On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
But the Foundation should be entirely kept away from this. There is NO way our rare employees should have to deal with editors credentials.
I agree - which is why the simplified proposal only works through an OTRS queue handled by volunteers (similar to the permissions queue), and is voluntary.
At the same time, I believe this proposition will scare away some people and will result in people not telling what they are educated or trained in;
Why would such a person have a problem saying "I do not want to verify my credentials, thanks"? That seems like a simple enough thing to ask.
This is I think a slippery slope toward requesting identification for various jobs.
Nobody proposes anything mandatory at this point (except perhaps that people have to tolerate simple disclaimer templates of their choice on their user page).
What counts is not the credential of the person, but giving a source for a controversial content. This is not because someone has a validated phd that he should be more reliable than another.
But people can, and will, make reference to the credentials people claim on their user pages. Both the people claiming them, and others reading them. The Essjay case has shown this.
Last, we should stop being the valet of the press. Each time there is a noise in the press, some feel we should respond, apology, change the way we are doing things.
Not each time. When some newspaper reports "Wikipedia claimed xy was a pedophile" and it is just a common case of vandalism that was fixed in 5 minutes, then we realize this is hyperbole and shouldn't result in immediate action.
When USA Today had an editorial that showed that a serious case of personal attack vandalism remained for months, then this led to some positive reforms about living people biographies (much of the current en.wp policy on this topic was written after the incident). I do not regret these reforms in the slightest.
In the fake credentials case, I also think some cautious reform steps are in order. We're not going to become a "credentialed encyclopedia", but it makes perfect sense to me to treat such statements with some disclaimers, in lieu of any verification. Irrespective of any media event, for a typical user, the simple fact that Wikipedians have thought about such things, and come up with a carefully balanced policy for them, would inspire some trust.
Sticking our collective head in the sand is as dangerous as acting like we don't have one. I believe the credentials problem deserves serious attention. Therefore I think this is an important & healthy discussion, and I hope you will continue to contribute to it.