Wikipedia talk:Credential ban

message: This proposal is just a draft. Please feel free to edit it as much as you please as long as the basic message stays the same (to keep comments here in context). I may have missed things and you may have a solution to a problem that I didn't think of. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

message: While I totally agree with you that a credential should have no bearing on the outcome of a dispute, or questioning of a reference, by not knowing who is what we loose a important resource. This resource would be the access to very special knowledge.
You might say that if we talk about Pokemon or porn stars or other trivialities it is irrelevant to know who is what and you are right. But lets take history for example. This is a field where all is about attribution and sometimes sources are so obscure that it takes a specialist to find them. Lets take philosophy, here it is not only about sources but also about references to sources contained in minuscule footnotes. Art is another of those very special topics. Even among art critics there is sometimes a shocking lack of knowledge that leads to more or less tightly knit circles of critics that  exchange their knowledge so they don't look quite as ignorant.
That is why it is good to know who is who. That does not imply that someone's opinion, who has a PhD or an MA or a BS or whatever, should be weighted higher than the one of those who don't. We just have to presuppose that they did not get their diplomas by passing out hams to the profs and know a little about their field.  AlfPhotoman 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we don't want people with great credentials. On the contrary, they should be welcomed as valuable assets to the community. This is mainly to avoid the problems with credentials in conflicts, complications in verification, and controversy like Essjay. What I am trying to say (perhaps I wasn't quite clear) is that a PhD may have access to obscure reference materials. If he uses them to add information to an article, that's fine, as long as he cites it in the article. I'm not trying to be anti-intellectual, I'm trying to be pro-equality. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is, if I need an obscure quote and no user is allowed to say that he may be able to get it it will be much harder for me  AlfPhotoman 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basically nothing wrong with ... but, 

message: Clearly, appealing to credentials in any sort of dispute is bad, but this goes too far by banning simple, flat, biographical information. Hell, some users are well-known public figures. Simply giving your name may be tantamount to invoking publicly available details of your background and expertise. It would force the rest of us to jump through unreasonable hurdles to rewrite otherwise innocuous details on our user pages. I just don't think it's necessary. – Þ  01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Banning mention of credentials is an extreme end of the spectrum that, as far as i can tell, has been soundly rejected by the WP community.MikeURL 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected by the community? Where has this rejection taken place? Could you please provide evidence of your claims. Galanskov 06:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "banning simple, flat, biographical information" No, it does not do that. It would ban the use of credentials that could create a sense of elitism and inequality among editors or those that have the tendency to be used in content disputes. Saying you are the chair of the Law department at Harvard, that would be banned, saying that you are a lawyer (no mention of status) in the Boston area is perfectly fine. They both establish that you know a lot about law but the second doesn't try to make you sound like you're infallible when it comes to law. As far as being rejected, it seems to me like just about every proposal is encountering strong resistance. If I had to guess the outcome of all these proposals, I would say it would probably just be a sentence added to WP:ATT saying Credentials and experience are not a substitute for valid sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It would take too long to make a list of diffs but you're right that I should not make a statement like that unless I'm ready to put in that work.  So I'll modify it to ask a question: do you really thing WP will support an outright ban on credentials?MikeURL 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goes too far 

message: This proposal also prevents the use of real names in WP user pages; given a real name and something about background, the credential will be obvious. WP people do tend to know that and will check that. DGG 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, User:Jimbo Wales and User:RichardDawkins are hereby banned from editing articles under their actual names, since their credentials are too obvious and will perhaps intimidate less informed editors. Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously, are we proposing to solve the problem of pseudonymous editors  using their anonymity to misclaim credentials, by making anonymous editing not only possible, but obligatory  for any editor who is "academically qualified" ? I don't want to repeat myself further, so here is a link to my previous objection to a similar proposal.  Abecedare 04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I must say that these are real concerns. Metamagician3000 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added a section about usernames. they are basically the loophole to the general ban. It still seems to be missing something though. If you can think of what it is, add it in. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You intend to permit a user name like User:PhDBio. This defeats the entire purpose of your proposal. DGG 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to do this with as much respect to existing policies as I can. Although I wouldn't like to see something like PhDBio, making that illegal would mean a change to username policy as well and forcing new users to change their name seems like it would be a little bitey. If you have a better solution, please tell me, I would welcome new ideas. The main point of this proposal isn't so much the complete eradication of personal biographical details, it is mainly to deal with elitism, the use of credentials's in disputes, and is also intended as a simpler solution to verification. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real names

message: This proposal is great. It gets right to the heart of the issue and offers a viable solution, an imperfect solution, but a viable one. If implementing it means obligating the use of pseudonyms, then so be it. Galanskov 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Modification to this statement: those who are given a position of power must shed their anonymity. Everyone else should use a pseudonym. Galanskov 07:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In case you haven't noticed, I have been quite active at the discussions at the Jimbo Wales page. My posts here are intended as encouragement for the author of this proposal. Thank you. Galanskov 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I love this proposal

message: As an engineer, with an easily accessible web record of expertise, I find it hilarious that wiki has no practical way of stopping every 14 year old who watched Top Gear from re-editing a technical article into imbecility. Now, I can see the point of saying that everyone should be able to have a say, but, not in a refernence article. My enthusiasm for wiki is rapidly being reduced by the way that I have to spend 0.1-1 hour a day reverting vandalism and stupidity.Greglocock 11:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, we could stop almost all immature vandalism, but most of those methods would end the "anyone can edit" idea. And most of those proposals are rejected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very silly

message: What are you going to do, block people for claiming they have a PhD? You can't legislate people against talking in a certain way. >Radiant< 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply putting it on their userpage would not result in a block of course, but using an advanced degree to win arguments or as a replacement for sources could eventually result in a block, just like WP:LEGAL. See also . Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah right 

message: 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 (common). 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 address. I would positively howl about WP:OR and WP:V when said professor disputes my cited work as being obviouly wrong to anyone knowledgeable in the field. 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: So, you're suggesting that people should get to use the so-called "I'm a PhD so shut up" argument? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say that? I've never actually seen the "shut up" part of that "stunt" pulled. Could you point me to the apparent epidemic of it? I don't believe I've ever even pulled such a stunt in the classroom, where I'm paid precisely because of my expertise. ... My point is that blind faith in citations is blind. All sources of verifiable information should be carefully weighed and balanced, credentials among them. We have the great good fortune that some world-class experts see fit to donate some of their time here, and we should make sensible and judicious use of that gift where *appropriate* rather than threaten to block for offending the egalitarian sensibilities of some. Derex 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I were a troll .... 

message: Ok.  Forget the Radiohead reference for a second.  People who throw around credentials to win arguements or to make themselves appear more knowledgeable should be directed to WP:DICK and be done with.  I agree the recent Essjay controversy has made this issue in the forefront of peoples minds, but we need to take a step back and understand that this issue is not a big deal.  The notion that we need a policy to deal specifically with this narrow problem smacks of instruction creep of the WORST kind.  Return to basics.  WP:ATT says that EVERYONE (even PhD's) need to provide references.  WP:NPOV is clear too.  That's all we need.  We should not discourage those with knowledge in an area from editing those areas of their expertise!  And that is all this policy would do.  The kind of collateral damage that a policy like this would create is exactly what WP:CREEP is about avoiding.  If someone refuses to provide references, deletes others referenced additions, pushes POV, or does any other WP:DICKish editing, report them for comment at RfC or ANI and that's that... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm a [[WP:CREEP]], I'm a weirdo... what the hell is this policy doing here... It don't belong here 

message: *First and foremost: If every editor is truly equal, credentials serve no purpose on Wikipedia.
:Credentials do serve a purpose on Wikipedia. If you have two or three people at the talk page of an article and none of them is sure that a statement is correct or not, it is a good idea to find an expert who is knowledgeable and knows good reliable sources for the field.
*Allowing the continued use of credentials leaves the door open for editors to use the "I have a PhD so stop arguing" argument.
:If the argument is so bad, ignore it or tell them it's a poor argument.
*No credential is a substitute for content policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV.
:No-one said it was. In fact we can always refer to the two policies cited when someone is using their credentials to try to win.
*Verifing credentials threatens to split the community into two groups of users:
**Trusted users with verified credentials
**Users with unverified credentials or no credentials at all
:Good point, and we don't need to verify credentials either per above and assume good faith.
*No simple credential verification systemn can be foolproof.
:Unimportant per above.
That's my 2¢. --WikiSlasher 06:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I have a PhD, so stop arguing" is not an argument. Rather, it is a logical fallacy--Appeal to authority. If someone that actually does have a PhD makes this argument, the credentials of the school that granted the degree should be questioned. JStripes 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have two or three people at the talk page of an article and none of them is sure that a statement is correct or not, it is a good idea to find an expert who is knowledgeable and knows good reliable sources for the field.  Not sure what the difference is between this and If you have two or three people at the talk page of an article and none of them is sure that a statement is correct or not, it is a good idea to find good reliable sources for the field.  Credentials don;t come into it. Vizjim 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal of problems