User talk:M347758/Credentials

Credentials

I would prefer to abandon altogether Jimbo's original proposal regarding verified credentials. However, given a choice between the lesser of two evils, this policy is one that I could live with. // Internet Esquire 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, mostly, that no new policy or guideline is even needed but it is pretty clear that Jimbo feels the need to do something. I wonder if he has been bullied by the press into what he is proposing. It is unworkable on the face of it. I wanted to put something out there that could, potentially, deal with the press/blogs without instituting an unworkable policy or guideline. I'm troubled that the AP is reporting on Jimbo's proposal as a done deal already.MikeURL 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials in promotions?

Should the guideline specifically state that credentials should also be considered irrelevant in RfAs? In addition, perhaps a note about credentials also not being relevant in CheckUser access consideration except insofar as a CheckUser IS subject to an overall review of their honesty in userpage assertions.MikeURL 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Does the issue of promotions even need to be addressed? Surely this only needs to be about credentials on Wikipedia. But as you say, the use of credentials to try to get an advantage in an edit dispute is deprecated. --luke 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, probably not. This section became about addressing how prior claims of credentials on wikipedia will be treated for people who are (or are applying for) Bureaucrat, CheckUser, Oversight, or ArbCom.MikeURL 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. see my edit here. If it's moved maybe that section could be deleted then, but as owner I leave it to your decision.--luke 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand what you mean you're suggesting deleting the section in this article titled "Credentials and promotions"? My own read of the consensus forming around the issue is that some form of verification of credentials is acceptable for Bureaucrat, CheckUser, Oversight, and ArbCom members. This isn't so much to give them additional weight in edit disputes or in their consideration for those positions but is rather merely for fact-checking purposes.MikeURL 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the more significant issue becomes Real Identity versus Faux Identity. Credentials are still secondary, don't you think? --luke 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right and I've been struggling with trying to put up an alternative to Jimbo's plan that is closer to consensus without being so different that it is a truly alternate approach (I think jimbo is pretty set on making some form of validation system happen for credentials). Your point is the valid one and is not addressed simply by talking about credentials. Maybe the whole thing needs to be reworked to make it about when a editor must go from "faux" to "real".MikeURL 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(ding!) You're right and this page is mingling a guideline on credentials with an additional guideline for user pages. A change to the user page guideline should probably go there and not here. Time for bed but I'll look for comments on this tomorrow. ThanksMikeURL 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, yep. And Jimbo may be set on his plan, but it's meeting stiff opposition. I think the question of real v online here amounts to one of integrity, but it's a difficult one to tackle in the abstract without meatspace contact. However, if people can see the pitfalls relating to claimed credentials it may well help in some cases to form a better reasoned judgment of someone's online persona where credentials have been claimed. But perhaps the kerfuffle in the EssJay case was primarily because there *was* such contact with "EssJay" which should have *immediately* exposed his lack of integrity.--luke 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And that kinda circles back to whether anything on wikipedia really needs to change at all.MikeURL 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just made a couple of edits to do two things. 1) focus this just on credentials and 2) copy the user page guideline on credentials.MikeURL 15:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

I still have an open mind, but at the moment, pendng further discussion, I prefer your approach to Jimbo's. At the same time, I think we need a new approach to ensuring that people with special authority such as checkusers and arbcom members are honest people of good repute. Metamagician3000 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I would comment that verifying someones claim to certain qualifications does not prove anything as regards the individuals overall honesty. It is just another box to tick. LessHeard vanU 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do think that an editor using false credentials on wikipedia is committing a major faux pas, and the longer it goes on the worse it is (because an experienced editor should know better). For users without special authority, and up to admin, I think just telling them this is enough. This is the main reason I included the "renoucing" section. However, as the authority level gets to the levels I have in the guideline I think it makes sense to expect those users to be prepared to pass verification about their credentials or not include any at all.

I do agree that including just credentials strains logic. Why just credentials? But that is what Jimbo wants and since he can just institute policy unilaterally I think it makes sense to work with his proposal and try to find consensus without too radically changing what Jimbo put forth.MikeURL 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the thrust of this

I love Jimbo and all that he's done for the Wikipedia, but I honestly feel a lot more comfortable with this proposal. But one way I partially disagree is that I don't see an issue with simply listing credentials, although I think we should encourage users who do to back up those credentials with external sources. Credentials, in and of themselves, are not a bad thing, as they can provide a sort of marketing/networking/socializing potential for the Wikipedian who has done a lot of good work. But I totally agree with the thrust of the concept that credentials cannot be decisive in edit disputes. People should be able to prove their point without throwing their weight. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I would like to actively discourage any mention of credentials is to actively avoid their use/misuse on wikipedia. However I think your point is an excellent one and perhaps a good addition to this would be to encourage people who want to list credential information to link to a personal page of their own outside wikipedia.MikeURL 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with the thrust of this; if you want you credentials to be trusted make a link to an external source that is attributable, which also mentions/links back to Wikipedia. The only time credentials should really be scrutinized is in the case of checkusers, arbs, etc. Creds don't really buy the editor anything but personal description (as opposed to upperhand / contribution policy flexibility)). Well said, I like it. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally

Although this doesn't go as far as I personally would like, I like this. We won't be wasting time verfiying credentials and it specifically states that credentials are not to be used in disputes or to force opinions. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Value of credentials

Certainly references trump credentials. However, we've all seen cases of edit wars where both sides can provide references. In those cases, if I am an uninvolved party trying to figure out whom to believe, I would be more likely to side with a known expert. And even more so, if there is an edit war between two non-experts, I would be more likely to support a proposed third-party resolution if it came from an expert. And I hope that the expert would provide his/her real name, so I could do my own checking that they are not considered a crackpot. Finally, if there were a way to find experts in a field, that could be helpful in cases of uncertainty, even where there isn't an edit war going on.

That having been said, let's keep this informal. Matchups 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that consensus around that particular issue is that both sides should be represented in the article in a NPOV way. I don't think an expert should come in and squash reliable sources because they say so. Undue weight exists to address issues where a fringe is trying to establish their point in the absence of enough reliable sources.MikeURL 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But the undue weight policy says, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject," so it would seem to be helpful to have experts around. This is particularly true in fields such as global warming, evolution, and the MCAS, where there is a significant group of non-experts which hold views espoused by only a tiny minority of experts. (Note: I am not posting this to get into an argument on those three topics. Even if you disagree with my examples, I'm sure you can think of others.) Matchups 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Google use an algorithm which prioritizes credentials in searches? Universities would be found over a blog and Ivy Leagues would be found before State School arricles. Reputation is quite important. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, no, Google does *NOT* prioritize credentials in search results. Rather, Google relies very heavily on a populist approach to value inbound links, thereby assuming that social bookmarking sites like Digg are much more authoritative than more carefully vetted sites like the National Institute of Health. Indeed, one of the frequent criticisms leveled at Google is that it is relatively easy to game the algorithm, inspiring those in the know to completely ignore the first page or so of search results for particularly commercialized search terms. Have you never heard of a Google bomb? // Internet Esquire 10:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A guideline that also aims upward

I've added a sentence regarding what will likely occur before an editor is asked to speak on behalf of Wikipedia. This is almost like adding a small "Jimbo Guideline". Is that appropriate or helpful? I know Jimbo's initial inclination is to make this verification process be wikipedia-wide but the vast bulk of opinion seems, to me, to be opposed to that. So far I think the only class of editors that people would support required verification for are people asked to speak to the media.MikeURL 18:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that when you're speaking to the media, you can't back up what you say the way you can when you're editing the Wikipedia. Quotations in newspapers don't include footnotes to the sources which the speaker used in crafting their sentences. Anville 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Section about RfA"

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. I meant the section entitled "Verification for positions of trust". What worries me about this whole idea is that if users are required to submit their RL identity and credentials when going for an RfA or other position of trust within the community, then there will be discrimination against younger users and users who have no academic credentials. I feel that credentials, in general, are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia; all controversial edits must be backed up with reliable sources per WP:ATT, regardless of the editor's expertise. But I can just imagine seeing Oppose per lack of qualifications; he's only 13 in someone's RfA; that would be a sad day for Wikipedia, which is why I passionately oppose Wikipedia:Administrators accountability and have pledged to leave the site if it is approved. Your policy proposal is better than that one, but see Wikipedia:Credentials are useless for a summary of my views on this issue, and Wikipedia:Credential ban for a policy proposal which I find acceptable. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think this proposal elevates or denigrates credentials. I don't think wikipedia should do either. However, if an editor HAS claimed credentials then certain higher level positions should be subject to verification (not required, but subject to it). Seems like a middle ground to me.MikeURL 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On reading your proposal more carefully, it does seem acceptable, as it only refers to "those credentials that a person chooses to make public via their user page". This seems like an OK middle ground, but I'd prefer if you added a sentence along the lines of User credentials and RL identity may not, under any circumstances, be taken into account during the RfA or RfB process, and any Support or Oppose votes based on these factors will be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. If you add that, I will change to a Yes vote in the strawpoll (although sadly, it doesn't look like any of the policies listed there are on the way to gaining consensus). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I did just make a change right now to that section. However, I don't think this guideline has the scope to direct how editors vote on RfAs or RfBs. Do those processes have their own guidelines?MikeURL 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point; they do have their own guidelines, but there's nothing to direct how users vote during the RfA process. So an alternative change of wording might be: Administrators will only be required to disclose their real-life identity and credentials after their successful RfA has been closed. They will then have to submit their identity and undergo credential verification, prior to receiving the admin tools. This would remain within the scope of this page, but you'd probably have to make it a proposed policy rather than a proposed guideline, which might make it harder to gain approval. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think from the start I've been wary of requiring ANYone to disclose their identity. I think what you mean is if a person has already stated credentials on their userpage and they wish to stand by them then they will be called to verify them after promotion? I kinda like that, it removes the credential verification process from the promotion process. This guideline should probably be a policy anyway because it certainly is suggesting a brand new process.MikeURL 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the appropriate wording is as follows:

• If a candidate for RfA, RfB or any other position of trust on Wikipedia has claimed to possess academic credentials, and/or has used such credentials to influence Wikipedia processes, then they may be called upon to verify their credentials after receiving the admin tools. However, the possession or non-possession of credentials should not be treated as a factor when voting in RfAs or RfBs, and nor should an editor be denied success in an RfA or RfB because of refusing to disclose their identity.

This seems to more-or-less cover it, and is sufficiently permissive to be a guideline rather than a policy. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're getting at but I can't help but think that Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship is the better place for such policy/guideline changes.MikeURL 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Surprisingly, this is the only page in a long line of Essjay-related proposals that is not firmly trounced by an opposing consensus. I would suggest moving this into the Wikipedia namespace and advertising it on WP:RFC and WP:VP for further discussion. >Radiant< 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I sort of "forked" it at Wikipedia:Credential verification. Someone removed the proposal tag from that article. Do you think this page should go there? There is already a namespace for WP:CRED.MikeURL 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That was me, because the page isn't proposing anything. Yes, I think you should take this there. We can hijack WP:PROD since it isn't really used so far, and doesn't point to a useful page. >Radiant< 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would not mind taking care of that I'd appreciate it. I'm not too sure how it will work but I'll be watching :) MikeURL 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't find this particularly objectionable, but I wouldn't support it either. Basically, we don't need a big credentialing routine written in policy for the handful of people with permissions higher than admin. Office ought to handle that — anyone intent on fraud who's that high up could easily sock his way through a 'personal testimony' credential verification. Moreover, I don't see why it's so important for those few people if it's not important for everyone else. The world is not worried because Essjay was a bureaucrat; they're worried because he edited 16,000 articles. The rest of it is basically an essay on appeal to authority, and it overreaches by ignoring all of the many constructive and harmonious uses of credentials people have mentioned in the various debates. Derex 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if someone put up a "don't do anything yet" proposal it would be swept to consensus! I mean, no one would really do that because you can't have a proposal that makes no proposition. In any case, please do feel free to add what you think is missing re: harmonious use of credentials. MikeURL 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Verification

This guideline will still need a working credential verification system to either link to or to include. Should I work Jimbo's plan in here?MikeURL 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why yes Mike, you should. Anyway, I did. The guideline was 1/2 complete without at least SOME method of verification.MikeURL 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with Ignore All Credentials

I cannabalized huge portions of MikeURL/Credentials to create Ignore All Credentials. The biggest difference between the two is that MikeURL/Credentials makes a point of addressing the issue of verification of credentials for admins. I support such verification as an appropriate remedy for what ails Wikipedia, but I also believe that that particular issue should be referred to the Wikimedia board. // Internet Esquire 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though Jimbo supports that. He also obviously wants a credential verification system (and he doesn't seem to consider that a policy or guideline...it just metaphysically IS). I'm now baffled by the whole thing. Anyone wanting to speedily delete this page won't get any complains from me.MikeURL 19:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

*lil hug* from luke 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What, no big hug? ;)MikeURL 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)