-9

Though being a moderator does not necessitate university degrees, the latter can augment credibility especially on the Internet. E.g., moderators of some other StackExchanges usually are experts, and have academic degrees, in the domain of their StackExchange.

I know from moderator 'Jimsug''s profile his studying for a JD at Sydney Law School.

9

Is having a formal academic qualification required for moderation?

Not really. All you need is enough knowledge to be informed of the subject at hand, as well as abilities and skills in moderation - being formally qualified doesn't provide you with these skills. Having a formal academic degree doesn't make you a good or bad moderator.

The issue I have with your question is that you make it sound like having a formal qualification is essential for moderatorship. It is not. And by making it a requirement, or having it loom over the heads of every candidate if we say, had an election, it would prove to be very dangerous, since you would be almost disqualifying a candidate who make be knowledgeable about the subject, and have impressive moderator qualities.

For what it's worth, I'm a moderator on Open Source. I don't have any formal computer science or legal background - heck, I don't even have my secondary school diploma yet. It doesn't make me a good or bad moderator, and I do know a good chunk about the subject.

  • I edited my question to clarify my never having intended that having a formal qualification is essential for moderatorship. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Feb 5 '17 at 21:06
  • 1
    @Canada-Area51Proposal You just made it worse. Having a university degree augments credibility? Not in the slightest. Having resources and citations for arguments puts forth credibility. – Zizouz212 Feb 5 '17 at 21:11
  • I never wrote Having a university degree augments credibility: can you please reread? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Feb 5 '17 at 21:13
  • 1
    @Canada-Area51Proposal Your first sentence. Though being a moderator does not necessitate university degrees, the latter can augment credibility especially on the Internet. The latter, being university degrees, can augment credibility especially on the internet. You just said it. – Zizouz212 Feb 5 '17 at 21:14
  • Right: I wrote 'can augment', not 'augment'. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Feb 5 '17 at 21:15
  • @Canada-Area51Proposal Whether you can or not, you're still including the fact that a university can augment credibility. Whether it does or not, the presence of that statement discriminates against people with no formal background, no matter how knowledgeable or qualified in other ways they may be. – Zizouz212 Feb 5 '17 at 21:16
  • the presence of that statement discriminates against people with no formal background: How? I am simply invoking a requirement on entering the legal profession in Canada and the US. In England, an academic degree is not needed, but the legal societies still describe the benefits of one. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Feb 5 '17 at 21:18
  • @Canada-Area51Proposal If we're talking in the context of this site, then yes, it does discriminate. Having a JD or LLB does not make your answer any more correct - only legitimate sources, sound reasoning, and citations will. Talking about Canada, you may need a JD to get onto the bar, but you do not need a JD to enter the legal profession. You can acquire knowledge and work in law through other means as well. – Zizouz212 Feb 5 '17 at 21:20
5

A moderator's credibility, with respect to their moderator actions, is established not by their education, but by following the moderator agreement, acting within StackExhange's theory of moderation, and otherwise supporting the community-established norms.

More generally, authors establish credibility on this site when they support their assertions by citing regulations and statutes, case law, and the analysis of experts (law journal articles, for example). Everyone can do this, no matter their education or expertise.

4

I am going to take a wild guess and say that the answer to your question is simply "no". Your opinion about credibility is a complete tangent, if we are to take your question literally, as a request for information. In fact it is so tangential that we cannot possibly interpret your question as a request for information. Instead we can only reasonably interpret it as an accusation of bad moderating or something along those lines, owing to a lack of "proper credentials". Credentials are completely beside the point. What is on point is whether or not an argument is well-supported and correct. Turns out, people with a credential can make unsupported and incorrect arguments, and people without a credential can make good and well-supported arguments.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .