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.
I like the 4 different templates for the userpage stating how much "certified" that particular user is. But would those scanned documents be visible to all users or only to the sysops (or whatever they are called by then)? Because while I would have no problem with people seeing my graduation papers (no degree, but still I graduated at a higher technical school in austria, which would give me credentials in electronics and programming as it does in austria I suppose) I wouldn't want everyone to be able to see the my real name on it.
Regards, Christof Sperl a.k.a. Aetherfukz
On 08/03/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org 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.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
On 08/03/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Seconded. Any press reaction should be considered first in terms of how it helps the projects.
- d.
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.
Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
Many editors of huge quality are not willing to provide their real name. Why would they consider sending this information to a totally anonymous email address handled by volunteers, who are not necessarily identified under their real name and have signed no confidentiality agreement them ?
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).
I think we are dangerously going on a path with less and less of transparency.
You are suggesting that people (who may be from many different origins - including from countries no OTRS volunteers have the single idea of the educational system) send to an anonymous email address, a proof of credential that the OTRS volunteers will have to take the time to analyse, take the responsability to validate, then report on the wiki.
And editors will have to trust that, without seeing the information ?
I think that is weird. Really. And, seeing the pain that is already going on on OTRS to manage current emails, I think it will not scale because too complex.
Why not launching a campaign rather with two goals * those who are identified are invited to provide some references for anyone (anyone, publicly) to check the information. * educating the press interviewing editors that they should simply think of asking the person to provide relevant data * make it clear that lying about credentials and using that expertise "power" is bad. I guess Essjay feels very ashamed right now, and so would anyone in his right mind.
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.
I am willing to discuss it.
But I insist that the Foundation be not involved in this. If the Foundation itself pushes a policy of this type and manage credential stuff, we are clearly labelled editors.
And it will really bugs me if I see in the press an official statement from the Foundation that we promise to work to provide such checking, when we will not.
And who will take the time to explain the various languages communities that "euh, no, this will not happen actually"
What I mostly want to make sure is that this happens because editors think it is important, not because the WMF told them it is mandatory from now on.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Many editors of huge quality are not willing to provide their real name. Why would they consider sending this information to a totally anonymous email address handled by volunteers, who are not necessarily identified under their real name and have signed no confidentiality agreement them ?
Is there possible compromise between your position and Eric's?
There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business. Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there are some creative ones we could work with.
The notion is that for anybody who would like their credentials validated, they can pay a third party to do the work. The Foundation would only get involved to select trusted vendors and verify the vendor accounts on Wikipedia. In addition to verifying credentials, they could perhaps verify real names, or that the user has only one verified Wikipedia account. For the limited cases where the Foundation wanted things verified, they could cover the cost of the verification; otherwise, people would be on their own.
Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, but I thought I'd suggest the possibility.
William
On 08/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Is there possible compromise between your position and Eric's? There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business. Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there are some creative ones we could work with.
As I said, I'm not sure even this is needed - given the reaction to Essjay's false claims, I do think just being honest is enough.
For a comparison, look at User:172 - he claims expertise, but he wants to stay completely anonymous. But that's fine, because he *shows* expertise. (And only an academic could reference the way he does ...) He has a certain impatience with idiots, but a saintly disposition in the face of blithering stupidity is probably the very hardest thing to achieve in the zen of Wiki, and quite forgivable ...
I do think just letting people claim what credentials they want to is enough for now, because the community oppobrium at any respected user's credentials turning out fake is *exceedingly* harsh, and probably worse the more trusted they are. (Which is why the Essjay thing sucks so much.)
- d.
William Pietri wrote:
There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business. Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there are some creative ones we could work with.
I would want to see some pretty strong evidence or arguments that verified credentials would actually have a significant positive value to Wikipedia before setting up such a system on our own, let alone paying for it.
Really, I think we're working ourselves into a tizzy here over something that remains to be proved will have any long-term significance. "Scandals" flare up and die away all the time, many of them leaving almost no trace in the press or history books. Let's not hurriedly implement something just to maybe make it go away a little faster.
I'm going to be giving a radio interview tomorrow morning about the Essjay affair and I plan to use it mostly as an opportunity to inform listeners about Wikipedia's status as a tertiary source and our policy of referencing stuff to outside sources. If people understood that better this molehill wouldn't seem nearly so mountainous, IMO.
The notion is that for anybody who would like their credentials validated, they can pay a third party to do the work.
I don't imagine that setting up a system where Wikipedia editors have to pay money out of their own pockets to gain status on Wikipedia would be a good way to reduce bad press about us. :)
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
On 3/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Yeah, a whole bunch of false assumptions instantly get created and spread around with stories like this:
- an "editor" is a priviledged position at Wikipedia (very common, presumably because "editor" has such a strong meaning to journalists) - editors with PHds are treated differently to those without - Wikipedia is written by so few editors that losing one would matter - Most editors edit under their real name - EssJay was an exception.
Would using the term "contributor" instead of "editor" help?
Steve
K P wrote:
I don't think credentials is the answer to the Essjay problem, because I think the problem was with the press, not with Wikipedia.
For me, the external problem went well beyond the press. Essjay claiming he had a couple of doctorates was not so good, and using them in content disputes was worse. But I think the real problem came when he claimed to be a tenured professor, trying to make both himself and Wikipedia look better by drawing on the social standing we give to professors. That he did it in the press is what made the problem such a big deal externally, but you can't blame them for reporting things people care about.
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
Looking at [[User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification]] it looks like the proposal would try to cover situations like this, so I think credential verification could have at least helped were it widely used.
William
William Pietri wrote:
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
The best counter for this perception problem, IMO, is not to convince people to trust Wikipedia's content because the people working on it are certified in some way - "expert" contributors is no guarantee of a good product. Rather, we should simply try to show that Wikipedia's _content_ is objectively good. The Nature study comparing article quality to Britannica is a good example, credentials and authorship never entered into it.
On 3/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
The best counter for this perception problem, IMO, is not to convince people to trust Wikipedia's content because the people working on it are certified in some way - "expert" contributors is no guarantee of a good product. Rather, we should simply try to show that Wikipedia's _content_ is objectively good. The Nature study comparing article quality to Britannica is a good example, credentials and authorship never entered into it.
Except for the subtext of being amazed that non-experts could write an accurate encyclopedia :) Re: the Chronicle quote, I think there's possibly a certain personal level of discreditation, or guilt-by-association that goes beyond content accuracy, going on as well -- if I really am a professor, why state that when anyone else can as well (and clearly get away with it pretty easily)? Why be associated with that kind of nonsense? Why be subject to possible distrust in the future (are you *really* a professor, or do you just say you are?) Professorship is hard-won in most cases, and most people don't take kindly to impersonation.
Credentials might help with this. However, KP's point about not all areas of expertise being subject to black & white credentialing is well taken. I can verify certain points of my education pretty easily, but those aren't necessarily the areas I edit in. And none of my prior degrees or hobbies cover "wikipedia editing and policies" which, let's face it, is really what Essjay was an expert in. There's no credentialing needed for that except a strong edit history.
As I see it, the question is what credentialing would help with, and what its main goal would be. Questions to ask include: * is or should honesty about yourself, on general principle (i.e., outside of content disputes etc) be: a) not necessary, just nice if it happens b) a necessary thing in order to contribute c) helpful in making *you* more trustworthy for any job, i.e. positions of trust on the wiki
* is or should stating verified credentials about yourself (whether they're "I'm an academic librarian" or "I'm a world-renowned didgeridoo player"): a) helpful in making your edits more trustworthy, in general b) helpful in making your edits more trustworthy, in specific (i.e. on the didgeridoo articles) c) helpful in making *you* more trustworthy in general, i.e. for positions of trust d) none of these, it's just a nice social convention, helpful for finding like-minded friends
Again, I can prove I'm an expert in some content areas, but not in others. Whether I should do so depends entirely, in my opinion, on what the goal of attempting to garner more trust is. Bear in mind, beyond knowing and having met many Wikipedians personally, I do state my real name on my userpage, and a quick search will tell you where I work and what I do for a living. All of this was done deliberately: I believe in making editing Wikipedia a professional-level endeavor that I am happy to associate my name with. However, I'm aware that I seem to be in the minority among contributors with this, and indeed it took a long time before I started using my real name on my userpage. The prevailing culture on en:wp is very much one of pseudonymity and anonymity; this is the much larger hurdle to change if more real-life trustworthiness is needed from contributors.
-- phoebe
p.s. like essjay, I have an OTRS account. Does that mean that I could verify my own credentials under Erik's plan?
On 09/03/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
beyond content accuracy, going on as well -- if I really am a professor, why state that when anyone else can as well (and clearly get away with it pretty easily)? Why be associated with that kind of nonsense? Why be subject to possible distrust in the future (are you *really* a professor, or do you just say you are?) Professorship is hard-won in most cases, and most people don't take kindly to impersonation.
A lot of editors put their organisational affiliation on their user page, or even a link to their university or organisational web page, which is of course immediately verifiable.
But others don't want to put everything on their user page, precisely because of stunted obsessives like Brandt, or worse.
p.s. like essjay, I have an OTRS account. Does that mean that I could verify my own credentials under Erik's plan?
It all comes down to starting with the assumption that people are basically honest and not going to lie. As I said, after this Essjay disaster, *no one* of good faith is going to fib about their credentials to cover their tracks ...
- d.
On 3/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It all comes down to starting with the assumption that people are basically honest and not going to lie. As I said, after this Essjay disaster, *no one* of good faith is going to fib about their credentials to cover their tracks ...
Yes, but will they still fib about their *names*? ;-)
-SV
On 3/10/07, stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but will they still fib about their *names*? ;-)
I can provide multiple indpendent witnesses showing I use the name "geni" in meatspace.
On 10/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/07, stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but will they still fib about their *names*? ;-)
I can provide multiple indpendent witnesses showing I use the name "geni" in meatspace.
"Hi, who are you?" "Geni."
See!
- d.
On 3/8/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
For me, the external problem went well beyond the press. Essjay claiming
he had a couple of doctorates was not so good, and using them in content disputes was worse.
Would somebody please provide a source for the claim that he used his fake credentials to "strongarm people" or to influence "content disputes?" I could simply repeat my belief that this assertion is far overstated, but instead Ill simply demand that people actually support their accusations with evidence. The citations Ive seen have been damning from a credentialist standpoint, but I have yet to see evidence that he used his fake credentials in the context of actual disputes. In contrast, over the years haven't we seen plenty of crackpots with claimed credentials abuse these in a way which has been much more disruptive?
But I think the real problem came when he claimed to
be a tenured professor, trying to make both himself and Wikipedia look better by drawing on the social standing we give to professors. That he did it in the press is what made the problem such a big deal externally, but you can't blame them for reporting things people care about.
The press didnt take it as a story in which Essjay misrepresented himself to the press. They ran it as a story in which Essjay's wiki credentials were somehow based on false academic credentials. The fact is that we don't base wiki credentials on academic ones, and it is precisely this reason why Wikipedia has slightly more than 24 peer reviewed articles.
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly
damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
This is nonsense. Essjay's standing was never based on his academics, it was based on his work and community involvement. Wikipedia's credibility doesn't rest on credentials, but on its content. Which suffers not thanks to its many anonymous and knowledgeable contributors, credentialed or otherwise.
Looking at [[User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification]] it looks like
the proposal would try to cover situations like this, so I think credential verification could have at least helped were it widely used.
Im with Anthere on this one, its just unimaginative reactionism.
-Stevertigo
stvrtg wrote:
On 3/8/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
For me, the external problem went well beyond the press. Essjay claiming
he had a couple of doctorates was not so good, and using them in content disputes was worse.
Would somebody please provide a source for the claim that he used his fake credentials to "strongarm people" or to influence "content disputes?"
I was hoping not to rehash this stuff anytime soon, but strictly because you asked on the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay#Outside_...
both the items at the top and other ones mentioned in the endorsements.
In particular, this is the one that I found most clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imprimatur&diff=12614544&...
It's his fourth edit, where he defends his very first edit. In it he says, "I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text Catholicism for Dummies" [...] This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility."
Note that I personally don't think part was a huge deal; as I mention elsewhere, this is not an uncommon thing for a teenager with a shiny new identity to do, and from there it looks like he just let it get out of control. Since he didn't do it a lot, and since we are famously uninterested in credentials anyhow, I think this did little harm. It was the lies to real professors and real journalists that were more of an issue for me, and the coverup on top of that that suggested Essjay had not developed the character that I look for in somebody holding such positions of trust.
This is nonsense. Essjay's standing was never based on his academics, it was based on his work and community involvement. Wikipedia's credibility doesn't rest on credentials, but on its content. Which suffers not thanks to its many anonymous and knowledgeable contributors, credentialed or otherwise.
Essjay's internal standing was not based on his academics. However, his standing when he wrote to professors as a "fellow professor" and his social standing in the New Yorker article were based his claim of high academic success. Whether or not people should have taken him more seriously because of that is an interesting question, but not one that's relevant. They did, and they will continue to hold professors in high regard no matter what we think about it.
If we have this problem again it will be a pattern, which will look especially damning. Although I don't think PR should be the main driver for anything, keeping the trust of our readership is important to me. To the extent that credential fraud will make the public trust us less, I think it's important to address it.
William
On 3/9/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
stvrtg wrote:
Would somebody please provide a source for the claim that he used his fake
credentials to "strongarm people" or to influence "content disputes?"
I was hoping not to rehash this stuff anytime soon, but strictly because you asked on the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay#Outside_...
I didnt ask you if you could provide links to examples where he flaunted his credentials. I asked you to provide a source for the claim that he used his flaunted credentials in the ways that people have characterized him to have done.
Ironically, I asked for this same clarification on [[Essjay controversy]] - adding a {{fact}} tag to the statement: "However, after reviewing evidence that the false credentials had been used in Wikipedia content disputes with other editors." The {{fact}} was replaced by a ref to the NYT article, but the NYT article itself doesnt assert this claim, but rather it cites two interpretations, one by Michael Snow: MS: "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," "Those will get looked at again."
The other is by Jimbo, made in his own defense: "my past support of Essjay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on." The statement "What has been going on" is ambiguous: someone who knows "what's going on" might understand Essjay's misrepresentations to be unacademic and damaging to himself, but it also leaves the door open to the overstated view that he "abused his fake credentials"... "in the context of disputes."
The NYT story doesnt support the latter, (hence it doesnt satisfy the {{fact}} tag and has to be removed) but instead states it properly (as a POV) that: "Some Wikipedia users argued that Essjay had compounded the deception by flaunting a fictional Ph.D. and professorship to influence the editing on the site."
Interpretations made by Wikipedians are quoted in a newspaper, which is in turn cited in Wikipedia. Where are the RS nazis when you need them?
Note that I personally don't think part was a huge deal; as I mention
elsewhere, this is not an uncommon thing for a teenager with a shiny new identity to do, and from there it looks like he just let it get out of control. Since he didn't do it a lot, and since we are famously
uninterested in credentials anyhow, I think this did little harm.
Its nice to hear you moderating your tone. "Didn't do a lot" is interpretive. 20K edits is plenty, and as some news stories have spun it, represent a possibly contaminated body of work.
Essjay's internal standing was not based on his academics. However, his
standing when he wrote to professors as a "fellow professor" and his social standing in the New Yorker article were based his claim of high academic success.
No, they were based on a recommendation by the Foundation. The scandal (internal) is that Jimbo placed trust in him in accordance with his wiki credentials, and the story (media) is how the worlds of academic representation and internet identity collided.
Whether or not people should have taken him more seriously because of that is an interesting question, but not one that's relevant. They did, and they will continue to hold professors in high regard no matter what we think about it.
Over time Wikipedia has grown in its appeal to experts. It started off as something experts wouldnt touch, and has proven itself to be worthwhile for them to contribute to. There still remains the damaging perception that Wikipedia's openness is its peril. Sadly, I think the only peril here came with Jimbo's appointment of Essjay. Perhaps all of this anger at Essjay is really just a dislike how Jimbo's powers of appointment somehow represents a dismissal for the wisdom of the masses. Unfortunately there was no such wisdom that found Essjay out until after he was appointed. This whole asking for credentials thing only has meaning in the context of Jimbo making appointments. If Essjay had been elected, the community itself would have been duped and there wouldn't have been much of a stink made about it. An election process would no doubt have involved a prior investigation in which case there would have been no after the fact scandal.
-Stevertigo
William Pietri wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Many editors of huge quality are not willing to provide their real name. Why would they consider sending this information to a totally anonymous email address handled by volunteers, who are not necessarily identified under their real name and have signed no confidentiality agreement them ?
Is there possible compromise between your position and Eric's?
There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business. Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there are some creative ones we could work with.
The notion is that for anybody who would like their credentials validated, they can pay a third party to do the work. The Foundation would only get involved to select trusted vendors and verify the vendor accounts on Wikipedia. In addition to verifying credentials, they could perhaps verify real names, or that the user has only one verified Wikipedia account. For the limited cases where the Foundation wanted things verified, they could cover the cost of the verification; otherwise, people would be on their own.
Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, but I thought I'd suggest the possibility.
William
Hello,
As of today, the Foundation does not have the infrastructure to deal with this. We are working on a very limited staff, so the only verifications that have ever been done were for example for candidates on the board of Trustees. The office also know all the real identities of the checkusers I was told. Practically, this can only be small scale.
But more importantly, it is important to limit the legal risk of the Foundation. When someone is unhappy about a false statement about him or a defamatory comment in an article, they rarely try to sue the author of the statement (they will often try to hunt him down though). Usually, they want to sue the Foundation. In most cases of course, if there is a real problem, the bad content is fixed, but a few people behave in bad faith, and try to get the opportunity of a mistake in an article to sue us, get famous and get rich.
A very nasty guy could sue us and get us down. One of the ways we can decrease our liability is by presenting Wikimedia Foundation pretty much as a host provider rather than as a publisher/editor in the traditional sense.
As long as editing rules are in the hands of the community, we have a stronger case claiming that we are only host providers. Other situations, including Wikimedia Foundation "deciding who the arbitrators are", "deciding who should be blocked", "deciding what the rules for deleting porn images are", "deciding which articles should be deleted", "collecting information about users to give them access to certain tools" etc.... are all actions which tends to indicate that the Foundation is not only a host provider, but rather acting as the "editor in chief".
Which is why, aside from any scalability issues, I think it is not the Foundation business to enter into any credential controlling activity. It makes sense for board candidates. It makes sense for checkuser because there is a technical access to data with confidentiality agreement. But getting involved in the process of collecting credentials is something we better stay away from.
I think Erik is perfectly on agreement with me on this point. But I wanted to explain in a clearer way the reasoning.
Cheers
ant
On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Many editors of huge quality are not willing to provide their real name. Why would they consider sending this information to a totally anonymous email address handled by volunteers, who are not necessarily identified under their real name and have signed no confidentiality agreement them ?
I think it's clear that we're evolving towards a completely voluntary system here. That is fine, but in return, I think it is reasonable that such a system will operate using all available tools, including OTRS. There can be no reasonable argument, in my view, that it would be improper or a "drain on volunteer resources" for us to set up an OTRS queue to help with credentials verification. If people want to join the queue, they will; if they don't, they will not -- the system is voluntary and optional in the first place, and if it does not scale, it will simply not be adopted. OTRS is just a tool here, it does not imply any official role of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I think we can come up with a guideline that involves user templates, OTRS-based verification, and possibly even web of trust style mechanisms, and then we'll figure out if users adopt it or not. IMHO the very fact that a subset of users would follow such a guideline would help to instill a healthy sense of skepticism towards statements of credentials.
On 08/03/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
For the record, I am totally opposed to such a model.
I agree with what Florence says and oppose credential verification generally. I also want to add a specific opposition to this proposal as it gives the impression that credentials are default and that users have to opt-out.
On 08/03/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with what Florence says and oppose credential verification generally. I also want to add a specific opposition to this proposal as it gives the impression that credentials are default and that users have to opt-out.
More importantly, I'm not sure it does have a point except in extreme cases.
Essjay got all the community jobs going because he earnt them through doing lots of hard work well. His edits using his claimed credentials were few compared to that. But the latter were enough to have him asked to resign all the former.
I think the example of Essjay, and the community approbation at his falsely-claimed credentials, demonstrates that "don't lie on your userpage" is *already* an implicit rule, and doesn't need a special rule (per Shelton) or a registry for credentials (per Jimbo or Erik) - editors of good faith won't lie about credentials. Many even link to their university or company.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Essjay got all the community jobs going because he earnt them through doing lots of hard work well. His edits using his claimed credentials were few compared to that. But the latter were enough to have him asked to resign all the former.
Not to mention that he gained the trust through the hard work in part because of his credentials - all edits being equal, I'm going to have a higher level of informational trust from someone who has a PhD than someone who does not. Think of it as a form of AGF - I'll assume good faith over any edits until there's reason not to, and that "reason not to" line is certainly going to be extended further to someone with various credentials than someone without.
It's typical human nature at worst, and perhaps some may consider it "common sense."
-Jeff
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:58:28 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Not to mention that he gained the trust through the hard work in part because of his credentials - all edits being equal, I'm going to have a higher level of informational trust from someone who has a PhD than someone who does not.
Credentials are, in my view, not that important; I do, however, find it easier to trust those who have a few grey hairs. Maybe we need age verification :o)
Guy (JzG)
On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
For the record, I am totally opposed to such a model.
Hm. I think you and I are in the minority.
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.
The above reasoning aside, I think the real reason is that the Foundation can't do this. Keeping in mind that the Essjay situation was twofold: an internal issue which deals with community trust, which in turn became an avenue for outside criticism toward Wikipedia and [[open culture]] in general.
The Foundation being an institutional entity, it naturally will respond to external and internal pressures in institutional ways. Sadly, this is a case where I think you in the Foundation must feel entirely pinched - both by the mob outside and the mob inside. The benefits of the many heads paradigm is of course belied by the limits of the few headed Foundation.
This would entirely tip the very concept of our community. Trust built
not upon someone's credentials but upon what the person does.
The critics don't often understand this basic point. Or they don't care. They are critics after all. They dislike Wikipedia's success, its model, its community, its very existence. The would love to see Wikipedia die by its own hand during some vain attempt to please the critics or to live up to its own hype.
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.
A reactionary response or not, some change in process is nevertheless forthcoming. We can all sense that. My sense though is that the right approach to dealing with this is to develop some greater editorial oversight, rather than personnel oversight. I'm mediating several cases this month, almost all of which involve some misuse of the RS concept to exclude a POV, based of course on some misunderstanding of or disregard for NPOV.
-Stevertigo
On 3/8/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org 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."
I know the intent is good, but this seems like something written by a
robot or an alien.
By that I mean it attempts to supply a rigid system to achieve what most people accomplish through normal interaction. Such attempts rarely work.
One should build technological systems that complement and extend human abilities, not attempt to supplant them.
More simply, templates should not make requests about someone's state of mind, e.g. "asks you to assume good faith"; "they should not matter to you" "please judge edits on their merits".