[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:50:30 -0600, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org>
wrote:

>> >I would modify the proposal: You only need to verify the credentials
>> >if you're in a position of trust (adminship or higher).

>> I'd start with admins, but if it is not onerous open it to others.
>> There is definite value in being able to establish your bona-fides. It
>> also helps us to check for subtle bias.

>Is this for PR reasons? It seems to me like the people with advanced
>credentials are not that often admins due to other demands. This may,
>however, preclude them from having the time to send in their
>credentials. I wouldn't want to encourage the concept that admins have
>more weight in content disputes, and if they are the only ones that
>can verify their credentials that might be the case.

Is what for PR reasons? Start with admins?  I guess not; it gives us a
defined subset of generally active and high profile users.

>I wouldn't mind requiring people in trusted positions not be
>anonymous, but if we are moving to a general credentialing system I
>wouldn't want that to break down on adminship lines.

No, I'd see it as something that should be available to all, but I
have no objection to trialling it on admins to see what the overhead
is like.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG