary. Just an idea but I would like to hear from people about what they think. YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Straw poll on each proposal

Perhaps we have had enough of idea gathering and now it is time to specify the ideas in a yes/no form so a straw poll can tell us where we stand. Perhaps there will be a concensus on some of the proposals. Once the field is narrowed down we can discuss the detals. A week should be long for this straw poll so people can ask and answer questions about each proposal and everyone who wants to can have an informed !vote. Please expand the descriptions of the proposals as needed but not longer than a single paragraph. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Support moving this to a subpage...if it isn't closed it could get huge.MikeURL 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I second (or third) moving this to a subpage. // Internet Esquire 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved to /Straw polls. Sorry for the lag... my connection died. A good reason to always create the archive first! --+sj + 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Where to? I can see no working link. It would also have helped to mention something in the edit summary when you removed a huge amount of text, I looked at my watchlist and found what appeared to be a no comment deletion. I had to look very carefully before determining this wasn't vandalism. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification/Straw polls

Hullo? The above is still redlinked. Surely there is someone here who can make this sub-page, one with a working link if possible... LessHeard vanU 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The content was removed, not moved. Not vandalism per se, but very, very annoying. // Internet Esquire 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Polls do have their purposes. I don't like this whole 'sweep it under the carpet' deal, especially by pretending it was moved elsewhere, when it just removed. Or moved somewhere and hidden, since no link to the subpage has been added to the archive box or was mentioned in the edit summary. I've copied the staw poll before it was deleted off this page to /Straw polls, and added a link to it on the archive box. --`/aksha 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They certainly do. I mean to vote myself; thanks for the move. +sj + 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] technical issues for verification of .edu-associated identities

I assume that a credentials verification system could start with just those Wikipedians who hold positions at academic institutions that own a .edu domain name. Two methods of verification have been suggested:

  1. links from a Wikipedian's user page to their professional .edu page that lists their credentials and includes a statement such as, "I edit Wikipedia as user FooBar".
  2. Wikipedians can send emails to people and request replies back from .edu mail accounts saying, "Yes, I am Dr. FooBar and I edit Wikipedia as user FooBar".

Technical questions. Is it possible to fake .edu webpages? Is it possible to fake emails to falsely make them look like they come from a .edu account? Could the Wikipedia "email this user" feature and email clients be easily automated to facilitate email confirmations? --JWSchmidt 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

from university to university different. Some systems can be altered with relative ease, others are hounded by "well meaning" students leaving back-doors. I does not take a computer genius to create a bogus page on many university systems. The auto-reply bot is slightly more difficult to tweak because it is mostly monitored closely. But then again, you could leave something like John FooBar, dean of the sociology faculty, anyuni Bogusland on the faked page and most would not be any wiser. AlfPhotoman 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Real faculty Web pages are generally linked to from the university directory, department pages, course descriptions, research groups and the like. Faking all that would be hard and likely to be detected by others on campus. That said, building a fool proof verification system is a hard problem. If someone promised one would be up in a week, they need to talk to an expert.--agr 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
any fake page will be eventually detected ... the question is how long it takes between creation and detection. AlfPhotoman 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Email addresses are easily faked, due to the fact that Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, the protocol generally used in email, has effectively no authentication. So if you see an email coming from an email address, there is no guarantee that the sender actually owns that email address. However, it is somewhat harder to read an email going to an email address that you do not own. While still insecure, since messages are generally sent in plain text, an eavesdropper would still need to intercept the message. If using email, your best bet short of cryptography would be to send information in the inquiry email that only someone who reads the email message could know, and ask them to reply back with that information. For example, you could ask them to leave the original message you sent in their reply. Again, this is not foolproof, since eavesdropping is possible. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in professional credential verification systems, Elance uses US Search, and previously used Justifacts. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Speking of e-mail, how fast could you write a simple PHP repeater that sends a message from a bogus address returning the cryptographic part? AlfPhotoman 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SME tag

I've rifled through this conversation and I haven't seen anything mentioned of a "User:Subject_Matter_Expert" tag. Obviously this would entail verification of credentials by Wikimedia, and perhaps this tag could only be applied to a user on that basis. Importantly, Users that attempt to identify themselves as such would volunteer this information and should be held accountable to those standards on every edit or contribution made from the community. Isn't the whole point of this establishing voluntary factually-reputable users in the case that there is a question about their verifiability? This isn't a proposal to say that their credentials are superior or lead to an all out user class war, but it should be noted that because this particular individual can demonstrate their knowledge on a particular subject perhaps their edits should carry more weight as long as they can follow all WP procedures and stances.--RWilliamKing 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Credentials are useless

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, please read Wikipedia:Credentials are useless. Although not entirely written by me, it summarises my view on the issue. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps the best proposal...

Perhaps the best proposal is no proposal at all. Based on the comments here and at other discussions, none of the general credential proposals are gaining popolaur support.

For example here are the results (as of 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)) of the above straw poll (yes !votes/no !votes):

If this shows anything, its that people are not in support of anything relating to credentials execpt for Wikipedia:Honesty which is more general and Checkuser policy which is specifically for CheckUser access. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the clear winner is the meta:Talk:CheckUser policy. This is probably the one that really solves the matter, since had the office known about Essjay's identity, they probably wouldn't have given him to the New Yorker as a spokesman. That's a lesson for the office. The lesson for the rest of us is to be less submissive to those who claim to hold credentials. The answer to this whole scenario is probably not a new rule or bylaw, but a general change in our behavior. Galanskov 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that UNICEF estimates that one third of the world's population do not even have a birth certificates.[5] [6] By requiring people to send in identification, you will be disqualifying at least 2.2 billion people (more, if you include people with birth certificates but not photo ID, or people who cannot get their birth certificate) from becoming checkusers. This will increase systemic bias against people from developing countries. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware Internet access is not very widespread in the developing world. Also, many of these people probably edit at Wikipedias in other languages. Those other Wikipedias can work out their own policy. The Wikimedia Foundation can make special arrangments when dealing with Wikipedias that use developing world languages. The important thing for us right now is to prevent another such scandal occuring in relation to this Wikipedia. Galanskov 22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
We already have too few editors from developing countries without making it any harder for them to edit than it already is. And with 2.2 billion undocumented people, which is like China and India combined, I think at least a few of them will end up editing the English Wikipedia, considering English is popular to learn as a second language and lingua franca. And with policies like WP:A credentials should not make a difference to anyone. Also, I would not consider the recent uproar a scandal. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't know what is so wrong with the status quo. Nothing proposed except verification regarding CheckUser seems to be an improvement, or even have potential for same. LessHeard vanU 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, even Wikipedia:Honesty is starting to lose support now. BTW, where exactly is Jimbo during all of this? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Armedblowfish: The checkuser proposal at meta would not really make things harder for developing world editors. They could still sign up as editors and carry on just like everyone else. They might have some trouble becoming checkusers, that's all. Galanskov 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, there are only 13 CheckUsers on en:Wikipedia, others have less, so its not like a lot of editors are given that clearance anyway. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
According to overpopulation.com, "In 1950 there were two people in developing countries for every person living in the developed world. By 2050, there will be six people living in developing countries for every person in the more developed world." Look, I am not advocating affirmative action, I just don't want to make it impossible for any of these people to become administrators, checkusers, and all that, considering how sadly under-represented they already are. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many out of hand rejections...

A lot of editors commenting on this issue appear to have missed something important here...

Jimbo has gone on public record as saying the following. "it does expose a weakness that we will be working to address" Rightly or wrongly, that is taken as a public commitment from Wikipedia to take action. Failing to take some kind of action at this point would not merely damage Wikipedia's credibility and integrity, but reduce it to zero.

The discussion is not 'should we alter our policies and guidelines to address this issue', the discussion is 'Which of the various methods to adress this should we accept'.

"Allowing it to occur organically", "keeping the status quo" and "there is no problem to fix" are not options in this discussion. We must chose some method of action.

This is a unique situation for wikipedia where the circumstances have forced us into a situation where we can not allow 'lack of consensus' to halt a choice being made. A choice must be made and implemented, even if no consensus can be made. The alternative is the failure of the project as a result of total loss of credibility and integrity.

Unfortunately, in this case Realpolitik applies. New or altered policies or guidelines must be enacted, the item up for debate is what and how. --Barberio 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. There is an option of "Opinions were sought, and the conclusion reached that no change in policy was required". Something was done, but the net result is no change. There is a difference. LessHeard vanU 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
However, as I said, that option results in Wikipedia losing all credibility to the rest of the world. It is an option, if you can accept that the rest of the world will consider Wikipedia to be a total waste or resources and time. The arguments in favour of this option can be as eloquently stated as you want, but that will not change the issue that choosing this option destroys the project's credibility.
Imagine if you will, a public government scandal resulting in the officials involved responding with "Opinions were sought, and the conclusion reached that no change in policy was required", would you expect those officials to still be there after the next elections? --Barberio 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so we may choose to do something to account for our actions to the outside world. In view of the discussions above, not all of it will go down well with a substantial part of our community. Is that worth it? Yes, we need to think of our readers, but we shouldn't sacrifice our editors for it. AecisBrievenbus 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is more important, editors or readers? Readers of course! To be crass for a moment, Wikipedia is not the mental equivalent of mutual masturbation, Wikipedia is supposed to serve a purpose to the Readers not the Editors. Maybe too many editors have lost track of that? --Barberio 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It takes editors to write the articles that the readers can read. It takes editors to improve existing articles, it takes editors to keep articles up to date, it takes editors to provide the pictures, it takes editors to create, write and uphold policies and guidelines, it takes editors to weed out nonsense articles and vandalism. This project doesn't write itself. It takes editors to write what the readers can read. If editors were to walk away (not saying they will!), it will be a bigger burden on the remaining editors to keep this project running. AecisBrievenbus 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree: I think editors are more important. I only edit because on some level I consider it a positive experience: if on the whole it becomes a negative experience, I will leave. If readers like what I write, that's kind of cool and contributes to my ego. I think Theo de Raadt explained this quite well in an interview. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any decision now requires a prioritizing of readers or editors because it is not relevant to the controversy that took place. Readers just read the articles, they aren't looking back through each edit of it to see what the editors' credentials look like. The general readership wouldn't have the faintest idea or care about what's self-represented on an editor's user page. This was a PR backfire and most proposals are simply going to dress up PR.Professor marginalia 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding credibility, this is an ongoing argument; certain groups (Academia and the media) do not understand or misrepresent the ethos of WP, kneejerk reactions to their perception is not going to help in the long run. As for an official embroiled in scandal; EssJay has resigned, but the rest of the community then changing its practices looks like an admission of widespread corruption rather than a place of trust which was failed by one member... LessHeard vanU 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia as a whole *did* fail. The failure being not checking up things when Wikipedia as a whole handed authority to someone without checking what they claimed about themselves. It may be handy to accept EssJay's resignation, and wash our hands of it, but it's ignoring that Wikipedia as a whole had a part in the scandal. --Barberio 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Your whole argument appears to be predicated on something that does not exist. Editors are individuals, and Wikipedia itself is not a person. I, personally, didn't hand any authority to anybody. Did you? Please link to the diff where you did so. Uncle G 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting to get into semantics, choosing not to do anything is also a choice to do something, it's the action of not acting, it's addressing a situation by concluding that the current system suffices. I express no opinion on whether such a choice should be made in this particular case, but it is a choice and it is an action. AecisBrievenbus 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
We wouldn't lose all credibility, in fact, I'd bet that the media will totally forget about this in a week or so. We would lose even more credibility I think if we enact a proposal that the majority of editors are against simply to appease the media or if we enact one of these proposals and it doesn't work. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we did not address "the problem", we just crawled around it like a cat around a hot stew. If we had enough funds to run this thing we would not really have to discuss this. What nobody dared to say so far is that if we don't fix the damaged outside perception of the project there may not be a project soon due to lack of donations. I would have found it fairer to outright say that instead of talking about Realpolitik. I said it before, and will repeat it as many times as necessary : this is the second scandal that reverberated around the whole globe in more or less a year. Some people who donated to the project could be asking themselves what we are spending that money for and what kind of characters escaped from the Loony Toons are spending it. And if we don't show these people that we are serious about adverting the third scandal we might be out of a project. AlfPhotoman 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The one proposal that has gained some support is that the office should verify identities of individuals with CheckUser status. If those are the people that represent WP officially then the problem is resolved, since EssJay would have been found out before he was interviewed. As for the rest of us, edit away and rely on good references for your facts like you always (should) have done. LessHeard vanU 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the monster scenarios of total loss of readership are just overblown. Let's face it: credibility issues at WP are nothing new. The media and intelligentsia have always spat on us, but that hasn't stopped our work from becoming the most popular encyclopedia in the world. Readers will still come no matter what their professors say about how unreliable we are. I tried talking to some non-editor friends of mine about all this, and they had no idea what I was talking about. The very word 'Essjay' just drew blank stares. WP will continue to occupy its current central positions in popular culture and information sources regardless of what we decide here. This whole discussion is largely being carried out to satisfy our own desires for accuracy and reliability. So let's just calm down and carry on with the diplomacy. Galanskov 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry, but it is not the readers I worry about. If you have watched the last donation campaign you have noticed that most money comes from corporations. I am worried about them AlfPhotoman 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Scandals have come and gone at WP, and the donations have only increased over time, right? While the elevation of fakes to high office may cause some concern, preventing it from happening again is relatively simple: let's adopt the checkuser ID requirement and abandon the attitude of "Hey, this guy claims to have a degree! Wow, let's just trust him and give him authority over article content." Anyway, this whole matter is not nearly as serious as the Seigenthaler case, and WP survived that blow and still has funds to pay its electric bill. It should be able to survive this one and any future scandals (they're bound to happen), as long as they don't begin happening too frequently. Galanskov 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Wikipedia isn't all that fragile. In fact, I'd wager that if you asked most editors (including occasional editors who aren't deeply involved in inner-wiki workings), most of them wouldn't know about this either. I frankly think it's too bad that the media and academia doesn't trust us, but ultimately I don't care that much, because we're not writing this for their approval, but for the good of humankind, and so far, humankind appreciates it. So, yes, please let's not break our system merely to appease the media. Torgo 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly care whether the media and academia trust us. That's because their distrust is based on substantive concerns. It's not as if they petulantly refuse to acknowledge the brilliance that is Wikipedia. There are real problems, and burying our collective head in the sand, and saying "I don't care" is not a productive response to legitimate criticism and distrust. Derex 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
True enough as far as it goes, Galanskov, but checkusers disclosing their identity to the foundation is totally unrelated to 'authority over article content', which no one really has except in WP:OFFICE cases. Opabinia regalis 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The legitimate crticism from academia has little to do with this case - it is that the quality of articles is so patchy. Nothing discussed here will change that. Nonetheless, Jimbo and/or the board may feel the need to introduce some kind of accreditation of some credentials. As I've said a few times now, things may look different when you have to deal with media and sponsors and address their concerms rather than, or as well as, the somewhat different concerns of the community. If the reality is that accreditation has to be introduced for those reasons, again I'd just urge that it be done as flexibly as possible to try to lessen the concerns that the scheme itself would introduce new problems. It might help if a decision were made and announced in principle before any detailed scheme were set in concrete. Metamagician3000 07:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Simply put, "enacting" rapidly-chosen and arbitrary new rules as a result of moral panic is worse than doing nothing. If all of the above got rejected, that's because they're bad ideas. We're not going to pick the "least bad" idea just because there is the opinion that we "must" do something. >Radiant< 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree it would be very bad to implement a credential system out of panic or a hastily made commitment. In particular we should not do so out of fear corporate donations might dry up. One of the best arguments against accepting advertising is that it might influence us in bad ways. If donations are doing the same thing, maybe an opt-out ad policy might be worth reconsidering. We are, after all, sitting on a gold mine. --agr 14:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is not that we enact something now, no matter what has been said in the media, the point is that we don't loose sight of this and by next week go back to everything as had until we are back in the news because of evident shortcomings. AlfPhotoman 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly I think there would be LESS concern regarding funding if a "google style" type advertising were used. Advertisers pay for eyeballs (which wikipedia has no shortage of) and don't much care about scandal unless it is REALLY bad. However, a corporation giving money is usually based on an assessment of how much "goodwill" they are buying. In that situation you must be VERY concerned about public image.MikeURL 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
finally someone who understands the public relations game... I was starting to doubt myself AlfPhotoman 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Standing on principle is awesome and I respect people who do it. It is difficult to find people in positions of great authority who always stand purely on principle. A reasonable case can be made (and has been made) that nothing needs to change and that nothing needs to be done. The problem, as I see it, is that the media does not like to be made to look stupid. The NYer got hammered on this one and if Jimbo had not reversed his initial "so what" attitude you can bet every paper and magazine would rally behind the NYer and start hurling poop at wikipedia at a significantly increased rate.
This would make corporate donors think twice, to wit "wait, i heard that 13 year olds run that site, lets hold our contribution for a while". So is it strictly fair and just to bolt on a credential verification system to appease the media? No, and I've even argued against it on this very page. Is it the pragmatic thing to do? Yes. Jimbo ,among others, has to suffer the slings and arrows and make the hard calls.MikeURL 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Corporations are probably going to gain the same amount of goodwill from their donations regardless of stuff like the Essjay incident. People will continue to use Wikipedia, mainly because most of them just don't care about the controversy, and they will continue to appreciate those corporations that donate to their favorite encyclopedia. To change Wikipedia's popularity would require a massive media campaign against us, so maintaining the status quo probably isn't a problem for a corporation seeking goodwill (if that actually is what they are seeking).

In response to Opabinia regalis: when did I say that the checkuser proposal was related to article content? The quote I think you're referring to is: let's adopt the checkuser ID requirement and abandon the attitude of "Hey, this guy claims to have a degree! Wow, let's just trust him and give him authority over article content.". This passage does not make a link between the two. It treats them as two seperate matters to be handled. I particularly like the checkuser position because the office could throw it to the media as a bone: "Hey, look! We've put new restrictions on who can be a checkuser!" This would allow them to claim to have done something without making any drastic changes: checkuser status is limited to investigating possible sockpuppetry, so it seems to me that if two different reasonable people are given this task, they should probably reach the same conclusion. Plus: it dosen't have much to do with determining article content, so the overall structure of Wikipedia shouldn't be changed too much. Thus it really is a task that any reasonable person can probably do. Limiting editors from the developing world is a regrettable step, but I seriously doubt there are too many people in Delhi who lie awake at night dreaming of becoming a checkuser. Galanskov 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're saying we should do something to make the media believe that we have changed Wikipedia, just for the sake of "fooling" (for lack of a better word) the media? Action for the sake of image instead of action for the sake of action? AecisBrievenbus 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little late in the day, perhaps...

There is also the case of Economical with the truth abuse, where an editor may disclose and verify some of their qualifications whilst not disclosing others which may impinge on their motives. An example is that someone may verify that they have a degree in animal welfare and upbringing but not that they are a master butcher, thus their emphasis on welfare and upbringing may be in respect of the meat produced rather than the happiness of the animal - but this would not be obvious to most. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

or as my grandpa used to say: The worst lie is telling half the truth. The point is what can you suggest so it won't happen AlfPhotoman 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm still POV pushing that verification is a bad idea. It is bad that someone would tell a part truth, it is very bad that a Wikipedia verification system could appear to endorse that lie. No verification, and only the editor is responsible for not disclosing the whole truth. Like in any case, someone intent on deceit will always get through. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is similar to what I've been saying. Which would be worse in the eyes of the media? Us not creating a verification system or us creating a verification system in a hurry that later fails in another Essjay-type debacle? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
absolutely the latter, if we put a system in place that can be beat it will be beat and I don't want to see the headlines then.... AlfPhotoman 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal view here; fuck the media. So far this has generated 3 stories; Senior Wikipedian lies, Wikipedia Founder drastically amends Community requirements, and (the developing) WP Community disagrees with WP Founder. All of which are headlines to sell news columns and nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. The media doesn't really care for the achievements and aims of WP, and I don't want my community being swayed by their self interest. As for academia, it will require a sea change in their perception of the Wiki method (as opposed to paper encyclopedia) before we can worry about our good name being sullied. LessHeard vanU
would subscribe to that if they wouldn't give me the money for my hobbies. Academia is too high to shoot at. If we manage that most people Googeling for information first clicks on the Wikipedia link because it is considered a TRUSTED source of information we have achieved the first level. But I am afraid that we are not very near that yet ... and this Essjay thing probably set us back a year. AlfPhotoman 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To what end?

I understand the concern that the community has with EssJay but there are two separate problems and neither of them are solved with this policy.

  • 1) EssJay used his false credentials to sway debate about content. This is the most serious charge. But the first part of this policy is NOT to appeal to authority or credentials. So after this policy is enacted, 19 year-old garage mechanic and 50 year old PhD theoretical physicist both have the same input in the field of Quantum Electrodynamics. If the PhD can't say "I have a PhD so shut up" what's the point of providing it? Even if they don't say it, the implication is that there is a trust in the PhD that is supposed to "shut up" the opponents. If the PhD is not be used in this manner in Wikipedia, there is no content related fix with this policy. This policy does not address this inherent disparity which is both the incredible strength and fatal flaw of an open encyclopedia.
  • 2) EssJay represented Wikimedia Foundation in an interview and his credentials were essentially vouched for by the Foundation. This brought discredit to the project. This is fundamentally an employer/employee relationship problem, not a Wikipedia community problem. No one represents WF without WF's permission and perhaps there needs to be tighter controls on the foundation side over who talks to the press, but editors credentials would having nothing to do with this. The community is understandably upset but this policy doesn't really address who may speak for the foundation. If next week it turns out that a Foundation employee is arrested for online pedophilia and it made the news by using Wikipedia servers, we wouldn't be rushing out to have "Pedo Free" userboxes because it simply doesn't address the problem. The community would again be outraged but in the end, criminals and frauds exist everywhere and it is not surprising they are here.
  • Because the policy won't solve the fundamental problem, I can only conlude that it's implementation would result in a negative outcome (i.e. the law of unintended consequences or simply a lot of work with no good result). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Take a step back and think about what is really needed to address the two problems with the EssJay incident. --Tbeatty 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a concrete example of Essjay abusing his credentials to sway debate about content? I have seen this claim repeated many times, but I still haven't found an example. I have probably not looked in the right places yet. --Itub 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Kelly Martin has listed some examples of this on her blog, see [7] and [8]. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You realise "very first edits" really is from Essjay's first 10 edits? In other words, before Essjay would have known about all our rules for settling content disputes - neutrality, verification, dispute resolution, and all that. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
maybe essjay was a sockpuppet ? AlfPhotoman 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Erm, a sockpuppet would have known better. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While agreeing with you (mostly) we have to see that the problem is systemic. If we all are anonymous we can invent us a persona to our liking, and because everybody does it we don't find it odd anymore that, as someone put it above in this discussion, that it is claimed to be a PhD in something they can't even spell right. And there is where we have to ask ourselves the question if this is just another version of any of these alternative worlds online where everybody tries to be what he/she is not -- only we make an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are items of trust, and if you cannot trust their makers you cannot trust the product. For us it is simple, back up your claim with sources ... you have sources you are right. But somebody who wants to inform himself/herself is not going to look up sources, they are going to look up a trusted encyclopedia. AlfPhotoman 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't understand Wikipedia's trust model, which is not the same as that of non-wiki encyclopaedias and is not as you represent it. Please read User:Uncle G/On sources and content and the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer that is linked to from the general disclaimer at the bottom of every page that you have seen here. Uncle G 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
nice essay, but isn't there a way to make it better Wikipedia, and if there is shouldn't we do it? AlfPhotoman 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A flaw in Jimbo's proposal

There is an aspect of Jimbo's proposal which I believe is (inadvertently) misleading. He cites a test case that he "choose randomly from the 'what links here' for a claim to have a PhD. User:DrNixon has a PhD in Biology." He then goes on to state that "Michigan State University lists Joshua Nixon as a graduate in the fields this user has listed," with a link to the MSU page, which, in turn, has an email address for DrNixon. But this only works because DrNixon has a faculty position there. This method would not work for a non-faculty PhD, or most other degrees. Using Google, I found Harvard's page on "How can I verify whether someone earned a degree from Harvard University?" [9] That page suggests you call the alumni records office and gives a phone number. I called that number and got a recorded message that says they only give out info to other alumni. In general, even if you can get a school to verify that Arnold Reinhold has a degree, you won't get contact info. So you won't be able to confirm that I am that same Arnold Reinhold who has the degree. Jimbo's proposal does not solve the degree verification problem.--agr 16:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

most schools only verify that such and such has a degree, they will never give any additional information. some wont even tell you the years someone attended (or shone by absentia) AlfPhotoman 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. So how are we going to verify degrees in a scaleable way?--agr 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
the traditional way, you take your degree, make a photocopy, take it to the next police station, town hall or notary public (depending on the country you are in), have it certified to be an accurate copy and send it by mail to St.Petersburg,Fl. There is no other way AlfPhotoman 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You could scan it in, if there is a scanner available to you. But, if you already have access to a college/university and a certification centre, a scanner might not be that hard to find. Physical mail could be a backup plan. (Note that this comment is not an endorsement of having a credential verification system.) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What about photoshop effect?--Asteriontalk 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is a accurate photo it will be stamped, if not, not. It is not only the copy that is certified by any of the mentioned office, but that the copy corresponds 100% to the original AlfPhotoman 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
At least in the United States, notaries only attest to signatures and take oaths of authenticity, they do not certify that a particular copy is accurate. I am not aware of any service that routinely does that here. And who in the office is going to be in a position to recognize valid diplomas from the thousands of institutions that issue them world wide? In any case a paper system like that would hardly be considered scalable. --agr 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Asterion: If you can fake a scanned image and email it, you can print out the fake too. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
every other system is so prone to manipulation (and I mean manipulation at the level of most every amateur) that it would become unworkable... another reason to say no. AlfPhotoman 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am against even having a credential verification system, so... eh. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
nobody can protect against ll fraud, but that does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't try, though it does mean we needn't make heroic attempts to do better than anyone else in the world has ever done.DGG 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
the question is: how many wiki-editors actually claim a degree, how many would want their degree verified. Maybe the paper option is not as bad and the copy certifying authority in the US can be found. As for international diplomas, they don't have to be sent to Florida, they could be verified at national level AlfPhotoman 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I see with with some sort of voluntary paper copying system is that, depending on how secure we make the system (does it need to be color? High resolution?, etc.), more editors will realize that it is a lot of hoops to jump through for no actual benefit on Wikipedia besides a slightly different userbox. If someone told that if I wanted to, I could go in my records, get a paper, scan a copy of it, print it, have it notarized, and then mail it to Florida, all for little actual benefit, I would tell them to stop wasting my time. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't assess the situation in the US. In Europe there are laws about this. Generally it is limited to that the text content of the copy is equal to the text content of the original, which is certified by an authority designated by law. In Greece and Spain that would be the local police, in Germany it would be a local registrar and/or notary public and so on. To that effect both sides of the copy are marked and stamped. If it is a diploma the back is also written and stamped indicating what type of document has been verified and to whom it is awarded. The system is not easy to beat AlfPhotoman 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing like that copy certification system exists in the U.S. According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, there were 2618 accredited four-year colleges and universities in the U.S. as of 2005. [10] A Wikipedia credential system would have to go back at least 50 years. Institutions have merged, gone under, changed their names, changed the look of their diplomas. And most are not hard to forge. If scalability means anything, it means you can't assume only a few people will use a given system. And once word gets out that Wikipedia is certifying experts, hordes of people will sign up for accounts just to get the cert. Then there is the whole question of legal liability. --agr 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Which leads us to another dead end. We have to come to the conclusion that there is no way to reliably certify that a user actually has a diploma...unless we become a university and award them ourselves. Anybody who knows a little about the web and capable of a little PHP and/or PERL programming can still get away with a "homemade" diploma or similar credentials and it would be extremely difficult for us to discriminate. Conclusion: we need another proposal. AlfPhotoman 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem being that the only proposals that are passing are meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#Real name policy and Wikipedia:Honesty. The former would have prevented only a small fragment of the Essjay incident while the latter isn't much of a proposal. Personally, I reckon the best path is simply to get the office to be more careful about who it presents as a spokesman and for us to ditch a mentality of "Let's just go with however claims to have the most credentials." We should make users rely on the use of citations, not the flashing of credentials, to prove their points. Galanskov 05:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another flaw in the e-mail system: how could Mr. Wales be sure the User:DrNixon was in fact the Joshua Nixon he claimed to be? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of Ph.Ds with the surname Nixon. Galanskov 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No system will be perfect, but if the real Dr Nixon has written back from his university e-mail address and said, "Yes, I am the Wikipedia user you referred to", why would he have a motive to lie? This seems just as reliable as many other business dealings and so on that go on via the internet these days, including on-line submissions of academic papers. I'm sure Jimbo realises that someone could nonetheless occasionally perpetrate an elaborate hoax over the net, but I'm not sure that's a problem in itself. Metamagician3000 08:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If his credentials are real, no reason at all ... if they are "homemade".... I don't think that the problem are real credentials, it is those who claim to have some and don't. And that "hoax" is not as elaborate as you think, just had a dry run on my server and it is something anybody could put together in 30 minutes. AlfPhotoman 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this entire line of objection is absurd and silly. Of course there is no such thing as perfect security. That doesn't mean we should simply abandon all hope. That just is a complete and total fallacy. Of course we could be fooled in some elaborate and mysterious set of circumstances. So what? This is Wikipedia.... we trust people! Metamagician3000 has it exactly right. Extreme paranoia about absurdities is no reason to fail to act appropriately.--Jimbo Wales 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I think this line of question points out a major flaw in the entire idea of the proposal. If we really do trust people, let's trust them. If someone says they have a Doctor of Music, let's assume they're telling the truth and act accordingly - assume good faith of them, look at their edits critically, as we would any other editor, explore questions pertaining to the article with them, ask them if they have access to sources which would be useful... treat them as we would any other editor, but with a slightly better understanding about their background, and a better idea of what questions they might know the answers to/have sources for. If we don't trust each other... well... that's sad. And this proposal is not going to fix that. An easily gamable system like this is just going to be an attractive nuisance to 14 year olds with color printers, and is going to put off anyone with actual credentials. I think part of Assume Good Faith is that you know you're going to get screwed eventually when you do it. It's a calculated gamble. Because although assuming good faith can be dangerous to the individual, we practice it because in the end it's healthier for our community. Mak (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The point we are trying to establish is whether we will have an actual benefit or this is just a piece of actionism. As long as we cannot check users credentials with certainty the only thing that might happen is that we attract every con-man, self-projector and would-like-to-be to have his homemade credentials "certified". If one of them is up to real mischief I'd hate to see the bill ... never mind the headlines. AlfPhotoman 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My one big beef with this proposal is this: your credentials shouldn't matter anyway. Using credentials, either real or fake, to win content disputes is a form of bullying: it is wrong. The rules are there for content contributing; you damn well reference your stuff to reliable, third-party, secondary sources - and you follow NPOV. Both of these principles are fairly basic: once they are followed, credentials become irrelevant. So long as someone is sourcing their stuff properly, it doesn't matter if they're a street cleaner or a rocket scientist. The rules apply for everyone: all you have to do is follow them. Not that hard. Did anyone notice that the articles Essjay contributed most to were almost completely unsourced and generally useless? Now that's the real sin. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"nobody can protect against ll fraud, but that does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't try" <<<yes, it does mean we shouldn't try. Right now, the community is on high alert about credentials. Because of the Essjay incident, we're all going to be more less trusting of people claiming to have credentials. I don't think i'm wrong in saying something like what happened with Essjay won't happen again - just because the community has learnt from what happened with Essjay, and are going to be far more cautious about trusting people who claim to have credentials.

However, if we have a credential verification system, then all of a sudden, people will start trusting claims of credentials again if those claims are verified. After all, "verified" means it's true right?

This means if any person, no matter their reputation and editing history on wikipedia, gets a verified credential. People will believe that the person does indeed have the credential.

Which means...someone who manages to 'slip' through our system and gets a fake credential verified will have a fake credential that lots of people believe. This could be even worse, imagine what will happen if we had someone interviewed by the press, and that person had verified credentials which get mentioned in the article. And then it turns out those credentials which we VERIFIED turned out to be false? It's look even worse for us.

Without a credential verification system, fake credentials is almost not a problem anymore because everyone now aren't going to trust credentials like the way we used to before the Essjay incident.

If we ever get a credential verification system, it'll have to be a good one that we can reasonably trust. Having a system where it's easy for someone to fake a credential is even worse than not having a system at all. Because a having people claimning fake credentials that are "verified" is far worse than just having lots of people claiming credentials that are not verified at all. --`/aksha 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

Sorry I haven't read everything above. If this repeats ideas stated above, please delete this post, anyone!

I suppose WP:ATT currently applies to articles, but not to user pages. Could we adapt it to apply to user pages too, and leave it at that? Here is - out of context - some quotes from the lead section of WP:ATT:

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately.

This all makes sense for user pages too, but the following quotes certainly don't:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Material must be attributable to reliable sources; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

If I want to state my personal interests and hobbies on my user page, of course I might be unable to cite reliable sources, and I think I should have the right to state them all the same. - More quotes:

Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

I'm not sure if that should be applied to user pages, but we might relegate such material to user talk pages.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

Now that would depend on the nature of the material, credentials being included, but personal interests exempted. An adapted version of WP:ATT for user pages would need to clarify the limits here.

Some editors have stated above that full name should be required at user pages. If you want to state your credentials and you are required to provide sources, you need to give your name. Otherwise, I don't see the point. The argument that it would enable anyone to google the person is weak; I think most people share their name with several others around the world, and many have their name appearing in more than one form (varying spelling, varying transcriptions, varying name order, inclusion or exclusion of middle names, name changes at marriage, etc.).

By the way, I think a full name and some sort of CV should be a requirement for administrators. Full verification may not be a requirement, but dishonesty should lead to immediate deadminification. But that is another issue. --Niels Ø (noe) 10:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving this late addition above the summary section.--agr 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Niels. Essjay lied as an editor and as a "press spokesman", not as an admin, a checkuser, an arbitrator, OTRS, etc. Admins don't control article content, and credentials don't play a role in adminship, or so they shouldn't. The problem in this controversy is that an editor used fake credentials in content disputes. The proper response would be either to ban the use of all credentials from Wikipedia, to verify the credentials for all editors or to clearly specify the group of people who are allowed to talk to the press. Either option is probably unworkable, the first two more so than the latter. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the situation

Summary: Essjay lied. Scandal. Credential proposal. The foundation says it can't afford credential verification. The community says we don't need it anyway; we just need maybe some sort of honesty guideline and for OFFICE to verfiy that the top trusted people (checkuser or whatever) are not liars but instead are trustworthy. Did I get that right? WAS 4.250 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Hopefully when Jimbo checks back in he will modify his proposal to leave out userboxes and limit whatever verification process he picks to a small subset of editors. It will make for a good press-release and probably won't do much, if any, damage.
I started up Wikipedia:Credential_verification for editors that want to focus more directly on a system that can actually work. I put it outside my userspace so editors will feel more free to make edits. I have no idea how to make something that really works.MikeURL 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I started Credential ban not because I thought it would be best for Wikipedia but because, if we had to have a new policy (and Jimbo hinted that we did), I would much rather have that than some sort of misguided attempt at verification. The CheckUser proposal comes the closest to meeting the actual concerns after the Essjay debacle and is actually gaining consensus (as opposed to everyhing else which is getting less support by the day). A system for all editors will most likely never work, and barring some future set of similar scandals incidents, will never come close to getting consensus. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The most practicable, as far as we can see as of now, would be the credential ban. We would run into large problems just trying to assess the veracity of presented diplomas and/or university websites to the point where we would leave a gap the size of a barndoor. I doubt there will be a consensus for that though AlfPhotoman 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There isn't consensus for anything except the CheckUser policy which I think is sufficient and the majority here seem to think is sufficient. I think the only thing for Jimbo to decide is: is it sufficient for the media? As that is why we are still debating this. Most of the proposals have quite clearly been rejected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If I may be so bold... it all depends on the spin AlfPhotoman 23:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not all of us agree that the incident involving Essjay was a scandal. I still consider Essjay to be a nice, trustworthy person. Can you please pick another word, like "incident"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on the huge, possibly misguided, response to this, I've generally been calling it a debacle, I changed my above comment though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Mr.Z-man on this issue. Proposals to verify or ban credentials are both being run aground by their respective opponents, leaving the checkuser verification idea as the only one that really has a shot, though there is some significant opposition that must be overcome first. Galanskov 05:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
At the moment I'd have to agree with Mr.Z-man and Galanskov. The CheckUser verification idea is acceptable, and seems to be gaining consensus. All the others should be abandoned; although I think the credential ban is a good idea in principle, it's too extreme to have any chance of being accepted by the community. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been describing it as a debacle as well, since it reflects worst on the management of the foundation rather than on Jordan himself.ALR 10:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the summary above. But I would still put forward suggesting that people who have external, official Web sites, such as university faculty, and who wish to establish their identities here, include links in both directions. It's voluntary, workable and requires no effort on Wikipedia's part. --agr 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet adds no real value, I'm wary of creeping extension of the ruleset, which its voluntary encourages.ALR 10:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It underlines the fact that we don't base policy on moral panic, despite about a dozen proposals to do so (although I expect we'll be having tag wars on most of them for the next week "community doesn't like this so it's rejected" - "but I like it so it's still proposed" etc). It may be worthwhile to create an essay on the matter at Wikipedia:Credentials. >Radiant< 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This structured discussion has made it clear that the credential proposals are rejected but it was all about weeding stuff out and not approving any specific proposal. The two specific proposals not weeded out (Honesty and Checkuser) need to be discussed and evaluated and modified if needed at their talk pages and once the best version of them is created they can be submitted for specific approval by the community or not. At least, that is the way I see it. On the other hand, the checkuser proposal is so popular that maybe it should just be accepted as approved. Especially since it is essentially a request to the foundation rather than a policy we the community will be enforcing. Unless someone wants to reword it in a way specific to the english wikipedia and enforcable by the community? (Is that even possible? Eligibility requirements for running for the office maybe?) WAS 4.250 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, honesty is a nice essay, but the ludicrous idea of making it a guideline is quite well weeded out on its talk page. Ask David Gerard if you don't believe me. Also, if the foundation actually wants a policy they can impose one, we don't need to speculate on their motives. >Radiant< 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Honesty would be a little difficult to enforce. All it really says is: "Don't Lie." This should be self-evident IMO. I see no problem with those who want to giving links to verify their credentials on their userpages, but a policy to say that they can is unnecessary. As long as we generally take credentials with a grain of salt, we don't allow them to be used in place of citations (we already don't), and the use of them in debate is discouraged or possibly banned (which may require a minor change to talk page policy) I see no reason for drastic change. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "Don't lie, the thought police are watching YOU."? --`/aksha 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE REAL WORLD WILL WATCH THIS AND LAUGH

20 to 25 "personalities" have voted and a site that gets a billion hits a month will be directed by a consensus of who?

I wonder if the same thing would happen if this proposal was given to say, 1000 people from Wall Street, or The Washington Post, or Apple Computer, or Microsoft, or any Jouranlism Department at any University around the world.

It is obvious to the established press, and academic institutions around the world, that Wikipedia will now end up being a "non-source" of reliable information. A place for fast references and ultimately a MySpace type environment for mulitple fake profiles and continuous vandalism.

The competition for real verifiable knowledge and information sources will increase and this place will lose momentum, falling by the wayside; pushed out of a prominent place in history because of a handful of people more concerned with ego and being administrators than the creation of a real encyclopedia for the people of the world.

There are now more people blocking users than there are regular users. The average age of the administrators at Wikipedia is ? Life experience and education mean something in the real world. Here, a gang takes over and legitimate scholars are pushed out. Speedy deletions by gangs of kids.

This is a sad day for Jimmy Wales; it is a sad day for the free world. Welcome to the new MySpace for kids. ErgoEgo 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Says the single-purpose account. Speculation is easy. >Radiant< 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just somebody without a helmet who does not want to be clobbered... Now, for the merits of the above, we have to give him there is something there. I said it before and I'll repeat it as many times as needed: A Encyclopedia is something you trust. The last nine month have not done anything to increases the trust in Wikipedia ... we might have more traffic as before but certainly not because most people think that this is reliable information. And if we look at the traffic stats, I wonder if it was not notable people checking out what the articles about them say, just in case they got something like Seigenthaler or .... or ..... or ..... (please fill in as needed). Just put on my helmet, go ahead AlfPhotoman 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Every year Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia than it was the year before. Both the content and the rules are modified as we become better. The next big step in improving our credibility will be some form of stable versioning system (the german solution). This will reduce our need for administrators playing who can shoot the vandal first and reduce innocent bystander casualties. WAS 4.250 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the institutions you mentioned are run by consensus. They never have, they were not created to, and they wouldn't know how to begin. As for being a source for reliable information, Wikipedia is a resource for reliable information; WP offers a digest and links to relevant references, nobody should use any encyclopedia as a prime source. As one of the personalities that so enrages you by my existence I should like to point out that I am not an Admin, nor a member of any other WP function, but a (in the words of J. Wales, Esq.) "mere editor". I hope that tempers your rage.
Lastly, I am amused by your despair for the consequences as regards the "free world"... I hope this example of debate and democracy doesn't upset its sensibilities too much, in that the comments made by one person (that would be autocracy, would it not?) can be tested by those it impinges on and found wanting. LessHeard vanU 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"A place for fast references and ultimately a MySpace type environment." I thought we are already a place for fast reference. The Wikipedia article about a topic is usually one of the first hits on Google and we have the Reference Desk. As for "a MySpace type environment," I highly doubt that. Just because we edit in anonymity does not mean we will turn into myspace. Mark Twain was actually a pseudonym after all. Myspace has much more criticism than we do. "competition for real verifiable knowledge and information sources will increase and this place will lose momentum" Competition from where? Print enyclopedias? The more professional authors an encyclopedia needs, the more it will cost to hire them, and the fewer people will have access to it. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. All of our costs are basic overhead, all the editors are volunteers, so we can remain free to all. As far as losing momentum will go, I would agree, but for different reasons. As time goes on, there will be fewer things to write about. But show me another encyclopedia that has 1.6 million+ articles. "There are now more people blocking users than there are regular users" This is just plain wrong. We have 3,847,605 registered user accounts, of which 1,149 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges. (from Special:Statistics). "Here, a gang takes over and legitimate scholars are pushed out. Speedy deletions by gangs of kids." What? The majority of pages being speedy deleted are those written by kids. Who is pushing out these "legitimate scholars"? Just look at Category:Wikipedians by degree, there are plenty of scholars here. Also, using all caps in your heading sure doesn't look very professional, looks kind of myspace-y to me. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is being misleading about your identity acceptable?

I've seen several people, including Jimbo, said things similar to the following,

"Using a misleading bio for purposes of obscuring your identity to avoid stalking is acceptable."

However, this seems to be an illogical assumption. I can think of no situation on the wiki where having a faked identity would have provided any more protection than not revealing any information at all. It seems to me that revealing false information is pretty much a null-operation, giving no benefit of protection. And we all now know what the big downside of this has been.

The whole Essjay scandal would not have occurred if Wikipedia had not fostered an atmosphere of allowing editors to fabricate identities. It would be far better to recommend using anonymity by withholding information, not fabricating lies. --Barberio 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Where we come back to what I have suggested at the beginning of this discussion, no anonymous user pages ... no matter what your handle use real names. AlfPhotoman 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point, Barberio. You can remain anonymous without lies. The idea that making up lies prevents stalking makes no sense to me. qp10qp 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically correct, but entirely misses the point. Information "leaks" in many inadvertent ways for active editors. If some correct information leaks, then it may be helpful to scatter in some innoccuous incorrect information to complicate the stalker's job. Certainly that's not the slightest excuse for Essjay's particular deception. Yes, one can be ever-mindful not to make any comment that would inadvertently imply any personal information, but being that ever-vigilant is asking too much. So long as any disinformation is completely orthogonal to activities at Wikipedia, then I don't see the harm. Derex 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, as the heretic on duty: can I ask you if being anonymous is not just another way to avoid taking responsibility for ones actions? AlfPhotoman 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, we are unpaid volunteers. If you require everyone to identify themselves on their userpages, how many editors do you think will actually stay (and not lie)? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot, especially all those that feel that they have nothing to hide and those that want to make an encyclopedia instead of using the encyclopedia as free substitute for second life AlfPhotoman 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Except for those who wish to be judged on contributions instead of credentials. Who simply enjoy editing articles. There's a difference between not having anything to hide and not hiding anything. I have nothing to be ashamed of in my real life, but I keep it to myself anyway, simply because it's noone's business but my own. AecisBrievenbus 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Which excludes most sane Europeans, and incidentally also most Jews. One always has plenty to hide. These people usually practice a "default deny" information policy, (For darwin-based reasons, if you really wanted to know.) --Kim Bruning 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

{unindent} There's probably a lot who would. But there'll be far more who don't. Just look around and see the proportion of wikipedians who do reveal real ID. Out of the ones who have chosen not to reveal their identities online, how many of those people do you think will stay if we forced them to reveal IDs? As for making up fake identities, it shouldn't matter. We're not supposed to judge an editor based on their age, their job, what degrees they have. So why the hell does it matter if an editor pretends to be someone they're not in real life? The fact that creating a "misleading" identity is a problem just shows how much we do *care* about an editor's real identity when we judge their edits. --`/aksha 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
so, the heretic is back on ... if we can't know who is participating, if you don't know their qualifications, if you don't know how many "tweaked" sources they might have and on top you hear that libelous content was put into several articles of well respected persons, besides that a respected member of the Wikipedia community feeds a big line of crap to a journalist, can you trust that? Anybody uninvolved in the project has a simple opinion to that: What else are they hiding? So somehow there has to be a degree of transparency. How are you going to demonstrate that transparency to the outside? By continuing as had, by never (please, please) changing anything? Sometimes I have the feeling that the whole project is considered to be an encapsulated universe that is exclusively inhabited by Wikipedians. That a encyclopedia is supposed to be something universal at the service of all (not my words, but not very well cited Voltaire)is something that is getting lost more and more in ... doing what? AlfPhotoman 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Some secrets are legitimate. Anonymity is a great way to avoid being discriminated against based on ethnicity, nationality, gender, etc. Additionally, some people might not want to share their name on the internet for the same reasons they might not want to be listed in various directories. If a woman was abused by her former husband, for example, she might not want her husband to be able to find her Wikipedia user page and continue harassing her online. Privacy is a good thing. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that everybody should go to the extreme that I go by just putting my name on my user page ... and most will say that with my profession that is just trivial because my face is going to be under several articles in newspapers and/or magazines this month anyway and they are right. But the point is that here most are anonymous both to the inside as they are to the outside. So instead of knowing who we are dealing with we have to resort to check-user systems (thought nobody knew who you were eh?). Besides, one can always arrange for privacy if there is a reason (name recognition, trying to get away from an abusive husband/wife) but that could be the exception instead of the rule. AlfPhotoman 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
People generally like to decide for themselves if they have a good reason to keep their names secret. Many think it is simply a good safety practice not to give out personal information over the internet. Also, if someone has an abusive ex-spouse, or ex significant other, or something, they might not want to pour out the story of their life just so they can have permission to keep their name secret. Things like abuse are hard to talk about. And if you say, "I do not want people to know my name because I don't want people to know my gender," think of the speculation that will cause. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
any less than it does now? AlfPhotoman 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Saying specifically why one does not want to reveal one's name may defeat the purpose. If you say "I do not want people to know my name because I don't want people to know my gender," people may assume you are a woman. This defeats the purpose of the world not knowing that you are a woman. If you are a woman who had a divorce to escape an abusive relationship, this can be very painful to talk about. Additionally, there are some people who believe that a woman should never leave her husband, no matter what. A divorced woman might not feel she can handle facing those people.

With all of the nationalism around the world, some may prefer to keep their ethnicities secret. A person with a Muslim name very well could face discrimination on Wikipedia, if they revealed that.

When not revealing the reason for not revealing one's name, we avoid personal revelations which could lead to complications. After all, someone with a serious reason could pass as just another person paranoid of giving out information online.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

and if it keeps on like that we will call this The Historic Page Of The Dead Ends AlfPhotoman 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 : ) (amused, not sarcastic) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see m:Foundation issues, specifically this part: "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering". Anonymity is an important thing for Wikipedia (and Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.) Wiki means fast in the Hawaiian language. Would we have the number of contributors we do if we required real names? Wikipedia would never have gotten anywhere. Every time a visitor visits a page while surfing the web and spots an error like a typo, they can (unless the article is protected) edit it and fix it immediately. We should not discourage new contributors and we certainly shouldn't discourage the majority of existing contributors. Without anonymity, Wikipedia would crash into the ground or become something completely different than what it is now. Have faith in the wiki process! --WikiSlasher 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There might be some quite mundane reasons for wanting to stay anonymous. I've seen quite a few comments on talk pages to the effect: "I shouldn't be on here now because I'm at work". Or you might not want certain family, friends, enemies, ex-lovers, prospective lovers, etc. checking what you do in your spare time. You might simply be embarrassed about quite how much time you spend on here. I agree with those who say the number of contributors would decrease if we were obliged to say who we really were (though I'd stay). Which isn't Jimbo's proposal, of course. qp10qp 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)