Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Links

I think the below noted links are informative and should be allowed in the article. Arcticdawg 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Blogs

• Andrew Lih
• Blogma
• Blog World
• Chronicle of Higher Education
• Citizendium & Article 2
• Freakonomics
• Infothought
• LiveJournal
• Nonbovine Ruminations
• Rough Type
• Slashdot
• Web Pro News

Of course they are informative. --QuackGuru 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people keep deleting them from the article ! Arcticdawg 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Informative does not mean approrpriate. Read WP:EL to gain an understanding about why they've been repeatedly removed. (→Netscott) 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed copyright violation

Please note, copyright law only allows for short samples from articles. You cannot add extended paragraphs. Rewrite the graphs in your own words and add a citation. --Jayzel 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Add besides, the info I removed didn't belong as a footnote in the reference section, it should be included within the article itself. --Jayzel 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of copyright law is not accurate. In fact you can quote an entire work if your purpose is to then criticize it. Wjhonson 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we work some of those stories into the article?

I'm a bit concerned that all those links to external secondary sources are just dangling there without comment in the article itself. Some sort of reference within the article to the extensive coverage of the controversy would be appropriate. As it sits, the only sources are the New Yorker and Wikinews, which are hardly in the same calibre as the BBC, NYT, and American television networks (as botched as their articles might be). Comments? Risker 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead again

This lead still isn't right:

The Essjay controversy arose after The New Yorker magazine disclosed that a prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator known by the name "Essjay", who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had "forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate."1

It makes it seem that the quote from ABC News came from The New Yorker which if one follows the sources we know isn't true. With the first ref. leading to ABC News this lead is a bit of a bait and switch. This earlier version:

The Essjay controversy occurred after The New Yorker magazine was obliged to add an editor's note to a prior article that a prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator, and brief Wikia employee, known by the name "Essjay" did not have academic credentials he was originally reported as having.

makes more sense. This bait and switch bit makes the article lose credibility and needs to be corrected. Perhaps we can come up with a version somewhere in between these two that doesn't bait and switch? (→Netscott) 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur that the lead needs to be specific to what is said in The New Yorker, and actually the original lead is more correct. Perhaps using the description of the problem from The New Yorker article and breaking it down into two sentences? The ABC stuff doesn't belong in the lead, they came into the picture days after the controversy set in. Risker 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We could just remove the quotes around what ABC says, though "...did not have academic credentials he originally claimed to have" would be ok. Your version buries the lede. It's not the reporting that's the scandal, it's the erroneous claim. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you're citing lede then know that Wikinews is over that way. This is an encyclopedia, let's write like it is one. (→Netscott) 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Today's Papers jargon which column I read daily, but article writing is article writing. No point in not cutting to the chase; please don't refer me to wikifilms! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, sorry but your lead is crap and makes the article lose credibility. Let's come up with a better more encyclopedic one instead of revert warring. The points that need addressing in the lead sentence are:

1. Who are we talking about?
2. What did he do?
3. How did that come to be controversial?

Am I wrong? (→Netscott) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Journalistic (and encyclopaedic) standards are to make the lede a short 20-30 word sentence, giving the summation of factual contents as clearly as possible, without over-flourishment. Subsequent paragraphs move from the general to the specifics. --Leflyman^Talk 05:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well given ABC News' Justin Timberlake and Star Wars spin in their report I don't have much confidence in relying upon them as a source for this article and this is even moreso true in terms of citing them in the lead sentence. (→Netscott) 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For those of us who didn't see it, what was said about Starwars and Timberlake? JoshuaZ 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC News sensationalized the news by mentioning that Essjay had edited on those two articles. Regardless of the circumstances that type of thing is not all that uncommon for editors to do on Wikipedia when it comes to combatting vandals and other nonsense. You can watch the video here. (→Netscott) 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as we don't editorialize and report what reliable sources say the controversy is, I'm open to anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead as it stands is false - he didn't forge or fake credentials; he lied about having them, which is bad but different. The note is not to the New York Times as it suggests. The source is ABC news, which is not a reliable source for such things - on trivial complicated things, journalists invariably make errors, and this is a good example. Metamagician3000 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed; while Wikipedia's newly consolidated Attribution policy (formerly "verifiability") is about verifiability, not truth, we should as a practice attempt to be accurate, and find sources that get the facts correct -- referencing those which properly explain events, rather than are just in the ball park and come from a more impressive media outlet. Journalists make mistakes, but our aim is to be a bit more precise; even Ms. Schiff's original article notes, "At the same time, the site embodies our newly casual relationship to truth. When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of “But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.”"--Leflyman^Talk 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

20,000 articles

Right now, mainstream "reliable" sources are reporting that Essjay wrote or edited 16,000 - 20,000 articles, and that he was one of the few editors authorized to deal with vandalism. All of this is utter nonsense, of course, but it poses a problem for the article - do we ignore what sources are reporting (and what makes them think that this is a larger scandal than it is), or do we quote them and use original research to deny those allegations.

This is the central problem with self-references: how to write a sourced article about something that we know more about than the sources? Zocky | picture popups 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By attributing them. Then attributing the other point of view as well, in this case it is fair to mention that a primary source disagrees with a secondary source. The reader can decide for themselves. Something like "While Blah news has claimed blah blah blah<citation>, Wikipedia policies are contrary to the postion<citation>."

It may seem odd to mention ourselves, but in a way we are a primary source for this article. Just my 2 cents. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the real numbers? I forget how to check. We could always leak them to the press, right? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a tool that breaks down the information in Wikipedia's logs. He contributed to 5668 unique articles pages, and had to total of 16650 edits, there are only 3 articles he made more than 10 edits to. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like your suggestion. No need to pull the wool over our own eyes. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Only 1396 edits were to articles (ie, in the main space) and if you browse through his edit summaries a huge percentage of it is reverting vandalism [1]. I suppose there are perhaps 100 or 200 "proper" edits that he made to main space articles, which also explains why he wasn't caught making an error. Tintin 06:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, the number I quoted was unique pages, not articles, good catch. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's so helpful for context but mind, it can't be used in the article unless an independent, verifiable source has published it. Gwen Gale 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So, let's write to the newspapers and ask for corrections. Not as "official representatives" of Wikimedia or "members of the Wikipedia community", but as readers who are tired of seeing bad news reporting, particularly in areas where it is so easy to do a much better job. Anville 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At least in his latter days and since I have been editing, Essjay frequently described himself as a "non-content" administrator who rarely contributed to mainspace. Newyorkbrad 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case Wikipedia is a primary source, as it is a topic of the article, and I think we can safely say "While X has reported Y, this is not supported by Wikipedia's public logs of Essjays actions", and be well within policy. A primary source can be used to give context to an outside source. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville

This should be obvious, but this is about a Louisville-area person and a controversy that is getting specially big coverage here in Louisville. If the banner is too "crufty" (this talk page isn't about style, it's about utility and communication), that's why I used the small parameter. If there's a problem with project banner cruft, don't take it out on my little project. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but I'd say that while Ryan Jordan may physically be near Louisville -- as a Wikipedia-wide controversy, it's closer to being non-regional (ala Internet/Web 2.0) in scope. I'd recommend leaving it off any such local Wikiprojects. --Leflyman^Talk 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No offense taken, but I honestly disagree. All notable people from the Louisville area are in our project. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except that this article isn't a bio; and even still, Jordan isn't notable for being a Louisvillian, but a Wikipedian. I find having this entirely unnecessary: "B-Class Louisville articles | Mid-importance Louisville articles | Louisville articles with comments". Again, it's not a topic specific enough to Louisville to warrant planting a Wikiproject flag on this article -- it just seems like as turf-grabbing. The only Wikiproject I've come across that it might fall into is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Internet_culture. ---Leflyman^Talk 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it go, nobody owns the article, if a project want to give attention to the article fine. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with HighInBC) I don't see any "turf-grabbing" here. Multiple projects can claim an article and it is relevant to the Louisville Wikiproject as much as any random notable person from Louisville is who isn't something like a former mayor. Seems fine to me. JoshuaZ 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except that by placing it in such a category, it's being classified as a "Louisville article", which it is not. It has nothing to do with ownership, but with proper categtorisation. Why not Wikipedia:Wikiproject Kentucky since Jordan attended schools in Lexington and Danville? Or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism since that's what he claimed expertise in? It's just a tenuous connection that's being asserted. --Leflyman^Talk 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If any of those projects want to tag the article and help out, I see nothing wrong with that. JoshuaZ 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project coverage does not equal article categorization. Nobody I know of would misconstrue that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with any projects wanting to "help out" -- I do have a problem with individuals assigning their own undiscussed ratings systems (B-class?) and classifications. "Mid-Importance?" That doesn't even match the Project's description: "Topics that are reasonably notable on a local level within Louisville without necessarily being famous or very notable outside of Louisville." As for not equaling article categorisation-- how should one construe the categories at the bottom which state "Louisville article"? .--Leflyman^Talk 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing new in the article assessment approach of this project compared to other projects. I'm not sure what the big issue is with that. WikiProject Louisville assesses the article class and assigns importance according to its own processes, commensurate with the standards for doing such. There's nothing going on here that claims this article as merely a Louisville article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: what you mean is that you assessed and assigned the importance according to your own process, since there was no discussion on the Wikiproject page. So far as I can tell-- and more power to you-- it seems that you're doing all the work on what you refer above to as "my little project".--Leflyman^Talk 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what happens in every project. One person makes the initial assessments, then somebody else can come along and revise the assessments later. Are you new to wikiprojects and assessments? You seem to be descending into accusations over something that is very benign. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, "my little project" was not to be taken literally, but rather as a project I am associated with. I started it yes, but as you will see, there are multiple members, some who do more work than others. Par for the course with wikiprojects. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just edited the template to make the small version smaller. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where it is now it is only taking up whitespace. Good placement. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I aim to accommodate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image liscenses of the screenshots

I'm not sure about this, but I have trouble seeing these as plausibly GFDLable since they are copies of GFDL content without the attached attribution they are essentially only justifiable under a fair use doctrine and can't (I think) be put under GFDL. Now, if to each image the history of the page was attached, then it would be a valid derivative work and thus GFDLable. Am I correct here? JoshuaZ 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, is no one else concerned about this? JoshuaZ 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That would probably best be an issue to take up on the individual pages themselves of those images. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sigh. I was hoping someone who had mroe knowledge of the image issues could just tell me I was wrong. I'll go deal with this tommorow. Need sleep now. JoshuaZ 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Was my licensing on the wikia image ok? If not, could someone correct it? Its just a screen shot of what it looked like back before Angela apprently nuked it (I just hadn't rermembered to upload)... - Denny 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem with the screenshots. WAS 4.250 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite but think of it this way, who created the content and what kind of licensing rights were granted for that content? These are derivative works under a GFDL license, attribute source and author(s) on the image pages. Gwen Gale 07:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The text in the images is GFDL'd; the images in the images isn't necessarily, but they aren't really important. It would be trivial to blank them with the right tool. Volunteers? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the images are GFDL too and as for those which may not be the resolutions are so low they're but splotches. There's nothing here to worry about. Gwen Gale 07:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the splotch argument seems to be the most convincing issue, my real concern (maybe I didn't state it well) was that if these screenshots are considered to be derivatives of the pages from which they came then in order to comply with the GFDL they need have the histories of the pages attached. Does that make sense to anyone? JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, spot on. Meanwhile try arguing that the attempted erasing of content and histories for the Essjay RfC and article were vios of GFDL and one might easily get banned for making a legal threat. Gwen Gale 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting them wasn't a GFDL problem by itself since the content wasn't used elsewhere, the images however are still a problem, JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the GFDL only requires a history when the have been modifications. There aren't modifications here. This falls under section 2, not section 4. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are derivative, but if we just link to the history of the page (as other sites do with our content), it should comply with the licsense. But you're right; with the histories deleted they're fair use. I think they should be removed for purely editorial reasons, however. At best they're redundant with the webcites. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, editorially, they add nothing and hence could be taken as swaying the article into PoV. Gwen Gale 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, editorially, they add a lot. People are visual creatures - they like to see images to help them understand. We should keep the images. Johntex\^talk 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have they ever heard of youtube then? :) Gwen Gale 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Under what WP:FU:Fair use criterion? JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL/GPL is not only for wikis ya know. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The image of the editor has been published and doesn't pose any serious problem, and I agree it might add some humanizing to the article. But can you honestly say that screenshots of a website are the sorts of images humans respond to? Like Glen Gale, I also suspect the images are a POV problem. I would favor cutting all of them, but at least the screenshots. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Gwen Gale :) Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how they are POV. Who's POV is being represented by them? -- Kendrick7^talk 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some may take it as a pileon as all, others won't. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

License review

Please see this discussion and reply there. - Denny 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

The article used to contain four screenshots from the Google cache of the now-deleted page User:Essjay/History1. I have no strong opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to contain an image of a deleted Wikipedia user page, but I did think that it was a shame to have four images where one would do. So I used a little application called SnapWeb to take a single image of the Google cache page. If other folks feel that an image of the deleted page is appropriate for the article, here it is — it should, however, be noted that this cached version of the page was in fact a vandalized version (an anonymous editor changed Essjay's caption "Yes, I'm a professor" to "Yes, I'm not a professor").

Regarding this screenshot, some thought should be given to the balance between the right to vanish and the need to preserve an accurate account of Wikipedia's history (in which Essjay's misrepresentations are now, alas, an important element). If a strong consensus emerges that the inclusion of a screenshot of Essjay's user page is important and appropriate, and if a similar consensus emerges among administrators that this would not be a violation of Wikipedia rules, I would be willing to provide a screenshot of the version of Essjay's user page in which he first made the claims of academic credentials. (For the record, it was the version of 07:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC).) I think this might be a better alternative than a Google cache of a vandalised version — but I do recognize that the creation of a screenshot of a deleted page would be highly unusual and problematic. What do other folks think? — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat neutral but since you've asked, I'd rm it. The screenshots add very little additional information to the article and do seem rather like a "pileon." As for the Essjay photo I personally have no problem with its inclusion but others have asserted it's an assault on his life. Since Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons does apply here and like it or not there is a "community" aspect to this tale, I'll personally defer to any editor who rms that too. Meanwhile though I strongly stand by the retention of this article and its sourced content. Gwen Gale 08:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm resigned to keeping the article, and I always said that the problem with the original article was that the individual concerned was not notable even if the incident was. I have misgivings about whether we'll be able to get a good, accurate, neutral article on the incident or "controversy" but at least we can try. Given that that is what we're aiming for - not to cause harm to an individual - I don't think we should be using a photograph (allegedly) of him. It sheds no light on the subject matter of the article. A shot of the retraction in the NYT would make more sense, if it is the "controversy" that matters. Metamagician3000 09:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its worth saying that I think we may have opened a can of worms here. There are two issues.

1 - People do have a right to respect and I the inclusion of the photo, I felt added nothing to the story yet may have had a major impact on Ryan. However, since all the major media is using that photo then we can safely say that our inclusion of the photo does no more harm than has already occured.

2 - This is where I have the problem. The photo was sourced from Ryan, who as we all know, has a history of not being "entirely honest". No one has secondary verification that the photo was infact Ryan as people (wikipedia, wikinews etc) were keen on including as much info as possible. What if wikipedia has provided a photo of an "innocent" man?

Now, given the media attention we have all been deailing with, if it turned out that Ryan did infact fake the photo, then the current situation will pale into insignificance in comparison. As the media all sourced their photo from wikipedia, then we would be guilty of creating news and the media would have a field day. I'm sure the media will eventually identify the real Ryan and we all need to be aware of how this situation may turn quickly. Just be aware of that as we rush to document whats happened.

Regards - Munta 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC We are in a unique position to document this, I say take it. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify — I didn't mean to question the inclusion of this article. The cat left the bag last weekend, and he's not getting back in. My question was about the inclusion of the screenshot, Image:User-Essjay-History1.png. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, it would seem to be better to have a screenshot of the actual page rather than one muddied with Google's headers. From an encyclopedic standpoint, I am leaning towards the notion that an image of Essjay's user page adds significant content to the article: it shows the context in which his false persona was first presented. From a privacy/right-to-vanish standpoint, it's arguable that since there's already a screenshot on the web at Wikipedia Watch, any attempt to keep Essjay's former user page hidden is futile.

On the other hand, I can see Gwen's argument that the inclusion of the screenshot may seem like a "pile-on". And here's another question: would inclusion of a screenshot from a now-deleted page be considered original research? It's not, strictly speaking, verifiable by people who aren't Wikipedia admins. A screenshot from the WebCite copy would be more verifiable, but it loses most of the page's formatting. (And one thing I think we can all agree on is that Essjay's pages were very attractively formatted.)

I don't really have an opinion about the photo from the Wikia page — I'm mainly asking about the Wikipedia user page screenshot, because I have the ability and willingness to provide a better image for that if there is a consensus that doing so would be appropriate. I think I'll ask at WP:AN for an opinion of whether it would be an appropriate use of admin tools or not. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reread WP:OR and I don't see how it applied here. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a screenshot of his page would be a derivative work of GFDL copyrighted work, sans attribution (since we've deleted it), which would a violation of our own license on fairly weak fair use grounds. Especially because his pages are already archived in several other places. I don't care vanishing rights because Wikipedia:User pages suggest user pages are still for the community's benefit. If we really want a screenshot, we should just undelete and protect his pages so that attributions will be available.

We should proobably include links to places that show the page's content, but I think we ought not skirt our license in a such a high-profile location. Gwen Gale is moreover right to be suspicious of inclusion as a pile-on. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, you do not need to attach a history under the WP:GFDL unless you modify the contents. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So the question becomes are images of content constitute modified content? JoshuaZ 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you could modify it any less. Every last serif is the same. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect, even verbatim copies require attribution — t least that's the dominant understanding of the GFDL. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) It should furthermore be noted that any page edited more than once has already been modified and has accompanying history. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be taken either way IMHO, though I think it's derivative because it was assembled by a web browser on an end user's screen somewhere, captured and reduced. Gwen Gale 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the Wikipedia:Verbatim copying essay only suggests potentially attaching a history, and only because it would be easy to do electronically. The actual WP:GFDL is perfectly clear. I can cut and paste the text of this article, print a dozen copies, and pass them out at Boston Common scot free without the history. Gwen is misunderstanding the meaning of "derived." -- Kendrick7^talk 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes me feel much better about this. JoshuaZ 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Images are involved, along with text, along with both GFDL and GPL licenses. However, when I said it could be taken either way I meant it: Copyright worries about these screenshots are trivial and I'd be surprised if anyone could claim anyone else has been damaged. Note, I am not a lawyer, I am speaking as a WP editor shooting her big mouth off. Gwen Gale 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, the GFDL is many things, but it is not perfectly clear. Not even close. To be perfectly clear, you would have to attach several pages of GDFL license text with your copies at Boston Common. This is, after all, one of the greatest criticisms of it.

Under your interpretation, one would actually never have to include history because one could always reproduce a version copied by another party sans history. That might be a legitimate interpretation of the license (see verbatim copying), but it means Wikipedia is "a collection of collaborative original (that is, non-derivative) works", which is difficult to believe. In any case, the project has never clarified this point, but because it's also trivially easy for us to link to an electronic version of the history, there's at least a strong argument that we'd have to restore Essjay's relevent user pages. Cool Hand Luke 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Doc glasgow decided they needed to be removed and now they're going back and forth... I really don't understand how they're against policy, though. --Dookama 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the screenshots would serve better as a text link, they are a link to text in image form and are meaningless in thumbnail size. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed them as unverifiable. If you can verify the deleted wikia page, please do let me know how.--Doc^g 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're the first person I've ever heard claim that cached web pages are "unverifiable" or unreliable in any way. --Dookama 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to be the first - and willing to be convinced I'm wrong. Please verify.--Doc^g 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The person who uploaded them surely verified them. The imaged are tagged as wikipedia screenshots. WP:AGF. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough. They must be verifiable.--Doc^g 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:V? "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Anyone could have looked up google's of this page at the time it was created, and verify that it was indeed the page. Do you want it relabeled as "google's cache of his page"? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that a particular editor does not know *how* to verify, does not violate WP:ATT. We do not have to prove to anyone how to verify a link, in order to use the link. What a can of worms *that* would open. Wjhonson 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, the whole point is that the pictures have to be covered up and can't be used, they gotta go, simply because we just can't let any more irrelevant evidence be mentioned that he self-identified as queer, so - OH DAMN!!! I just said it again!!! Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

Fallout section

I think the following paragraph should be added but it got deleted, I put it back for now:

In addition, Jimmy Wales, has requested further discussion about increasing the standards for checking credentials of editors at Wikipedia, such as, but not limited to, a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability Wikipedia:Administrators accountability and a proposal for credentials to be verified Wikipedia:Credentials. Arcticdawg 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just slightly uncomfortable with linking to "internal documents" (the project namespace) from the mainspace article in this way. -- 131.111.8.99 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Pls be wary of self reference. Gwen Gale 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not acceptable, these documents will not work outside of Wikipedia, so will bugger up all the mirror sites. If you must link to them, link to them as you would an external link (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators_accountability) Neil (not Proto ►) 13:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are now external secondary reputable sources reporting on this. Smee 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced info?

• User:Dexterreneer had added this: He was actually Ryan Jordan (actually known as Steve Jordan when at Centre College), ... - DIFF, which was then removed as unsourced. Are there sources/citations for this information? Smee 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I've not seen any but will keep my eyes peeled. Gwen Gale 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be very easy to verify but are we crossing over into cyberstalking in doing so? (→Netscott) 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's' in public and RS records... I guess if the source itself is fine for inclusion, it's fine. No one can argue that the person is wholly private at this point given the amount of media coverage. - Denny 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• If an editor is doing the leg work to try to discover facts that can't be attributed to a published source otherwise, it would fall into Original research. Wikipedians are not journalists, nor should they attempt to be private investigators.--Leflyman^Talk 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• oh, I know. Thats why I said if it's already in RS, I don't see the harm in including it... - Denny 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)