Wikipedia talk:Credential ban

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-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically nothing wrong with ... but,
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. Alf Photoman 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 Alf Photoman  00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think banning people from saying they have a qualification is a very bad idea. Firstly, it would be impossible to enforce. When people write their userpage, about the first thing they're going to think of is what makes them useful to Wikipedia, and our society is set up so that when people think in terms of usefulness, people think in terms of credentials. Absolutely no way would I ever attempt to tell someone that they've got to take their credentials down and replace it with something meaningless like "I am interested in nuclear physics".

That people shouldn't use their credentials to bully people in content disputes, and that people shouldn't lie about their credentials, is sufficiently obvious that any policy or guideline which said that would be harmful instruction creep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Goes too far
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. – &#160;Þ&#160;  01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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-man  talk ¢ Review! 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Real names
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)


 * 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)

This had occured to me as well. I also invite people to step back for a moment out of wiki-world and into the real world. Imagine how this will play there. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where 14 year-olds block physicists for mentioning that they actually do know something about thermodynamics. I'm not saying that's a *fair* characterization, but I'll be amazed if that isn't the play this would get. I think you are also extremely likely to lose anyone blocked under this policy forever, so it is certainly not costless. Finally, what problem does this address? Is it really such a common phenomenon that people with credentials fraudulently bully their way into victory? What I've seen much more of is things like Ed Poor torturing our poor climatologist, WMC. Blocking for appeal to authority ... shall we also start blocking people for other logical fallacies in their talk debates? I can see it now, 48 hour block for Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Derex 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say that these are real concerns. Metamagician3000 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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-man  talk ¢ Review! 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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-man  talk ¢ Review! 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I love this proposal
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)
 * 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)

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 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Very silly
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)

You are right. But if you are not having fun you are doing it wrong. If you don't enjoy a wiki actibity. then don't do it. We will perhaps this year implement the "german solution" which will allow stable articles so much of this nonsense becomes unnecessary. Until then, decide your priorities and act on them. don't burn out. Its better to let a few articles go to the dogs than to burn out. Only do the parts you enjoy and let others do the parts you don't. WAS 4.250 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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-man  talk ¢ Review! 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right
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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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-man  talk ¢ Review! 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not the best idea
First off, comparing it at all to the prohibition against legal threats is absurd. Legal threats are just that, threats. They are hostile and confrontational by nature. On the other hand, saying, "look, I have three degrees and have dedicated my life to this subject. Could you perhaps give me the benefit of a doubt?" is not even remotely similar. Don't get me wrong. I think that it's what you can cite that should be paramount. And I can't foresee credentials having a great deal of benefit in general. However, intentionally limiting free speech with an aggressively proactive (and I'd argue hostile) policy hardly seems like the solution. If this is in response to the essjay debacle, then this is missing the point entirely. There are already policies in place requiring that content be properly sourced. If people are getting away with using their credentials in place of that, then the problem is editors who don't call them on it. The problem is with people who don't demand valid sources. But trampling on free speech just to try to compensate for bad editing practices isn't the answer. Telling people that they aren't allowed to share their perspectives isn't the answer. "Thought police" isn't the answer. Actually sticking to policies that are already in place is the answer. By the way, I have an Honours BSc in Computer Science, and graduated with first class distinction, from a canadian university. That means my opinion is worth more. ( :D ) Bladestorm 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you handle it if someone actually says, "you don't even know what you're talking about."?
 * How do you handle it if someone asks, "how would you know that?"
 * Since when should an official policy violate the assumption of good faith? (The whole premise of the proposed policy is one giant violation of AGF, but sentences like, "Verification could lead to experts believing that, since their credentials are verified, they are exempt from such rules as Attribution" are especially so.)
 * First off, the comparison to legal threats was an example of how we already legislate people against talking in a certain way.
 * In response to "How do you handle it if someone actually says, "you don't even know what you're talking about."? and other similar arguments: This proposal has nothing to do with that. This isn't a blaket proposal to create rules for discussion, the only thing thing this prohibits in discussion is the use of credentials as a replacement for facts and attribution.
 * Where does this say that people can't "share their perspectives"? Its saying that people shouldn't force their perspectives.
 * As for "response to the Essjay debacle", and "sticking to policies in place" I couldn't agree more. I would think a couple sentences in WP:ATT and WP:CIVIL about not using credentials in place of citations and not using credentials in disputes would be enough. Unfortunately, based on the multiple other proposals, people seem to be hungry for a policy change and they all seem to miss the point of the Essjay debacle. I would much rather have this though than a misguided, flawed, or overcomplicated verification procedure.
 * Finally, per AGF, I removed the "What about verification" section, as that was really the only part that predicted what editors "might do". However, those were concerns raised in other discussions. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All in all, I find myself agreeing with Bladestorm. Credentialed experts, assuming their credentials are valid, already have an advantage in generating encyclopaedic content, since they know what the good sources are and probably have many of them on their bookshelves.  They just have to learn to put footnotes on what they say (we should perhaps write a special welcoming statement which mentions this), and that's really a "when in Rome" kind of situation.  Real scholars are used to citations, anyway.


 * There are valid uses for mentioning academic degrees on one's user page, just like there are legitimate grounds for userboxes which say, "This user can speak French with intermediate proficiency." Suppose I'm an amateur space-exploration buff who has written an article on rocketry, and I want some real rocket scientists to look it over and vet it for problems.  How do I find these real rocket scientists if they don't say who they are?  Furthermore, if they're allowed to describe their background on their user pages, they should be able to bring it up on Talk pages, unless doing so violates basic concerns of civility.


 * Credentials should be checked in situations where we have no other means of evaluating a Wikipedian's work. If you're talking to The New Yorker, you're not in a position to give citations for your statements.  You can't back up what you say in the way to which Wikipedians are accustomed.  In that case, having a way to tell that a person is really who they say they are is a good idea.  Anville 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the statement on the straw poll on Jimbo's proposal:
 * "I have a PhD in paleopedology, just like I can say I speak fluent Armenian, was born in Timbuktu and enjoy drinking blood-flavored milkshakes made following my family's old Transylvanian recipe."
 * The only one of those that would not be allowed under this proposal is the first. What you speak, where you are form and your eating habits are just fine. Why not instead of Category:Wikipedian rocket scientists, we have Category:Wikipedian rocket experts? Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 18:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was flabbergasted to read (emphasis added): "I have a PhD in paleopedology, just like I can say I speak fluent Armenian, was born in Timbuktu and enjoy drinking blood-flavored milkshakes made following my family's old Transylvanian recipe." The only one of those that would not be allowed under this proposal is the first. So trivia is ok on userpages, but information that may actually be relevant to writing an encyclopedia is not ?! Isn't that just the opposite of the community consensus, expressed in WP:NOT Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. In fact, I would support a guideline which says that, "Editors are encouraged to state true and verifiable information on their userpages about themselves, including academic and professional credentials and language skills, that may help other editors approach them for help with related pages.". Note that I complete oppose using credentials as a "argument from authority" on article pages, and even verified experts will need to provide citations for content they add to an article, but those issues are already covered by the WP:ATT policy. The subject of this proposed policy is banning editor's from listing even "verified credentials on their user pages", and the two topics should not be conflated. Abecedare 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Um...read the comment below this. Also, fluent in Armenian and born in Timbuktu can be relevant. Thats why we have WP:BABEL and location specific Wikiprojects. Not#Blog is only to stop people form using Wikipedia as free web hosting or myspace small amount of personal content are acceptable. Also, I proposed the ban on credentials on userpages mainly because I don't think any of the verification proposals will really work. I'm reconsidering this below though. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the birthplace (and maybe even the user's taste in milkshake) can be relevant to writing an encyclopedia while educational/professional qualifications and language skills are undeniably relevant. So if you agree with me on that, we may be closer to a consensus in rejecting the current version of the proposed policy, which states "Credentials that could create a sense of elitism are not to be allowed on Wikipedia, even userpages." and "'I have a PhD in Biology' - Bad". Abecedare 23:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While we may be close to rejecting the current incarnation of this, unfortunately, we aren't very close to approving anything. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I agree with you that having a bad policy on this subject (such as Credential ban and some of the other proposals) is worse that have no additional policy at all. Where we may differ, is that I believe a reasonable voluntary credential verification program is possible, although none of the current proposals for that are trouble free.
 * I would also like to clarify that I have not been arguing against you personally, but only against the Credntial Ban policy. For example even before this page had been created, I had opposed similar proposals on Jimbo's take page. See . Cheers. Abecedare 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent)Though a workable verification program might be possible, I have yet to see a good one yet. I have seen a couple variations on similar themes.
 * 1) User verified proposals, where multiple users verify another user's credentials. The only problem with this is that it is very susceptible to sock and meat puppeting.
 * 2) Self-verification, where users give an alum.university.edu email address or give a link to a university page about them. Problems, it focuses only on academic credentials, some colleges give alum emails to dropouts, some don't give alum emails, and personal university webpages could be faked.
 * 3) Foundation verified proposals, where users verify their credentials to the Foundation. The problems with this are that they are a lot of work, especially the proposal that requires a program like PGP, so that many users won't want to participate. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow on userpages?
After reading many comments on other discussions, I would like to propose a change to this proposal:
 * Allow credentials on userpages, but only when accompanied by a userpage disclaimer stating that the page is a userpage and information on it may not be verified. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So... you're saying that users should add warnings to their own pages, telling you that you can't necessarily trust them? Hmm... No... I don't think I'll be adding a, "Warning! I may be a liar!" disclaimer to my userpage. Bladestorm 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, right now, you don't have any credentials on your userpage, so you wouldn't need a disclaimer. This is mainly opposed to the various verification proposals that are either too simple and easy to defraud or too much work to be practical. We already have . Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, its not so much "you that you can't necessarily trust them" but you can't necessarily trust what is on the userpage as they are not held to the same standards of accountability as articles. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is sooo splitting hairs. :) (Do I really have to add credentials to my userpage, just so I can keep my point?) Anyways, don't forget that everything in wikipedia is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. Take a look at the general disclaimer that applies to the whole site. "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here", to me, tends to imply that wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.
 * Okay, so maybe that sounded just a teensy bit sarcastic. My only point is that there are already disclaimers. And there are already policies that require that you be able to back up what you say. I really think we should be approaching this from an entirely different perspective. Not by creating more policies, just enforcing both the letter and spirit of those already in place. But, seriously, disclaimers on user pages would be silly. Bladestorm 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the general disclaimer does apply, but the attribution policies don't apply on userpages, only articles. I would agree that we don't need more policy, unfortuantely, Jimbo seems to have promised the media a new policy. All of the credential policies, except for a very general one and a very specific one are failing. See my post at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification for more detail. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rargh. This is so silly. We're really talking about a policy to protect people from their own gullibility. It looks like we'll end up with "change for the sake of change". Well, I think I'm done 'arguing' about it. You've obviously given it a lot of thought, and aren't taking this topic lightly. Bladestorm 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were a troll ....
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 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)
 * So, you're suggesting that people should get to use the so-called "I'm a PhD so shut up" argument? Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> Review! 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

I'm a WP:CREEP, I'm a weirdo... what the hell is this policy doing here... It don't belong here
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)

Rebuttal of problems

 * 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)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * For example: Some users scuba dive and know plenty about scuba diving, and some know nothing about scuba diving. Some users live in (say) Xtown and know the area and some do not. Anthony Appleyard 06:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)