Wikipedia to Seek Proof of Credentials - But Why?
Wikipedia to seek proof of credentials - Yahoo! News
But anonymity is also considered one of the main forces behind Wikipedia’s astonishing growth, to nearly 1.7 million articles in English and millions more in dozens of other languages. Wales has said he is an “anti-credentialist” — because anonymity puts a reader’s attention on the substance of what people have written rather than who they are.
Wales said Wednesday that belief is unchanged. But, he said, if people want to claim expertise on Wikipedia, they ought to be prompted to prove it. If they don’t want to give their real names, they shouldn’t be allowed to tout credentials. Had that policy been in place, Wales said, Jordan probably would not have gotten away with claiming a Ph.D. in religion.
This is, whether purposeful or not, a cue taken from Citizendium.
But for a different reason. Honesty and credibility, somewhat paradoxically, is encouraged through anonymity because anonymity means that you aren’t liable for what you think is right and you’re more likely to contribute *anything* rather than your *best*.
This is why blogging is more widespread than essay-writing for magazines. When people blog, they are trying to write things they believe or would stand by in a casual conversation, but they don’t want to be held to the same standard they’d be held by if they were writing for, say, the New Yorker.
Furthermore, the lack of a login requirement and an attribution makes it real easy for me to just hop on and fix something or add something or make a new page. I don’t have to go through any embarrassing
On the other hand Citizendium looks to attribution for credibility and honesty. I wonder if this will discourage participation in the opposite way that anonymity encourages it on Wikipedia.