On 5/24/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think, like you, that there is widespread suspicion among Wikipedians toward credentialisation. Credentialisation is a widespread problem in today's society where those credentials are more often evidence of an ability to comply than an ability to be creative.
Our community includes a wide variety of experts, many of whom have gained that expertise through avocation rather than vocation. A contributor may be unfortunate enough to be a fully licensed and accredited lawyer, but always had a secret passion for Egyptology.
[snip good point]
Okay, so how about we have something called "Community Credentials" in addition to the more standard ones?
For example, if a community (not just wikipedia) has observed an obvious level of advanced knowledge in a field, such as Egyptology, then the community can award a community credential.
In many cases I'd be inclined to have some faith in someone who's achieved one in a field over some random degree. Perhaps j-random-wikipedia-disliker will not care for community credentials but that is their business.
I also think our credentials should show tokens for participation in professional organizations.
Does our community really think that there are a lot of people who are experts in a field but are not involved in professional orgs, do not have degrees, certifications, or awards, *and* are unable to garnish the support of other experts in their field? I call hogwash. :)
Now I a question, how do we do this without completely breaking anonymity? Or how do we deal with a great many users who've given up their anonymity? I edit under my real name and sometimes worry what people might think when I'm doing RC patrol and remove vandalism to pedophilia. :)