Defining Credibility?

[Diamond Cross]

I think we don't have a consensus on what credibility is, the common definition seems to be "a person of some authority with beliefs similar to mine", and I believe we should all agree on what credibility is.

To me, a person who is credible has several years of experience in the field, say at least two or three, with a degree, and no black marks that hurt the background. A black mark might be something like a person who preaches that everyone should live a moral life but does not live a moral life themselves.

Politics shouldn't matter with credible sources. It shouldn't matter if a person is a liberal or a conservaqtive as long as they've done the research the right ways.

Essentially what I'm striving for is a neutral definition of credibility that we can all agree on to measure our articles and the like.

What do you think?

[motivez]

Politics most certainly should (and does for obvious reasons in the real world) impact credibility.

For example, with the global warming thread..

If a research scientist is bankrolled by an energy organization, they no longer have credibility in being a neutral source of scientific information for that topic because the source of their funds has an interest in the outcome of the research.

People need to be independent and ideally, without active political ties for credibility in that case.

Now, being a partisan person does not mean they aren't credible in every situation, but in certain situations, it does.

[Diamond Cross]

Wouldn't that be more like political affiliation than personal politics?

I can see where personal affiliation could cause conflict of interests and lack of objectivity.

Essentially, credibility should also include objectivity.