Andrew Cady wrote:

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:44:39AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:

...

We do not have them for user pages, and it does not strike me as irregular that a fictitious persona would have a fictitious biography.

I find it disturbing that so many here accept this characterization of the falsified credentials.

I think that this is really the crux of the disagreement, so let's state it clearly. There are some people here who think that it is reasonable and appropriate for Wikipedians to deceive other Wikipedians about their biography, while others find this unacceptable.

By deceive I mean more than "maintain anonymity" or "use a pseudonym." Let's be clear about this, because confusion on this point was evident as early as Jimbo's (now-retracted) statement that Essjay's false credentials were "a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."

Once again: false credentials (or other biographical falsifications, for that matter) are NOT a pseudonym.

In an attempt to deal with the lessons of the Essjay situation, Jimbo has proposed a credentials verification system that I think would be unwieldy and a significant change for Wikipedia. I think there is a simpler solution that doesn't create any new ongoing work for anyone. The solution: WIKIPEDIA NEEDS AN HONESTY POLICY. It needs to state clearly that Wikipedians should be honest and truthful, even on their user pages. In other words: Anonymity is fine. Pseudonyms are fine. Humor is fine. Opinions are fine. Deception is not. That's the bright line.

Currently, Wikipedia has policies on civility, use of bots, and a host of other topics, but it does not have a policy anywhere that says Wikipedians should be honest with one another. This has left a window of ambiguity that makes it possible for many people (even Jimbo) to imagine that it is okay to falsify facts about oneself for the purpose of deception.

There is no doubt that this is what Essjay did. He himself in his explanation of his behavior stated that he engaged in "disinformation," which he justified as a necessary to protect himself from trolls and stalkers.

The reality, however, is that people can maintain anonymity without using deception. Even if we take Essjay's explanation at face value, it was a mistake to use deception as a means of maintaining anonymity. Wikipedia should make this point clear in its policies so that future Essjays won't make the same mistake.

There are, of course, some theoretical gray areas in this policy, but I think they're more theoretical than real. If I claim on my user page that I'm a Spanish terrier or Vin Diesel's body double, everyone except the terminally dense will recognize that I'm not serious. If, however, I claim that I live in Wisconsin, have a degree from Princeton, or that I met Jimbo at Wikimania 2006, people have a right to expect that I'm telling the truth.

The issue isn't just "credentials." It's truthfulness in general. Someone who has works as a carpenter may not have any formal credentials per se, but they have knowledge that may enhance their status as an expert on a particular topic. Ergo, you shouldn't pretend to be a carpenter unless you are one. Nor should you pretend to be confined to a wheelchair, terminally ill with cancer, or anything else that isn't actually true.

I wouldn't suggest imposing any fixed penalties for violating this code, nor would I suggest creating new procedures for verification. Merely stating the policy and handling enforcement on a case-by-case basis should be sufficient. If someone starts an administrative procedure against me for claiming that I'm a Spanish terrier, I trust that the community will have the common sense needed to dismiss it quickly. There is another category of *unverifiable* assertions that might become grounds for contention, but the onus of proof in those cases should be on the accuser. Minor, one-time falsehoods can be handled with Wikilove the same way the community handles minor acts of newbie vandalism.

If such a policy were in place when Essjay first began his editing career, it might not have stopped him from initially claiming to be a professor. (Newbies make all kinds of mistakes.) During the course of his rise within the project, however, he would have become familiar with the policy and would have been more likely to bring himself into compliance with it before it blew up on him.