[Wikipedia-l] An idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 5/24/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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. :)