IMO, the problem with the Essjay mess (of which I read very little) is that someone, the news media, thought his credentials mattered--apparently as much as he did. Shouldn't the content of what he was writing have spoken for itself? Do we have to buy into the news media putting so much into his credentials?
I don't think credentials are a good idea. And I love what The Cunctator said:
"Frankly, I think one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it forces people to become disabused of Arguments by Authority, to force people to engage in critical thinking, etc.
Why? Because it doesn't rely on the lazy trappings of credentials and curricula vitae and titles and celebrity endorsement, etc."
One of the best Wikipedia editors I've worked with on Wikipedia appears to be a young teenager. Why should it matter when she's careful, dedicated, makes an effort to work with other editors, and is able to research information and format and write credibly? When I wanted help with an African cardiovascular surgeon, she was the person I asked--because she's one of the few non-botanical, non-Afghan editors I know. She's established the most important credential of them all: competence, as exhibited by her body of work at Wikipedia (available in her edit history). And I trust her, because I can see by her work that she's worthy of it.
Now, we're going to say, "anyone can edit," but the reader should know when the person editing isn't just anybody, but is somebody special and credentialed? Whatever for?
And, now, it's not just that anyone can edit, but that those who edit and have standardized degrees from "certified" academic institutions get status. Someone else mentioned the difficulty in understanding foreign academic credentials.
What about someone who studied a craft under one of the world's leading practitioners of that craft? Herbalists? Acupuncturists outside of California and the countries in the world that credential it? Will we be checking credentials from Vietnamese, North Korean, Afghanistan and Mongolia, or, again, just standard western academic credentials? State-certified schools from those other countries? Or do we only have credentialed editors in the areas that Western academic considers important enough to offer credentials in? Why should these areas be special, the ivory towers be revered?
Naturalists are out. Forget about African drummers. The world's leading Persian rug-makers probably can't get verified in their field by Wikipedia, because they probably didn't learn from a western credentialed academic institute.
I don't think credentials is the answer to the Essjay problem, because I think the problem was with the press, not with Wikipedia. I think it might amount to Wikipedia users judging articles by the editors' credentials, while Wikipedia editors are still judging articles by the editors established credibility in the community. This might be bad, it might make more of Essjay, where we view the world one way, and the press another. And it could wind up relying upon western academic standards and reinforcing the ivory tower than anybody is currently tearing down. Whatever for? KP