Wikipedia talk:Credentials are irrelevant

I don't think it's about individual experience as much as it is being able to credibly verify the source of the information, to possibly designate that you know a substantial amount in a particular field enough to VERIFY existing information without adding original research.--RWilliamKing 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"I hold a Ph.D, so you should make me an admin"

No one has ever said anything like that. Wild hysteria over the attack of the straw men.

If I wanted to fill Wikipedia with disinformation, I wouldn't claim I'm a professor. Instead, I'd start falsely citing books (preferably non-English) which few libraries have, and thus which are hugely difficult to check. I'd then start bitching about the "elitism" of the professor who knows that I'm wrong, that after all being his job, but doesn't have the reference which I've purposefully chosen to be obscure. Further, I'd fill it with such odd disinformation that no standard reference rebuts it, because it's just too weird to bother with. The cherry on my triumph would be getting the professor blocked under the Wikipedia:Credential ban. I would laugh & laugh & laugh. That is, if I were actually a troll, rather than a professor. Derex 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the point you're making about WP:ATT, but I don't think situations like that ought to be a problem, as WP:NPOV caters for those. Let me explain. If Editor X adds a weird-looking and controversial statement to a page, which goes against the mainstream of opinion in that field, and backs it up with an obscure reference that no one's heard of, then you're quite right that it probably couldn't be deleted, due to WP:ATT. However, any experts hanging around the page would be within their rights to present the opposing/mainstream points of view; if necessary, they could also back it up by citing their own published research, as citing oneself is allowed. So it is possible to spread disinformation, but it's equally easy to spread good information. In writing this essay I'm not trying to attack experts, or drive them away from Wikipedia; I'm just saying that they shouldn't be exempt from following WP:ATT, and that their edits shouldn't be automatically treated as the unchallengeable truth, unless they are backed up with reliable sources. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of trolling

From the article:

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Referring to your degree to win a dispute does not match this meaning, so it should be changed accordingly. Thanks! --WikiSlasher 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Change it if you want to. It's an essay, not a policy. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I've changed it myself. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I hold a Ph.D., you should read my c.v.

Or, "I don't hold a Ph.D., you should read my c.v. anyways." The fact of the matter is a bona fide expert is much less likely to make an "honest mistake" in his field of expertise than a non-expert. Where a non-expert might cite sources such as newspaper articles which turn out to be wrong, an expert will notice the source material is not correct and not cite it. In the event of an edit war over such a citation, an expert saying "the original source is wrong and here is why" will have more credence than a non-expert saying "the original source is wrong and here is why," assuming both "why's" sound equally credible. In such instance, someone posting "I have a Ph.D. in the matter" or "I've spent the last 5 years researching this very topic" on the flame-war-article's Talk page with more details and proof on their user page is not out of order. Davidwr 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is out of order, not because they're likely to be wrong, but because it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Under WP:ATT, all material must be attributed to a reliable published source. If the expert in question wants to cite their own published research, then that's fine - but they have no right to expect Wikipedia to accept their edits as gospel truth, just because they have academic credentials in the subject. The fundamental point of this essay is that credentials and expertise have no place on Wikipedia - they can be included on a userpage as incidental biographical information, but should never be used in content disputes. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The utility of credentials

I have two remarks after reading the essay.

• Where did the idea that anonymity is fundamental to the Wikipedia ethos come from? As somebody who edits under his own name (and thinks that more people should do that), I'm a bit surprised to be excluded.
• Credentials can be useful; in fact, I use them. If I see a professor in mathematics changing a 1 into a 2 in a mathematical formula that I don't know about, I assume she is right. If I see an IP editor doing the same, I have my doubts and I'm more likely to check that. Perhaps that's unfair, but I don't have time to check everything so I concentrate on edits which are more likely to be misguided. And I'm not alone, as this section shows. Granted, this does not contradict the text of the essay, but it does contradict the title.

Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources and beyond

As I have repeatedly stated on Jimbo's talk page, I am still ambivalent about this proposal, for many reasons. But this essay and all of the related posts elsewhere make several false assumptions.

1) All editors are equally capable of assessing the reliability of a source. This is demonstrably untrue. For example, during my recent experience reviewing the Ronald Reagan article at FAC, it became clear to me that the main editors of the article did not initially understand (I am not sure that they yet do) that an autobiography cannot be used as the main source for an article when there is plethora of other sources. Or, hypothetically, who is best suited to evaluate a source on gaps in the fossil record? A paleantologist who studies evolution or a creationist? I'm sure that the creationist can point to many sources which argue that the gaps in the fossil record prove evolution could not have happened but it is the scientist who can demonstrate why science has rejected that argument.

2) All editors agree on the definition of NPOV. This is also demonstrably untrue. For example, there is an ongiong debate on the Muhammad page over whether or not there should be an image of Muhammad on the page. Is it anti-Muslime to include an image? Should wikipedia conform to Islamic law? Is it more about respecting Muslin beliefs? Are Muslim beliefs irrelevant to the article? Is the article simply trying to be descriptive? These questions are not easy and different sets of editors come to the debate with different sets of assumptions. Look at any page dealing with highly charged political issues (such as those in India and Pakistan or Israel and Palestine) and you will see these problems. NPOV is not a simple policy.

3) This debate is only about verifiable content. This point seems to have been larged missed. As my Muhammad example demonstrates, the questions that have to be settled on wikipedia are not only questions which can be settled with a source reference (in a way, those are the easiest). What if an editor argues that the formatting of a page is POV? I myself would argue this in many cases (criticism sections, marriage sections for men relegated to the end of articles but featured prominently for women, etc.) The point is, you cannot turn to a source on any of these issues--you must simply argue your point. Fortunately, there are people who study these issues for a living (art historians, literary critics, historians, etc.). I believe their views to be valuable because they think about these questions all day long. Too often, though, these arguments are dismissed under "Well, that's your opinion and I have my opinion" or some such nonsense.

A final point. I would like to condemn the strongly anti-intellectual flavor that I see in this essay and in other posts regarding this issue. To disregard the years of study that have gone into advanced degrees is insulting to those of us who have spent our lives in academic endeavors. We have also spent years teaching other people (often for tiny amounts of money, I might add). I would be surprised if the writers of this essay and those defending its ideas so staunchly elsewhere would really adhere to this policy in the real world: would they go to a doctor who hasn't been to medical school but who has read all of the books? I mean, that's just as good, right? Awadewit 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if the essay came across as "insulting" to people with advanced degrees or other higher qualifications; it was not my intention at all, nor, I trust, that of the other contributors to the essay. I may reword it for a more moderate tone, if you think that is necessary. However, I will answer your points as follows,

1) It's true that there is often debate over which sources are more reliable than others. My general response in this situation would be to include every point of view, supported by the appropriate source. So if Reagan's autobiography makes an assertion that is contradicted by another source, include both the assertion (sourced to the autobiography) and the contradiction (sourced to the other source). Likewise, an article on paleontology should include both evolutionist and creationist viewpoints, sourced to the appropriate sources.

I disagree. Reagan's autobiography does not hold the same weight as a scholarly biography. One must consider the source, as they say. Reagan's autobiography was written with a very different political agenda than a scholar's biography of Reagan. One reason autobiographies are so suspect is that it is very difficult to know why people are choosing to represent themselves in a particular light. For Reagan to present himself as a great leader or even a terrible leader is different than for a more objective scholar to do so. Reagan has a political interest in doing so. He wants to be remembered, for example, as the president who ended the Cold War. Whether or not he was responsible for doing so is a matter for debate among scholars. Just because he claims he did, does not make it so; but clearly he wants to promote that image of himself.

An article on paleontology should not include creationist viewpoints. They are not science and paleontology is a science.

2)I agree completely that interpretations of NPOV are a problem, but what does that have to do with credentials? Surely in a politically charged debate such as the images-of-Muhammad affair, people with credentials will not all concur on the correct solution; for instance, a Muslim academic with a degree in theology would probably take a different view from an agnostic academic with a degree in moral philosophy. So I don't see how credentials would affect this situation.

I am not saying they will concur, I am saying they will have thought about the questions longer and more deeply; they will have more nuanced and complex views. Those are usually the ones that get drowned out in debates, unfortunately. (And to be clear, I would not cite a degree in theology as a credential.)

3)This is the only point on which I disagree with you. Although someone with expertise might be more likely to be right about an issue, their viewpoints shouldn't necessarily be taken as the gospel truth, and they shouldn't be exempt from the normal Wikipedia discussion process. You make a fair point that credentials are taken seriously outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not RL, or a conventional reference work. This is mainly because we don't get paid for being here; if non-experts and people without degrees were excluded, Wikipedia would simply not have enough people to do the necessary work.

There is no right, I'm afraid. I'm not asking for experts to be exempt from discussion, either. As I stated at the beginning of my post, I am ambivalent about this proposal. I am just concerned about the tone that this whole discussion has taken. The title of your essay is "Credentials are useless," by the way. I am trying to point out that experts are far from useless, in fact they are an asset, because they are able to draw quickly on sources, analyze the reliability of a source, think carefully about complex issues but also "debate well with others". Which, I might point out, I am doing right now.

I also feel that there is a false dichotomy being set up between wikipedia and the "real world." This information is recorded and saved and read by others - how is that not "real"? And if wikipedia is not "RL", as you say, why does it obey copyright law? And clearly, real people's lives have been affected by wikipedia (Siegenthaler, essjay, etc.)

Once again, though, I want to reiterate that I did not intend to cause any offence or to project an "anti-intellectual" tone. I have the greatest respect for the years of work that goes into an advanced degree. In deference to your feeling, I will tone down the section on "credential trolling" - I am aware that my introduction of this phrase has drawn some criticism. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the word "trolling" from that section of the essay, as I understand that it may be seen as a little too strong. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For me, it is the title that is inflammatory. But, I have a feeling that you were trying to be bold, succinct and provocative. It works. Awadewit 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why credentials are useful

To provide a method for the verification of credentials is not to circumvent cornerstone Wikipedia policies like WP:ATT and WP:OR. If anything it's to make them more potent. As Awadewit said above, while not everyone is well-equiped to assess the reliability of a source, an expert with years of experience probably is. Credentials would allow experts to enforce the policy better, not get around it. The suggestion made in essays like this one that credentials will undermine other Wikipedia policies is misleading.

The danger that experts will use their credentials to win arguments, demand sysop priveleges, or make unverifiable edits is marginal. The culture here, which treats credentials without much reverence already, will never allow that kind of thing to happen. Editors will always challenge other edits factually, and other editors (even credentialed experts) will be pressed to provide facts in support of their edits if they want them to stand. Why would that ever change?

Even the fear that people will tout their credentials is unfounded. People who want to tout their credentials will probaby tout them with or without a process for verification, and, since it's not a widespread issue already, I don't see why it would become one. Verification just eliminates the possibility that someone touting their expertise is a fraud -- that's exactly why credentials exist in the first place.

Overall, I think the potential abuse of credentials is better than the potential abuse of anonymity, as Essjay illustrated so well. -- bcasterline • talk 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)