 |
Wikipedia: Prove Your Credentials PeopleMar 07 2007 | Social Networks |
Wikipedia defines credential as:
…a proof of qualification, competence, or clearance that is attached to a person, and often considered an attribute of that person. It often signals rank.
Last week, a scandal erupted at the virtual WikiPlex where it turned out that one of the highest ranking editors, “Essjay”, credentials weren’t exactly - real. “Essjay” claimed to be a Professor of Theology with two PhDs but in reality he was a 24 year old guy named Ryan Jordan who didn’t hold any advanced degrees and has never even taught. The problem was that “Essjay” was one of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’ favorite and most trusted editors. Wales even appointed him to “ArbCom“, Wikipedia’s Supreme Court, and even found him a position at his own commercial venture, Wikia Inc.
Today the AP is reporting that Wikipedia now plans to ask contributors who claim to have lofty credentials to identify themselves and basically prove said credentials. Through phone and IM interviews Wales said people should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified.
“We always prefer to give a positive incentive rather than absolute prohibition, so that people can contribute without a lot of hassle,” Wales wrote.
Today on Jimbo’s Wikipedia Talk Page he brought up a proposal that he made two years ago to the Wikipedia community. This proposal outlines a system where Wikipedians who are willing to verify their real name and their real credentials are given a special notification: “Verified Credentials”.
To many (including Wales) the beauty of Wikipedia has always been the anonymity. The thinking is that people will then just focus on the substance of the entry rather than who that person is. Personally (and especially in light of this ’scandal’) I see it the opposite way. I take everything that I find on Wikipedia at face-value because I have no real (quick) way of knowing if it is absolutely correct or not. Right or wrong - I trust what I read the definition’s I get from Websters or the entries from Encyclopedia Britannica because I know of their long-standing history and to me - they have credentials.
Would it help if I could learn a bit more about the person or people who are giving me the info from a particular Wikipedia entry? If it was just something I looked up randomly and was curious about - it wouldn’t matter. If it was something for research I was doing or a project that had importance to me - definitely.
Posted by Chris Winfield at 5:02 pm
Bookmark this post:
March 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
“To many (including Wales) the beauty of Wikipedia has always been the animosity. The thinking is that people will then just focus on the substance of the entry rather than who that person is.”
Hi Chris,
Did you mean anonymity? I think it would be beneficial to know more about the editors of particular topics, especially in cases where they are researchers or professors, because you would have a chance to learn more about their individual, presumably related, research. If they are really who they say they are, it seems that they would want to increase exposure to their research, which is likely a reason they are adding to wikipedia in the first place. And if it could serve to increase the credibility of the articles, it would be all the better.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Brian -
Yes I did - thanks a lot for pointing that out (I changed it). There is certainly a big difference
March 10th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
As I stated in a recent blog post, the issue of verified credentials is a red herring. Superficially, the Essjay case was about falsified credentials; at its core, it was about an elaborate deception that Essjay rationalized as being necessary because he held positions of trust at Wikipedia. Verifying credentials will not address the core issue of deception by Wikipedia administrators.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 am
It is proven that Ryan Davidson is a pure BULLY!