Wikipedia talk:Ignore all credentials

message: I am in the process of pulling particular pieces of other similar proposals into a new proposal that I hope to offer as an alternative to Jimbo Wales' proposal for "Verified Credentials." // Internet Esquire 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignore all credentials - a new start

message: Great proposal. Would be nice to have a link to Appeal to authority from this page. —ptk✰fgs 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to authority 

message: There is an underlying hysteria in this whole debate that the vicious and conniving Ph.D. wolfpack is out to fraudulently bully their way to victory in content disputes. Ummmm, there's no evidence *whatsoever* I've seen that has happened in the past. The worst I've seen is Essjays 'no worries' attitude, which actually would have been quite useful and constructive had he been authentic — the problem was only the fraud. The new verification proposal won't suddenly change anything — credentials were already here. There are, however, plenty of harmonious and constructive reasons that it might be useful to know someone's credentials; many examples have been given in the various discussions. Derex 10:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGF 

message: Please see Jimbo's comment on my Talk Page. // Internet Esquire 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of all the proposals this one's got the greatest title. It's normal that folks are going to be responding (besides the merits of the proposal themselves).  18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, excellent title - should be upgraded to a guideline. Addhoc 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that this is my proposal, I am reluctant to upgrade it to a guideline myself, even with Jimbo's apparent support.  Even so, the only objection I've seen here or elsewhere is whether enforcement of IAC as a policy is practicable. // Internet Esquire 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit premature to be tagging anything as policy or guideline... the whole notion on how to view credentials with respect to Wikipedia editors is still very much up for debate.  19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's support for IAC? 

message: The problem I see with this, as a Wikipedia user rather than as an editor, is that it gives me more reason to mistrust content in those places where I am not a competent authority to judge the matter for myself.
There is already a problem that those with genuine expertise are finding the community hostile (see Wikipedia:Expert rebellion). I from time to time look for articles to copyedit, but mostly what I find are fancruft things which I frankly cannot be bothered with, or articles which I don't know enough about or don't understand well enough to edit. Right now it seems to me that this is attempting to solve the minor problem of false credentials, when the more serious problem is that those with real credentials are often being driven off by a climate of hostility.
Saying that credentials don't mean anything, in the context of all the lay editors here, has the effect of elevating everyone to being experts. Saying that everything has to be verified sounds nice and rigorous, but it isn't backed up by any real discipline. Cranks are and will always remain free to assume a combative attitude on talk pages, and the day that someone takes seriously the threat to delete any and all uncited material, the screaming will be overwhelming.
I don't see any real issue that people take credentials too seriously. What I see happening that far too many editors don't take their own lack of credentials seriously enough. Mangoe 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. I think the problem with proposals like this one is that they add nothing substantive: this proposal essentially restates WP:ATT and WP:NPOV in terms especially hostile to experts. So, while it doesn't actually solve a problem, it likely exacerbates Wikipedia:Expert rebellion and the mistrust of Wikipedia within the academic community (and more generally people everywhere). -- bcasterline • talk 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on. I'd be much more receptive to simply adding one line to ATT emphasizing the (already clear) point that credentials are not a substitute. We already have an appeal to authority page. There's nothing new here except a good poke in the eye with the talk about "puffery" and a bogeyman "I am a PhD, so stop arguing" of which I've not yet seen a single example presented anywhere. Derex 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This does not work for me as a third party 

message: Not the credentials, the expertise is the meat. In some areas, it is difficult to make good contributions -- or even to to only tell good from bad contributions -- without some background knowledge. So if this essay is meant to not count the diplomas on the user page in resolving disputes, it's all well and not very exciting. But if it is meant to say, that the Wiki way has invented the magical silver bullet, and everybody can equally well contribute in specialised topics of quauntum field theory or proto-indoeuropean, it is totally misguided. --Pjacobi 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAC is not an essay.  It is a proposed policy/guideline that arose in response to Jimbo Wales' (very divisive) proposal to allow for "voluntary" verificaton of credentials that appear on Wikipedia user pages.  Oddly enough, Jimbo has expressed his support for elevating IAC to something more than a proposed policy/guideline.  As an ancillary note, I am not unsympathetic to the complaint that experts are not well received on Wikipedia, but credentialism is not a cure for that particular ill. // Internet Esquire 16:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what is meant by "credentialism", but I'm not suggesting a cure by having admins/mediators use credentials to resolve disputes. What I am saying is that any kind of denigration of the value of credentials here is just going to exacerbate the big problem we already have of editors who do not feel limited by their lack of expertise. We would be much better off if editors were encouraged to defer to the experts. Mangoe 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, deference to experts wouldn't be an improvement. There is a significant difference between having credentials and posting them on your user page and mentioning them if anyone disagrees with your edits. Ignoring credentials and thereby discouraging editors from attempting to gain advantage by mentioning them would be an improvement. Addhoc 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that people already do this- too much. It might just be the case that the reason they mention their credentials is that the person on the opposite side, because they lack those credentials, doesn't know what they are talking about. I haven't run into a case of people with credentials using them to dominate an argument, legitimately or not. I 'have' run into innumerable cases of people who manifestly don't have credentials acting as if they did. Mangoe 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expertise 

message: A policy or guideline. If guideline, I think the best title would be Credentials are irrelevant --wL<speak·check> 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no... this title is very much in line with Wikipedia policy naming per the fact that there already exists: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.  04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Credentials are irrelevent" sounds more negative to me. Credentials are relevant. But in wikipedia we are going to ignore them. --ZayZayEM 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to what 

message: Anyone remebers cries over expert retention and getting more PhD's involved in Wikipedia so it would become a truly reliable source? This "guideline" throws all that to garbage and pretty much says "we don't need no stinky PhD's..." And why? Over some silly over-bloated accident that is going to fade away in 3 months... And why PhD's are leaving the site or never starting to contribute? Because we already ignore those credentials. Haven't you read some of those "good bye Wikipedia" letters? If that's implemented, more such letters are coming. Renata 15:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  An editor with no credentials could write a well-referenced article or section, and that would be good.  An expert editor with tonnes of credentials could write an article or section and cite no sources whatsoever.  That, under current Wikipedia policy, would be bad.  Therefore, whether we like it or not, the Wikipedia way supports the idea that credentials are irrelevant and should be ignored.  Besides, anyone with enough money can buy a Ph.D. from certain institutions.  If credentials were to carry weight in Wikipedia then we'd need some mechanism of verifying each and every one and that would be verging on impossible.  Waggers 10:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is BAD

message: I like this proposal. IAC is a great idea. Credentials claimed by wikipedians (or anyone online) are unverifiable for the most part and most certainly should never be used in edit disputes when Attribution cannot be met.
This goes for minor credentials such as "I worked for XYZ Inc. so I know what really goes on there".
Blazing credentials violates Original Research and Cite Sources.
Credential verification should only come into play where administrators are concerned (if administrators are made accountable) and talking to the press.
Credentials are neat and cool. All the more if you can get them. But when it comes to editing wikipedia, they don't mean anything.
Also I like this title best.--ZayZayEM 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well said.. i completely agree. Mlm42 12:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is GOOD 

message: Can someone explain how "published works", which are capable of being attributed to, should not be something that someone can reference in an edit debate? I would think that published works, whether written by the person involved in the edit debate or not, are always available as attributable sources. Unless you get more specific, you'd be preventing people from referencing books that they had written in a subject, yes? That would seem to drive away the people who are perhaps the most knowledgeable about a given topic. 
Of course, I recognize there is a fringe press out there, but, if you're going to make a policy out of this, I would recommend some more specific language in this particular area. Whodan2 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whodan2:  I wholeheartedly agree.  I will modify the proposed guideline to be silent on the issue of published works. // Internet Esquire 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, you shouldn't reference books that you wrote. It's possible to do well, but many people simply are not an authority on the subject, so citing their book against another doesn't work. Having said that, the point of the policy is to prevent "I've written a book on the topic so I'm right", so it does need to be clarified. -Amarkov moo! 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amarkov:  Regardless of one's de facto expertise, referencing one's own published works is a de facto prohibition on Wikipedia by virtue of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.  I don't think it should be, but it is. // Internet Esquire 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it a prohibition, really. It's just a reccomendation to be careful, because it's really hard to objectively judge your importance to a field you make your life's work in. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amarkov:  After the cool reception that my friend Lawrence Taylor, Esq. received, I realized that expertise is not welcome on Wikipedia.  And I think it's just as well.  Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people, and it shouldn't try to be. // Internet Esquire 04:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making my point well enough. Not providing special status to experts does not equate to them being not welcomed. Experts should avoid referencing their own work, yes, but so should everyone else; it's just that others often do not have any work to reference. Of course, some people think that experts should be given special status, and that's reasonable, though it's also Citizendium and not us. But misrepresenting Wikipedia's position as disliking expertise is annoying. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's definitely not a prohibition, and thank goodness, because that's a terrible idea. Derex 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published Works 

message: Personally, I think something like Jimbo's proposal for finding some way to verify credentials  is going in the right direction.  There is just too much of an anti-expert tone in this version.  --SteveMcCluskey 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But for the facts that Jimbo's original proposal for "voluntary" credential verification was (a) a really bad idea; (b) anything but voluntary; (c) rejected by an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians; and (d) did I mention that it was a really bad idea, that was anything but volutary, and was rejected by an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians? // Internet Esquire 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was (a) a reasonable start which asked for suggested improvements (b) *completely *voluntary (c) received plenty of support (d) he's clearly going to do it anyway. I suppose (d) is all that really matters. Derex 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another approach 

message: In his comments above, Derex builds a straw man argument, asserting that IAC's short exegesis on puffery is an indictment of credentialism.  It is not.  Puffery is a term of art among legal scholars that refers to an exagerration that does not rise to the level of fraud.  To wit, if a pseudonymous individual were to assert, "I am one of Wikipedia's foremost scholars on Catholicism," that is an assertion that is highly subjective.  While arguably equivocal and clearly a case of puffery, this would not be a case of fraud.  However, if a pseudonymous twenty-something, self-styled Catholic scholar with no letters were to claim to be a tenured thirty-something professor of religion and aver to non-existent credentials as proof of his or her expertise as a Catholic scholar, that would be a more clear case of fraud, albeit not necessarily a case of criminal fraud.  In any event, a Wikipedian informed by IAC would respond to all such claims by saying, "Please do not aver to your credentials as proof of your expertise.  Your bona fides are irrelevant here on Wikipedia.  Please direct us to references with a signature byline that can be properly scrutinized."
(Please note that nothing in this comment or in any of my other contributions to Wikipedia should be construed as a legal opinion or as constituting legal advice.  Void where prohibited; verified credentials sold separately.) // Internet Esquire 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple things. First, I didn't make any argument, much less a straw man one. I made an assertion. I have no knowledge of terms of art among legal scholars, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that most readers of this will either. I do know the colloquial use of the term, and it's calling someone a pompous jackass. I don't find it helpful, even if that reveals me to be shamefully ignorant of legal jargon. Enough said. Derex 09:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Puffery, Fraud, and Credentialism 

message: I know this semi-contradicts my earlier statements, but I will now support this policy, because I think a kind of consensus is developing here. I have always felt that IAC is best for Wikipedia, and is the most helpful response to the Essjay affair. I was reluctant to support this simply because it didn't look like it was going to gain consensus, but I feel that if it has a chance of passing, then it is the best solution to this whole tangled mess. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Given that some users/admins in the recent past have relied on fictional credentials to push a POV, I think it is a good idea to ignore credentials unless they have been verifiably validated! However, I would consider the majority of credientials mentioned on wikipedia to come under the "unverified" category. This would then lead onto - what constitutes a verified credential...? --Rebroad 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested alternative: Ignore unverified credentials 

message: I'm assuming the title above accurately explains the proposed policy here. Don't forget what Aristotle said - something about the opinion of the many/uninformed .. ummm. what was it Aristotle said? Or what was it some US predident said about democracy - "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch" or something like that... not sure what i'm trying to say here!! --Rebroad 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignore all credentials (even verified ones) 

message: This was a reaction to the credential verification thing. It seems that is dead, and so is this. Right? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about ignoring all credentials which is very different than verification. I just used WP:IAC last week. It is far from dead. Hope you don't mind but I'm going to revert. (Requestion 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever it is, it is not "in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption", as the template says. As far as I can see, the whole discussion came to a halt. As such, it shouldn't be labeled a "proposed policy", even though you may think it should be policy and are linking to it. I guess that :Template:Essay is the best label, though as far as I'm concerned, it needn't carry a label at all. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I did was revert the removal of the  tag. (Requestion 06:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, of course I don't mind that you've reverted. It still sounds dead to me though, even as an essay. A quick scan of what links here seems to show nobody has linked to it recently (bunch of "archive" links). You linked to it once. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's dead