 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
user:
webdinger
After the recent controversy surrounding Essjay, I felt compelled to write an essay presenting my opinions about user identification. Since my entry into editing Wikipedia, I have always displayed my very few credentials on my main user page and have always offered my full name and age.
This essay is unfinished.
Opening notes
editThe entire principle that lies behind acts of vandals rests on the fact that there is unlimited anonymity on Wikipedia; one can edit any article as he or she feels fit (until. of course, administrators intervene and threaten to block the user with warnings, etc. Indeed, this little-discussed concept of Wikipedian anonymity is one of the foundations of this free encyclopedia and one of Jimbo Wales's visions — essentially, an encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone who had any sort of expertise in any particular area.
Wikipedia has never been perfect, is not perfect, and will never be perfect. So it is only expected that Wikipedia would have two almost contradicting foundational elements like the new attribution guidelines and this concept of editing anonymity. If one were to open a professionally written encyclopedia, one would expect to see that all of the contributors had experience in their fields and credentials that represented such.
This is one of the greatest criticisms of Wikipedia. Why have attribution guidelines when any person, whether he or she be a professor at an Ivy League university or a six-year-old with rudimentary writing expertise, can edit any article "as [they] see fit" (earlier in this essay)? Many Wikipedia users have accounts on which they edit heavily without adding citations — they simply add information that they have retained in their minds as opposed to finding a reference online that would exemplify the guidelines set down in Wikipedia:Attribution.
So this would, in essence, extend to people who have credentials as well. Account holders who have doctorate degrees in certain fields will almost certainly make at least several edits without inserting proper references. But how do we know whether this newly added information is verifiable? How do we know that this person is who he or she says she is?
Motives for identification
edit- Greater respect amongst Wikipedians. Another very important concept in Wikipedia's philosophy is being bold. Being bold could also extend toward identifying oneself on user pages. After all, everyone's user page is merely "a part of Wikipedia [that] exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." If all Wikipedians follow the "be bold" mentality, it can be seen that one has "been bold" and revealed one's experience to all Wikipedians. This instates a new fact of greater collaboration, and greater respect for the person who identified themselves.