For the record, I am totally opposed to such a model.
If the english community decides to adopt it, it is the community decision. Fine.
But the Foundation should be entirely kept away from this. There is NO way our rare employees should have to deal with editors credentials. Doing so would on top further fuel the belief that we are in charge, putting us possibly at risk legally speaking.
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; having bad social consequences (people like the warm feeling of being in the small group of """this university""" or """that profession"""). This is I think a slippery slope toward requesting identification for various jobs.
Whilest I would agree we neeed identification for the jobs of stewards, checkusers and oversight, I fear the day we will request identification and credentials for the job of admin (yes, I saw the proposition mentionned in the press). Same for press contacts and business/partnership contacts.
This would entirely tip the very concept of our community. Trust build not upon someone credential but upon what the person does.
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.
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.
I think that is a poor way to act. What counts is the values we share and the success we met. Not the noises done by journalists.
Anthere (for the general comments)
Florence Devouard, Chair of Wikimedia Foundation (for the statement that the Foundation did not ask anything, will not impose that, and definitly should stay out of that crap)
Erik Moeller wrote:
also on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credentials#Simplified_voluntary...
After some more thought, I would suggest an almost completely voluntary model, where the only requirement would be that a user claiming credentials should put one of four templates on their user page:
# "This user's stated credentials have not been verified." => If placed by another user # "This user's verification of stated credentials is pending." # "This user does not wish to verify their stated credentials, and asks you to assume good faith." # "This user does not wish to verify their stated credentials, because they should not matter to you. Please judge edits on their merits."
(Potentially the last two could be generalized into an abstract template that lets the user provide an arbitrary reason.)
For verification process, I would suggest to keep the office completely out of the loop -- doesn't scale. Instead, verify exclusively by emailing credentials evidence to [[OTRS]] (mail from an institution address [requires reply to confirm], scanned diploma / PhD, etc.). This would be similar to the permissions queue we already have for copyright, or the general inquiries queue, and seems to scale reasonably well.
Using this method, we have a more obvious disclaimer present in cases where users do commit fraud (the Essjay page would have said "Does not wish to verify"), and at the same time, users with identified credentials can be found easily, which may be helpful in cases where you're looking for an expert on topic X (think categories).
I have some connections that could help to check for diploma mills etc., if we want to go that far; for now, a simple system should suffice.
Yes, this solution will also cause some conflict. That is, I believe, unavoidable. If we take our responsibilities seriously, we must be prepared to make a decision like this, even if it makes a small number of vocal people unhappy. I believe a position like the above could gain majority support, however.