Wikipedia talk:Ignore all credentials

Ignore all credentials - a new start
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)

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

AGF
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 &mdash; the problem was only the fraud. The new verification proposal won't suddenly change anything &mdash; 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)

Jimbo's support for IAC?
Please see Jimbo's comment on my Talk Page. // Internet Esquire 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yup, excellent title - should be upgraded to a guideline. Addhoc 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

This does not work for me as a third party
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 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)


 * 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 Expert rebellion and the mistrust of Wikipedia within the academic community (and more generally people everywhere). -- bcasterline • talk 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Expertise
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Proposal to what
A policy or guideline. If guideline, I think the best title would be Credentials are irrelevant -- w L &lt;speak·check&gt; 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no... this title is very much in line with Wikipedia policy naming per the fact that there already exists: Ignore all rules. 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "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)

This is BAD
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)
 * this guideline says nothing negative about having credentials. It is about using credentials to add weight to your arguments in discussions, or worse, commiting Original Research. We want PhD's, but not if they aren't going to follow WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Why make them an exception to guidelines everyone else is bound by--ZayZayEM 06:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence this is a widespread problem? Derex 08:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

This is GOOD
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)


 * well said.. i completely agree. Mlm42 12:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe's Do not flaunt your credentials is very neutral and still straight to the point. I think this is a much better title.--ZayZayEM 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a good idea in here, but the name is disastrous
There is something to be said for discouraging editors from waving their credentials about as a sort of trump card, though I still suspect that this rarely happens, and that when it does, the credential waver is more often than not right.

Be that as it may, however, the name of this proposed policy is disasterous. What "Ignore all credentials" says to someone who doesn't have them is that they shouldn't in any way consider their lack of expertise to limit their right to dispute anything and everything. It is an open invitation to the worst kind of sophomoric contentiousness. We already have enough of a problem with this, that would shouldn't encourage it. It is a far worse problem than the claiming of false credentials, and it is far more discrediting.

I'm amenable to something that discourages flaunting of credentials, but this proposal is not it. Indeed, this doesn't actively discourage it at all; it only encourages those who know they aren't experts to act as if they were. Mangoe 13:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Ignore credentials really doesn't say anything to people who don't have them. They don't have any credentials to ignore. This page says nothing about hey go and act like a know it all jackass, it says the opposite: All wikipedia editors are stupid by default and noone really cares what you personally think is true.--ZayZayEM 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So who is going to do the ignoring? Not those with credentials, but those who lack them, so this is written as instructions to the latter, not the former. And those people should care what others think. It is human nature that they will not be able to maintain the posture that nobody cares what they think. Indeed, authorship depends upon maintaining the opposite stance (for otherwise it would be better to let someone else write the article), so a policy that relies on the abject humility of editors will certainly fail.


 * As it is titled, this is a proposal for inexpert and uncredentialled editors, not for people with PhDs. But it would deliver a warning to the latter: that they can expect to be constantly challenged by manifest amateurs, hacks, and cranks, who have been instructed and authorized to treat real experts with disrespect. That they do so now is an existing problem, which this policy would only exacerbate, as it is written now. Mangoe 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how someone could concievably interpret "ignore people's credentials" as "be hostile to people with credentials". The fact that Wikipedia doesn't care if you have a Ph.D doesn't mean that people who do may be treated badly. And if you don't like that they aren't given more respect than other (good) editors, that's an issue with the underlying idea, not the name. -Amarkov moo! 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Because that's exactly how I felt when I read that. "You spent four years for that degree, but in all actuality, we don't give a damn, so shut up and stop trying to use your expertise." I think a better title would be something humourous to take the edge off&mdash;say, "Do not climb the Reichstag building dressed as a professor".  Bl a  st  23.03.07 0006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the idea is good (I could quibble on some minor points) but that name is disastrous. I have no alternative name proposals but I would oppose this becoming a guideline or policy as currently named.  I also think that it should be modified to say that credentials mentioned on the site may be verifiable to different levels of certainty in different cases, as opposed to suggesting that they are not verified at all.--Jimbo Wales 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jimbo. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but the inspiration for IAC was WP:IAR.  Perhaps "Ignore All Credentials, But Not Expertise." As I have mentioned elsewhere, the experts that I have referred to Wikipedia have received a very cool reception. // Internet Esquire 07:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the disclaimer necessary? IAC says nothing about expertise. Expertise is relative. And additionally, just like credentials, is essentially unverifiable online. Verified experts still ahve to follow Wikipedia Guidelines, which offer no special consideration to experts. The still must meet standards of WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:RS.--ZayZayEM 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about something about "Don't brandish credentials", "Don't rely on credentials to save your ass" or something. The Basic idea is that if the only good argument you can make about something is that your "an expert" or "wrote a book about it" or "studied 7 years for your BA", then it is not a good argument anyway.--ZayZayEM 08:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be better to say what to do (the positive) and not what not to do (the negative). Ignore all credentials does that, but could be more diplomatic. How about something like 'Cite Sources, not Credentials'. - Ehheh 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. But that's what WP:ATT says already. -- bcasterline • talk 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This page should not introduce any new rules. It should serve as supplying clarity to what ATT covers. Someone relying on their credentials to badger a user can be told to look at this page in particular rather than being directed to the more vague ATT.--ZayZayEM 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be useful if such a thing were common. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen someone else claim they have either. Have you seen it? Because having a few specific examples of this badgering problem would be useful in designing a policy against it. Derex 06:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:John_Wallace_Rich for one recent example. - Ehheh 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. However, in that conversation, the user is basically being uncivil over being blocked by criticizing the language skills of the blocking admin, rather than arguing that his background makes him immune to core policies. I think WP:DICK pretty much covers that one. Further the complaining user doesn't actually claim an advanced degree, though he makes reference to taking a course. I'd still like to see a couple of examples of an actual expert abusing credentials in a content dispute. Derex 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another proposal for a name: "Persuade with references, not credentials". Experts on a topic, whether formally educated or not, are people who are familiar with the relevant literature. Having a PhD doesn't mean that other editors should take your word that what you say is true, but if anything it suggests you know where to locate references relevant to your area of study.--Eloil 12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Published Works
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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

Another approach
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Some comments
My views on this issue are already documented at WP:CAI and its talkpage, so I won't expound on them here. Although I am personally in full agreement with this policy proposal, I don't think it will be passed, nor do I think it's necessarily productive to try to push it through against the opposition of much of the Wikipedia community. That's why I made WP:CAI an essay and not a proposal. What I think will probably happen is as follows: I am satisfied with this outcome. I was never aiming to push a no-credentials policy through, as such a policy will never gain consensus; instead, my aim was to prevent the adoption of a credential-verification policy, through showing that there was no consensus for either side of the dispute. This aim has been fulfilled. I think, all in all, that the status quo is fine. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All further policy proposals on the issue of credentials will fail. The issue is just too controversial to find a compromise.
 * Those users who have credentials and want to prove them will use voluntary methods to verify them (e.g. university e-mail links), as some do already.


 * Can we tag this proposal as rejected, then? Mangoe 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because I'm not the only user who is favourable towards this policy. I suggest taking a strawpoll. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked to have this added to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification/Straw polls to gather it with the other credentialling proposals/essays. Mangoe 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally compiled IAC, and CAI is not the same thing. Moreover, IAC enjoys enough fledgeling support as a guideline -- including that of Jimbo Wales -- that it should not be tagged as rejected. // Internet Esquire 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to tag it, but the criterion for is opposition, not support. In other words, a proposal is rejected if "it has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." I think IAC qualifies. -- bcasterline • talk 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any consensus developing either, at least not in support of this. Mangoe 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people who contributed to the debate regarding verified credentials stopped contributing to that debate before Jimbo "rebooted" the discussion, and most of these people probably consider Jimbo's proposal rejected along with the various alternatives offered by the community and (therefore) consider all credential-related issues resolved. In any event, consensus is not the only way that IAC can be elevated from a proposal to a guideline or policy, and while I don't think IAC should be elevated just yet, Jimbo's apparent support for IAC should be prima facie evidence that  the proposal has, in fact, *NOT* been rejected. // Internet Esquire 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A statement of support is not the same as a "declaration". If he comes back and says, "this is how it will be," then it will thus overcome the lack of consensus. What we have at the moment is a single comment made at the very beginning of the discussion, with no other evidence that I know of that he has followed it since then. Mangoe 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I regard this policy or one very much like it to be 100% compatible with, and a necessary adjunct to, the credentials verification system. Anyone who views the two as being alternatives or in competition is still probably thinking of credentials verification as being something different from what is actually being discussed.--Jimbo Wales 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you haven't read this proposal close enough, see this paragraph:
 * Expertise is valuable to Wikipedia to the extent that someone with expert knowledge has ready access to reference materials from reliable sources, and should be able to attribute them. Consequently, Wikipedians should ignore the credentials of self-proclaimed experts who cannot produce their sources, trying to assert their own authority instead, which is equivalent to original research.
 * This severely understates that and why we need expert editors. And contributes to the myth, that every Wikipedia without prior knowledge of the subject, can edit even articles which are in dire need of expertise. Whether it's Quantum field theory or Holy grail. And no, reading "Da Vinci Code" doesn't qualify.
 * Pjacobi 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the value of expertise, I don't think that paragraph devalues expert editing, it devalues expert bullying. For example, I'm a flight instructor (you're free to ignore that). I wouldn't think very highly of another instructor who answered a student pilot's question with "because I'm the instructor!" If a student gets a wrong idea, you tell them to re-read the chapter on this in that book. We do need experts from all fields to contribute to the content of WP, but we don't need people bragging about their credentials. Dhaluza 09:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, Jimbo, if we are going to ignore all credentials, then why bother having verified credentials to ignore? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

''Derex, I think they may not be all that inconsistent ( ie Jimbo's two proposals ). Because the first, if I read it correctly, means ignore credentials when it comes to edit dispute, ie nobody should say "I am a PhD so shut up". So definitely the two should be merged dropping the first title of course.'' This is moved from the other page. Why did you guys move here and leave me behind?:-)Ivygohnair 12:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the content said 'ignore all credentials in all circumstances' it would be worse than pointless to have both. It does not. That's one reason it's a terrible title, because it implies more than it states. However, in the cases this does cover, why do we need a separate entire guideline for it when a sentence or two re-emphasizing the point in the existing policies would be fine. We don't have a separate policy on ignoring age of contributors, or other such things. Moreover, the credential verification page is also loaded up with stuff like this, so this is redundantly redundant. I find this entire piece to have a fairly irritating tone, and suggest a revised title that is equally valid for the point being made: "Ignore lack of credentials". I think many will dislike it, and I invite them to consider why to better understand why I dislike the current title. I also particularly dislike the poke in the eye about 'puffery' implying that anyone stating a credential is doing that. Derex (who does not intend to post or verify credentials) 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

merge with verification
This should be merged with Jimbo's credential verification into a single page called "credentials" that covers all aspects. Doing these separately invites both inconsistency and redundancy. And it will leave everyone scratching their heads as to why we should verify something that will then be ignored. Derex 05:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly disagree. Comparing IAC and Jimbo's proposal for "verified credentials" is like comparing apples and tomatoes.  To wit, they're both fruit, but they don't both act like it. // Internet Esquire


 * Oh, this proposal's fruity, for sure. But, I didn't make any comparison. I said they are both on the same general topic, with considerable overlap. As I see it, everything important in this proposal is covered in the first 3 sentences. Those 3 sentences are also covered in the verification proposal. But, I'm not surprised you disagree, as author and as opponent of verification. Derex 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst I object to the whole verification debacle in general I recognise that it's going to be imposed regardless of the utility. In that sense I'd support this merge proposal, mainly because verification is more neutral in tone.ALR 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There you have my support, ALRIvygohnair 12:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

On Puffery, Fraud, and Credentialism
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)


 * 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)

Support
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. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How it may work in practice
At the present there is a discussion going on about Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (Second nomination). The article in question is very long and is edited constantly (about three changes a day), and it has spawned four subarticles which are similiarly unstable. There is also a sixth article which is obviously related but seems to have arisen separately.

Right now we seem to be dividing into three parties:


 * "It's an indefinitely long list of uses of a very common technique, and is essentially fancruft."
 * "It's useful and there's nothing wrong with listing every example."
 * "It could be useful if the examples were properly cited."

So let's look a bit further into that last viewpoint. These articles have no citations; dozens of people just came along, and each wrote about some example they had seen. (Part of the reason there are so many edits to the article is that most of the entries had to be edited several times, a manifest testimony to their poor quality.) And not only that, the article on the fourth wall has no citations either. So what we have here is a lot of amateur expertise being applied: no credentials here. If the AfD is deleted on the basis of lumping the last two positions together (which is what I expect will happen) there theoretically should be a push to cite all the many examples. (It's also possible that protection of the article from deletion will translate into an assumption of protection of the examples within, but that's another issue.) So-- what's pretty likely to happen is that people will search out citations that the action in question did happen in the film/play/whatever. Those citations are in one sense likely to be incontestable.

But then our theater professional comes along, and picks one of the more dubious examples (but cited as to it having occured), deletes it, and says, "nobody in the business considers this to be a real example of this." Well, it's likely to be next to impossible for him to cite that opinion, if only because the literature is going to be largely concerned with positive examples. Our putative professional indicates such on his user page, but let's suppose he doesn't explicitly refer to this in his jutification for the deletion. It won't matter. The defender of the entry (and most likely there will be one, because there always seems to be one dogged inclusionist) may point to the citation as justification. The professional says, "that's not good enough," and battle is engaged.

What ought to happen (because credentials matter) is that the (amateur) defender should back down. Not because the professional has credentials, but because the defender does not. And in this case the problem hinges not on citation alone, but on interpretation of whether the citation is even germane. Resolution of the issue, in the face of a persistent amateur, is going to trace either to the pros giving up in disgust, or some adjudicator having to make an expert decision within the field, an uncitable decision, an unverifiable decision.

None of this has anything to do with verification of credentials. Wikipedia's biggest credibility problem anyway is with the manifest truth that most editing is done by amateurs; the Essjay incident simply hasn't made that much impact on the real world in comparison, and a lot of people simply lump it into the large amateur editor problem. Like most everyone else on the project, he had no credentials; if he hadn't claimed credentials, he would still have contributed to the air of amateurism which plagues the enterprise.

Do not flaunt your credentials might be a good idea. The problem with the present proposal is that it encourages people who lack credentials to be aggressive about engaging issues even when a realistic assessment of their own (lack of) credentials would indicate that they should back off. It's advice to those people, not to professionals. Mangoe 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have concerns along similar lines. While I think Jimbo's cred verification is a knee-jerk reaction, I think this proposal is too. A knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction, if you like. It may have unintended side-effects, and I would oppose it. I would support something along the lines of Credential verification:
 * A few people in certain position of trust should be prepared to verify their credentials.
 * Everybody else go about your business as you have been.

This is simple, it is status quo for almost everyone, it actually "does something" about the Essjay situation, and it involves no divisive pro- or anti-expert preaching. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This example is weird. Why would WP:IAC be appropriate to use as an excuse to violate WP:RS? The "amatuer" editor should back down because the article is poorly sourced and uncited. The "professional" editor should rely on WP:RS to get his point across, not that he personally knows better than the amatuer editor. Wikipedia is not a pissing contest.--ZayZayEM 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you do not understand the example. Mangoe 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This example is a non sequitur. Any editor has the right to demand a citation for a disputed piece of information. The credentials of the editor demanding the citation should not bear on the legitimacy of the request. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's convinient. Care to elaborate it. As I see it both editors would be acting innapropriately. Edior (A)matuer would be not paying attention to needing sources for encyclopedia content. Editor B would be trying to use his credentials innapropriately (i.e. using them at all), instead he should be reminding Editor A that any unsourced encyclopedia content should rightly be deleted.--ZayZayEM 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let's try another example, as helpfully suggested in Wikipedia talk:Credentials matter. In this case the article was List of Ethnic Chess Openings. If you follow the link, you'll find that the article is still there; it has simply been renamed. Why? Well, if you'll look at the AfD, you'll see that a bunch of people said that the names of chess openings don't mean anything in particular. The problems were that (a) this is uncitable, because nobody is going to find a citation that says this, and that (b) the "keep" votes largely ignored this objection.


 * It's obvious that the Budapest Gambit is named after a city; presumably the English Opening's origin is citable. That these are "chess openings named after places" is hardly disputable; but whether anyone but a trivia collector cares is going to be very hard to cite. In practice, demands for citation are not proving sufficient to get rid of these lists; indeed, the AfDs almost never discuss that issue.


 * These lists accumulate because they are the sort of "contribution" that requires no descernment to add. Therefore amateur editors are prone to add to them because they produce a sense of accomplishment at a level of understanding that almost anyone can achieve. Saying that they have to be cited isn't enough of a defense; it's merely an invitation to a dispute, and disputes over whether a citation is relevant have generally been very hard to resolve. Mangoe 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Such idiocy and amateurism on Wikipedia is not limited to uncredentialed individuals, and (thus) credentialism provides no cure for it. Wikipedia's article quality has always been inherently limited by the lowest common denominator, and the only way to raise it is by tedious dialogue.  BTW, exactly what sort of academic credential would you consider relevant to Wikipedia articles on chess? // Internet Esquire 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing we do here can provide a cure for any of the perceived problems. Even if this become policy, editors are not going to be prevented from taking credentials into account unless a ban on asserting them is made policy and enforced. As long as they are out there, editors are going to be able to consult them and silently refuse to oppose those who appear to possess them. And under WP:IAR, it is perfectly wihin policy to do so.


 * Besides, you aren't addressing the situation or the complaint that has been raised several times here. People who really have credentials, whether they admit to them or not, are going to act as if they know what they're talking about, and no policy will change that. Incompetents may be more agressive about it, and competent credentialed experts may be more reticent, since awareness of your limits is part of being comptent. But all in all they are not going to be afraid to act on what they know. This policy isn't addressed to them, because in their field of expertise they do not need to rely on someone else's credentialled competence.


 * The real problem is with people who lack credentials and know they lack them. This policy is directed at them, because they do need to assess how to respond to the credentials of others. And since this policy tells them to "ignore all credentials", it authorizes them to dispute with others even though they (should) know they aren't qualified to do so. So let's say that I, mangoe, come upon something in an article that you, Internet Esquire, have written concerning a point of law. And I change it, because after all your credentials don't mean anything. So you come back and say, "Not so fast! See this citation." But then I say, "but that citation doesn't mean that; it means some other thing." Because after all, your credentials don't mean anything; I'm not bound to accept your interpretation of the citation. And if you bring in a citation to defend that? Well, sometimes that isn't possible, but in any case, its relevance can be challenged too, because after all, your credentials don't mean anything. This can be kept going a long time, at least until it gets ridiculous enough that the mediators can be brought in to put a stop to it. And even then they may not act properly, since they don't know anything about the subject either (most likely) and nobody's credentials mean anything.


 * From what I can tell, there aren't so many professionals writing in their own fields that even a fair number of incompetents. There are thousands upon thousands of rank amateurs. We'll get a lot more benefit from them acknowledging and acting upon this than we will by turning the heat up on experts in general. Mangoe 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "So let's say that I, mangoe, come upon something in an article that you, Internet Esquire, have written concerning a point of law. And I change it, because after all your credentials don't mean anything."


 * Ironically enough, I encounter the problem of ignorance and incompetence much more frequently with credentialed individuals who purport to be experts in the law than I do with lay persons, and I say this as someone who has made a career out of determining who the real experts are in various areas of legal practice and offering my services to them as a ghost writer and Internet consultant, all in an attempt to "raise the bar" for the entire legal profession. This is precisely why I so seldom contribute to law-related articles anymore on Wikipedia.  To wit, I feel that I am able to effect quality control much better when I get to decide who the experts are. // Internet Esquire 17:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The List of chess openings named after places is referenced somewhat to a third party resource. This page seems a borderline of WP:NOT. If the usage of these names can't be verified by independent third party literature, regardless of the assurances of verified credentialed editors claims, it should not be included in Wikipedia. This policy is good. Credentials should not be an argument for including OR in wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not seeing credentials in discussions. For example, in the law example above, if one cannot find referenced interpretation of the point of law, than one should not give its own, no matter how obvious it is to a law expert. If there is referenced interpretation, than it will probably be understandable by an amateur. One editor (PhD in physics or something like that) wrote on his userpage that he stopped editing common high school and college level mathematics topics, and started adding obscure ones, as there he didn't have a need to discuss it with amateurs. For common topics he mentions something like self-assured students who had no idea of what they were talking about. I think that if education is such that students have no idea what they are talking about after receiving it, and expert is unable to explain it right, or give a reference to the right explanation, than that is not a problem of Wikipedia. WP policies are understandable by all, not just experts, and editing wiki requires most of all observance of these policies. Lakinekaki 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the disregard given to policy, I question the claims made in the last sentence. Some of this disregard is surely deliberate, and some perhaps arises from ignorance. But a large part-- the troublesome part-- arises from those whose grasp of how to do research and how to read and write is poor enough that they do not understand policy, or that they are unable to execute it. Poor education may not be within Wikipedia's powers to remedy, but it is certainly a problem for Wikipedia that people who are too poorly educated to edit it are nonetheless editors. I don't see that this has anything to do with reference to credentials in discussions, but it has a lot to do with the complaint against this proposal. Mangoe 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mangoe, could you please rephrase or elaborate on second part of your last sentence, as I am really having difficulty understanding it! Lakinekaki 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested alternative: Ignore unverified credentials
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)

Ignore all credentials (even verified ones)
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)

It's dead
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)


 * 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))


 * 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)


 * All I did was revert the removal of the tag. (Requestion 06:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC))


 * 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)


 * Nobody else? Sorry, it really is dead then. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)