Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant

message: I don't think it's about individual experience  as much as it is being able to credibly verify the source of the information, to possibly designate that you know a substantial amount in a particular field enough to VERIFY existing information without adding original research.--RWilliamKing 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOR is well and good.  The only "priviledge" that experts are accorded here is that we know the literature and judge cites better than non-experts.   But often enough,  we have to argue over the validity of the most basic refences with some editor who obviously does not know the area very well.Pproctor 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

message: No one has ever said anything like that. Wild hysteria over the attack of the straw men. 
If I wanted to fill Wikipedia with disinformation, I wouldn't claim I'm a professor. Instead, I'd start falsely citing books (preferably non-English) which few libraries have, and thus which are hugely difficult to check. I'd then start bitching about the "elitism" of the professor who knows that I'm wrong, that after all being his job, but doesn't have the reference which I've purposefully chosen to be obscure. Further, I'd fill it with such odd disinformation that no standard reference rebuts it, because it's just too weird to bother with. The cherry on my triumph would be getting the professor blocked under the Wikipedia:Credential ban. I would laugh & laugh & laugh. That is, if I were actually a troll, rather than a professor.  Derex 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the point you're making about WP:ATT, but I don't think situations like that ought to be a problem, as WP:NPOV caters for those. Let me explain. If Editor X adds a weird-looking and controversial statement to a page, which goes against the mainstream of opinion in that field, and backs it up with an obscure reference that no one's heard of, then you're quite right that it probably couldn't be deleted, due to WP:ATT. However, any experts hanging around the page would be within their rights to present the opposing/mainstream points of view; if necessary, they could also back it up by citing their own published research, as citing oneself is allowed. So it is possible to spread disinformation, but it's equally easy to spread good information. In writing this essay I'm not trying to attack experts, or drive them away from Wikipedia; I'm just saying that they shouldn't be exempt from following WP:ATT, and that their edits shouldn't be automatically treated as the unchallengeable truth, unless they are backed up with reliable sources. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But my troll by assumption put in a fringe theory that is not addressed in the literature. He just made the damn thing up and gave a false cite. Now, it may be entirely obvious to the experts that it's wrong, they may even be able to logically prove it's wrong (at least to other experts), but they can't trot out a reference rebutting some nutty thing because there won't be one. You're stuck with it, and you can't refute it without enormous difficulty; suck it Wikipedia, says my troll. ... Anyway, at least a dozen quite good examples of constructive and harmonious uses of credentials have been given in the various discussions. It's simply not true that credentials are useless, even on Wikipedia; if used *properly* they can be quite helpful indeed. For example, you want things backed up with reliable sources. Well, what do you do when there's a dispute about RS in physics? Might be nice if you could look up a list of 2 or 3 physics professors here and ask; at least I see that kind of thing as useful. I find this, and related discussions, to be enormous breaches of AGF. Derex 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily we already have it covered: from Wikipedia:Fringe theories: In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual ... Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight as well. --WikiSlasher 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll says it's not a fringe theory. It's perfectly mainstream and cited to a book by a mainstream scholar. It's not his problem if your library doesn't cover it. Three experts here says it is fringe. I'll believe the experts on that, but no one else can because expertise is irrelevant. Derex 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, this is interesting... Revert the additions, insist that it's a fringe theory, explain how it is a fringe theory, ask for the name of the mainstream scholar, the book, the ISBN of the book and the specific text which verifies this information in the book. If it's about science ask why it isn't mentioned in any peer-reviewed journal. You can also debate what counts as "mainstream". Quote the notability guidelines as well. Take it to the WikiProject if applicable. WP:RS is good as well and since the disinformation is so odd, see the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" section. If the troll insists on not shutting up I guess there's always WP:RfC or WP:RfM. Make the arguments brief and clear to anyone with sense and all should be fine... hopefully. I agree that credentials are useful in some cases. --WikiSlasher 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Take it to the WikiProject if applicable."  Why go to the WikiProject?  Oh, yes, because that's where the experts in the field hang out.  Anville 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing this page from my watchlist so I won't be here to respond, but as I said above I agree that credentials are useful in some cases. Bye! --WikiSlasher 11:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I hold a Ph.D, so you should make me an admin" 

message: From the article:
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.
Referring to your degree to win a dispute does not match this meaning, so it should be changed accordingly. Thanks! --WikiSlasher 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it if you want to. It's an essay, not a policy. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact, I've changed it myself. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of trolling 

message: Or, "I don't hold a Ph.D., you should read my c.v. anyways."  The fact of the matter is a bona fide expert is much less likely to make an "honest mistake" in his field of expertise than a non-expert.  Where a non-expert might cite sources such as newspaper articles which turn out to be wrong, an expert will notice the source material is not correct and not cite it.  In the event of an edit war over such a citation, an expert saying "the original source is wrong and here is why" will have more credence than a non-expert saying "the original source is wrong and here is why," assuming both "why's" sound equally credible.  In such instance, someone posting "I have a Ph.D. in the matter" or "I've spent the last 5 years researching this very topic" on the flame-war-article's Talk page with more details and proof on their user page is not out of order. Davidwr 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is out of order, not because they're likely to be wrong, but because it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Under WP:ATT, all material must be attributed to a reliable published source. If the expert in question wants to cite their own published research, then that's fine - but they have no right to expect Wikipedia to accept their edits as gospel truth, just because they have academic credentials in the subject. The fundamental point of this essay is that credentials and expertise have no place on Wikipedia - they can be included on a userpage as incidental biographical information, but should never be used in content disputes. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spirit of Wikipedia is building the best free encyclopedia possible. Anything that gets in the way of that is wrong. Derex 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Derex. The goal isn't to satisfy anyone's selfpride. It is to build a reliable and free encyclopedia. This proposal is going in the wrong way because it will drive experts away. This is a shame. I am no expert but I am fed up of people who seek revenge over experts because they are disgrunted with their own poor education / lives. Wikipedia isn't the place to do so. Poppypetty 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will not drive experts away, since a reasonable expert can understand very well that if he want to challenge a reliably sourced material, he ought to provide source for his own argument. If the material can be disproved by an expert by mere logic, then it probably wasn't cited in a peer-reviewed journal nor in mainstream sources, meaning it already didn't had any place here on Wikipedia. It's very simple: Credentials aren't valid means to support an argument, multiple verifiable sources are, and I think any expert could very well understand that. RdClZn (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hold a Ph.D., you should read my c.v. 

message: I have two remarks after reading the essay.
* Where did the idea that anonymity is fundamental to the Wikipedia ethos come from? As somebody who edits under his own name (and thinks that more people should do that), I'm a bit surprised to be excluded.
* Credentials can be useful; in fact, I use them. If I see a professor in mathematics changing a 1 into a 2 in a mathematical formula that I don't know about, I assume she is right. If I see an IP editor doing the same, I have my doubts and I'm more likely to check that. Perhaps that's unfair, but I don't have time to check everything so I concentrate on edits which are more likely to be misguided. And I'm not alone, as this section shows. Granted, this does not contradict the text of the essay, but it does contradict the title.
Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymity is an important part of the principle that anyone can edit. A huge number of people would be unwilling to contribute under their own name so it doesn't benefit the project much to stop anonymity. #2 there states "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering" and well if you're not registering you're not giving any information about yourself at all aside from your IP address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiSlasher (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The utility of credentials 

message: To provide a method for the verification of credentials is not to circumvent cornerstone Wikipedia policies like WP:ATT and WP:OR. If anything it's to make them more potent. As Awadewit said above, while not everyone is well-equiped to assess the reliability of a source, an expert with years of experience probably is. Credentials would allow experts to enforce the policy better, not get around it. The suggestion made in essays like this one that credentials will undermine other Wikipedia policies is misleading.
The danger that experts will use their credentials to win arguments, demand sysop priveleges, or make unverifiable edits is marginal. The culture here, which treats credentials without much reverence already, will never allow that kind of thing to happen. Editors will always challenge other edits factually, and other editors (even credentialed experts) will be pressed to provide facts in support of their edits if they want them to stand. Why would that ever change?
Even the fear that people will tout their credentials is unfounded. People who want to tout their credentials will probaby tout them with or without a process for verification, and, since it's not a widespread issue already, I don't see why it would become one. Verification just eliminates the possibility that someone touting their expertise is a fraud -- that's exactly why credentials exist in the first place. 
Overall, I think the potential abuse of credentials is better than the potential abuse of anonymity, as Essjay illustrated so well. -- bcasterline • talk 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made a lot of valid points here, and I accept that the majority of editors with credentials will not tout them, or attempt to use them to their advantage in gaining privileges or winning edit wars. However, just consider the inevitable direction that it will take the RfA process in. On a subconscious level, most users are more likely to support someone for adminship who is, verifiably, a college professor with a doctorate, than someone who is, verifiably, a fourteen-year-old editing from high school. Although I don't think most users would go so far as to vote Oppose per lack of qualifications; he's only 13 at RfA, it would inevitably influence the amount of leeway/generosity they allow in considering an RfA - a credentialed expert with only 2500 edits might get adminship, when a teenager with 4000 might not. The same applies to other positions of trust on Wikipedia. I want to make clear that I'm not assuming bad faith, nor do I think most Wikipedia users would come out and say "I'm a Ph.D, so make me an admin." But a culture of equality among Wikipedians seems better to me. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see what you mean. But, as you rightly say, it's a matter of culture, and I don't agree that a process of verification will change it. If it does, it's an indication that something else is broken. To take your RfA example: RfAs should be approved primarily based on the trustworthiness of the candidate and his proficiency with wiki tools, since those qualities are the most relevant to sysop priveleges. They're also qualities in which all Wikipedians begin with a clean slate. If that's not happening (e.g. RfAs are approved instead based on credentials), then the RfA process is broken and the culture there needs to change. I don't think opposing a process of credential verification, which is beneficial on its own, is the right solution to that problem. -- bcasterline • talk 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why credentials are useful 

message: Isn't that what the essay is saying? That because of Wikipedia:Attribution, Ph.D.-thumping won't be taken seriously without support from reliable, third party sources, just as with any editor's contributions? We are not bashing advanced degrees for the sake of it, or in and of themselves, right?  The message is, "Relax. There are already policies in place about how to add credible content. Hysteria about editors' claims to credentials is beside the point."  If I'm reading that message right, it'd be ironic to disparage credentials in the title. -Fsotrain09 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that'd probably be a better title. --WikiSlasher 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also support moving the title - although I wrote much of the essay, User:WikiLeon started it and came up with the title. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now moved the title. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title should be "Credentials are irrelevant"  

message: This is exactly my thoughts. If credentials mean nothing (and they don't), then why verify them? The problem is that Essjay lied, and that he used his fake credentials to win arguments. This essay might need to clarify that wiki is not 'anti-intellectual', however. We don't think your credentials are useless, just that they don't fit with our editing ethos. We encourage people with qualifications to write articles, and be proud of their achievements. You just don't use them inappropriately. Iorek85 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely concur. That's a good summary of the message I was trying to project with my contributions to this essay. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am also in complete agreement.  This is an excellent essay and sums up well the issues at hand.Joel Mc 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Support

message: On legal matters, such as copyright or fair use, I'd be inclinded to trust the opinion of a lawyer.  On medical topics, the same with a doctor.  I think there are cases where a contibutor's expertise is relevent, and if it is relevent, then verification is desirable.  SmokeyJoe 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the problem is that even the opinion of an expert is still an opinion, and therefore original research. Any opinions included in the article namespace need to be backed up by reliable sources per WP:ATT. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  I assumed we were talking about talk pages.  SmokeyJoe 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, that would certainly be a legitimate application of credentials on Wikipedia - however, I think the danger of creating an elitist culture outweighs the potential uses of credential verification. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Credentials can mean something to someone

message: I was wondering if someone might find a way to fit the Ignore All Credentials proposal into this essay, assuming they deem it relevant. // Internet Esquire 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're saying pretty much the same thing. I would support a merge. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they're saying the same thing, but I do think that IAC should be referenced on this page as a proposed guideline/policy. // Internet Esquire 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not [[Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials|Ignore All Credentials]]? 

message: I agree with most of it except, and this is being very picky, when you say: "you should never, ever refer to them (your credentials) outside your userspace." Why not? As long as you don't expect any special treatment then its fine to say, for example, in an article talk page. It at least makes what is said worth looking up / checking into. Think outside the box 13:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll change the wording to be less strong. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just one sentence

message: I'm newly-registered (to be precise, newly-returned), but, in my understanding, anonymity is simply an aspect of the wiki "ethos" (i.e. it is not really fundamental). Total anonymity would not allow for ip-address blocking (which is already utilized, obviously), because there would be no record of who changed what. Also, at some point, it is already accepted that anonymous edits, while they have their place, are not given the same initial value by the community as a registered edit (at least from what I can tell).
I support the idea of verifying credentials, if only as a method of assembling a database of experts in particular fields. A verified expert in a field could be someone to whom others turn when they have a question about an article/edit/what-have-you. That person is more likley to have the appropriate resources at their disposal and thus is in a better position to give an opinion than the average editor. Of course, one should require that this opinion be backed up with one of those resources of which the verified expert has access to; accepting their opinion solely on the grounds of their verified expert-hood should be avoided (on that, I agree with you). Whodan2 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymity and Edit-checking 

message: I agree with some of the criticisms of this essay which multiple people have articulated.  Perhaps is it is time to start a "response essay" titled something like Wikipedia:Credentials matter? -- Beland 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mangoe 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've also written down my thoughts here. -- bcasterline • talk 07:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials are relevant 

message: Sorry guys, but I just can't buy into your assertions.  No Wikipedian's opinion is more valuable than another's. -- this may be the fundamental flaw (of the whole system, perhaps), and represents the dichotomy of philosophies I currently have.  
On the one hand...
*Experts spend years specializing in their respective fields becoming experts.  With the vast amount of collective human knowledge, it is prudent that one respects the knowledge of those who know more about a particular subject.  That's why courts accept only expert testimony, why corporations pay consultants for their expertise, why journals and publications have editors (and editorial oversight), and why academics post their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
on the other...
*As long as the wikipedia community plays strictly by our own rules (most specifically WP:ATT) then, in theory, we shouldn't have to cross that bridge -- we're only going to quote reliable sources that have already published findings.  We don't need to know what's true, but only what's verifiable (who needs credentials for that?).
As it all plays out, however, wikipedia loses credibility because we have no experts.  With all opinions being equal, there is absolutely no incentive for experts (which we do need) to contribute to our growing encyclopedia of knowledge.  Ask yourself this -- would you even consider using an encyclopedia that purposefully invalidates and ignores the credentials of experts in preference to a feel-good hey we're all the same here democracy?
I am not saying that wikipedia is fatally or inherently flawed, nor am I addressing the mechanics of how we should cross this bridge (regarding credentials).  I am, however, saying that the "credentials are irrelevant" attitude hurts the project by alienating those who actually do have the expertise we desperately need.
I'm sure I could have expanded upon my ideas, and have been much more clear in conveying them.  The hour is late, I apologize in advance for any typos, discrepancies, errors, or unclear logic.  :-) /Blaxthos 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Not all opinions are equal. But opinions are irrelevent on wikipedia. You can't put opinion in an article, only referenced, reliable sources. And to do that, you don't need a degree. Iorek85 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, by that logic, we're all qualified to write articles on highly technical subjects, like medicine or quantum physics, right?  Hardly... /Blaxthos 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, opinions are relevant on Wikipedia: it's how we distinguish the valuable editors from the cranks. Someone who has contributed many articles, & shows that they know the subject & the secondary literature in a given area will tend to be more respected about that subject than an otherwsie undistinguished editor. However, since we are all human, all of us make mistakes; one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that anyone can fix those mistakes, & make the result even better. Unfortunately, it's one of Wikipedia's weaknesses: someone can always come along & remove valuable informaiton, or replace it with erroneous information. That is one of the reasons why we insist on providing citations for statements, so we can distinguish between the two cases. -- llywrch 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sale 

message: A ways above here, Teresa.Fr said:
You can have all the credentials in the world and still don't know anything. You can be completly incompetent and have credentials. Having a paper that says you studied something doesn't mean you're smart or know what you're talking about.
and
Again, I'm not saying that all PhD holders are incompetent, I'm just saying they're not NECESSARILY more competent than any other person, thus making crediants unimportant for wikipedian users.
This is of course true. And even "good" experts can be wrong, though as the principles of Wikipedia state, we are here to recount the state of the art, not to guess who is right.
However, this is already covered by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. We do not need a special rule to justify ignoring incompetents with credentials. Within the scope of this project, it's obvious that credentials aren't all-determining. And even if they were given weight by policy (which is never going to happen), WP:IAR would give editors leave to disregard patent incompetents.
All this presupposes that you can tell who is competent and who isn't. I personally am going to assume that high school students and college students most likely can't, especially if they are working outside their field of study. The whole point of such education, after all, is to give its beneficiaries the tools to do proper research, and it is reasonable to assume that if their studies are incomplete, they are not masters of those tools. I'm sure a lot of people feel slighted by that, but competency is an aristocracy.
Of late I've been doing articles on types of sailing boats. I have a reasonable level of amateur knowledge, but I'm hardly an expert. So if someone comes along with some claim to expertise, I don't see any reason not to let them correct me, unless they say something that a consultation with references shows is completely off the wall. The truth is that my competency to correct them is rather limited. Likewise, we are stymied at the moment in editing railway signalling because, lacking someone with comprehensive expertise, us North American amateurs are having a hard time putting something together with the British amateurs that addresses both areas well. This reflects a realization on all sides that our competency is limited.
The problem of incompetent experts is being overstated. One need only go to Wikipedia:expert rebellion to find pointers to actual cases of know-it-all amateurs butting heads with credentialled experts . Where's the case with the incompetent expert? Mangoe 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why acknowledging credentials is harmless to Wikipedia, if not obviously beneficial. Well said. -- bcasterline • talk 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On incompetent experts 

message: Wikipedia's strength is also its weakness: its inclusivity - any deranged moron with two fingers can become an editor. Thus we have input from those normally excluded from the elitist realms of refernce material writing - this is a good thing and a bad thing. I think what is important is that the Admins have credentials and be required to put them forward as requested and when applying for admin-ship. This way good moderation of the submitted material from the two-fingered morons like myself might occur - or not, as is currently the case. In point of fact, though my personal credentials are scientific and medical, much of what I have contributed to Wikipedia has been in the realm of historic and arts facts. So, I reiterate my thesis that contributors should not necessarily be credentialled (beyond a basic ability to write a good comprehensible sentence reflecting an accurate fact - those that check such material should be competent by some objective measurement to do so.Lgh 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're proposing that people without credentials should not be allowed to become admins? How does that make sense? The admin tools have nothing to do with the writing of articles. They concern WP system tasks such as deletions, blocks, etc. A familiarity with WP policy is far more important than outside credentials in selecting admins. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength is also weakness 

message: Want to congratulate those who wrote this essay. It suns up my thoughts exactly. It's awful what Essjay did but credential verification is a knee jerk reaction...period. No need. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the congratulations (I'm the co-author). I'm glad other users agree with my view that a systematic verification system for credentials, whether obligatory or voluntary, would be unnecessary and positively dangerous for Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: It's all very well to say that the only criterion is attributability to a reliable published source, but that gives rise to (at least) three questions.   The first of these is how accessible does the source have to be - if the readers can't get at the source how do they know that the attribution is genuine?   The second is who decides that the source is reliable - what happens if an editor decides that a series of articles published perhaps on the web, or on usenet, by a complete nutter (perhaps one of those who claims that it's possible to prove the generalised continuum hypothesis from the accepted axioms of GNB set theory becasue it's a direct consequencs of Occam's razor) is reliable - but I expect that question will be done to death by a lot of people.   The third question is what happens when there is no reliable source, or no sufficiently accessible reliable source, or no sufficiently well attested accessible source?  The WP includes articles on subjects where that third question is relevant = for example the article on "Scottish Gaelic grammar", where the editor (who isn't, I think, a native speaker) has relied on two very old books (Calder and Gillies) which are fairly accessable but pretty unreliable, reliable material (like inald Blacks "Cothrom Ionnsachaidh") is either pretty inaccessible or (like Micheal Bauer's Akerbeltz web site) not well attested, not visibly subject to peer review ("visibly" is an important word in there) or both pretty inaccessible and not well attested.  I could rewrite that page and improve it a lot (and maybe will when I have time - I've commented heavily on its talk page in the hope of getting reaction to my ideas from other "experts"), but how would anyone know that what I put there was better than what went before?  Obviously I would refer to Black and to Bauer, and to Cox (his school dictionary "Brigh nam Facal" has an excellent table giving the conjugation of gaelic verbs) and maybe to Clyne (all his stuff is out of print, though) but how many people can get hold of the books an check that the references are genuine and how many people can be sure that MB's website is as good as I claim it is?  I'm not saying that credentials are any sort of answer to this (because they aren't), but I am saying that the view about attribution put forward in the essay (and in some of the comments above) is perhaps a bit naive.  --Micheal--MichealT 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, and agree that attribution to reliable sources isn't a universal panacea, particularly as reliability can be partially subjective. However, I think this problem is more relevant to the discussion going on over WP:ATT; all of our policies on attribution and so on are presently in a state of flux. So I'd advise you to repeat your examples over there, since I think it raises an important point about the way Wikipedia works. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a limited case for using credentials in some circumstances. When a disagreement over article content takes place, experts in the field should normally be able to 'win' with the sheer quality of the argument they present (about the quality of the sources they want to claim as reliable) without needing to make any claim about their own expertise. Only if they find opposition that is being obtuse or awkward and a barrier to producing an accurate article, should they think of fielding their credentials (in support of their claim to be a good judge of the reliability of sources). And if they want to do that, they should be prepared to have their credentials evaluated. Bill F 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Published Sources 

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