Wikipedia talk:There is no credential policy

Moving stuff around

I'm currently in the process of turning WP:Credentials and WP:Credential verification into redirects to this page and renaming them WP:Credentials (proposal) and WP:Credential verification (proposal). Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rejected proposal tag and move by Radiant

This is not a rejected proposal, because nothing new is being proposed. No unique assertions are put forth. It builds on consensus, for purposes of clarification. Many users are unaware of the fact that Wikipedia has no credential policy and that was the purpose of this article. Although its titled "no credential policy," it states directly in the lead what that means: Not a "policy of no credentials," but a "non-policy on credentials." As such, yes, this is not a policy page and doesn't purport to be -- it's a summary. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thispage is an essay, it contains comment and opinions. There is nothing actionable. And has this page ever even been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Consensus? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This page does not contain any opinions. It's an informative summary on the lack of any official credential policy. It's not an essay on policy, it's a policy summary which informs users of non-political. It has nothing to do with the article on WP:CONSENSUS and I'm confused as to why you'd bring that article up. In fact, I don't really know how to respond your statements above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is not to linked to from WP:VERIFIABILITY nor WP:User page, and can't be considerered to supplement those pages, nor WP:Consensus or whatever that it is not linked from. To discuss that, go to the relevant talkpages. As to the contents of thispage, it needs work, or focus, or userfication. It remains an essay, but it does not become a supplement just by posting a template on a page. That requires discussion on the talk pages of the relevant WP:POL pages first, for one thing–Newbyguesses - Talk 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I added it: There is no need for "consensus," because no unique proposals are being made here. I think people are just reading the title, "No credential policy," and suddenly thinking that it means, "We can't use credentials?!?!" but it states directly in the lead that there is no policy and that people are free to use them or reject them if they like. This places absolutely no restrictions on editors, but just clarifies how things are currently run.

Logic:

• Wikipedia has rejected the proposal to verify credentials
• Wikipedia has rejected the proposal to ban credentials
• Hence, there is no consensus to support either verifying or rejecting credentials, so editors are free to do as they like. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I suggest a rename. ALL CAPS edit summaries don't make the situation more clear. Let's discuss possible renames. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. If people are going to keep thinking "no credential policy" means "you can't use credentials," it might be a good idea to somehow change the title. Perhaps we could just move it back to WP:Credentials? But then, I thought that might be misleading. Still, if it'll settle the conflict, I'll compromise. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no credential policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good idea. It's been renamed. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A straw poll

If this is an essay and not a supplemental essay or policy summary, I ask the following question: "Is it my personal opinion that there is no credential policy?"

No. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this poll? You're not going to get to call it a supplement if we agree it's not just your opinion. WP:MASTODONS isn't a supplement even though many agree, and neither will this be. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Get to call it a supplement"? Please, assume good faith here. Elsewhere, you've said I'm being willfully ignorant and belligerent. If you think I'm a troll or vandal and have evidence to support bad faith, please report me immediately. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I've told you previously, agf goes out once there's evidence to the contrary. You restored the supplement tag when making this poll. You have made your preferred outcome clear, and your leading poll question makes it that much more so. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Angry mastodons puts forth original opinions. It puts forth the opinion (paraphrase), "Disruptive editors are comparable to angry mastodons. Here is a self-selected list of ways you can settle conflicts in Wikipedia."

Penguin, you have refused to name what opinion I'm putting forth in this essay. As such, the "supplemental essay" tag shall be put back. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I can't put it back. Because I've made three reverts. And since you're more respected and influential in this community, because of Wikipedia populism, despite the sheer absurdity of your assertions -- that this is an essay, but you can't name a single opinion, that you have no duty to "discuss" in the WP:BRD cycle -- I am unable to make any edits and you are colloborating me instead of collaborating. Please, Penguin, I'm begging you. Think harder, let yourself go, and stop contributing to Wikipedia failure. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it an opinion, you ask? Simple. It's an opinion because it doesn't have consensus. Because it doesn't have consensus, it is not a supplement. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not logically follow. You cannot say, "This is an opinion piece because there is no past or current consensus for it." You dispute my attempt to build consensus based on the lack of past consensus (see appeal to tradition) and in any case, past or current consensus has nothing to do with whether this is, in fact, an opinion piece (see red herring). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You can keep using buzz words or "appeals" all you like, it will not change the bottom line: a supplement is an essay which has consensus. This does not, and you've made no effort to gain it. Instead, you have edit warred and made ridiculous polls in the belief that you can somehow dodge actual discussion through smooth talk. I am tired of this, so I will say this simply: this is not, nor will it ever be so long as you attempt to avoid discussing it properly. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing it right now, Penguin. You told me that you had no responsibility to discuss with me under WP:BRD.

Answer the question: What opinion is in this essay? You can't say, "The opinion that it has consensus." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not answering you. Gain consensus properly. That is the only response you will get. You do not get to weasel your way out of proper discussion with fancy words. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Penguin, if you are not willing to discuss your edits and justify them, then you are violating WP:BRD. I am attempting to gain consensus properly, but you are hindering it by simply refusing to discuss and by calling this an essay without declaring what opinion is being stated. You cannot use "consensus" as an argument because the act of discussion involves building consensus. I am going to revert and request RFC on this. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to discuss why my position is right. People have done that for me so helpfully a few sections previous. I'm the R in BRD, so it is up to you to explain how this not being an opinion throws the weight of consensus behind it. No consensus, no supplement. Period. So long as you ignore this, your efforts are meaningless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not an essay

I agree that this page is not an essay. It's not exactly a policy supplement, either, and it's not a policy or a guideline. Maybe it's one of those project namespace pages that hasn't got a status. It's kind of a history/directory of the arguments for and against credential policy. Perhaps it should be linked up with WP:PERENNIAL? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, GT, it's not even really a proposal either, since nothing new is being proposed. It's simply a logical inference based on known consensus:

• Credential verification was rejected by consensus
• Banning credentials was rejected by consensus
• No policy on credentials has yet to be accepted by consensus
• THEREFORE ____________________

Fill in the blank. This is why I think Rogue's claim, "But it doesn't have consensus!!" is so absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

True, The page is more of just an observation, and a means of tracking various proposals. That relation to existing proposals is the reason I suggested a link with WP:PERENNIAL. I don't mean that this page is a proposal, but that it documents several.

What hasn't got consensus is slapping a policy supplement tag on this page, regardless of how uncontroversial its contents are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rogue Penguin - it's not an essay. I'm not saying it's a policy supplement, but according to the definition of "essay" this is not one. If you'd like to put the essay tag back, please explain why. There is no consensus for that tag. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with no tag. I only reverted to the essay tag because it made more sense than supplement. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about what you'll agree to. I want to know what your actual argument is. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Zone tag.

GTBacchus, you removed the essay tag, but did not re-include the policy supplement tag. I don't want to add it back myself because again I think Penguin will just revert me. So, as a possible compromise, per WP:CONSENSUS, I created the following tag. [1]

If anyone thinks that either an essay tag, supplement tag, or information tag would be appropriate, that would be appreciated. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No tag is better than a tag. You have accidentally snubbed GTBacchus, I fear. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to. I self-reverted. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:44, 4 February 2008 added this messagebox.

This is page is not an essay; it contains no advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is, however, also not a policy or guideline or policy supplement, because there is no consensus for that tag to be here. Because of this, this page rests somewhere on the brink between light and darkness, between shadow and substance, between essay and policy, and between ignoring the rules and obeying consensus. This threshold is commonly known as The Twilight Zone... *dun dun dun* Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

On the next edit, the same editor removed it. Is this all just a joke? Newbyguesses - Talk 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. Read the above exchange. The user who added the twilight zone tag self-reverted after realizing that no tag is better than a disputed tag. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that now. But the user who created the Twilight zone tag, and this page, and not sure how many other pages in Wikipediaspace edited "only" by themself has now apparently retired. Guess it's time to stop worrying about the disruption and incivility that I and others have been subjected to. There are more curveballs being thrown here than a herd of octopuses would manage. (To mangle a metaphor.) Strange stuff. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a grey zone where all these things eventually end up. Not the first time my sense of humor/humour has been found suspect. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Much Thanks Zzuuzz for removing the Image *Rod Stirling*, under Non-Free. I apologise for not noticing there were problems with the image. It was not uploaded by myself, but perhaps by a user who is identified in the post at the top of the section. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I didn't realize that "no tag is better than a disputed tag." Appropriate tags should go up. What I realized was the futility of arguing over it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict in wikipedia policy

User pages (or User page) are Wikipedia articles about contributors. As such, they should conform to the wikipedia article content policies. In particular, No original research, Verifiability, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Biographies of living persons. The policy on Biographies expressly includes user pages.

A credential policy can be derived from existing policies in that fashion, which preserves the ability to provide anonymous edits, but also leads to increased reliability of both user pages and user contributions.

As an example, any contributors to Wikipedia that also have Notability, or Wikipedians with articles, already have the appropriate data for their user page in their main article, and the only additional purpose of their user page, if any, is to provide Wikipedia technical data and a link to the main article. Consider User:dradler, User:Maquino, User:GODDESSY from that page. Wikipedia is not a personal webpage hosting site, though clearly some user pages qualify.

Registering as a user confers a limited degree of special interest notability as a contributor to wikipedia sufficient enough to support a localized biography for data relevant to that interest, such as credentials, following the appropriate polcies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.25.227 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's hypocrisy on a staggering scale to require references for facts within articles, of which I could find many examples bordering on pedantry / lack of common sense, yet editors do not need to cite their own credentials. There is literally nothing stopping me from saying I have doctorates in a number of fields and using those credentials as an appeal to authority in any number of debates, giving myself an unfair "advantage" in the unconscious distribution of power. Any body that rejects a proposal either for the removal of all credentials or a credential verification system are against the very ideals of Wikipedia, and no amount of lengthy essays and faulty logic will change that. Indeed, I submit that all the lengthy fighting over this is simply an attempt to derail the issue. The issue itself is as simple as I have explained here and anything more is unjustified - sometimes an issue is NOT complicated. The world is not black and white but some issues ARE and this is one of them.203.59.89.78 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Putin

Do Putin have authority ?

this page is redirected from Wikipedia:Authority and is related to talk on article żydokomuna

99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wikipedia:There is no credential policy

The article Wikipedia:There is no credential policy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This essay, posted in 2008, is obsolete and, therefore, confusing. It contains out-of-date information, stating that Wikipedia "has no policy with regard to the accuracy, validity, or proper verification of academic or professional credentials," when, in fact, Wikipedia does have a policy for academic or professional titles and degrees which is clearly stated in the article Wikipedia Manual of Style/Biography Academic or professional titles and degrees. The author has not contributed to Wikipedia since 2011, so I do not believe the removal of this essay will be contested. Additionally, the essay's Talk page and edit history reflect the opinions of several Wikipedia editors who took issue with the essay in 2008 when it was created. It might be useful to note that the author's User page consists of fatalistic language about how useless it is to be a Wikipedia editor and a link to another essay where the author wrote "Wikipedia is a nightmare that is slowly eroding and collapsing in and on itself." I offer those details as background and/or additional information, not as the basis for which this essay should be deleted. Regardless of the author's opinion on the state of Wikipedia, this essay should be deleted because the premise on which the author made his or her point no longer exists, making this essay confusing, especially to Wikipedia's new or inexperienced editors who should be nurtured and not presented with obsolete and conflicting information regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines. While the essay does state that it is not Wikipedia policy, there can be no question that in its contradiction of existing Wikipedia policy and its declaration of inaccurate information, it can be confusing for even experienced editors. I think I have followed proper procedure for requesting the deletion of this essay, but if I have approached it incorrectly, please advise me of the proper procedure. Thank you. MarydaleEd (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Deprodded. @MarydaleEd: WP:PROD doesn't apply to this page. Use WP:MFD if you want to nominate for deletion. But the basis for your deletion is strange. You quoted has no policy with regard to the accuracy, validity, or proper verification of academic or professional credentials then left out the key words "of our editors" and compared it to an MOS page that applies solely to articles, and not to editors. "Editors" here means people like you and me. If I say I have such and such degree, we have no system to verify that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, thank you for advising me of the proper procedure by which to have this essay deleted. If I may ask, are you an administrator? I assume you are, but would like to be certain. Either way, I am grateful for your point of view. However, I do not believe my basis for deletion is strange, only misguided, as I see my error. I understand the author's point of view better, seeing that he or she is referring to "our editors." However, I believe my misunderstanding of his or her reference makes my point - it is confusing and can trip up editors and readers alike. Is there a compromise to be had here? Is it possible to rename it "Wikipedia:There is no credential policy for Wikipedia editors"? I am not looking for a fire where there is none, only trying to improve Wikipedia where I can. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. If you'd like to propose the title be changed, there are instructions here Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. I'd follow the "potentially controversial" instructions not because it's a major change but because any renaming of well-known pages in projectspace should typically follow that process. I do not have a strong opinion about that name change myself, and understand what someone might support it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)