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.