Wikipedia talk:Credentials matter

message: Wouldn't this include those who have certifications within a certain field of work versus those who have degrees of study in that field?
Take someone who has B.S. in Information Tech at Some State U versus the many A+, MCSEs, Net+'ers out there, or consider someone who has experience through a military background.. I would bet that editors of wikipedia articles fall under some of these categories, but who is to say who the 'expert' is?  
There is the possibility that you can do something for ten or more years but be doing it very poorly. --RWilliamKing 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a contest between formal certification and informal credentials (e.g. work experience). Both are meaningful, and both are relevant. Mangoe 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certified Professional vs. Bachelor of (blank) 

message: It appears to me that a fundamental problem with the project is egoism -- people don't seem willing to admit that experts actually do know more than they themselves know.  Part of the appeal of wikipedia, it seems, is that the fifteen year old kid can assert himself just as much as the professor with forty years of experience.  Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge the wisdom of those more learned?  Honestly, given the choice between an article written by a fifteen year old vs. one written by a PhD in his respective field, which are you going to believe is more credible, well written, and factually accurate?  I'd be willing to bet that those who rail against credentials are those who have no credentials to present, and that they gain credibility and authority from exactly that situation.  People without credentials have absolutely no incentive to deferr to those who do, which is why it shouldn't be surprising that the majority of wikipedia resists credentialling.  The only real argument I can decipher from the WP:CAI crowd seems to be focused on how "we can all do it just as good" and "everyone's opinion is equal" -- see the emboldened sentence above.  /Blaxthos 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can look at their user pages and contribution histories, and see for yourself. One person is a 19 year old college student; another is a lawyer who most commonly edits articles having nothing to do with the law. Others don't leave enough clues to tell. But in general this gives every appearance of being strictly a dispute among amateurs. Mangoe 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, no.  The WP:CAI crowd does not say that "everyone's opinion is equal" because here at WP, our opinion's don't matter.  The WP:CAI crowd simply states that whether someone is a professional, or amateur, their opinion means absolutly the same, nothing.  Only the opinions of those sources who you can attribute statements to matter. Chris M. 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, though, that it's not that simple. Every decision in the article-writing process requires an opinion -- most importantly, perhaps, "which source do I use?". Clearly, an expert is better qualified to make that decision, so to say that "everyone's opinion is equally worthless" is also false. -- bcasterline • talk 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... we have WP:RS to answer the 'which source should I use?' question. Where two (or more) reliable sources disagree on a particular fact (and there is not an overwhelming number on one side) then we note the disagreement in the article (see for example casualty figures in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page). Cynical 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental problem 

message: One area were credentials matter is evaluating whether a source is a reliable source. Quoting from Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant:
*I am trying to point out that experts are far from useless, in fact they are an asset, because they are able to draw quickly on sources, analyze the reliability of a source, think carefully about complex issues but also "debate well with others". ( )
* 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. ( )
*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. ( )
--Kevinkor2 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials and Reliable Sources 

message: The following principles from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience are relevant:
===Appropriate sources===
4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.
:Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Passed 4-1 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 

message: 4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.
:Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate sources

message: 7) Historically, although a perennial subject of discussion, see, for example, the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Expert editors and the brainstorming essay, Wikipedia:Expert retention, experts were accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia.
:Passed 4-1 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Experts

message: 10) In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.
:Passed 5-0 with 3 abstentions at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academically demanding subjects

message: 11) Experts are presumed to have an adequate command of appropriate sources for information they add or positions they take. Bare assertions of expertise without supporting sources are unacceptable, especially if there is conflict with other users.
:Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Experts are required to cite sources

message: 13) Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion, a guideline, strongly discourages editing which promotes the editor's projects.
:Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: I suggest that Wikipedians be given ribbons, like in church servers' guilds. A Wikipedian may display this 'ribbon' on their user page/talk page and use it in their signature.
:See Wikipedia:Ribbons#Service_Awards; see also Wikipedia:Service_awards. // Internet Esquire 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But these can't be put into signatures, can they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Social Studiously (talk • contribs) 02:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense... How can you possibly "not judge" and yet "level on the quality of their edits" and "gain a reputation."  Those are subjective qualifiers in which some authority judges the quality.  That's not what we're going for here... /Blaxthos 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Wikipedians should not be judged. Instead, they should be leveled on the quality of their edits and as they gain a reputation, their ribbons may increase. In church servers' guilds, applicants start a white (like some martial arts) and must pass a test to advance to the next level, and gain the privilege of wearing a 'higher' coloured medal. I do not suggest a test, rather a set of criteria.
::That makes no sense... How can you possibly "not judge" and yet "level on the quality of their edits" and "gain a reputation."  Those are subjective qualifiers in which some authority judges the quality.  That's not what we're going for here... /Blaxthos 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grading

message: A user's edits may be found by using the Wannabe Kate tool. The colours suggested here are just that, suggestions.
====White Ribbon====
*No requirements
====Blue Ribbon====
*To be eligible for a Blue Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have been on Wikipedia for at least two weeks.
====Green Ribbon====
To be eligible for a Green Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*100 Mainspace edits
OR
*250 other space edits (excluding User: and User talk:)
====Red Ribbon====
To be eligible for a Red Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*250 Mainspace edits
*100 Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk edits
OR
*400 Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk edits
====Brown Ribbon====
To be eligible for a brown ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*1000 Mainspace edits
*200 Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk namespace edits
*Significantly contributed to one or more articles reaching GA or FA status
OR
*Contributed significantly to Wikipedia every month for twelve months
====Orange Ribbon====
To be eligible for an orange ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*2500 Mainspace, Template and Wikipedia/Talk namespace edits combined
OR
*Nominated for the honour by another user
====WikiProject Ribbon (yellow)====
To be eligible for a yellow WikiProject Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*Been nominated by his/her WikiProject
OR
*600 edits to articles concerning that WikiProject
====Maintenance Ribbon (purple)====
To be eligible for a Purple Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*Completed at least 300 maintenance tasks
I may or may not write something in my Userspace about this. Please talk to me if I'm totally wrong, as I'm totally new. 
Social Studiously My Editor Review! -  12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Levels and criteria

message: To be eligible for a Purple Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*Completed at least 300 maintenance tasks
I may or may not write something in my Userspace about this. Please talk to me if I'm totally wrong, as I'm totally new. 
Social Studiously My Editor Review! -  12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintenance Ribbon (purple)

message: ====Administrator ribbon (grey)====
To be eligible for a Grey Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*Been voted in as an administrator or bureaucrat.
Social Studiously My Editor Review! -  12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: To be eligible for a Grey Ribbon, a Wikipedian should have:
*Been voted in as an administrator or bureaucrat.
Social Studiously My Editor Review! -  12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrator ribbon (grey)

message: I gotta say, we're not really credentialling edit counts.  I believe we're trying to focus on ways to certify actual credentials (PhD, for instance), not give credentials to someone who has clicked "undo" 500 times.  /Blaxthos 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, but I think editors should have some system in place. Social Studiously My Editor Review! -  02:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ribbons

message: and was reminded of the time that someone wrote, "500 Kvarans (me)  equals one Pliny the Elder." That's the wonder of wikipedia.  We don't have to do it alone. There are 500 hundred of me  and a thousand and someday a million.  Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just discovered this