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

[Sheldon Rampton]

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.