Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification/Straw polls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straw poll on each proposal[edit]

Perhaps we have had enough of idea gathering and now it is time to specify the ideas in a yes/no form so a straw poll can tell us where we stand. Perhaps there will be a concensus on some of the proposals. Once the field is narrowed down we can discuss the detals. A week should be long for this straw poll so people can ask and answer questions about each proposal and everyone who wants to can have an informed !vote. Please expand the descriptions of the proposals as needed but not longer than a single paragraph. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving this to a subpage...if it isn't closed it could get huge.MikeURL 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second (or third) moving this to a subpage. // Internet Esquire 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/No: This or something like it should be policy or guideline[edit]

Instructions:Vote yes to any or all that seem similar to what is needed; and no to any or all that that are fundamentally unsound. We are weeding out stuff more than selecting a winner. Identify specific details you like or don't like if you wish. Feel free to change or add a comment to your vote at any time. Vote both yes and no with appropriate comments if that works for you. WAS 4.250 06:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification[edit]

Yes[edit]
  1. Unqualified support.Proabivouac 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems like common sense to me. Derex 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MikeURL 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, IF it is limited per User:MikeURL/Credentials#Verification_for_positions_of_trust[reply]
  4. dave souza, talk 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC) as MikeURL's proposal that this only apply for "positions of trust": adding "verified" badges for ordinary editors would invite elitism. .. dave souza, talk 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes if tweaked into workable form. (Maybe an essay instead of a policy?) YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Galanskov 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Professor marginalia 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Editing arguments should not "appeal to authority" anyway. Editors' credentials should be ignored completely[reply]
  5. OhanaUnited 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I am extending Professor marginalia's idea. Instead of ignoring them, ban it outright that you cannot post any credentials on pages.[reply]
    Comment: I can't support that either. It goes against freedom of expression and precedent. I would like to think there is a grandfather clause for all this as a minimum. Dr.K. 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: I was referring to comments by OhanaUnited. Dr.K. 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - Academic credentials have no place on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Credentials are useless.[reply]
  7. "Should not be handled by the Wikimedia Office" - non-starter. Any serious proposal requires safeguards of personal information. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. K. Lásztocska 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) After thinking about it some, I've decided that my opinion is that while this is obviously a well-intentioned proposal and is in no way without merit, I believe it would create more problems than it would solve (close one can of worms but open a bigger one, if you like). I would advocate just keeping credentials off Wikipedia altogether.[reply]
    Clarification: I do not advocate a ban on people putting their credentials on their userpages (we have to respect free speech) but I think it should be strongly discouraged. K. Lásztocska 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I believe that any credential or identity verification system will increase systemic bias against people from developing countries, people without documentation, and people too poor to get a good education, if any education at all. UNICEF estimates that one third of the world's population do not even have a birth certificates.[1] [2] The economic inability to get a good education, as is common in developing countries, does not make someone less intelligent. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is a really bad idea. // Internet Esquire 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community. LessHeard vanU 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Violates fundamental principles of wikipedia - O^O 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. reactionary, unnecessary, problematic, and distasteful ~ Torgo 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose except in limited circumstances. Users should generally be free to post what they want on their user pages, although demonstrably false claims might be another issue. Verification systems for ordinary editing will add unnecessary complexity and tend to chill experts whom Wikipedia most needs. I would certainly agree that people seeking certain core offices such as the WP:Arbitration Committee would need to verify any claimed creditials and possibly their identity. The User:Essjay incident was an example of a real problem. However, it is important to limit solutions should be limited to the scope of the problem, otherwise they can create tomorrow's problems. Overreacting and drowning everything with water when there's a fire can cause floods. --Shirahadasha 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This is a terrible idea and the only conceivable effect this will have is the amplification of any future Essjay-type scandals. —ptk✰fgs 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Shirahadasha. We at most need a very narrow solution to the core issue that Essjay lied and gained a position of high authority via that lie. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay did not become an admin, checkuser, or arb. via his lie. His lie was used in an interview and in a few content disputes, and that's about it. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreed. He built his reputation on the lies, and it is reasonable to suspect that this reputation helped him climb into higher positions. Wikipedia does not operate in a social vacuum. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a thought, Jimbo already knew who Essjay really was when he made him an arb. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cite? I realize this is a suspicion, but where's the proof? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. For fear of creating editor classes. I'm not opposed to the idea in general, but it's something to be very cautious about. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Hypnosadist 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) This is a really bad idea for many reasons. 1) Many nations, particularly EU member states have very strong Laws about the confidentiality, storage, use and transfer of private information which wikipedia would have to follow for all jurisdictions. 2)Values paper over real world experience. 3)Disadvantages people from poorer back grounds, just because mummy and daddy couldn't afford to put them through university does not mean they have less rights on wikipedia. 4)Risk to the editors themselves! This is probably the most important as wikipedia deals with many controversial topics and off-wiki attacks on editors websites etc are growing in number, what happens when these step up to the next level of harrasment, even violence and your identifing editors.Example Not many mongolians with Phd's in American history, its not going to take long to find what university they teach at.[reply]
  19. no...per the reason i provided here. I'm very oppossed to this proposal. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No, editors must cite sources not education. TimVickers 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No, I agree - sources are what is important, not the funny letters stuck in front of one's name. Proof by intimidation is not valid. --WiseWoman 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No ALR 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No. Edits should be judged on their own merit. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or analysis, nor for credentials in place of the ability to reason, write, and cite skilfully. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This might cause a divide into "verified experts" and "unverified experts". Not really needed, just assume good faith! --WikiSlasher 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No per my comments elsewhere, and voting is evil. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. Think credential verif is necessary? well its also impossible, most credentials cant be confirmed through internet. And voting might be evil if bad guys are more than good ones. Cheers! --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 02:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Never, privacy is too important. Jimmy, make a RULE that claimed credentials will be ignored. I can say I'm a major notable PhD on foreign relations (Middle East), a noted eye surgeon, and also a successful war veteran. what does that make me? AGF goes all ways, but AGF isn't a stupid license. We should just let people say they are whatever they want, but their 'expertise' for key decisions are to be secondary and shouldn't be based on their stories, if possible. hard, but... what choice do we have? How do I know you became a millionaire before/from Bomis? Only your word, that media picked up. You could be a hobo for all I know, without seeing your banking/tax statements. :) - Denny 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think this can be settled by a vote. I do have a lot of reservations about what Jimbo is proposing. Metamagician3000 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think voting is evil in all cases, but this poll is beyond ridiculous--it's a parody. Trying to build something as technically challenging as a credential verification system cannot be done by an on-line bull session followed by a beauty contest vote on half worked out proposals. We should just use one of the commercial credential verification systems on the Internet. Oops. There aren't any. I wonder why? It's not because there wouldn't be a market for one. Companies like VeriSign had that goal in mind but have backed way off. It's a hard problem. We should back off and focus on first trying to agree on what Wikipedia needs by way of credentials and their verification. Then we can put in the effort needed to come up with some solid proposals. Please consider my comment appended to the other sections of this poll.--agr 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Voting is silly. Ironically, I voted already, but it's still evil/silly. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Voting is not evil[edit]
  1. Derex 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edison 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support democracy, no matter what Wikipedia policies/guidelines are in place that detract from it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I don't care about what the policies/guidelines say on this. All community decisions should be made via democracy; otherwise, community buy-in ultimately deteriorates, just as it does in the real world. Again, Wikipedia does not operate in a social vacuum. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to break it to you, but it doesn't matter what you believe in. Wikipedia is not ruled by community decisions, and community decisions are not always done in a democratic process. While democracy can be a very good thing, that does not make it appropriate (or at least, the best solution) for all situations. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it does matter if the Wikipedia wants to retain quality contributors. Decisions made outside of a democratic consensus are ultimately doomed to failure, as without buy-in from the constituency, the decisions won't be properly implemented anyway. Hate to break that *reality* to you. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be interested in reading WP:Consensus, which is not democracy, if you have not done so already. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted, Wikipedia is not a democracy. But the fact that the opinions expressed on this page can be ignored doesn't mean they should be. AecisBrievenbus 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've stated already, I believe democracy is paramount, and I don't care what any Wikipedia policy/guideline has to say on this matter. It's a matter of absolute principle for me. Consensus is an extension of democratic decision making where the difference is that a supermajority must agree before something passes. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think anyone is suggesting ignoring anyone's opinion. Democracy is vote-counting. Consensus in a process whereby you try to discuss, compromise and make everyone happy, if possible. Consensus is really more Hegelian than democratic. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Making decisions based on voting is evil, but voting itself isn't. I, for one, don't have time to read through 60 sections of this talk page (and a few other talk pages). Looking at this vote is a quick way of getting a good idea of what the proposals currently floating around are, and how much support they have. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators accountability[edit]

This is a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability.

Yes[edit]
  1. Probably too complicated, but a distinction between good-faith mop-wielders and genuinely trusted mature decision-makers is a must.Proabivouac 06:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes in principle, but the level of disclosure needs to be addressed. I do think it should be mandatory for very high level administrators, ie checkuser and bcrat, to have their identities known to the foundation. I also think it should be mandatory for Arbitration committee members to fully disclose their identities, in the interests of transparency and avoidance of conflicts of interest. --Barberio 14:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OhanaUnited 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I agree to this. Forums have been using this type of strcture for a long time without much problem.[reply]
  4. I don't really consider a tabulated list of opinions "voting", so I'm willing to stick my blurb here and say that generally speaking, I agree with Barberio. (In my mind, "full disclosure" for an ArbCom member would extend to name, profession and educational background, but wouldn't necessarily include current city of residence let alone a home phone number.) Anville 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like most of this proposal, especially the differing levels of adminship. It still allows for most admins to remain anonymous, and only requires ID checks for the more senior levels. With increased power comes increased accountability, including identification. However, I don't think that there should be a requirement for actually meeting someone, which could get awkward if we're dealing with people on different continents (or even in a remote area of the United States). There are other ways to verify identity, including a fax or a phone call, and I think that that should be required for people at bureaucrat/ArbCom level. If someone's not willing to offer their real identity to the Wikipedia main office, then that's not someone that I'd want on ArbCom anyway. --Elonka 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Admins shouldn't be penalised because they want to remain anonymous. MER-C 08:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Of course they shouldn't be penalized, only lose the ability to penalize other users, some of whom may not be anonymous.Proabivouac 08:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Administrators (are supposed to) become admins on more than content edits alone: experience in the user talk: and wikipedia: namespaces, knowledge of policies, the state of the block log, etcetera. Real-life credentials should not matter. Administrators who choose to remain anonymous do not become worse administrators, and it does not make speedy deletions or vandalism blocks wrong. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The problem isn't admins. Admins don't do most of the editing, just most of the talking. Derex 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Professor marginalia 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Exception for admins with checkuser who should at least have their true identity verified (which can be kept private) for security purposes[reply]
  7. Used to support it but I've changed my mind. What's wrong with 13-year-old admins anyway? Galanskov 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No, nothing formalized like so that would endager user ID. -- Avi 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MikeURL 18:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Far too intrusive in my opinion.[reply]
  10. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Absolutely not. It will lead to users without qualifications being unable to become admins. Adminship should not be like applying for an RL job. If this policy is approved, I will leave Wikipedia for ever.[reply]
  11. After thinking about it long enough, no AlfPhotoman 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Essentially boils down to a belief that admins who reveal their identities should have editorial control over articles. Admins don't have editorial control over articles to begin with, so this entire proposal is irrelevant and intrusive. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I believe that this would significantly increase systemic bias against people from developing countries, and especially undocumented people. UNICEF estimates that one third of the world's population do not even have a birth certificates.[3] [4] If it involves someone at Wikipedia needing to meet you (Bureaucrat/Checkuser/Oversight/ArbCom member), it will introduce bias against people living in remote areas and/or areas where there are few (if any) other Wikipedians. I also find some parts of the writing offensive (e.g. first world examples which are called real world examples), but this has been cleaned up some. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Changing my vote. This proposal sucks! I had it confused with something else. // Internet Esquire 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Admins should be accountable for their actions, not for their identity or credentials. .. dave souza, talk 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No - nobody, not even a "trusted administrator" can speak for wikipedia - O^O 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. no... just... not.. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. no. I for one, don't give a damn who the admins are in real life. As long as they're doing their job on wikipedia fine. this is MANY times worse than the credential verification in terms of creating previelged classes of editors. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Very bad idea. This would discriminate against good editors for not good reason. Adminship should be awarded based on contributions, not age, not credentials, not anything else. Hut 8.5 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No. Implicit hierarchies don't need to be replaced by explicit. We already see Admins bullying content in on the basis of their perceived status.ALR 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. Adminship is no big deal. Administrators have responsibility and extra mops; editing itself, which we let everyone do with minimal barrier to contribution, is what requires honesty, knowledge, and accountability. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. anonymity is key... in fact, make adminship even easier to gain/lose, so that the whole thing becomes a non-issue. If concerned about abuse, then make a 3 tier system. Admin3: everything but blocking/deleting. Admin2: everything but deleting. Admin1: full adminship as it is now. - Denny 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Forgive me for saying this, but it's a terrible proposal. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and if people - no matter who they are, can be a good administrator, bureaucrat or ArbCom member they should be able to. Way too difficult to implement and as someone else said somewhere, it's not like we have too many admins. --WikiSlasher 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comment - I think that there's a consensus that this one goes too far. No need to count votes here; the community view is obvious. Creating a class of super-admins (or a class of sib-admins with less tools than admins currently have) will introduce new problems. Many good people will be excluded from the "higher" class for bad reasons. Metamagician3000 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Especially when considering approval of a policy that will cause many people to leave Wikipedia if accepted. And especially when considering proposals like these, which have 10 different things in them that should be discussed seperately. This is going to swing towards no, and because it was treated like a binary vote, people will be afraid to propose the parts of it that would be accepted. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Credentials[edit]

This is a proposal for credentials to be verified.

Yes[edit]
No[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Galanskov 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only slightly better than Jimbo's. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Professor marginalia 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MikeURL 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I just don't think verification should be wiki-wide but I support verification for certain users.[reply]
  6. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - See Wikipedia:Credentials are useless for a summary of my viewpoint on this issue.[reply]
  7. AlfPhotoman 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would cause incredible amounts of unneeded effort. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. New rule: Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. To wit, "When someone on Wikipedia talks about their credentials, ignore them. // Internet Esquire 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I believe this will increase systemic bias by discouraging editors from developing countries, editors without identification, and editors too poor to get an education. UNICEF estimates that one third of the world's population do not even have a birth certificates.[5] [6] There are many intelligent people, especially in developing countries, who are unable to get a good education, if any education at all, due to economic reasons. While people who get a good education certainly are more educated, it is offensive to say that they are inherently more intelligent than people without a good education. (See the Jimbo quote which seems, to me, to imply that uneducated people are morons.) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Again, no. Anonymous IP users are equal to the most trusted named users. This would create a destructive hierarchy of users. - O^O 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Credentials should be removed, not verified and then brandished in content disputes. —ptk✰fgs 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't care if someone says they're one thing or not, it's the internet... and I wasn't born yesterday. These proposals lack common sense. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. no, per same reason as as my first oppose vote. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No ALR 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No. As per the above. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No, per reasons above (IP's, 3rd world credentials, etc)--– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Like I said before, "The whole lesson we should take from the Essjay controversy is not to take what credentials people claim on their user page as necessarily true and realise that we should all treat each other as equals." Credentials aren't supposed to matter anyway, so to try and make a verification system could divide people into "verified" and "unverified". --WikiSlasher 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[edit]
  1. I tend to endorse this proposal provided it remains voluntary. Users may reserve the right not to have their credentials verified, but should take into account that these unverified credentials may be called into question when used in discussions. We should also avoid credentialism, since credentials are only one measure of expertise. Users can write with some degree of authority about their hometown, their favourite sport or band, or their native language, without having achieved any degrees in either of them. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons[edit]

This is a proposal to extend the enforcement of the BLP policy to contested claims made by users about themselves on their user pages. Solving this problem using the BLP policy entails using the exact same mechanism and criteria for contentious claims about living persons on user pages about users as we use on user pages about famous people. If Essjay's wild claims had been challenged and deleted under our BLP policy, this whole scandal would not have happened. If a wikipedia user does not give his real name then he has no way to verify anything and must remove claims the community feels are contentious claims for him to be making. I suggest we define this at the start as Ph.D.s and broaden in accordance with community desires over time if that seems to be useful.

Yes[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AlfPhotoman 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. C.m.jones 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - This simple proposal will solve the whole mess.[reply]
  4. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - Moderate support. Seems more acceptable than the other proposals, as long as users without such claims are not penalised with regards to the RfA process. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. Galanskov 06:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC) -You're kind of stretching the meaning of BLP.[reply]
  2. No reason to preclude verification by trusted members of the community.Proabivouac 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Improper bleeding over from article space to user space. Also, too restrictive. -- Avi 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Professor marginalia 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) A disclosure should appear on top of all user pages that User page claims aren't verified and RL credentials described there aren't to give added weight to their edits.[reply]
  5. MikeURL 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I say no for now because without appropriate context this proposal (like slimvirgin's) would seem to give special weight to credentials.[reply]
  6. Knee-jerk reaction. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. New rule: Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials, fashioned after Ignore all rules To wit, "When someone on Wikipedia talks about their credentials, ignore them. // Internet Esquire 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WP:BLP is intended to protect living people from libel and offensive statements which could negatively impact their lives. If someone comes to an article claiming to be the subject, it is important to assume they are indeed the subject and respond to any complaints they have. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Userpages may be anything, not just (or even) biography, and cannot be held to these standards. LessHeard vanU 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No - user pages do not require citations for claims. This is different than edits made in article space - O^O 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. You mean I can't even mention that I minored in Russian on my user page without revealing my identity and scanning my diploma? what, do I need a recommendation letter from my professors? just to mention it on my user page?? absolutely not. ~ Torgo 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. What the hell is this crap? -- Ned Scott 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I suppose next we'd better impose verificability and no original research onto userpages too. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hell no - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. There is value in understanding peer contributors, anything which might deter use of user pages to support that harms the potential for knowledge growth.ALR 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No - WP:BLP is for the encyclopedia articles. It shouldn't matter if you can't verify things on a user page and it makes Wikipedia less welcoming. --WikiSlasher 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voting is evil, but I'll comment that this doesn't seem to me to be continuous with the BLP policy, which is aimed at a totally different problem. Metamagician3000 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Honesty[edit]

Yes[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Duh.Proabivouac 06:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The assumption of good faith tells us to give people the benefit of the doubt in certain cases, and believe that what they write is correct. However, the knife cuts on two sides: believing that a user is truthful requires the other user to be truthful. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 11:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Honesty of actions should, in my opinion, be fundamental Wikipedia principle. --Barberio 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should be self-evident. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. selbstverständlich -- Avi 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - Fair enough. More moderate than the other policies.[reply]
  9. Lacks teeth, but it is somewhat more acceptable than the rest of them. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I could live with this as a guideline, but not as a policy. Really just seems to restate something I always assume - people are being honest. - O^O 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This works as a guideline, although it could possibly use some tweaks. Encouraging honesty in all our interactions would seem to me to provide a backbone to the "Assume Good Faith" guideline. In fact, as the text says, honesty is a corollary to AGF. I like it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Works for me, a valuable addition. TimVickers 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I like it, with the exception of "proffers all relevant information." There can be an awful lot of relevant information, but that doesn't mean that we always need to bend over backwards to provide all of it -- life's too short. Sometimes it's easier to just say, "Yes." --Elonka 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. OK as a guideline, unenforceable as a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. I think that if anything, the Essjay matter has shown that we can't just rely on each other to be honest about credentials. Galanskov 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The foundation would be the victim of possible litigation if this would become policy AlfPhotoman 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Professor marginalia 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I think a broader policy to address a whole spectrum of bad faith behaviors is more appropriate[reply]
  4. I think it would a nice essay, but I wouldn't want to see anyone trying to enforce it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too Pollyanaish and restrictive in re details of one's own personal background. To wit, "An honest Wikipedian . . . does not misrepresent their[sic] personal background." Puffery is part of human nature, and there are some legitimate reasons for someone to offer up fabricated details regarding their personal background. (E.g., undercover law enforcement and witness protection programs.) Prohibiting people from "staying in the closet" and not allowing them to come up with a plausible cover story regarding their deep dark personal secrets would create all sorts of personal conflicts for otherwise honest and decent people who have much to offer Wikipedia. // Internet Esquire 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting reasoning, but this is Wikipedia, not the CIA, the FBI or MI6. Making up aliases is one thing, using the fake alias in editing disputes (as Essjay did) is another thing. AecisBrievenbus 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not approving of Essjay's elaborate deception, but it's really more an issue of line drawing than zero tolerance. You say this is not the CIA, FBI, or MI6; I say that many Wikipedians have legitimate reasons for coming up with plausible cover stories rather than coming clean with busybodies about something that they do not care to share. // Internet Esquire 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Userpages may contain misinformation so presented to a truer picture of the editors (self) image, i.e. "I was raised by vegan wolves..." or for humorous effect. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. per my commments there. Derex 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I do support the ideal, but not as a policy or guideline. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Essay, not policy or guideline. What on earth. - David Gerard 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Good intentions, but not useful in a practical sense. Stylistically a little bit too far towards the fluffy end of the spectrum.ALR 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Interesting essay. Not a guideline per se. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No, and make a new policy that all decisions are based on policy, and decisions based on any claimed credentials are ignored. - Denny 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Being honest is obvious - but harmless lies are OK. No need to make this as a policy or guideline, it's good as an essay. --WikiSlasher 12:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy[edit]

This is a proposal that "Arbcom will establish and maintain and over time improve: a policy on transparency that will provide for accountability of Arbcom members through public knowledge, that increases over time, of the identities of Arbcom members."

Yes[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Acountability is important. Let's take a step in the right direction.[reply]
  2. A no-brainer. Even more important, the Committee should make its communications public and wikilike, with appropriate (and marked) redactions to protect personal information. It is most ridiculous for ArbCom to urge editors towards discussion, when (notably excepting Fred Bauder) the Committee has historically declined to engage in this themselves.Proabivouac 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MER-C 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AlfPhotoman 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Firm Yes. Needed for Accountability and honesty of process, also helps to avoid any potential conflicts of interest in cases. --Barberio 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, even if not public. Even "anonymous" juries are known well, as real people with real identities and jobs and opinions and histories, by the prosecution (the State) and by the defense, too. Can't imagine a society which would dare have it any other way. SBHarris 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. Identification to the office should be sufficient. We don't need ID to everyone. -- Avi 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Professor marginalia 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)It should be to the office only. Arbs can become RL targets and wikipedia sees more than a few nasty and destructive wackos pass thru arbitration[reply]
  3. Having given some thought to this idea, I withdraw my support. The Arbcom must be free to arbitrate without fear of reprisals in real life. Only the trusted members of the office should know their identities. Galanskov 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MikeURL 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) This statement makes it unclear whether this is voluntary or compulsory. Does it only cover people who have made personal details public or will all arbcom members eventually be required to be publicly identified? No discussion of it on the appropriate talk page.[reply]
  5. Galanskov hits the nail on the head. Perhaps to the office, but not to everyone. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with Galanskov that it is good for Arbitrators to arbitrate without worrying that someone they rule against will come and find them in real life. Such a concern could effectively threaten arbitrators from being neutral. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouble is that ArbCom is happy to stand in judgement over editors who do use their real names; these judgements are assertions of fact, often quite prejudicial and personalized, and could conceivably themselves affect someone in real life. Additionally, the Committee has on occasion been known to suspend enforcement of WP:NPA for the duration of arbitration in order to hear serial attackers' cases against their targets. An Arbitration Committee which was not anonymous or pseudonymous would show greater responsibility and empathy for editors in the same position. Currently, they insist that off-wikipedia stalking and harassment are outside of their jurisdiction - what's the chance that they would stick to this were any of them the targets of harassment?Proabivouac 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No - endorsing this policy would imply endorsing the idea of Arbcom - O^O 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No - for the same reason as my vote on the Administrator proposal. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If an Arbitrator wishes to use his or her real name, that's his or her own responsibility. But disclosing the RL identities of Arbitrators should never be compulsory, to prevent stalking and harassment off-wiki. Arbitrators need to be able to judge without fear of off-wiki reprisal. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No. content that ArbCom should be identified to the Foundation although the consequence is an acceptance of p!ss poor privacy regulation due to the location of records which may deter participants.ALR 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A bit vague, not necessarily helpful. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No - ArbCom members are already transparent - you can look at their contributions at any time. If you don't want anonymous Arbitrators, vote against them ;) --WikiSlasher 12:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain[edit]
  1. Internet Esquire 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it's important that there be no fakes on arbcom, but that does not mean that we all need to be able to see their identities. There must be more confidential and flexible ways. Metamagician3000 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki of Trust[edit]

This is a proposal to create a wiki of trust; it is to enhance the security how personal ID would be verified.

Yes[edit]
  1. Could use tweaking, but is generally the right idea.Proabivouac 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) No policy/guideline is needed to do this[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Professor marginalia 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)No, this sounds like wikipedian Freemasonry. It will become once you're initiated, all you need for guaranteed safe passage is to use the masonic secret handshake, er .. Wikitrust's stamp of approval.[reply]
  4. After thinking extensively about it, no AlfPhotoman 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. My reasons are the same as Professor marginalia's. Galanskov 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. MikeURL 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Probably qualifies as navel gazing.[reply]
  7. Suggests that new users are distrusted, also per Professor marginalia.Proabivouac 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unneeded. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hunh? // Internet Esquire 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. All wikipedia is a wiki of trust - O^O 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. My eyes see "Wiki of Trust", but my heart sees only 43-Man Squamish. An overly byzantine solution to a non-problem. —ptk✰fgs 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. no, for the same reason as all the other verification proposals. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No. The Web Of Trust doesn't actually work in cryptography in real life; recycling a failed idea because it sounds good strikes me as counterproductive - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No. As a security consultant ;) it isn't inherently assured, despite the good words.ALR 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No - I've got a feeling some sort of Cabal is going to arise out of this...people shouldn't be distrusted out of unwillingness to reveal their identities which is what this implies. --WikiSlasher 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralish[edit]
  1. I think this is very well written, and I certainly like it better than any of the other credential/identity verification systems. However, I prefer to simply trust everyone and insist on sources anyway. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, thank you. I appreciate your kind words, especially in the face of the overwhelming wave of support this has garnered . -- Avi 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#Real name policy[edit]

This is a proposal to ask the Foundation to make it a formal policy that checkusers' identities are known to the OFFICE. It is said that they are but it is not formal policy

Yes[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) would make a great press release on our improved accountability[reply]
  2. Unquestionably.Proabivouac 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fair compromise. Galanskov 06:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MER-C 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AlfPhotoman 11:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I thought it already was. -- Avi 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Should be a formal requirement of the position. --Barberio 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MikeURL 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Absolutely. Already appears that the policy is in place, just not written out.[reply]
  10. Known to the Office - key word there. Full approval. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dare I say, overdue? // Internet Esquire 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The office is the only entity requiring the tool of verification, and no contact by any wikipedian to any third party can be considered representative of WP without the approval of said office. This doesn't gag opinion, but it remains personal rather than representative. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Most certainly. There is such an opportunity for misuse anonymously that a new scandal just waiting to happen.Professor marginalia 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. dave souza, talk 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. An obvious necessity. Sandstein 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes - it's sysadmin-level information and a Foundation (not English Wikipedia)-level thing - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Reasonable as long as there is an assurance of privacy for that information. Would be surprised if not done already.ALR 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes. About time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. UNICEF estimates that one third of the world's population do not even have a birth certificates.[7] [8] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other ways to present one's identity... +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No - I would prefer to see checkuser either eliminated, or made available to all users (including IP users) - O^O 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, for several reasons. It's easy to provide a fake name. If the said checkuser has never posted their photo or exact age publicly on wikipedia, it's just as easy to provide a fake ID. So it really doesn't achieve anything. Secondly, there's no real reason for us to believe that checkusers will be better/more responsible if the foundation knows their real name. In fact, there's even no solid evidence to say that people who publically reveal their real names (and therefore more accountable for their actions on wiki) are more better and more responsible editors/admins/etc. If anything, a real name proposal should apply to oversight, not checkuser. Oversight are the people who really deal with sensitive information. All checkuser does is get ip addresses - which really isn't that big a deal. I don't even understand why wikipedia makes such a big deal of it in the first place (i.e. why don't all admins just get to see ip addresses). IP addresses is hardly a good identifier - it changes often and is often shared. All it says is your general region and your ISP. Your IP address is hardly confidential - go post on any message board and your ip will be recorded. If you're persistant, it's fairly feasible for anyone to get the IP address of any long-time wikipedian - just by spending a lot of time going through the editor's contribution history. Most editors have probably made edits when they've forgotten to log in once or twice. And if the said editor uses say, a hotmail address, then it's even easier. Just email them (most regular wikipedians do have "email this user" activated) and get them to send you a reply. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[edit]
  1. I find the argument that this will "make a great press release" very weak. If we act to change the structure of Wikipedia after the Essjay controversy, we should do so in a way that actually improves Wikipedia. If a change doesn't improve Wikipedia, we shouldn't bother. Simply doing something to make the outside world believe that we are doing something is a waste of time and effort. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Making policy change for the benefit of a press release would set an embarrassingly awful precedent. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - they should be known to someone - whether it's the office, or just Jimbo, or a particular Foundation member, or whomever. The point is that people who have this ability should be people of integrity, and there should some kind of check when they are appointed. Metamagician3000 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MikeURL/Credentials[edit]

Credentials, in and of themselves, have very limited utility on Wikipedia. While experts and content specialists are welcome and encouraged to contribute, every editor should rely primarily upon attribution and a neutral point of view to determine whether controversial edits are valid. This proposal suggests ways that editors should deal with credentials, both academic and otherwise.MikeURL 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes[edit]
  1. Proabivouac 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MikeURL 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Um, yes. Unsurprisingly. But my proposal needs a working verification system in place to be complete.[reply]
  3. dave souza, talk 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC) A useful page for those claiming expertise: it would be good to merge User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials into this for further clarification, and a link to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles would be appropriate. Credentials on user pages should be discouraged beyond what's suggested by Wikipedia:User page regarding "information about their areas of expertise and interest", informing rather than claiming rank. Those claiming credentials should expect them to be questioned, but keeping Jimbo's credential verification system only for "positions of trust" is a good idea. ... 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you read my proposal closely you'll see that it already contains the same sentiment regarding the usefulness of credentials as Misza13. I just didn't write it with baseball bat force.MikeURL 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Galanskov 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - No, because of the section about RfA etc. I don't want to see a situation in which people's credentials and RL experience are taken into account at RfA. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lacks teeth. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With respect, I think this is a watered-down version of Jimbo's proposal, and I would only support MikeURL's proposal as the lesser of two evils. I prefer that Wikipedia ignore all credentials. // Internet Esquire 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community. LessHeard vanU 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. no, same reason as my opposses for all the other credential verification proposals. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No. The first part is fine, if a little motherhood and apple pie, the latter part takes the worst parts of Jimbos proposal, including thelack of real purpose.ALR 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sorry but I don't think getting "This person doesn't want to verify their credentials" at WP:RfB or ArbCom elections. Remove the part about how they should be prepared to verify and I'm all for it! --WikiSlasher 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials[edit]

Yes[edit]
  1. Galanskov 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Professor marginalia 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC) They are irrelevant. Identity should be verified for checkuser privileges due to the potential for abuse of personal information and such powers should not be given to anonymous persons[reply]
  3. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC) This is more or less what I've been saying in my earlier comments.[reply]
  4. Nice essay. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Well said, but don't prevent people from describing their interests: merge into Mike's handy page as my comment on that proposal .. dave souza, talk 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good idea -Marcusmax 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Excellent! --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I disagree with the title but definitely agree with what's expressed within. Nice essay --WikiSlasher 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. I care most about your arguments, but your credentials are also interesting to me.Proabivouac 06:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I care less about your credentials in a dispute, but I care if I need to know something AlfPhotoman 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I care about your credentials, because you might have interesting books to your name or even one day offer me a job. Anville 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MikeURL 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Words like "useless" and "nobody cares" are just way too loaded for my taste.[reply]
  5. Doesn't really solve anything. It's a nice essay, but that's it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Would support a more streamlined version of Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. // Internet Esquire 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. # This proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community - those that include credentials on userpages. LessHeard vanU 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per MikeURL. If rewritten with neutral terms, I may reconsider. Credentials aren't "useless", but people with credentials are welcome, but only as long as they don't misuse them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Agree with the ideal (credentials don't matter), but this proposal is hardly a good (in the well-written sense) one. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. They should care. But credentials are not a trump card. - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. Credentials do imply knowledge about, but should not allow one to trump other editors. They are useful for developing the shape of the knowledge and creating an interesting, informative and useful article.ALR 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Too negative about credentials, making it unbalanced. Expertise (and, by extension, credentials) are useful for more than just finding external sources, like evaluating the sources and knowing which parts of the topic to stress. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[edit]
  1. Much of this essay is so obvious it's kicking in open doors. The edits that led to a block matter, not the background of the blocked user or the blocking admin. The neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability from reliable sources are more important than the assumption of good faith and arguments by authority. The content of the edit should matter more than the background of the editor. But the reality is that seemingly plausible appeals to authority lend the editor credibility, and as such influence the discussion. It shouldn't happen, but it does. Cows fly kites Main: Aecis/Rule/Contributions 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The right sentiments, but could be written more carefully; cf. and merge with Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials? +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. How much we care about your credentials probably can't be decided by a vote. Metamagician3000 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Credential ban[edit]

Yes[edit]
  1. Galanskov 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - Good idea in principle.[reply]
  4. Interesting as user:Misza's essay --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Proabivouac 07:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, because it would also rob us of a resource, the price would be to high AlfPhotoman 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems like pure silliness. Derex 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MikeURL 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Far too extreme.[reply]
  6. I should be allowed to say that 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. None of these statements are true, it so happens, but if they were, I should be able to make them on my user page. Anville 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Edit to add: and in any discussions where they happen to be relevant, assuming I do not violate basic expectations of civility. Anville 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Professor marginalia 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Maybe it isn't as obvious as it needs to be that statements on user pages are not vetted. A disclosure template on user pages should take care of the problem. Real life details on user pages should be completely disregarded imho except in a purely social sense at WP. They should not hold any sway for edits or disputes.[reply]
  8. Plain awful. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The operation was a success, but the patient died. // Internet Esquire 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is in opposition to both WP:Good faith and freedom of expression, and the proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community. LessHeard vanU 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This goes too far in the wrong direction. Voluntary credentials are harmless, and are positively useful for telling others "Come to me if you have a question on this subject". Also, I hate anything that cuts into individual freedom. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No, absolutely not. Not being allowed to state that I have a doctorate, when I do, is offensive to me, and not helpful to the project--since if someone wants a question answered in my area that credential gives them a clue that I might be able to help. Please assume good faith that those of us with advanced degrees have studied enough logic to know not to use the argument from authority. Antandrus (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. stupid idea, to put it bluntly. Maybe we should put an age ban too? --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reduction ad absurdum - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. Knowledge of peer editors is useful in collaboration.ALR 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No - it would deter those with credentials (see Antandrus's comment above for proof) and detracts from the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --WikiSlasher 13:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed addition to WP:ATT[edit]

This proposed addition which begins "Editors should not make claims about their professional expertise or academic qualifications anywhere on the site, including on their user pages, without supplying reliable, third-party source material in support of it."

Yes[edit]
  1. WAS 4.250 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) suggested changes on my talk page[reply]
  2. C.m.jones 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - coupled with the BLP addition, would have prevented this whole mess.[reply]
  3. Has potential either at ATT or as a separate page, which could be expanded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
  1. Galanskov 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No reason to preclude verification by trusted members of the community.Proabivouac 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wrong place for such a proposal... ATT should only relate to articles not to user pages or talk pages. If the community feels that there is a need for credential verification, create a policy for it... but not as part of ATT. Blueboar 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MikeURL 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Gives credentials special treatment without needed context.[reply]
  5. Professor marginalia 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Editors should not use professional expertise to give weight even if the expertise is verified[reply]
  6. Too restrictive. -- Avi 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Blueboar. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wrong place, wrong idea, per MikeURL. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose addition to WP:ATT per Blueboar — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Why not ignore all credentials? // Internet Esquire 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This proposal addresses only one part of the Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit) Editing Community. LessHeard vanU 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. no, another stupid idea. Same as above vote. --`/aksha 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Um, no. - David Gerard 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No, not while it points downwards.ALR 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. Credentials are no more special on WP than any other personally identifying statements. +sj + 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WP:ATT is a policy Wikipedians made up for the writing of encyclopedia articles. Our user pages and talk pages, and everything outside the Mainspace and Portals are not a part of the encyclopedia, but simply a tool for collaboration to aid in the making of the encyclopedia. Too restrictive. --WikiSlasher 13:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil[edit]
  1. Per WP:POL and WP:PNSD, proposals are not decided upon by voting upon them. >Radiant< 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not the Wikiway. —Moondyne 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voting is evil blah, blah. Anyway, this is not the purpose of the attribution policy. Also, finding genuinley third-person accounts of your own qualifications is usually impossible. Even if your quals are on a university site or something that it links to and endorses, the university will probably have accepted you as the source for them (with an unknown degree of diligence). More flexibility than this proposal would be needed to run anything like Jimbo's idea. If we are going to have anything at all like this, what Jimbo is saying seems more flexible and workable, though still problematic. Metamagician3000 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I could agree with Moondyne and Radiant that this is not the wiki-way, but somehow we must also see that we have to protect the foundation, not only from another scandal but also from damages that litigation could cost if material damages occur during one of these scandals. In our Web-persona universe it is of little importance who we are or what we claim to be, but OUR web-universe is directly connected to the real world and therefore we must adhere to a minimum of real world conventions. AlfPhotoman 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • YANAL. We don't have to protect the foundation; if the foundation believes it needs protection, it has the authority to instate a policy to do so. If it does not believe so, we don't need to instate that policy ourselves based on the hypothesis that they might need it. >Radiant< 11:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Wikiway, but I'm keeping an open mind on the poll. It might at least give some kind of synopsis of who is saying what. Any comments that I have will be under "voting is evil" and I am against counting votes. I'd have preferred a straight request to summarise our views by issue, perhaps on a sub-page. Metamagician3000 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a structured discussion and not a vote. Please participate in this structured discussion in whatever way works for you that does not disrupt others as they contribute to this discussion in their way. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the same way that the American people hold a "structured discussion" to select their next president? This is getting waaay too surreal. >Radiant< 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    you mean a primary election is much different than this? just a question.... AlfPhotoman 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same way Wikipedia uses a "structured discussion" for RFA, AFD, RFC, arbitrator elections, etc ad nauseum. Derex 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would it stop? Why should WP need to verify degrees and not employment history? Political party affiliations? Credit reports? Medical records? Birth certificates? Personal references? Criminal history? Wouldn't it also be a black eye if some highly publicized editor turns out to have killed someone in a drunk driving accident or has a long history of schizophrenic hallucinations? Background checks is not the way to go. This episode was a publicity black eye because Essjay was offered to New Yorker as a kind of spokesperson for the community. WP doesn't need to do this, and shouldn't in the future. The problem now is that these major policy changes would completely transform the project from a grass roots level community effort to a kind of state department hierarchy of authority levels and security clearances. It's a knee jerk reaction. Essjay's deception to other editors within WP had very minimal, if any, impact on WP content. Were the credentials he gave on his user page a factor in him being granted admin privileges? If so, I don't think that reflects good decision making because RL credentials don't make one a good editor or a good admin. This was a humiliating, and sad, episode but the lessons that should be taken from it should be to further discourage editors interjecting their real life professional or educational qualifications at WP, and the proposals in the straw poll would have the opposite effect. I'd rather see a rule against publicizing details from one's real life professional resume on user pages or to bolster one's credibility in edits than I would to see WP develop an institutionalized "caste" of any sort based on real life qualifications outside of the WP.Professor marginalia 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken and well made. However, Jimbo has told the New York Times that a system will be in place in "about a week". Tempting as it may be to tilt against windmills I'm not sure it is helpful at this point...MikeURL 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But are we creating a system/structure/policy/process for the New York Times, or for Wikipedia? What matters is that we do this well, that we create a good verification system. If that takes a week longer, then so be it. AecisBrievenbus 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Professor marginalia here. Why do we need a whole elaborate system of verifying credentials, banning credentials, embracing credentials, etc.? Would a couple sentences in WP:ATT and WP:CIVIL about not using credentials in place of citations and not using credentials in disputes be enough, in addition to something obvious like Don't lie to the media? The main problem wasn't that Essjay lied to us about his credentials, it's that he lied to the media. If he didn't lie to the New Yorker, just the Wikipedia community, he would have gotten a slap on the wrist at worst. I see a 2 major flaws in verification proposals. 1. They are too simple or too complicated. The simple proposals, like Jimbo's, are too easy to defraud. The complicated ones, such as the one that would use PGP, is too much work to be practical on a large scale. 2. What happens if they fail? Which would be worse, another Essjay scandal under current policy or an Essjay scandal after we implement a verfication proposal? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing but Jimbo told the NYT just yesterday that he'll have a system in place in a week. I don't think our role will be to decide whether this happens but we might influence how it is done. I'm a pragmatist.MikeURL 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That same article quotes Anthere as saying she's not on board. Chick Bowen 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, as I commented above somewhere, things must look different from Jimbo's perspective, having to worry about sponsors and the media. If Jimbo and/or the Board do introduce some kind of system of accreditation I simply urge that it be as flexible as possible. Metamagician3000 06:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible is good.
Mr.Z-man asked,
Would a couple sentences in WP:ATT and WP:CIVIL about not using credentials in place of citations and not using credentials in disputes be enough, in addition to something obvious like Don't lie to the media?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
The main problem wasn't that Essjay lied to us about his credentials, it's that he lied to the media.
Where, I might add, WP:ATT, WP:RS and all that are completely irrelevant. Within the lofty walls of Wikipedia, citations are king, and all else being equal, legitimate experts have the upper hand (because they know where all the sacred scrolls are hidden). They just have to learn to speak the local dialect, which isn't too difficult for most honest folk. In the wilderness outside these walls, the rules are different, and you can't be challenged on pure merits. It's the ambassadors, the people who live within but present their faces to the wild without, who have to be examined. Anville 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the points made above by Anville. The only users who should be subjected to credential verification are those who are invited to act as ambassadors for the community. See WP:CAI for an explanation of why I feel that academic credentials are completely irrelevant on Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Credential_Verification/Straw_polls&oldid=1079373541"