User:MikeURL/Credentials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
A proposal's acceptance or rejection is not determined simply by counting votes. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Be honest about your credentials. Don't use your credentials in edit disputes. You may verify your credentials if you choose to. |
This is an initial proposed guideline for how credentials should be treated on Wikipedia. Please feel free to edit and modify. Please discuss on the talk page.
Credentials, in and of themselves, have very limited utility on Wikipedia. While experts and content specialists are welcome and encouraged to contribute, every editor should rely primarily upon attribution and a neutral point of view to determine whether controversial edits are valid. Below are suggested ways that editors should deal with credentials, both academic and otherwise.
Contents |
[edit] What are credentials?
Credentials include:
- Academic degrees, and other formal qualifications based on higher education;
- Licenses to practice a certain profession or trade;
- Awards or prizes for achievement in a particular field;
- Relevant positions of employment, for example as a professor in a particular field, or as a consultant or employee in a particular industry;
- Published works;
- Professional references from recognized experts.
[edit] Appeals to authority
The use of credentials to try to get an advantage in an edit dispute is extremely poor form. Editors who use their credentials in an edit dispute should be reminded that those credentials are irrelevant to whether a specific edit is a good one or not. We edit together in a spirit of mutual respect and equality. "I am a PhD, so stop arguing", for example, would not be a good approach. Reasoned discourse does not require credentials.
[edit] Credentials on user pages
The Wikipedia community frowns upon users making false claims to academic or other professional credentials on user pages. See user page guidelines.
[edit] When will verification happen
Normally editors will not be required to verify any credentials they claim, because editors are judged by the edits they make and not by their credentials. However, there are three situations where verification may occur:
- An editor may request credential verification for any reason.
- If an editor uses their credentials in any way outside their userspace other editors may request credential verification
- Any editor, regardless of any position they might hold, will very likely be required to pass credential verification before they are asked to speak on behalf of Wikipedia.
Additionally, separate procedures apply to CheckUsers; for that position, editors will likely need to be verified by the OFFICE and do not have the option of remaining anonymous.
[edit] Credential verification process
A set of verified credentials userboxes will be available, providing links to subpages where supporting evidence may be placed.
Evidence used to support credentials may include, but not be limited to, scanned certificates, links to corporate or academic websites, registration lists or other form of transparent information.
Pseudonymous users wishing to maintain privacy may reveal personal details to a third-party of their choice. The verifying party is to record this on the evidence page. Any third-party can serve this function.
No system is immune to intentional deception so any evidence should be judged by reviewers and may be challenged.
Challenges are not to be used as a disruptive mechanism and editors assessed as doing so will be subject to sanction.
[edit] Examples
As an example user, chosen randomly from the "what links here" for a claim to have a PhD, User:DrNixon has a PhD in Biology and is a graduate of Michigan State University.
Dr. Nixon's credential userbox would provide a link to the subpage /credentials. On the page he or other users would list, and sign, the evidence examined. Multiple entries can be given, with different sorts of testimony depending on the context. User:Jimbo Wales verified Dr. Nixon, and provides the following attestation on the credentials subpage.
- I have searched the web and found confirmation of this:
- Michigan State University lists Joshua Nixon as a graduate in the fields this user has listed.
- I have emailed his email address given on that page, to confirm that our DrNixon is that same Joshua Nixon. I have not yet gotten a response but will post here when I do.--Jimbo Wales 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I now have a response from Dr. Nixon, and by email he has verified that he is the same Joshua Nixon.
See the userbox and linked attestation on User:Metamagician3000 for another real example.
Other totally hypothetical entries might look like this:
- I have known this user in real life for 10 years, and can certify that he was a professor at Las Vegas State University for 7 of those 10 years. As he is now no longer in academia, his status is not provable via the web. I give therefore my personal testimony.
- I have confirmed the real life identity of this user by contacting that person (whom the user claimed to be in a private email to me). That person has written back from an official e-mail address, giving me confirmation that she is, in fact, this user. She has also established her credentials, including the LLB and PhD listed on her userpage, by referring me to the official web site of The University of Foo, where she currently works as a post-doctoral fellow.
[edit] Renouncing false credentials
Editors in the awkward position of having made claims about their credential that are untrue will generally find other editors to be very forgiving should they renounce those claims. If false credentials were cited during discussions or disputes about what content should and should not be in an article, then the editor should expect all edits, particularly those edits, to be reviewed for appropriateness.
There is no such thing as a "free pass" for falsified credentials, but editors can expect far better treatment if they disclose such untrue claims before someone else does.
[edit] See also
[edit] Other related proposed changes to Wikipedia
- Wikipedia:Administrators accountability - a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability
- Wikipedia:Credentials - a proposal for credentials to be verified
- Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons - a suggestion to extend the BLP policy to claims made by users on their user pages
- Wikipedia:Honesty
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy a suggestion that "Arbcom will establish and maintain and over time improve: a policy on transparency that will provide for accountability of Arbcom members through public knowledge, that increases over time, of the identities of Arbcom members."
- Wiki of Trust - A proposal that would enhance the security how personal ID would be verified.
- meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#Real name policy
- User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials
- Wikipedia:Credential ban
- This proposed addition to WP:ATT which begins "Editors should not make claims about their professional expertise or academic qualifications anywhere on the site, including on their user pages, without supplying reliable, third-party source material in support of it."
- Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials
- User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification
- Wikipedia:Credential verification
