Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Misinformation and misrepresentation

Some of the many media articles and blog entries are propagating misinformation and misleading info; I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Firstly, several outlets are mentioning that Essjay has had his 'editor privileges cancelled' - has he actually been blocked? I had thought not. And secondly, a recent article in the Telegraph has made Arbcom sound like an editorial board. Other news outlets have made the same implication. Anchoress 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there would have to be another reputable source that says something about "propagating misinformation and misleading info", with regards to the other sources... Smee 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that we have to wait for a publication to state that ArbCom isn't an editorial board before we can say that articles about EssJay have misrepresented ArbCom as an editorial board? Is that true? If an article stated that Wikipedia's servers were located at the bottom of the ocean, would we need to wait for another news site to refute it before we could identify the report as false? I admit that I'm not an expert on RS on WP, but wouldn't a link to the description of ArbCom suffice? And/or a link to EssJay's block log? Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding you, and if so, I apologise. Anchoress 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These are the wonted journo errors which creep into any news item. Technically incorrect and sloppy, they're close enough but nettling to people familiar with the details. It happens all the time and to bring it up in this article IMHO would be non-standard and sound defensive and nitpicky. Gwen Gale 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that without satisfying WP:RS, to comment about what some may see as mistakes in news articles would be a violation of WP:NOR... Smee 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Ignore those little technical errors, they're part of the news business. Every news story has them. Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Smee 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that's fine. Anchoress 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between quoting a news article and making an assertion. If you quote a news article, you should quote it verbatim and should not correct the text of the quote. However, it is reasonable to correct the mistake by stating the truth without a citation as long as no one challenges your assertions.

For example, I think it is reasonable to say "Although some media reports indicated that Essjay had his editor privileges cancelled, a more accurate characterization would be that he gave up various administrative and oversight privileges and indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia. He requested that his user pages be delted but he did not, however, take any steps to have his account deleted."

Now, the problem is... what if someone DOES challenge this with a {{citation needed}} tag? What I wrote is true as of this writing but the only proof I have is Wikipedia links and one can argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Well, Wikipedia is kind of a reliable source about itself but I don't want to go chasing down that rabbit hole.

So, I can imagine that you could put the assertion about Essjay's actions into the article but you would have to be willing for it to be deleted if anybody challenged the truth of the assertion.

--Richard 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told it's not reasonable. If you want to say something, find a citation to support it or don't say it. One can paraphrase a source but one cannot correct it, that's original research (no, I'm not talking about spelling errors and so on, those should only be untouched in directly attributed quotations). With breaking news stories it can take time to assemble enough citations from sundry news articles to get a complete and accurate encyclopedic narrative. Be patient, it'll happen. Gwen Gale 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

meanwhile, down the memory hole

Essjay, with its redirect to this article, has been deleted, which will thwart many readers from ever finding it. Gwen Gale 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Ned Scott is a puppet of Essjay. He even called me an "asshole" here. Regards, --Jayzel 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck getting that one through RfCU. Ned edits manga articles, not theology. I'd suggest you at least do a modicum of research before accusing an editor in good standing of being a sock. --tjstrf talk 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor who calls other editors "assholes" has no good standing IMO. Good day, --Jayzel 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can let their civility slip from time to time, and your abrasive sarcasm in that conversation was just as incivil as his cursing. "Good standing" refers to their overall behaviour and editing pattern. Regardless of your personal opinion of him, he is no sock. --tjstrf talk 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, a*****e. ;) --Jayzel 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm nope, calling someone asshole is more uncivil than calling someone who has represented himself as a professor for two years professor. Gwen Gale 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He has now kindly agreed to preserve the re-direct. Gwen Gale 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, he wanted the redirect deleted so the article could be moved back to it. JoshuaZ 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all in all Ned did the right thing. We now have a NPOV title, redirects from Essjay and Essjay Scandal and we can carry on editing the article to be a NPOV record of Essjays (the editor) actions rather than a contentious bio or POV witch hunt - Munta 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't care much about the name of the article as much as I wanted to avoid possible confusing during the AfD. The article had twice been moved back to Essjay (once by me, and once by another) for that reason alone. That and this discussion made me think that moving it back would be a good idea. I was no fan of the word "scandal" being thrown in, but that was more of a secondary concern. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we ditch the photo?

There is a sad irony, with even his (probably) local paper gathering information on him and his name in the news around the globe, that right now Essjay really does have a legitimate concern about harassment and violation of privacy in Real Life. The picture doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't add anything to the article. Please let's edit it out. Risker 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion on subsection "Image", above. The photo is free to use under GFDL, is at the bottom of the article, and we have no idea in actuality who is really depicted in the photo... Smee 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not censored. --Jayzel 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I feel bad for Essjay but for all anyone knows that pic is as MUDdy as his CV was. Gwen Gale 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm becoming more concerned about the photo as we go along. Initially, I though it fair use as it documented the person behind the article. However, as the article has changed, it has become much more of a record of Essjay and his persona rather than a record of Ryan himself. On the other hand, there is a risk that we are saying that a "virtual person" is an entity in their own right and that is clearly ridiculous. Weighing up the pros and the cons, I feel that the text in the article is right (Ryan being named in time context) and for the respect of Ryan (as a falable human being, not as a former wikipedian), the photo adds nothing to the article. This isn't censorship - its common sense. I would be happy if it was removed and replaced at a latter date if the situation changes. - Regards - Munta 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's GFDL, no licensing worries at all. The photo was uploaded by User:Essjay as his WP:MUD avatar, it's presented with screenshots of Essjay's userspace and the name of this article begins with Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. All very good reasons to Keep, as highly relevant and useful in this article. Smee 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I realise that there are no licencing issues. I just belive that the inclusion of the photo blurs the distinction between Essjay and Ryan. The article is not about Ryan - so why do we need the photo? I've thought long and hard on this and I was very strong in my views about Essjay resigning and these articles staying. Perhaps its just my humanist nature but I just feel uncomfortable about this one. - Munta 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Ryan Jordan article, or the Essjay article...it is the Essjay Controversy article. Nobody's whining abuot licensing. The screenshots make sense. But unless someone can show a reason that the article would be deficient without that photo, it should go. There are elements of WP:BLP here, even though it isn't strictly a biographical article. If ever there was an article that needs to meet the highest standards of ethics, this is the one. 216.95.209.50 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, computer logged out on me before submitting - this was by Risker)

• Remove The photo doesn't reflect any of the newsworthy aspects of the story (other than that Essjay is young), and publicizing it intrudes on the privacy of a guy who is, frankly, only borderline notable. Keep the article, if there is concensus that it's newsworthy, but let's have a heart. TheronJ 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of it. Weighing up the serious harm we could be doing to someone in real life and the possible slight improvement the photo might bring to the article, I can't see how we can even hesitate over it. This is a human being, no matter what we might think of the scandal he caused. ElinorD (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm swayed :) Sorry if I seemed like I was being mean to Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. ElinorD (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• If more than a few people want to remove it, that's fine, but I think leaving it as "commented out" is a good idea, it might be re-added at a later point in time... Smee 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
  • On the other hand, please see Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees, on Wikinews, where the photo is being used, along with the caption: Photo of Essjay, uploaded by himself. Smee 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Haha no worries! I've got a feeling we're gonna see a proposal to delete that image from the server anytime now. Gwen Gale 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries about Wikinews, they are a separate entity. And now that you mention it, Gwen Gale... Risker 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sooner the better. Those wikinewsfolks kept adding it back, though after a tactful suggestion it's been removed at the moment. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm only tryin to save everyone some time here :) Gwen Gale 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo was shown tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. C.m.jones 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A pity we didn't act sooner then. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion needed

There is currently some disagreement at Talk:Stacy Schiff about whether or not this controversy should be mentioned on her bio. Some additional opinions on the matter would be appreciated, to help determine consensus on the issue. --El on ka 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Very nice addition, to whoever added it. :-) C.m.jones 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was originally from Wikinews, but of course it can be expanded upon as things progress/are discovered in reputable secondary sources... Smee 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Nominated for DYK

See Template_talk:Did_you_know#March_1. Please feel free to improve my entry. Thanks. — M (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you wearing asbestos coveralls or what. Gwen Gale 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They could have at least got the facts right in their summary - Munta 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please semi protect Essjay

The current name is protected but that isn't. Given Essjay is now all over global broadcast news... - Denny 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

screenshot published

The International Herald Tribune in Paris, an influential English language newspaper in Western Europe, has published a screenshot of an early version of this article. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the same article that was published earlier by the NYT? --tjstrf talk 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, or a version of it, with the added screenshot. Gwen Gale 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, what was the template that was for articles that themselves were cited in major news stories...? - Denny 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't find it here, Gwen Gale 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Header added to top of talk page. Smee 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Kendrick7's lead is wrong

The current lead as edited into the article by Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) reads false. The controversy stems from The New Yorker having to print an editor's note regarding a previous article they had published that had to explain that Essjay did not have credentials the original article said he did. (→Netscott) 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the controversy stems from Essjay being exposed as a liar. — M (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following what is in the ABC news article : "This latest scandal, at one of the Web's most viewed sites, involves a prominent editor who forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate." -- Kendrick7^talk 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

which is a bit sensationalist and makes errors.Geni 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you now copyediting a cited source??? — M (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC Nightly News

ABC News broadcast a story on Wikipedia's accuracy tonight, and the Essjay incident featured prominently therein. Rklawton 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dammit! Now what am I going to do with this huge hole I just dug?! Edeans 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Brilliant. Wikipedia prevented a fake-charity from taking advantage of millions after the 2004 Tsunami, but did ABC Nightly News report on that? Nooooooo. How about any other major news source? Not last time I checked. Typical. --*Kat* 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• (heh, again with the Justin Timberlake edit.. wtf?) I have to say, regardless of how you view Essjay now (like him or hate him) that report by ABC was pretty shitty. I'm still not convinced this makes the Essjay event notable. Remember, Wikipedia is a "hot topic" in many ways, and this seems less about this incident and more about using the incident to make some shocking statements (zomg, someone lied on the internet). They didn't even mention why Essjay was specifically significant, in that he held a position of community trust. This could have been anything, could have been anyone. They just treated it as if that was the first editor to ever lie. The news media can be very absurd at times, and the public's attention is short. I get the feeling that being on things like ABC Nightly News won't indicate notability, it will simply indicate how the ignorant public is entertained by stories of the mysterious "internet thing". -- Ned Scott 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essay originally confirmed his credentials to the New Yorker

OK, Netscott, here:

Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.

From The New Yorker Article as cited. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just posted to your talk page... I retract my statement. Kindly accept my apologies. (→Netscott) 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No lo problemo. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis for saying that he forged any credentials or faked anything. He lied about his credentials, but that is completely different. The opening sentence currently gives totally the wrong impression. What he actually did may be just as bad (repeatedly lying on his userpage and elsewhere, including to Ms Schiff), but it is not the same as forging or faking documents. Also, the source cited is totally unreliable, even though it is a large news company: nomnetheless, it is just someone who was not involved and has the wrong end of the stick. It is always dangerous relying on journalistic sources for anything even slightly complicated. If we are going to keep this article, it needs to be accurate and sourced properly. Metamagician3000 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV

I removed the following from the article

This has no place in this article as it is POV and OR. Theres much more POV, OR and primary (self) reference. Can editors please help with keeping this NPOV that other editors have spent so much time working on.

Thanks - [[User:Munta Munta] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it as well... essentially as original research whose removal is covered by WP:BLP. (→Netscott) 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto that; and pointed out the inappropriateness to one of the authors of the nonsense. --Leflyman^Talk 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys are LYING, but the TRUTH speaks for itself. How can it be OR or libelous when it is cited to an edit that Essjay himself published, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay&diff=prev&oldid=14917790 ???Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Among other issues, Essjay has never said that he was straight, so those edits could be completely honest. JoshuaZ 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out the cited material above due to very real BLP concerns. (→Netscott) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's completely inappropriate. "Gamed the system" is POV. "Posing as a homosexual" suggests that he isn't homosexual. He may or may not be. We don't know. The statement that Robbie's only contribution was to vote in Essjay's RfB is simply inaccurate. See Special:Contributions/Robbie31. Admittedly there are no actual contributions to articles, but the account was not created and used more than two months before the RfC. These edits are coming from a new account. I suggest that the user familiarise himself with policy, rather than revert warring. ElinorD (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you, the conclusion people are drawing everywhere is that wikipedia has been pretty much controlled by sexual minorities placed in positions of god-like power. Now would you like a source for that statement??

Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

User:Os Cangaceiros kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll and know that this last commentary is sooner in line with that. In that light kindly refrain from further such commentary. (→Netscott) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

QED Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

Give me a break. The only edit outside of userspace was in the RfB. It was an obvious meatpuppet single purpose account. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a sudden upswing in this user's contributions in the near future. The content and the evidence, sans the homosexual content, is highly relevant to expose Essjay's further duplicity. — M (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof, it has not been cited and it is libelous. What you believe to be true, by definition is POV. What do you not understand about why it shouldn't be included - Regards - Munta 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we will see any such upswring- if this is Essjay's actual partnet he will most likely not be in a mood to edit. Furthermore, Essjay easily had the technical skill to make a much more subtle sock, if he had wanted to sock he would have done that. JoshuaZ 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a gay person" is pretty straightforward (pardon the pun) to me. To say this is libelous is really offensive by the way. As a gay person. Consider that. Wjhonson 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point. The issue is that we have no reason to think that Essjay is not gay. So claiming that Robbie didn't exist or that Essjay being gay was part of the persona does not meet WP:BLP or WP:OR. JoshuaZ 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RFOL Youre in it deep now, man! Wish I could throw in a paddle, but... 172.135.71.121

IIRC, he claimed to have been living with Robbie for a number of years. -Mysekurity 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline improvments

I don't believe the current timeline is correct. I drew up a timeline a few days ago (see my email to WikiEN-l), and Essjay posted the relevant details to his Wikia userpage 7 January, not 15 January (although the Wikia staff have made this difficult to confirm, as past revisions have been deleted...). The timeline also omits Brandt's discovery of the Wikia userpage circa 21 January and Essjay's first message on the subject 1 February. These seem to be fairly important details. --Gwern (contribs) 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, add 'em in! :-) C.m.jones 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I hope no one dings my additions for OR or something equally silly - they were there when I was researching the email! --Gwern (contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm unsure how much to include. Should we mention that Brandt did more than just be the first to notice and report it to the New Yorker? He flogged it pretty heavily on Slashdot and other places, and his website - note all the anonymous and other persons who seem to home in on Essjay rather quickly, from the Slashdot article itself, to the early anon edits to User talk:Essjay, and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a reliable source that would be original research. We need to be very careful with this article. JoshuaZ 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive timeline

I reverted to the previous version of the timeline from one adding excessive, extraneous detail. Content such as this should be attributed to outside sources, within the body of the article:

• January 21, 2007 — An SBC IP address self-identified as Daniel Brandt contacts Essjay on his talk page and asks him to "Please explain the tremendous disparity between the personal information you have volunteered on your user page on Wikipedia since you started in February 2005, and the new information you provide at wikia.com." He provides a screenshot dated 18 January 2007. Essjay never replies.
• February 1, 2007—A Wikipedia user contacts Essjay on the same subject as Brandt did; Essjay confirms that the Wikia profile is accurate, and that to avoid "trolls, stalkers, and psychopaths who wander around Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects looking for people to harass, stalk, and otherwise ruin the lives of", Essjay's "approach was different: I decided to be myself, to never hide my personality, to always be who I am, but to utilize disinformation with regard to what I consider unimportant details: age, location, occupation, etc."

--Leflyman^Talk 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, after having read some of this, I appreciate seeing Essjay's side of the story in the article somewhere. It's a shame we don't have a secondary source for all this. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Leflyman, I don't think the first entry is excessive or extraneous. The first item is about the first ever recorded mention of the discrepancy, and the second records Essjay's first ever comment and defense of his actions. I think those are important. It'd be like an article on the American Revolution not mentioning the battle of Lexington and Concord. These are important things, more important to what actually happened than some news articles or mentions on TV. --Gwern (contribs) 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• And they are the very definition of Original Research.--Leflyman^Talk 06:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Essjay

Essjay uploaded this picture of himself, I don't see any encyclopedic reason why it shouldn't be used. I suggest we put it up on the main article. The same thing was done with several fraudsters articles at Wikipedia, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essjay_controversy#Can_we_ditch_the_photo.3F 2 - It has not been confirmed to be Essjay 3 - Whats the point - it adds nothing to the article Munta 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say a picture of Essjay he himself loaded adds to the article, it is the same one he used when he came out of the closet at Wikia. Arcticdawg 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The image adds to the article. A picture is worth a thousand words. Readers want to know what the person of interest looks like. --QuackGuru 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I have resored it to the article. It was shown on ABC World News tonight. It would not be right for us to leave it out of our own coverage. Johntex\^talk 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As the title says "no evidence if it is Essjay or not". Does wikipedia now include information where we have no evidence of what it represents? It does not add anything to the article. We do not know if it proves it is Essjay and we do not know if it proves if Essjay was duplicitious. - Munta 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We know he uploaded it. We know he claimed it was him. We know reputable media outlets have run it as part of their story. We don't need to know whether it is him or not so long as we don't claim it is him. Our caption is correctly stating the known facts about the image. Johntex\^talk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The famous picture was used by the media. One of the most notable pictures on Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Essjay want this image to be on this site? Why don't we ask him? Maybe he is looking for fame or infamy. If that is his choice and other sources are using this image, then it is unfair for us not to use it, right? I believe that Wiki's respond should be based upon Essjay's motive and intention. If he shows no respond then shouldn't everyone assume he doesn't want his image on this site?

Louisville Courier-Journal

No love expressed in Essjay's hometown newspaper.[2] "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Edeans 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That article also casts doubt on the credentials Essjay presented to Wikia:

On Wikia's site, Jordan said he lives outside Louisville and studied philosophy and religion at Centre, in Danville, as well as the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville.

He said that before coming to Wikia, "I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company, where I worked on a ten person team that managed roughly $500,000,000 in annual sales. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years," including "nearly a year with a firm in Louisville that represented doctors in medical licensure matter and a three month special position with a United States Bankruptcy Trustee."

A Centre spokesman confirmed Jordan attended from 2001 to 2003, and a UK spokesman said he was enrolled in the fall semester of 2003 at the former Lexington Community College, now Bluegrass Community and Technical College.

A spokeswoman for U of L said nobody by that name has attended the university since 1920, and a spokeswoman for the U.S. bankruptcy trustee said the office had no record Jordan had worked there.

J. Fox DeMoisey, a lawyer who represents doctors in licensure cases, said Jordan had worked in his office for about six months as a secretary and receptionist.

Looks like even his revised educational/employment history may contain inaccuracies. Johntex\^talk 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No surprise there, it was already known (5 days ago) that his Wikia CV could not possibly be true. [3]. Quatloo 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He has another first name. It is possible that he used this other name in these other areas. (→Netscott) 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

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

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 [4]. 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)

Per WP:PRESS, "IF THERE ARE ERRORS IN AN ARTICLE, please post the matter to the Wikimedia Communications Committee's talk page. This way, the Wikimedia Foundation can send an official letter to the editor, or request for a correction." RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 01:44, 8 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)

Project over-tagging does a few bad things. It's needless, it won't realistically aid in the article's improvement, it sets a bad example of when to tag and when not to tag, too many talk page banners is a widespread problem on Wikipedia, there are efforts to reform both WikiProject banners and WikiProjects themselves, it de-emphasizes these banners when they are correctly used, and I could go on and on and on. And an internet culture WikiProject? you have to be fucking kidding me... quick, find someone on Wikipedia who knows about internet culture! oh wait.. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever encountered such a drastic position on the Wikipedia. I have come to think that whether an article is covered by a wikiproject is a decision of a member of said project, not a vote of one or two editors of the article. OK, I'll take this off my watch list, and inform other project members about it. The members of WikiProject Louisville are apparently not welcome to work on an article regarding an individual that naturally falls under our project coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, it's just that just because a person is from or living in Louisville doesn't make it particularly relevant / unique to Louisville. Let me put it this way, Essjay could have lived almost anywhere and this would likely have all still happened. Being in Louisville isn't a significant factor for this article.

Normally I don't take such strong positions on such minor issues, but lately the problem of overtagging is reaching critical mass. For example, see Template talk:WikiProjectBanners and Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. There is a misconception about projects as well as banners and when to use them, and although no one means any harm, there's still a problem. -- Ned Scott 11:01, 8 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 New Yorker 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)

What he said

I've rephrased "what he said" in the intro because he didn't *say* it as far as I know. If you can cite where he says he is a dropout, please post that citation into the lead. Thanks. Wjhonson 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again someone has changed it to *imply* that he said he was a dropout. Can we just stick to what the cited article actually states, and cite it to that author instead of Essjay? Thanks. Wjhonson 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retired or Resigned???

The timeline states Essjay retired, yet on Jimbo's talk page he said he asked him to resign. Did he "retire" or "regsign"?--167.80.244.204 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He was asked to resign by Jimmy Wales (i.e. he was fired). See: emailed notes to ZDnet. The "Retired" notice is standard for Wikipedians who (say they) are no longer a part of the project. --Leflyman^Talk 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Being asked to resign and being fired are not the same thing. The latter can follow the former if the person refuses but the two actions have legally distinct consequences. It is very unclear whether Jimbo could legally have dismissed Essjay given that he was aware of his true identity when he gave him the Wikia job. WjB scribe 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo distinctly said that he "fired" Essjay. Let's face it, how long would essjay have been able to retain his arbcom seat if he had refused to resign? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Jimbo is quoted directly in the email provided that he fired essjay. Having been interviewed by the media, I have lost all trust that the quotes provided by newspapers are actually what was said - they seem to be more paraphrases. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional source, The Times

From The Times, the leading UK newspaper, is some interesting sourceable content of Jimmy Wales's take on EssJay's disinformation persona and its repercussions: [5]

Mr Wales said the site and its users will soon devise a scheme to adequately check credentials of those Wikipedia editors who claim to possess them....

"He got himself into this years ago, and kept it up because he saw no way out," the Wikipedia founder said. "He started his deception before we became friends, and I was not particularly aware of his alleged credentials. I know him as an excellent editor." Mr Wales admitted that Wikipedia users and editors alike operate using a much higher degree of trust than many in the real world find unusual, but that the Wiki model had weeded out a falsehood in the end.

"Mr Ryan was a friend, and still is a friend," the Wikipedia founder said. "He is a young man, and he has offered me a heartfelt personal apology, which I have accepted. I hope the world will let him go in peace to build an honourable life and reputation."

--Leflyman^Talk 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Essjay was fired

Can I point out to everyone that Essjay was fired, not because he lied about his job, but because he used those lies to win content disputes and to enhance his standing when writing to professors. Jimbo has been very clear on this point. Although the press believe it was because he simply lied, Jimbo statements are unambiguous on the subject and the article needs to reflect that. Please bear that in mind when you edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please direct us to a source on Jimbo's stated reasons in asking for his resignation. I've not seen an explicit one yet. Thx,--Leflyman^Talk 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Jimbo's statement on Essjay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjays accusation of unethical journalistic practices perpetrated by Stacy Schiff

I'm glad to see that the article is now more about the incident rather than the individual. In that respect, would some comment about Essjays accusation of 'Unethical Journalistic Practices' on the part of Stacy Schiff be mentioned in the article? Perhaps in the 'Essjay's response' section. Essjays accusations are really very serious and, in my opinion, quite noteable. They where made at the same time that the quote currently in 'Essjay's response' were made, and follow directly from the initial controversy. I'll gauge opinion here and maybe throw something together later and put that up. Source can be found here [6]. Malbolge 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Above comment was posted by me (Malbolge)... forgot to sign. Malbolge 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Essjay has zero credibility as any kind of a witness in all this. He is documented as capable of lying repeatedly and consistently, both online and offline. Thus, his accusation that Schiff offered him compensation (which was likely made in utter cluelessness to begin with) is trivial. In other words, he can't hurt her reputation if no one believes what he says. Gwen Gale 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the accusation is founded or not, they where made by Essjay and denounced by Schiff - so the accusation was made and was denied. Unfortunately, the only sources for the accusation and denial are the one I provide above (from WikiNews) and from blogs... aswell as from Essjays TalkPages where the accusation was originally made. As I have said, I'm not 100% with protocol and procedure, but (going on what you, Gwen Gale, said to my discussion of WP:SELF as not being criteria for the deletion of the Essjay Incident article) it appears that these cannot be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? Is Wikinews an external and verifiable and therefore acceptable source?Malbolge 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we've developed a policy about WikiNews yet. In general, Wikis are considered not reliable, but plausibly WikiNews might be an exception for articles which have been looked over, published and protected. However, one issue with reliable sources is the problem of anonymity and Wikinews is in general anonymous. JoshuaZ 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy, if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end. Meanwhile one reason it's not being reported by reliable sources is because it's a trivial claim made by an individual who is already documented as, please forgive me, a liar and unreliable source as to anything having to do with himself. If nobody believes what he says, it's an unbelievable, negligable claim, a non-starter as news because it would besmirch her without a shred of evidence aside from his worthless word. Sorry to be so hard on Essjay here but that's the pith of why it's not showing up anywhere. Truth be told I could point you to a single independent source which has reported it but why bother? Gwen Gale 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I myself put no weight in Essjays accusation. I feel that it was made to make himself appear more tragic/sympathetic in light of the whole controversy (as in "oh look... I gave up money"). It does not appear that he was accusing Schiff vindictively, but rather trying to frame himself in a certain light (much as Lih says, he made the comment without realising that it was an accusation of seriously unethical journalistic practice). However, what I THINK of the accusation, and what any of us THINK of the accusation is irrelevant. The accusation is noteable (because of its severity) and it is directly linked to the controversy. So, if it is verifiable should it not be included? I apologise if I'm getting in beyond my depth on this one, but we've all got to take the plunge sometime huh? Malbolge 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced that for a lot of people that was the final straw that made them turn from "it was only an innocent mistake years ago" to "he has to go". But the important thing is to stick to published reliable sources and not blogs or independent research. It is our process and it works. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it can be found in or appears in a reliable publication then I'll go about putting it up. Thanks for the comments. I'll soon get a handle on all this protocol and policy and procedure. Malbolge 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

What about Reliability of Wikipedia as well in the 'See also's? Totnesmartin (who really is called Martin and really is from Totnes!) 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I added it. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wary of blundering in and doing it myself. Totnesmartin 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As of March, 2007, Jordan is retired from Wikipedia.

What is the exact date he retired. Did he really retire or under pressure he resigned. Lets get the facts straightened out and the exact day of the month he quit put in the article. --QuackGuru 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's quote reliable published sources and not get into "truth" not only because that's policy but because that's what works or wikipedia. Otherwise we wind up arguing over the definition of "resign" vs. "retire" vs. "fired" and what evidence is allowed. Date he last edited? under which alias? Stick to reliable published sources . WAS 4.250 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking editors credentials

While it's true that ITWire reported it, it's false that it's occurring or will occur. It still may have a place in the article if only to demonstrate the wild rumours swirling around and the misinformation being published. Wjhonson 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

False? Sez who? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Says me. The liklihood that every editors credentials are going to be validated is slim to none with the great majority of weight on none. Wjhonson 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know we deal with reliable sources. What were you born on the moon or something? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC) omg, he was born on the moon!

Agreed with Wjhonson, but that's Original Research. It's certainly been proposed, not just now but endless times before, but the idea that they'd waste the money on it for anyone but maybe the ArbCom/Stewards crew is pretty much laughable. --tjstrf talk 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AP story on credential checking

This AP story is spreading like the wildest wildfire through the media. The Google news cache showed almost sixty appearances within an hour, last I checked. The story recounts the whole saga and emphasizes Jimbo's ideas about checking the creds of anybody who claims them. This mess has now really become the biggest thing since Siegenthaler. I've added the cite to the article. I expect the story will spawn other items from the media, and I'll try to pick up as many as I can. Casey Abell 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this article. This paragraph caught my eye:

In addition to contributing thousands of articles to the sprawling Web encyclopedia, Jordan had recently been promoted to arbitrator, a position for trusted members of the community. Arbitrators can overrule an edit made by another volunteer or block people who abuse the site.

Elsewhere on this page, people have already commented on the "thousands of articles" bit. (For convenience's sake, here are the results of Interiot's Tool1 and Tool3.) The AP also manages to confuse "arbitrator" with "administrator", and falsely state that only members of a privileged elite can "overrule an edit made by another volunteer". Why is reporting about WP so bad when it's so easy to do it much better? Anville 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not like the concept makes sense to begin with - Wikipedia only works in practice, it never works in theory - and as watching AfDs with off-site vote soliciting has taught me, our operating principles are rather opaque. --Kizor 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are unverifiable

Please show me how these are verifiable. I challenge that they are not. So, unless someone can show me differently, they MUST be removed. Happy to be proved wrong here, how do we verify screenshots from a deleted page on wikia.--Doc^g 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but in the meantime, remove and keep removed. ElinorD (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably we obtain an administrative role at Wikia and look at it ourselves. --tjstrf talk 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the restoration of this unverifiable material is getting a bit disruptive. (→Netscott) 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, instead of this edit war, we rely on consensus and you convince us they're unverifiable? --Dookama 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. The onus is on the introducers of unverifiable content to support it, not the other way around. (→Netscott) 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Burden of proof would be on you for that in the first place Dookama, and what more does it take to prove they are unverifiable than that they are inaccessible without getting an administrative job at Wikia? --tjstrf talk 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just really don't understand where you people are coming from with screenshots of a cached page being "unverifiable". I'll let people who know more about policy than me argue against it, though. --Dookama 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" (which no longer exists, incedentally) does not overcome verifiability nor any of the other issues surrounding articles about living people. These images do not belong on the article. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's one the censors missed: [7] Smee 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Okay, I'm getting a little sick of people just saying "this doesn't belong". You're talking to someone who knows virtually nothing about Wikipedia policy here. Explain things to me like I'm an idiot. Why do they not belong? --Dookama 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So if I cite a book (a WP:RS) for an article, but then a week later all copies of the book are burned, suddenly my citation fails WP:V? That's not how it works. Anyone could have read the book until it was destroyed, what matters is the cite was verifiable at the time it was created. Same with these screenshots. Sorry, folks, this isn't 1984. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that - Munta 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that images are user-created, so they are always on shakey attributability grounds even in the best of times. (Is that Tom Cruise, or just a guy who looks a lot like him?) This is doubly true when pretty much everyone involved has at least a slight conflict of interest due to their Wikipedia involvement. Given both its absolutely non-essential nature to the article, its doctorability, and its current unverifiability, it is better left out. --tjstrf talk 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjays picture is aledgedly user created. Is it him, a guy who looks like him or some one completely different? He has proven him self to be untrustworthy - yet this picture is allowed to stay? - Munta 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As we explained above when this question was asked - we don't say it's a picture of Essjay. We say it is a picture Essjay uploaded and which he claimed was a picture of him. Why do you want so badly to remove the picture? Johntex\^talk 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I had already given my reason when we first discussed its inclusion - but to summarize.

• Respect to Ryan - this page is about Essjay the editor not Ryan the person
• Adds nothing to the article
• People will assume it is him regardless of any text
• If its not him (not verified by anyone) then an innocent person getting libeled - BIG TIME.

Munta 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Among the many flaws with this argument is the fact that libel requires you to say something truly scandalous about someone. The worst we say is that this person invented a pseudonym that included inflated credentials. Hardly a case for lible even if false. The arguement that the picture adds nothing to the arguement is false. Pictures add much to articles - that is why we work so hard to get them. The arguement that peopel will assume what they want regardless of text is not even wrong. If you believe that then you might choose to do something other than write an encyclopedia - what would be the point if people won't believe what is written. Johntex\^talk 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munta (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

• Bogus Wikipedia editor who posed as a professor resigns after real his real identity was revealed, includes a screenshot of the page in question. Probably more of these images will turn up in multiple other secondary sources sooner or later... Smee 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, no. All information must be currently verifiable. Personal experience isn't any good - a reader coming along later must be able to verify it.--Doc^g 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's external (not a blog or personal page) you can cite it, if you found it only on Wikipedia you can't. Gwen Gale 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shit - there goes the article on Jesus - 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got screenshots for his page?

Way.[8] Gwen Gale 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there'll be a secondary source later. But that's not even the same screen.--Doc^g 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the Google cache is verifiable by anyone going to Google and typing "User:Essjay/History1". At least, until Google updates their cache. Or is someone asserting that Google is not a reliable source for what a given page somewhere on the Internet said at a given time? — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Kendrick7 has wisely attributed the images to Google's cache in the captions. Smee 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • And apparently wrong too. This is why these are unverifiable OR. We don't know where they came from.--Doc^g 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps User:DennyColt should comment here about the image source. Smee 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Caches and mirrors of Wikipedia are not independent sources, they are copies of Wikipedia, you cannot cite them. Gwen Gale 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is missing a basic precept of verifiability/attribution: it's not one's personal interpretation or experience of an event/image/individual that can be sourced; it's that a reputable and retrievable published work must contain the specific claim about the image that an editor wishes to make-- otherwise it would be construed as Original Research. Hypotheticals about source-burning aside, images are not "sources" insofar as a basis for article's assertions-- they're for illustration, decoration or to clarify a particular topic already discussed in the text. Claims based on images, that are not sourceable outside the image, are not allowed. See WP:ATT#Original_images.--Leflyman^Talk 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But there are no claims being based on those images. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is that they are true, that they are Essjay's userpages. We cannot support that claim by referencing Wikipedia (self reference). Gwen Gale 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if his user pages were restored then we wouldn't have this problem. He may have a right to vanish - but the public have a right to know what caused these events - after all thats what an encyclopedias for. Be Bold - Munta 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Er. I think that's a really dumb reason to not allow these. How about a WP:IAR? Common sense says that it doesn't matter if they're technically verifiable or not -- they're from a google cache and anyone can find them, so why not keep screenshots here? --Dookama 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The first shot is verifiably google's cache of Essjay's userpage. This really has nothing to do with self reference. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Google's cache is a copy of Wikipedia, not an independent source. Citing a copy of WP is self reference. Gwen Gale 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking that far too literally. Take the spirit of a guideline to heart -- don't twist the words to suit yourself. --Dookama 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:No personal attacks, thanks. Meanwhile, do you see me engaged in an edit war over this? Chill! The screenshots are self reference unless they have been published by a verifiable, independent source, not a blog or a personal website, not a cached copy of Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument is very strange to me. The Google cashe can also be verified through archived webcite. When quoting a source (and we're essentually quoting wikipeida) we don't require them to say it twice. Two independent sources confirming the page's former contents, and that's more than sufficient. Cool Hand Luke 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you claim is being referenced here which would make this a self reference? What policy or guideline are you citing anyway? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is kinda technical, kinda trivial: By posting screenshots of Essjay's userpage, with a caption that says, "Here, looky, this is a screenshot of Essjay's userpage," the article is asserting that these are truly pictures of Essjay's userpage but the thing is, where does the supporting citation for this come from? You know it's his userpage. I know it's his userpage, but we are not acceptable sources for the article. Ok, the userpages were on Wikipedia, we can find them in the history. Cool. But we can't cite WP's history because that would be self reference. F**ked. 'k? The end. The only way to put these in the article is to provide outside verification that they came from Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia no-self-reference policy works in this case. Gwen Gale 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Common sense says that it's perfectly fine to have the screenshots, and I'm pretty sure policy also says that common sense overrules policy. --Dookama 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but common sense says the earth is flat. An individual's "common sense" can not be used as a basis of encyclopaedic articles. This may seem silly to you, but it's a fine line between "common sense" and bias. Thus, when dealing with controversial topics such as this, the best bet is only use content which can be attributed to an outside, reliable source. That means neither your nor my interpretations or experiences of events/images/activities are acceptable -- even if you and I agree that our version of reality is the "truth." The mantra is "verifiability, not truth".--Leflyman^Talk 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But google and webcite provide outside and independent verification that this content was on Wikipedia. It sounds like maybe this is more of a notability issue? Cool Hand Luke 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

END OF DISCUSSION

The folks trying to get the screenshots removed are making some of the most asinine wikilawyering arguments I have ever heard.

The screenshots are referenced to DEAD LINKS. One is right now in Google cache HERE. Now, from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They will not be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

However, The other is not in Google cache. Now again from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

End of discussion!

C.m.jones 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is easy to verify the screenshots. Just get an e-mail from someone at the Foundation who will verify them. Then we file this e-mail appropriately for others to view for all time to come. We do this with other agencies, we can do it with Wikimedia. Johntex\^talk 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, we have long-standing precedent that images have much less in the way of verifiability that is required. Otherwise we could never have users upload images of locations where they personally took the photographs (for example). Let's not wikilawyer about this. JoshuaZ 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically on the Essjay Wikia page

Hey guys... that pic was a screen I snagged when this mess all began, as I was figuring on adding some but never got around to it. It's a cropped pic of his wikia page before Angela erased it, not google cache. Please see this discussion and reply there. Basically...

(someone with historical access to the Essjay page archives on Wikia.com will need to demonstrate what license the page was under)

• Copyrighted by Wikia?
• GFDL by Essjay?
• Covered by the Wikipedia/WMF license tag?

If it's GFDL or #3, it's free to use as I understand, or it's fair use if it's Wikia's. Right? - Denny 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_copyrights, it's free to use. - Denny 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions/afd

Can we knock it off? Its just disruptive... I posted a suggestion here to the blocking policy. too much of this going on, it should be blockable. That was done just to cause trouble... - Denny 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to AGF. The article is under a different title and the previous AfD notice was very small at the time of the nom- Cool Cat may not have known about the previous discussion. In any event assuming the nom acted "just to cause trouble" is totally uncalled for... WjBscribe 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind. Given how much disruption the past week, that was uncalled of by me. Cool Cat, would you mind commenting? My apologies... - Denny 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to adress the two issues that the nominator put forward for the AfD ('notability' and 'avoid self reference'). Firstly, I think its widely established, due to the amount of media attention that the article has received, that the incident and the article is notable. Secondly, WP:SELF does not concern writing articles about Wikipedia, it is a style policy guideline, rather than a subject policy guideline. Infact, WP:SELF states that an "article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia.". I've seen alot of people state WP:SELF as an argument for deletion. To me, it would be a criteria for a rewrite of an article, but not its deletion. So, if/when the AfD does get resurrected can we try to limit the number of WP:SELF as a criteria for deletion. Malbolge 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... but I should have said "the amount of media attention that the incident that the article deals with". Malbolge 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasty archiving

Archiving comments less than 2 hours old is not acceptable, comments should be left for a number of days to ensure that the section topic is closed, SqueakBox 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most well-cited stub in all Wikipedia

I was just thinking this is prbably the most-well cited stub in all of Wikipedia. Quick, someone call Guiness Book of World Records! LOL Regards, --Jayzel 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Yorker quote

Am I the only one thinking that the actual quote, "Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught." as found in The New Yorker article that User:Jayzel68 keeps removing should stay in the article? Given the circumstances of this story I think the article'd have more credibility repeating the quote rather than interpreting it. (→Netscott) 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, listen carefully. The lead of an article is to give a brief rundown of what the article is. It is not to be used to give detailed explanations or nitty-gritty information. That is the job of the main body of the article. The main body explains the lead in a more detailed fashion. Regards, --Jayzel 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, User:QuackGuru made a decent attempt at moving away from a partial interpretation of that quote. (→Netscott) 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I readded Jordan's name because I noticed that it didn't make sense without it. --Jayzel 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured on main page

Well it was sucessfully in DYK…for a whole nine minutes.[9] —M (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I was thinking of nominating Essjay controversy as a Featured article! --Jayzel 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is certainly heavily cited... Smee 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it wouldn't pass due to stability concerns and it being listed as a current event. --Jayzel 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And what about upgrading its article quality assessment to something like "A" or "Good Article"  ? Smee 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Circular reliable sources

Gwen writes a lot of opinion. Here is one:

"It's easy, if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end."

The irony of course is that by RS we are quoting news reports which for the most part are opinion pieces rather than accurate and in depth news reports. I think I read one which ended with a note that acknowledged "at least his edits are not at issue."(pp) A number of articles have used Wikipedia talk pages as "reliable sources" - are we quoting them quoting us?

"Meanwhile one reason it's not being reported by reliable sources is because it's a trivial claim made by an individual who is already documented as, please forgive me, a liar and unreliable source as to anything having to do with himself."

This is an example of an opinion. Interestingly, its an opinion which says "we can ignore anything the actual subject of the article says."

"If nobody believes what he says, it's an unbelievable, negligable claim, a non-starter as news because it would besmirch her without a shred of evidence aside from his worthless word."

Its not ours to judge, we just report. Why should we quote Essjay in one aspect and not in another? To do so asserts some external value judgement - in this case that the statement is a "trivial claim" by a "liar and unreliable source." Note that this was not the view of Essjay just a week ago. (Where were you then?) I suggest you familiarise yourself with NPOV. -Ste|vertigo 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cover Up

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter&oldid=112644578 User:Essjay/Letter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google Archieve of Essjay/Letter page: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:t9xVi2aqwoEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter+Essjay/Letter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a Here are some fun quotes from that page: "I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials." "I expect my students to check their facts, regardless of where they originate." "Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public." Irony--"it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity." TheChosenWon 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A letter that Essjay wrote is being hidden from us. Can we comment on this in the article now or do we have to wait until we find this story in the New York Times for example. Damaging information may be in the letter. I'm sure the press will pick this up sooner or later. --QuackGuru 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article. It was a letter to a professor where he posed as a professor proclaiming the greatness of Wikipedia. There is no cover-up. Regards, --Jayzel 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Possibly, it could be more than just a letter. There may be additional information. I want to read the whole letter. Transparency by Wikipedia is important. I do not understand the reason I can't read the original letter. A quote from or a link to the letter may indeed improve the article. --QuackGuru 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny how there's actually a link from the "Primary sources" section of the article to what appears to be the letter. (→Netscott) 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just double checking. The article is up to par now. But wait. We will never know if that is the whole letter if Wikipedia does not let us take a peak at the User:Essjay/Letter page. --QuackGuru 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter. Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are precise. This is a copy of what Essjay wrote. --QuackGuru 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the letter

I understand that people may wish to add references to Essjay's letter to the article. However, it needs to be in the right place. The letter is NOT referenced in either the New Yorker article or the Editor's Note. Please do not reinsert it into the section about the New Yorker article. If you must have it, put it somewhere else. Risker 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A few sentences about the letter is fine there. Where do suggest I put it. A new section for a few sentences does not make much sense to me. I could be wrong. Any suggestions.

In the letter he wrote in part: "I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials. It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."

--QuackGuru 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, before the reference to the letter is added, we need that proverbial reliable (not WP) source again. So, hunt out a secondary source where the letter specifically is discussed, then add it into the new section I created to include reaction by other media. That keeps the New Yorker stuff together, and then separates out the response by other media. Risker 07:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter. Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC) So in fact you do believe it is an accurate reference. I quoted you as well as Essjay -- as I walk on water. --QuackGuru 08:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I said this was a copy of what he posted. Given there is reason to question at least some of the things Essjay posted, I have absolutely no idea whether this is even a real letter sent to a real professor, or if it is made up out of whole cloth. I am most certainly NOT a reliable source. You have found one secondary reference for the letter. Given all of the other coverage, let's not give this thing undue weight. Risker 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you have made entirely different comments now. You wrote >

Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter. Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So in fact you do believe it is an accurate reference. --QuackGuru 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

QG, read carefully. We know it is a copy of something Essjay posted. We don't know if this is the letter sent to the professor, or if there actually ever was a letter sent to a professor. We know he posted fabrications in other places. But, and this is the most important part....this is an article about the controversy, not about Essjay. Or the letter. The controversy is the subject. I do sympathise with the strong feelings many editors have on this subject, and that has led to some clear lack of focus in this article, which I feel needs considerable work to get back up to B-class at this particular time. Risker 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why oh why...

Does this article have such an enormous section on Wikipedia at the start? Its not necessary - if people want to learn about Wikipedia they can click on Wikipedia (duh) Glen 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called CONTEXT. C.m.jones 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to prior version, the one written by C.m.jones was very POV and sensationalistic. Although nicely written. Risker 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job - much much much better Glen 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Major problems with article rewrite

With all respect to the effort c.m. obviously put into his rewrite[10] of the article, it has numerous flaws that make it an unacceptable alternative to the current article[11]. It bears no in-line citations, which is my key concern. These are absolutely vital in this article to prevent creeping Original Research and under no circumstances should be moved away from on such a volatile page. A harsh demand for citations on every substantial claim is all that stands between this page and the people who wish to turn it into an attack piece. And speaking of WP:NOR, it's full of it. The very first sentence makes the unsupported claim that this is Wikipedia's most reported scandal, and it only gets worse from there. Even the stuff that is cited is impossible to tell from the uncited content due to the non-inline system chosen. I require sleep at this point, so I won't be able to work on or discuss this any more tonight, but please c.m., at the very least go back to the inline citation system and clean the possibly true but unattributable statements out of the intro. --tjstrf talk 09:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not averse to reincorporating inlines, although they are NOT required in any policy. C.m.jones 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar point here - the current version (linked above) is much preferable IMO Glen 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But please cease, whoever, with claims of OR. I have no other way to know info about this than any one else! C.m.jones 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No one was accusing you or OR, rather, making the point that without the citations inline it is very hard to determine what is verified and what is OR. Glen 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To reply to your edit summary, I'm not waiting half a day. For the reasons outlined above, I don't want anyone to read that version. If this article is being viewed as much as I'd guess, in that half a day we would have given a couple thousand people the wrong idea about what happened (your writing was highly sensationalist in tone) and opened ourselves to hundreds of potentially destructive attack edits that could not be easily disproven due to the referencing style you chose. --tjstrf talk 09:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that I must agree with tjstrf. This version is very sensationalistic, and it reads like a newspaper article, not an encyclopedia article. The language is flowery and unencyclopedic. There is also undue weight given to many sections, particularly the lengthy history of Wikipedia and the attention given to Larry Sanger. This article is intended to be about a very specific episode, and should focus entirely on that episode. I think we need to revert to the factual version with inline cites that, yes, definitely still needs work. Risker 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

News Articles

Resolved

At the time of writing this entry the article is protected and I am now leaving my computer, would an editor please copy and paste the following news articles, when the protection comes off. thank you Arcticdawg 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Morphy, Erika (March 7 2007). "Phony Prof Triggers Wikipedia Uproar". Tech News World. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Staff (March 8 2007). "Fount of all wisdom - and foolery". Telegraph.co.uk. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Vallis, Mary (March 8 2007). "Editor scandal rocks Wikipedia". National Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Done. You can also use the {{editprotected}} tag to make such requests. -- Avi 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

please add this

zh:埃斯傑事件,thank you.--Iflwlou 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this, I assume this is not controversial, so I added it despite the protection. If it was controversial, you can revert(or ask me to revert if you are not an admin). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Essjay also wrote a letter to a real world professor"

Does evidence exist that Essjay actually sent the letter to an actual professor? I do not trust Essjay's statements at face value, so "Essjay claimed he sent..." may be appropriate pending verification. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page accordingly. I trust that this is noncontroversial and unrelated to the edit war that provoked page protection. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjays talk page history

I would appriciate any comments about the removal of the links to history on Essjay talk page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Essjay Talk page History - Regards - Munta 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think this question belongs here- not related to the editing of the article. I believe the matter is already being discussed at WP:ANI? WjBscribe 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know - thats why I included the link to let people know it was being discussed :) - Regards - Munta 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is his block log relevant?

Quack Guru feels we should add in the fact that Essjay is not "indefinetly blocked", using his block log as the source. Is this relevant to the article? I do not think so, but I don't want to get into an edit war over this. I believe this is both a non-neutral statement and also original research. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Risker 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At this time, Essjay's account has not been indefinetly blocked.

This is a fact. The confirmed liar can come out of retirement and start editing at anytime. This is extremely relevant. --QuackGuru 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only relevant if a reliable third party source referred it it, then only their interpretations is relevant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Omit. Not only is it irrelevant and a self-reference, but Quack's being highly POV about it both in motive (as he just showed above) and in phrasing. --tjstrf talk 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as is, it's utter SR. Gwen Gale 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If and when he returns then it will become even more relevant. People are allowed to lie on Wikipedia and continue to edit here. There is no policy against confirmed liars. --QuackGuru 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Last I checked we also didn't have rules against edits by shoplifters, adulterers, drug dealers, or cannibalistic murderers. What's your point? --tjstrf talk 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Omit - not being indef blocked is the default state for an account. Should we mention other default states of his account, such as being able to edit semiprotected pages and so on? I don't think so. If he had been blocked or banned at all, it would be worth enumerating as another of the negative consequences attendant upon him. --Gwern (contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for further discussion. QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been keen to enter OR into this article and this is just another example of it. (→Netscott) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is independent research so it is useful to editors in making choices about the article but it can not be used in the article unless a reliable published source says it. WAS 4.250 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User "Essjay"'s account should be banned, and the IP(s) that can be verified that were used by that account should be placed on sockpuppet watch. This user had violated in a much more serious way that surely many others. Deception was used to "settle" edit disputes. As a new user of Wikipedia who has come here as a direct result of reading about this controversy, I am shocked that this user can resume editing at anytime, and can also create new accounts without them being held accountable by IP tracing to the Essjay account. I'm interested in biographies, and also am wonder how many "incidents" in one's life warrant a biography vs. a separate "controversy". Using this rationale, Patty Hearst and other one-hit wonders would be "controveries" and not qualify for a biographical entry. Piperdown 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me to say this.... 'Jordan chose to leave the site of his own accord, and his account has not been blocked'. Incidentally, are there any rules under which he can be banned? If there are, surely somebody should start that discussion? Nssdfdsfds 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Guardian coverage

The Guardian has been slow to give this coverage, but today has Read me first | New media| MediaGuardian.co.uk Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive, Seth Finkelstein, Thursday March 8, 2007. This gives some thought to the social dynamic of Wikipedia, commenting that "The lifeblood of Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic.... And "Essjay" - Ryan Jordan - was that dream's poster child." and that "One of Wikipedia's major public relations successes has been in misdirecting observers into a narrative of technological miracles, diverting attention from analysing its old-fashioned cult appeal. While I don't mean to imply that everyone involved in Wikipedia is wrapped up in delusion, that process is a key factor." These seem to me to encapsulate the MUD analogy that has been raised in various discussions here. Lest we get too gloomy, the issue was mentioned in passing in Students marked on writing in Wikipedia, Donald MacLeod, Wednesday March 7, 2007, which reports that "Wikipedia... has been made compulsory reading (and writing) for a new course at the University of East Anglia... Nicola Pratt, a lecturer in international relations, ... is now convinced it can be a great opportunity for students to see at first hand how knowledge is produced.", and "is undeterred by the revelation this week". On the same day Something wiki this way comes discussed the :Middlebury College ban" without mentioning Essjay, and pre-controversy, Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales of Nov 2006 quotes Wales as an 'anti-credentialist'. In my opinion the first two articles should be linked here, and given a brief mention which I'll try to add asap. ... dave souza, talk 11:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dave souza, the Guardian article was being used as a reference already (Reference #8). I don't see anything from the second one; perhaps we can change headline currently titled "Reaction from other media sources" to "Reaction from outside of Wikipedia" or something to that effect. Nice find, btw. Risker 11:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies for not noticing that: would it not be a good idea to list all the sources in the News sources section so that they're easier to find and relate to sequence? Of course it either means some duplication, or changing to Harvard referencing (ducks), but in my opinion the sequence of the NYT coverage was quite a crucial part of the shift from internet phenomenon to mainstream news. Couple of points: the Grauniad piece appeared in the TechnologyGuardian Thursday supplement as an opinion piece with a pic of Seth showing his dramatic beard, rather than in the main paper, and is datelined Thurs 8th and not the 7th when it presumably was retrieved from Guardian Unlimited, perhaps a time zone artefact. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Damage to Wikipedia, and Damage control BY Wikipedia

Wikipedia has to be very careful here in appearing apologetic and sad but angry at this betrayal by Essjay. As much as some of you might be friends with him, he has done significant damage through his lies.

You need to give up protecting him and simply report his lies and report what damage he has done, as well as what is being done to avoid future betrayals of the Wikipedia concept.

Protecting and making it seem like he did nothing wrong is only further harming Wikipedia's credibility. Berym 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Berym, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. What the editors here are doing is trying to write a high quality encyclopedia entry about a specific incident, meeting all of the standards we have here at Wikipedia. This is not an apology page OR an attack page - or at least it shouldn't be. The protection is on right now because an edit war developed between two versions of this article, and the issue has since been discussed on this page. I believe the forum you are looking for is WP:CN or possibly WP:VP.Risker 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for the article itself, of course. I was more referring to the comments page :) Sorry, new here... I should have clarified. -- Berym 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Resolved

We now have 5 editors (at least) edit warring on this article. Discuss it here please. I started warning you individually but it seems more and more of you are jumping in. As such, I've fully protected the article (no doubt, on m:The Wrong Version). Again, sort this out here Glen 10:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of The Wrong Version, Quack just gave a faulty edit summary and reinserted that out of context POV letter quote again...[12] Nothing we can do about that right now until it's unprotected, of course, but I find it ironic given the "Do not act like Essjay" summary he wrote earlier when someone removed the quote[13] and how adamant he's been about condemning the unethical practice of lying on Wikipedia. --tjstrf talk 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving along to the subject of this thread....

This version of the article is an exceeding improvement over the version currently locked.

Strengths:

• A compelling Introduction. The prior version, the one now showing, did not even have a real one!
• Excellent background information. The info is essential to understand for the reader not already long-acquainted with Wikipedia. For those of us already acquainted, it may seem superfluous, but it is nothing of the sort. Journalistic articles often take up a story in the middle somewhere. Encyclopedias should not.
• It reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a loose collection of snippets of the news.
• It provides a superior article structure. See comment just above.
• It clearly makes this article one about Wikipedia. Because this controversy is! It never was (or should have been) a biography. With the article about Wikipedia, it makes available sources required to craft this into a full, compelling narrative without gaps.
• It does the above without going beyond the references cited. It contains no original research, something impossible for me to even do since I am limited to gaining knowledge of this from the very same sources everyone else is.

Weakness:

• It could stand having inline citations re-incorporated. Once the version is restored, it may be quickly done collaboratively. If you cannot cite something from your knowledge of the sources, place the cite tag since someone else probably can.

C.m.jones

Please unprotect, I want to add some information... Arcticdawg 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that version is better. It seems to hostile to Essjay and really, we do not need that much information about wikipedia at the beginning. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused about why Larry Sanger is so extensively quoted and referred to in the proposed version. Yes, I know the history. That doesn't mean his personal opinion, with extensive quotes from a blog (!) are any more significant than that of any other former Wikipedian's. As well, the language is really excessive. The opening paragraph:

The Essjay controversy is among the most publicized controversies about Wikipedia to date. It began in early 2007 when it became known that a prominent English Wikipedia editor, administrator and short-lived Wikia employee going by "Essjay" had lied about his age, background, and academic and professional credentials to Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Stacy Schiff during an interview she conducted for The New Yorker magazine for an article about Wikipedia. The public revelation of Essjay's deception, along with the flurry and breadth of media coverage that soon followed, spurred public debate about Wikipedia like none prior. Critics decried the incident as evidence of their concerns about Wikipedia's accuracy, article-creation system, non-vetting of its contributors and administrative personnel, and even the legitimacy of the Wikipedia project as a whole. Wikipedia itself went into a shocked phase of introspection over numerous of the very same issues, which as yet remain without closure.

What I would edit to:

The Essjay controversy is among the most publicized controversies about Wikipedia to date. It began in early 2007 when it became known that a prominent English Wikipedia editor, administrator and short-lived Wikia employee going by "Essjay" had lied about his age, background, and academic and professional credentials to Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Stacy Schiff during an interview she conducted for The New Yorker magazine for an article about Wikipedia. The public revelation of Essjay's deception, along with the flurry and breadth of media coverage that soon followed, spurred public debate about Wikipedia like none prior. Critics decried pointed to the incident as evidence of their concerns about Wikipedia's accuracy, article-creation system, non-vetting of its contributors and administrative personnel, and even the legitimacy of the Wikipedia project as a whole. The Wikipedia community itself went into a shocked phase of introspection over numerous many of the very same issues, which as yet remain without closure.

I agree that the prior version requires work, please do not misunderstand me, and the opening paragraph gave me quite some concern. Can people live with this re-edited version of the opening paragraph? Risker 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start he was not, at the time, "a short-lived Wikia employee". He was a recently-appointed Wikia employee, no doubt. There are other problems with it. E.g. there is just too much interpretation and resort to cliched phrases when we talk about a period of introspection, issues remaining without closure, etc. It is true that many of us are discussing it, but there are literally millions of users who are not obviously introspecting at all, and it is not even clear what issues need to be "closed" at this stage. Let's just state the undisputed or well-sourced facts in objective, neutral language, rather than adopting journalistic cliches. Metamagician3000 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with User:C.m.jones's version. Too much editorializing and original research not to mention the fact that if removes so many inline cites. Essentially User:C.m.jones's version undoes the work of numerous editors and is a massive change that is perfectly normal to see other editors reverting. We're supposed to be bold but not reckless, User:C.m.jones' edits are the latter. If that version comes back I'll be one of the editors reverting it out. (→Netscott) 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. User:C.m.jones' edits have been wantonly PoV, have not been sourced under WP policy and have contained bits of original research and blatant editorializing. User:C.m.jones might want to take his version to a blog? Gwen Gale 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: It appears there isn't really much dispute here after all - the consensus here on the talk page is that the User:C.m.jones revision is not suitable. However, the article as it exists right now is nowhere near the quality standard we need for a page that is no doubt getting tons of hits. Suggestions on how to proceed? Risker 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect and let the article evolve as it will? If anyone breaks that... 3RR or whatever, deal with it then. --Dookama 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been protected long enough and eseveral proposed changes have queued up below that should be dealt with. Dookama, the policy's at WP:3RR. It says you can't make the same revert more than 3 times in a day or you get a (usually 24 hour) block. --tjstrf talk 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus here, not even slightly remotely and in the tiniest minute way. We have 3 users who say no and two who say yes. As I said before, the only way to get input is to leave the article up for half of a day. I do intend to revert to give it a chance in these regards. Two or three editors have no right whatsover to hijack an article revision. A fair course of allowing editors to actually view it widely - on the article page as an article - is how real consensus can be obtained. C.m.jones 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, maybe you're not familiar with Wikipedia policy but if you're making drastic changes like you're attempting to do here then you've got to have consensus for them. This obviously you do not have. Let's drop this line and move on now. (→Netscott) 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to read what I just said rather than snowballing. C.m.jones 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation: Do like most good editor's do and propose your so far non-consensus changes here on the talk page and build a consensus for them. Then once you've established a consensus, institute them. It is not very good form to be holding the article hostage as you are while trying to implement a new version that has 0 consensus. (→Netscott) 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation: Do like most good editor's do and propose your so far non-consensus current article here on the talk page and build a consensus for it. Then once you've established a consensus, institute them. It is not very good form to be holding the article hostage as you are while trying to prevent a new version that has not had chance to build consensus. C.m.jones 01:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response is laughable, as an article matures I would argue that it inherently becomes a consensus version. Your edits are not of an "evolutionary" type and so this is mainly why you're encountering the resistance you are. Again your version undoes the work of numerous editors. It's normal that those editors aren't going to agree with such an undoing. (→Netscott) 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Netscott's position. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, six editors have written on this talk page that they do not agree with your proposed revision. The article has been protected for 14+ hours now. I've proposed a third option here [14], which may not be any more successful at reaching consensus, but it does seem that it is time to move on. Consensus has to be built for proposed changes, not for existing articles. Risker 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree inline citations are better, yet this version of the text of this article is a vast, VAST improvement over the version currently showing. The text does not seem to go beyond the available sources - and believe me, I have followed this mess extremely closely since it began. Certainly nothing in the text appears made up. It already provides an improved structure. CyberAnth 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me out please, CyberAnth and C.m.jones - I cannot get past feeling the extensive sections on Wikipedia and Larry Sanger's comments are unhelpful at best. Taking those out, and removing the verbal excess, leaves us with less of an article than we have now, as far as I can see. Risker 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: This article absolutely must have inline citation as well. Perhaps one of you could work up this proposed change with the inline citations so that we would all be clear exactly why you feel there is no hyperbole in the proposed version. Risker 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression C.m.jones and CyberAnth will continue to edit war if I (or another admin) unprotects. Yet, this has been protected long enough. If the edit warring continues I will not hesitate in reprotecting and issuing 3RR block(s) for disruption. I suggest a consensus reached here before any drastic changes are made. It seems Risker has proposed somewhat of a compromise - perhaps this is a good starting point. Unprotecting now Glen 04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials versus reliable sources

Resolved

It's interesting to see that many have criticized wikipedia for relying on reliable sources and not credentials and now they attack wikipedia because of the possible influence of false credentials by Essjay. Editors should have ignored any credentials and accepted only contributions that were reliably and properly sourced. This way Essjay could have said he was Stephen Hawking while he was only a 11 year-old boy and still his properly cited contributions would have been perfectly acceptable, while his unsourced claims based solely on his credentials (even though he was Stephen Hawking ;-) should have been dismissed as POV. I don't know why this issue was so harmful to wikipedia. It's all about politics and people who are afraid of freedom of speech and free content. People who want to control everything are afraid of wikipedia. As an example:

“ "It's another very good reason not to trust editorless media," added Mr. Andrew Keen, author of the upcoming book, Cult of the Amateur, which examines how such participatory Web sites threaten U.S. values and the economy. ”

[15]

He is afraid of lack of control of people's thoughts, and he also wants to earn a few bucks promoting his devious book against freedom. How I would like to know George Orwell thoughts on this subject. Regards Loudenvier 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is not for personal opinions on the article subject itself, but rather discussion of how to improve the article. Though you make a good point at the beginning. --tjstrf talk 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your point is rather excellent. The Essjay controversy isnt so much about one user, but about criticism of Wikipedia. That criticism might focus on certain aspects like policy, process, or article quality, but in the end its largely aimed at attacking Wikipedia and even open culture as a whole. -Ste|vertigo 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CNN

Resolved

Can someone please add this to the media list? thanks! - Denny 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/08/wikipedia.credentials.ap/index.html

Done. -- Avi 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a new article -- it's the syndicated AP news report already listed from the previous day. There are multiple places it has appeared--Leflyman^Talk 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• • What we really need is to have someone go through and prune the lists, IMO. Even better, switch to Harvard referencing and then leave off the laundry list of links, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NPR

Here is an interview with Jimmy Wales about this issue on NPR today:

• http://www.wamu.org/programs/kn/07/03/08.php#13100

Add it if you think it is worthwhile. --Filll 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The interview was with the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU from American University in DC, with Matthew Belling (sp?).

It's not a bad 15-minute interview, over all. Here is the opening volley, which might fill in some content in the article (transcribed by me):

“ WAMU: "...The New Yorker quoted you as saying that you regard Ryan Jordan's persona as a pseudonym, that quote, you don't really have a problem with it; but Jordan has since been dismissed, both from his role at Wikipedia, and from his job at Wikia, your business. What caused you to change your mind there?"

Wales: "Well, basically what happened was I made a pretty bad error of judgment in the first case, and didn't really investigate very closely what had been going on, and I really misunderstood the issue. So as soon as I understood what was going on, including that he had been claiming his credentials in arguments in Wikipedia to try to win debates, it really changed my perspective on the whole thing.

”

--Leflyman^Talk 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another quote (time at 8:20/23:30) from the same interview, that might be pertinent (transcribed by me):

“ Wales:...In this particular case, the problem wasn't his anonymity, it was the anonymity coupled with the deception. If he had simply said, "I prefer to remain anonymous. I'm not going to tell you who I am, I'm just going to do my edit", he would have been just as respected in the community under his pseudonym of Essjay, and that's really no problem. You know, that if people want to conceal their identities that isn't really where the problem arose. The problem arose with the dishonesty involved in the false credentials and using those on the site. ”

--Kavri 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure of article after protection removed

I'm not convinced we are ready to move on from the current protected status without having some idea of the direction that we want to go in. The routine free-for-all editing to date has resulted in an article with a lot of good information, but it is disjointed and disorganized, and there are still POV and appropriate weighting issues. I propose that we work toward restructuring the article as follows:

• Opening paragraph - keep it short, two or three sentences maximum. Most of the info about the New Yorker should be moved to the section specifically discussing the New Yorker. Propose that limited _{sorry, typo Risker 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)}
• New Yorker Interview and Editor's Note - current contents, reworked to include info moved from current opening section. Must have full in-line citations for every statement. This is the heart of the article.
• Reaction to controversy - I suggest we divide this into three classes
  • News media
  • Educational and other institutions
  • Wikipedia

Now that there are dozens of news stories about this, care has to be taken in selecting citations and sources for this section. We should avoid blog or editorial-style articles where possible, unless the author can be demonstrated to be an expert in the field.

• See Also - include more internal links to general information about Wikipedia; C.m.jones may have a point about the new reader who may not really know what WP is.
• References (as per standard format)
• News Sources - the number of sources is too long to list now. Any more experienced editors know if we can have this list as a subpage of the article? Otherwise, suggest that we might need to start a new article listing just the articles.
• Primary sources - should only include sources used in the article.

Is this a framework that we can agree on? Can we proceed with this? Risker 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your framework. This will gut the article against established consensus. I do agree with the Reaction to controversy section though. I suggest to take it one step at a time rather than to face lift the article. QuackGuru ^TALK 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it a lot, when dealing with biographies of living people it is essential to stick the the facts, and keep it simple. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, QuackGuru and HighInBC. Most of this proposal is a rearrangement of current content. By now it would be easy to find over 100 media references to this controversy; I am particularly curious what ideas people have to keeping this list manageable without making the article "bottom heavy" or skewing the results. Risker 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is, IMHO. It is exactly the right length for a lead to what will end up being a substantial article. It also states the main facts in clear, objective language. It is a good summary of what should be elaborated in the body of the article. When the dust has cleared, we should add one sentence to the end of the lead stating what impact the controversy had, e.g. "The English Wikipedia subsequently introduced such and such action to reduce the possibility of similar occurrences." However, it would be premature to say anything like that now. Await an outcome and a subsequent announcement in a reliable source. Metamagician3000 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to list media coverage any more than we'd list every media story about, say, a political scandal. If we just want to make the point that there's been a lot of media coverage we don't do our own survey to prove the point - that is original research. We find a reliable source that already makes that point. If it has not been said somewhere reliable it doesn't go in the article. Without being silly and putting in things we actually know to be wrong (and there's plenty of that in news reports), we are only here to synthesise what has already been said about this controversy, not to create an original interpretation of it. Metamagician3000 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Restricting the sources to those that support the article text, with perhaps a sentence of the form "The story was carried by the AP, CNN, UK Times…" to show its widespreadness, would be sufficient. The laundry list that is there now is overkill. -- Avi 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The current structure

Is this...

   * Lead section
   * 1 New Yorker interview
   * 2 Reaction to controversy
         o 2.1 News media
         o 2.2 Educational and other institutions
         o 2.3 Wikipedia
   * 3 Fallout from the controversy
   * 4 Essjay's response
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 News sources
         o 7.1 Audio and video
   * 8 Primary sources
         o 8.1 Essjay's userpage images

What exactly is wrong with that? all it needs is a lawn mowering later of 7-8 somewhat. I wouldn't object to the comprehensive list being moved to a sub page that we can link from here for research purposes or whatever, for people to build the article off if there is good information in some (no one just delete it please). But that structure is good. Chronological, sequential, easy to follow. Why change it? - Denny 05:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of articles related to Essjay

I suggest to create a new article ASAP called the List of articles related to Essjay. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to create a new article called List of things that Essjay lied about 67.70.70.58 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How about no and no. Neither is useful or necessary. JoshuaZ 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

exactly. stuff that is in article space that directly relates to him/the scandal would go under "See also" if not already linked in the text... - Denny 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"One Step At A Time."

What is the next course of action? Any suggestions? QuackGuru ^TALK 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two degrees?

Resolved

According to the Wolfson article, Essjay had two doctorates. According to the initial article, it was a doctorate in theology and a degree in canon law. I believe his old webpage said the same. Although we can (and I have) sourced the two doctorate claim, since it is more likely that the wolfson article is in error, unless all canon law degrees are doctoral, perhaps we should just write "two degrees" and leave out the doctorate? Just because we cannot put in original research, even if we know it to be true, should not mean we are FORCED to put in sourced information that we know may be false. Then again, attributability, not truth, is our motto, so I'd like to hear some comments from y'all. Thanks. -- Avi 05:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to accuracy I think WP:BLP trumps WP:ATT. (→Netscott) 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Does "living person" apply to someone who can not be proven to be living? (SEWilco 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Ryan lives, and can his relationship to Essjay has been properly attributed. He should be treated with the same courtesy we give to everyone, his deceptions notwithstanding. Having lost his good name and positions in wikipedia, and his job in wikia, should be more than enough. There is no need for him to be further pilloried by wikipedians, at least, that's my opinion. -- Avi 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have enough information to know when he is no longer living, or does his BLP status extend forever? (SEWilco 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

How about we worry about that in, let's say, six months . I think his biologically-active status at current is not a matter of debate. We should all live so long that we have to worry about the death by natural causes of a 24 year old :) -- Avi 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Set aside, assumed to still be living. May be reconsidered in future situations when WP:BLP is invoked as relevant. (SEWilco 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Essjay claimed two doctorates (actually four, including the two honorary degrees).[16] -Will Beback · † · 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Avi 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retitle? 'Fallout from the controversy'

Resolved

A small suggestion, but I think "Reaction to the controversy" or "Issues resulting from the controversy" might be more NPOV. To me, "fallout" seems to fit with those media outlets that go overboard in calling the controversy a 'scandal'. Kavri 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, would the following quote from the NPR interview with Jim Wales, cited above, be useful in this section?

(transcribed by me, time on clip is at 15:10/23:30)

“ Wales: ...but I think it will be a little while before we really settle in on a policy its a, the way we operate, its a community website and the community really discusses things and thinks about them. We don't really do a whole lot by top down decree or decision, it's really a matter of finding consensus. ”

--Kavri 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Kavri. The current "fallout" section can be merged with the "Wikipedia" subsection of the "Reaction to Controversy" section that now exists. That quote seems to fit in well. (I'll confess to discouraging deficiencies in my knowledge of wiki-markup and permit someone who is more fluent in it to insert this.) Risker 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I have organized each, separate and different section with respect to Reaction to controversy and *Outcome from the controversy. *Note the title change. Further, I have incorporated the "Mr. Wales quote" too. QuackGuru ^TALK 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand the relevance of Jimbo's quote - it makes no sense there. For example, he's referring to a policy, but no background as to what policy he's even talking about? Glen 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See the section on this talk page called Proposed changes to Wikipedia as a result. WAS 4.250 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean within the context of the article - it seems disjointed Glen 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Implications

Is there merit in an implications section? Many of his bans may now have to be reviewed in the interest of fairness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.221.157 (talk • contribs) 9 March, 2007.

Huh? What, you mean you think any blocks Essjay issued need to be reviewed? Gimme a break. His "lie(s)" had zero affect on his absolutely stellar administrative actions. Glen 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two things to say. I can tell you Essjay made his mistakes as an admin but these IMO seem to have been unrelated to his MUDdy CV. Meanwhile, the question itself deals with rather wee and internal stuff, it's not encyclopedic at all (unless evidence of widespread and looming abuse by Essjay emerges, for which there is no hint so far). Gwen Gale 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

more comments by Wales today

"We're not happy about it," he said. "To discover that someone had been deceiving the community for a long time really was a bit of a blow to our trust. Wikipedia is built on the idea of trusting other people and people being honest and we find that in the most part everyone is, so it was a real disappointment."

"I didn't think it was all that important because I didn't realize he was relying on credentials as a professor," he said. "He treated it really as a bit of a joke and the actual credentials he claimed were a bit ludicrous. After the fact you can look back and say, 'Well that was a bit odd,' but I never really looked into it and that was the big mistake that I made in the whole process."

"My view is when he first came on the site he made up this persona not really thinking very much about it and not realizing he was going to become very active and respected in the community and then I think he felt a bit trapped," he said. "I talked to him the other day and of course he's not very happy about all of the press coverage. One doesn't want to become famous for something like this but he feels a bit relieved that it's all over so I'm hoping the world will let him grow up in peace and he'll be successful in life."

Read it here. Truth be told I agree with Wales about how it happened, Essjay got stuck in the MUD. Gwen Gale 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns

Essjay is not notable. This article belongs maybe on wikinews, but not wikipedia. 64.236.245.243 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed in several places (eg. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Essjay controversy). There is no concensus on this point. In my opinion, it amounts to a Catch 22 situation. If we have an article, its self-referential and overfocuses on current news rather than being particularly encyclopedic. If we don't have an article, it will be suggested that Wikipedians wish to cover up the circumstances that lead to Essjay's retirement. For now, the best option seems to be to ensure that this article meets WP:NPOV.... WjBscribe 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic has been heavily covered by news outlets worldwide, Wikipedia is notable and this scandal (Jimbo's word for it by the bye) is notable. The article is thoroughly sourced and has already survived an AfD. Essjay may not be notable but the controversy is, hence the article's title. Gwen Gale 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again my original points stands. This article has NO place in an encyclopedia. It's not notable enough. It belongs on a news site, wikinews is fine, but not here. As for the "cover up" reasoning, I see it another way. I see it as glorifying what essjay did, and encouraging others to act the same way. He gains publicity for doing something wrong. I don't think we should encourage that. In any case this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. 64.236.245.243 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia operates by consensus and there is certainly no consensus to delete this article. WjBscribe 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki deletion is NOT a popular vote. 64.236.245.243 16:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is not, and WJBscribe said exactly how it operates — by consensus. You have yet to explain how the article "is not appropriate for an encyclopedia." —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Using phrases like Article must be deleted will make it appear like you are trolling. This has been discussed many times before. If you feel the article should be deleted then you may raise an AfD. Note however, that the last AfDs were in favor of keeping the article. Munta 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your problem. I can't be held responsible for the way you percieve statements. The article must be deleted. That's my opinion. I can dress it up and say, "article's authenticity in question", but in the end, it's saying the same thing. Don't complain about the way the topic is phrased, discuss the matter at hand. 64.236.245.243 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Attitude and presentation have a major impact on interpretation. If it is your opinion and not a statement of fact then you should say, "in my opinion, blah blah blah". Also, the dictatorial tone you take in speaking to others greatly undermines any valid points you may have. --StuffOfInterest 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Facts come before your sensitive emotions. 64.236.245.243 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How is recording what he did glorifying it? Are we glorifying dictators by giving them their own articles? -- Zanimum 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While Essjay/Ryan Jordan may not be notable, what he did has had an effect on the perception of a very notable subject. As this article discusses the impact, and is not Jordan himself, it seems to be valid as a topic. I agree with WjB, it's best to just make this article the best that we can, and re-evalutate it at a later date. -- Zanimum 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dictators tend to be infamous already. Essjay was just a kid on the net. I actually talked to him on AIM once, can I cite that convo and what he said on this article? It's ridiculous. This is a news story, but not an encyclopedia entry, there's a BIG difference. You will NOT find Essjay in a printed encyclopedia. In 10 years no one will care about him, or this incident. Article must be deleted. 64.236.245.243 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's speculation. Meanwhile you can't cite a personal conversation you had with him unless you get it published in a reliable source. Gwen Gale 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

*slaps forehead* Look up sarcasm please. 64.236.245.243 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok :) Meanwhile have a shufti at WP:OR. Gwen Gale 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That ruling has nothing to do with this dicussion. Original research deals with adding information to articles. It is completely irrelevant to discussions on deleting articles. 64.236.245.243 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You were right when you said your AIM discussion wouldn't be included in the article, you're mistaken as to why. Gwen Gale 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, then. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That ruling has nothing to do with what we are talking about. That ruling simply deals with the infinite nature of the net and the number of topics wiki can cover. My point was, a printed encyclopedia would never cover this topic because it's not encyclopedic, nor notable. 64.236.245.243 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it true? Can you support your assertion with a verifiable citation from a reliable source? Gwen Gale 16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, you are badly confused as to what we cite. I have to cite stuff that I try to include on an article. I don't have to cite words that I say on a talk page because I want it deleted. I'm the exclusionist. You are the inclusionist. I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove that this is somehow notable. Oh and don't revert my AFD on the main page. Munta suggested that I nominate this for deletion. I'm going by that advice. 64.236.245.243 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, how many times is this going to be nominated for deletion? ElinorD (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Twice. Once closed and once speedy closed. He keeps trying to point back to the one which was speedy closed. Next time he does it will probably be a 3RR or just plain vandalism. --StuffOfInterest 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by Munta's advice. I don't know how to make a new AFD, this one just keeps directing to the old one. 64.236.245.243 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The software only allows signed in editors to create new pages, which is necessary for a new AfD discussion to take place. WjBscribe 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, what makes you think the result will be any different that the other two AfD discussions closed in the last few days? --StuffOfInterest 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please AFD this article for me? Thanks in advance. 64.236.245.243 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would love to - but I think the article should stay - paerhaps you would like to register on Wikipedia and do it yourself Munta 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't let me. Much appreciation to whoever AFD's this. 64.236.245.243 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor has already violated WP:3RR and should be prevented from further disruption (regardless of editing under username or an IP address). (→Netscott) 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? When? If I did, it was an honest mistake, I can assure you. 64.236.245.243 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, this article can't be AfD'd so soon again. Gwen Gale 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? How about in a week? 64.236.245.243 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I've brought up running new AfDs on articles after months have passed and been blown off. Once they stick... they stick. Gwen Gale 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR vio as follows: previous version reverted to

• rv1
• rv2
• rv3
• rv4

I'd recommend blocking to any non-involved admin. (→Netscott) 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd concur, but unfortunately I'm involved having undone his revert once. Best to put a report on WP:AN/3RR, but I see there is a backlog there. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I only see 3 reverts. You can't count the first time I posted the AFD. Besides I was just going on Munta's advice, so I took the reverts as vandalism. The rules do say I should watch the page for vandalism does it not? Not after the 3rd revert did someone mention that the afd was directing to the old afd so it wasn't working. An honest mistake IMO. 64.236.245.243 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You've indeed broken 3rr, all of those count as rvs back to the other anon's edit. Chill, is all. Please. Thanks :) Gwen Gale 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have, but I don't think you should be mocking me. I reported you for blanking, but I didn't rub it in your face right? 64.236.245.243 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and you were told to stay away from me and brush up on a couple of WP policies. Meanwhile I'm not the grass here am I 'n this wee tidbit along with everything else could get you blocked for personal attacks and trolling but hey, who's keepin' track? Gwen Gale 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's response

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that all references used have to be from external and reliable sources (see discussion above - "Essjays accusation of unethical journalistic practices perpetrated by Stacy Schiff"). The quote used in the Essjays response section is taken from Essjays User Talk page history (which is not an external source) which is referenced at the bottom of the article. My question therefore is, should this be kept? And, if the answer to this is Yes, then should something about Essjays accusations towards Schiff also be mentioned, as those accusations were made in the same source. That is, if we include the verifiable quote from Essjay apologising for the incident, should we not also include the verifiable quote by Essjay accusing Schiff of unethical journalistic practices in relation to the article? Malbolge 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the justification is that quoting Essjay's apology is a proper use of primary sourcing since it is verifiable that he said that, it is significant and has earned news coverage, and the quote can be given without editorializing. The allegations towards Schiff have not been covered in the media to my knowledge. So including them would be undue weight because the media weight for Schiff allegations is 0. --tjstrf talk 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The compensation allegation has been discussed at length on this page. Here's what I said about it yesterday. Oh and this too, which addresses citing it. Gwen Gale 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to harp on about this... I'm just trying to understand the policy for what can and can not be used as a reliable source. In previous discussion it has been said that Essjays user talk page is not a reliable source... "if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end" where the exact words. Now... Essjays talk page are not 'a verifiable, published secondary source', in relation to the accusations of unethical practices. But what makes them a verifiable and reliable source for Essjays apology? If one source makes two claims, are those two claims not both equally verifiable? Malbolge 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"If one source makes two claims, are those two claims not both equally verifiable?"

No. The impact of the claim, as well as the relevance to the subject, have effects here as well. The burden of evidence for Wikipedia to report there being unethical practices conducted by a journalist, or even the allegation of such practices, especially when it is both very minor to the article subject and when no news story has picked up on it, is much higher than that for uninterpreted quotes that are on public record and highly relevant to the situation at hand. --tjstrf talk 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's response and apologies is a well known and documented fact. Its all over the news, press, and on TV for goodness sake. QuackGuru ^TALK 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is true that just like the rest of the content get a citation for it from a reliable source. It is wrong to have a cross namespace link to his on wiki response. (→Netscott) 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did. Read the additional reference from an outside source. No wikilawering please. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A message appearing in the comments area of a newspaper story does not a reliable source make. Get your act together QuackGuru or stop trying to reintroduce this content. (→Netscott) 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I read that other source and didn't see a trace of Essjay's apology. Am I blind then? Could be, it's late. Was the reference misplaced? Please do find an independent source for this, I've seen some flash by in my wanderings and we can put it in straight off. This isn't wikilawyering, it's being keen about implementing helpful WP policy for reasons nobody has to go on about. Gwen Gale 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire page from this reference. http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/10241/53/ It is an exact quote. I said no wikilawering. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh you mean this part:

Have your say! Get a WireTalker account to add your comments to this article.
Login now to add your comment.

Comments
Essjay's Response Soon After The Contro
Written by News Reporter on 2007-03-09 16:20:28

Followed by Essjay's apology? Again that is not a reliable source. Get your act together. (→Netscott) 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'k, AGFin or whatever here, closest I can find to an independent source for his apology is this but... it's a ZDnet blog and IMO does not cut it. Gwen Gale 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. That's not a personal blog and the writer is under the auspices of ZDNet so really there shouldn't be any problems on the passability of that blog as a source. Well done on your part Gwen Gale. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, any kind of editorial control by a reliable publisher should be enough here to support a quote which in itself is uncontroversially known to have appeared on WP ('n as I said, it's gettin late for me). Gwen Gale 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling change

Resolved

I have reverted a change "honourable"->"honorable". Although the editor's rationale (US English for US topics) is perfectly logical, this is a direct quote, word-for-word, from a source. We should retain the original spelling. 131.111.8.99 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources should always be quoted as they are. Honourable is hardly a spelling mistake, SqueakBox 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, never ever alter a quote, no matter how mangled, never mind the spelling here's ok. Gwen Gale 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(sic) could be added to an obvious typo, eg EssJay, but honourable is not a typo. Nor is it true, as the edit summary implied, that British people cant spell, SqueakBox 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is correct if you are English and wrong if you are American, period. Please invest in a dictionary, they are wonderful things. --Tom 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Invest in adictionary? What one of those horrible paper things that gives you eye strain. Given the number of free online dictionaries this would be a rather pointless waste of money, methinks. Investing in an American dictionary wouldnt be any good for a Brit anyway as you'd never be able to find the word you were looking for, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I don't agree with that at all (and I own several dictionaries), but the source now uses "honorable". Not sure if it was edited or just misquoted to begin with, but it should now stay at "honorable". —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you crack one of those dictionaries open and read it and get back to us unless its an English/British one of course :) Anyways, is this really what Wikipedia has come to? Awesome! --Tom 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's with the hostility and personal attacks? Calling people "thick" who disagree with you isn't cool, dude. Not sure what gave you that impression, but it's wrong. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an American dictionary, shall I keep going? Gwen Gale 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point! Did you read the link? Man people are thick. --Tom 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what are you talking about? Gwen Gale 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the link, in the examples they use "honorable". That seems to be a "universal" dictionary which is pretty cool. It gives the spelling in like 15 different languages. Anyways, I am just fooling around and mean no harm or offense. Please have a pleasent day. ps my spelling SUCKS so I am the last person who should be having this conversation, cheers! --Tom 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told it's not at all wrong if you're an American. Perhaps inappropriate for an American publication, perhaps affected for an American but no matter, quotes should never be altered, it's the road to chavel, I mean, someone tweaks it here, then someone else tweaks it 10 years later, then again 50 years later and after awhile it's got aught to do with what was said to begin with. Gwen Gale 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The source does seem to say "honorable". Am I missing something? WjBscribe 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see was originally sourced from a British article.... WjBscribe 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to quote the source verbatim whatever the spelling is, this US/UK thing is a red herring, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, "..with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic." (and one can be sure vice-versa). No matter, I've swapped out the source so that the quote corresponds to an American spelling. (→Netscott) 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldnt be acceptable to change the spelling in a quote merely to follow alleged guidelines that I am sure dont encourage changing quotes, SqueakBox 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read other comments. The source now reads "honorable". Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What an absurd discussion topic this is. Wales said a word out loud that is represented as "honorable" in the English he uses. I'm glad someone found a US source that spells the word the way he and Essjay do, so we can put this to rest. Moncrief 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm> This article is about a controversy. It is not about Essjay or his spelling. </sarcasm> Risker 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion deserves its own Wiki article. Anybody want to start it :) --Tom 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the wikipedia way and wikipedia is doing wonders for UK/US relations as a result of dealing with tricky spelling and naming issues, SqueakBox 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On Conservapædia, they wouldn't have this problem.  ;-) Anville 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor are conservapedia an internationmal encyclopedia, strictly a (US) national one, SqueakBox 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha now I am being thick :) What's funny? Gwen Gale 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, uhm, I read the link. Oo! Aye, they sound so very keen on American spellings, wonder if they have a clue about the etymologies though, all that political wankering over them on both sides of the pond way back when. Gwen Gale 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are only arguing about a US/UK spelling - does that mean we are now close to concensus on this article ;) - Munta 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GOOD LORD. What a long, vehement discussion about a single letter! 131.111.8.98 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit non-U? <ducks> .. dave souza, talk 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page in a tick for a tale about s 'n z then :) Gwen Gale 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Wikipedia as a result

• Wikipedia:Administrators accountability - a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability
• Wikipedia:Credentials - a proposal for credentials to be verified
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons - a suggestion to extend the BLP policy of sourcing contested claims to user pages
• Wikipedia:Honesty
• User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification
• User:MikeURL/Credentials

The result of this scandal is the most important part. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Move this section to article space? Views please. luke 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This section does not belong in the article. Adding them is a blatant self reference at this point, without external sources. Most of these are in discussion phase and are nowhere near consensus; perhaps once consensus is reached, one or more of them might fit into the "See Also" section, and/or an external source will write about them and they can be included in the article. Risker 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes avoid self-reference, but what if the article is at least 50% navel-gazing? It's an attempt partly to take a long hard look at what happened and to draw the appropriate conclusions from history. Is it REALLY encyclopedic otherwise?--luke 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC) //p.s. Just to add that Jimmy Wales refers to the process of debate within Wikipedia in his radio interview on WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio - The Kojo Nnamdi Show for Thursday March 8, 2007 - luke

Well, slowly but surely the navel-gazing sections of this article are being weeded out. Wales himself is a notable person, and media discussion can be used as a reference in the article proper (there is a section about outcomes of the controversy). The issue of whether or not this entire episode is notable is still open for debate, but this article having recently survived AFD, the current focus is on making it a high quality article rather than warring over whether or not it should be here at all. Risker 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we transfer the huge list of news sources to the talk page?

Resolved

I've just printed the article as it exists now, and the list of media mentions is almost as long as the article itself. Since the article is still being actively edited, I wouldn't want to delete any of the news sources just yet, but it is really weighing down the page. Can we move that list over here to the talk page for now? Risker 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of any comments telling me NOT to do it, I am going to move the non-referenced news sources over to this page in about an hour. If anyone has a concern about it, please say so now. Risker 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"weighing down the page" <-- what does that mean? --JWSchmidt 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons - they just take up a huge amount of space. I know it's very analog, but a lot of people print Wikipedia pages. Secondly,and now more importantly - these external links, many of which are already included in the references, are not adding anything to the article right now. People included them in the earlier development period of the article, as made sense at the time; however, now that things are slowing down, and more of these sources have been mined for their useful information, having them on the page gives them undue weight. I cannot think of another article that has this many external links.Risker 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external caches

I know there's some discussion above which is related to the matter, but why is it necessary to link to external caches and screenshots of external caches of Wikipedia content in order to cite Wikipedia? The rule about not making references to Wikipedia makes sense if you're using Wikipedia articles to back up other Wikipedia articles, but when the article itself concerns Wikipedia, linking to Wikipedia pages would seem to be very sensible. Linking to caches of Wikipedia pages just before they're not hosted on wikipedia.org seems rather like we're trying to find a loophole in the rule about self-references, rather than just stating that it doesn't apply on this situation. They're no more verifiable than an oldid of the original pages, considering they're just a copy of them.

The whole thing just seems like trying to say that an original newspaper article isn't acceptable, but a photocopy of that same article somehow becomes so? I think we should just link to the oldids rather than do it in such a roundabout way.. if you believe that we should never cite Wikipedia, even in a story about Wikipedia, then it wouldn't make sense to support citing a copy of Wikipedia anyway. -- Mithent 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is that Essjay user page, and the history of that page, have been deleted, so we cannot link to them. Thus the caches and the images of the caches are the next best thing. I agree with you that "when the article itself concerns Wikipedia, linking to Wikipedia pages is very sensible," but unless an admin chooses to undelete Essjay's user page (no hope for that at present), that is not an option, unfortunately. 131.111.8.97 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have asked for it several times. When a mistake as big as that is made, the evidence--all the evidence--should be preserved intact. DGG 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of his history, given his m:Right to vanish. As a wiki, we need to respect that. As an encyclopedia, we also have an obligation to document this. Hard to be of two minds about it, which is why is has prompted so much discussion. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am inclined to remove all of those "primary sources" currently posted if they are not specifically and directly referred to in the article; even then, there are secondary sources for much of this now, which should be used instead. The absence of those links will not affect the accuracy or quality of the article. Risker 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay "retired" from wikipedia?

Resolved

"In March 2007, Jordan announced his retirement from Wikipedia."

He was asked to resign. Is, "retired" the best way to describe it? It sounds like an unnecessary euphemism IMO. Malamockq 02:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing Wikia and Wikipedia, methinks. It is meaningless to ask someone to resign from Wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wales asked for Jordan's resignation from both his volunteer roles on Wikipedia and his paid job as Community Manager at Wikia."

""In March 2007, Jordan announced his retirement from Wikipedia.""

Direct quotes from the text. Malamockq 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, his user page says he has retired. Somewhere around here there is a "resigned" template too, so it is reasonable to assume there was a conscious decision in which term to use. Risker 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo asked Essjay to resign from his positions of trust within the community. Essjay could have continued as an editor (without being an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, arbitrator, etc.), but chose not to and to retire (the account, at least) instead. They refer to two different things. Resign from positions of trust, retire as an editor entirely. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved

- or at least finished

Hi guys! It really sad that the guy actually a 'con'. You can be a 'con' of yourself but never be a 'con' of credentials..it will lower the image of wikipedia..che 05:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He might have lied, but he was not a "con". -- Ned Scott 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

first discovery

Daniel Brandt himself has said that he didn't discover it; the discovery was first made by a poster on Wikipedia Review. Brandt was just the one to confront Essjay about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this? Otherwise, we are stuck with the secondary source brought :( -- Avi 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

top of [17] "2. His Wikia user page was noticed in January. The details at the bottom of the page are sharply at odds with his Wikipedia user page, and set off alarms for researchers at The Wikipedia Review." He's referring to this, where Somey first spotted it on January 11. 142.157.19.40 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

News sources

February 28 2007

• Lutter, David A. (February 28 2007). "Wikipedia Source For 'New Yorker' A Fraud". WebProNews. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Bercovici, Jeff (February 28 2007). "Ode to Wikipedia Riddled with Errors". Radar Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

March 1 2007

• Kane, Margaret (1 March 2007). "Wikipedia 101: Check your sources". CNET News. Retrieved 2007-03-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Ingram, Mathew (March 1 2007). "The Wikipedia Admin Brouhaha". WebProNews. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Sadofsky, Jason S (01 March 2007). "Wikipedia: J.S. on Essjay". ASCII. Retrieved 2007-03-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

March 2 2007

• Read, Brock (March 2 2007). "Essjay, the Ersatz Academic". The Chronicle of Higher Education. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Thomas, Brett (2 March 2007). "Wikipedia manager lied about background". bit.tech.net. Retrieved 2007-03-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

March 5 2007

• Mitch Ratcliffe (5 March 2007). "Wikipedia: Why does Essjay need to "protect himself"?". ZD Net. Retrieved 2007-03-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

March 6 2007

• Dan Blacharski (6 March 2007). "Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud". ITworld.com. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Stephen Foley (6 March 2007). "Wikipedia hit by identity crisis as student admits posing as professor". World news. Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• "Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud". Editors. Foreign Policy. 6 March 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Orlowski, Andrew (March 6, 2007). "Farewell, Wikipedia?". The Register. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Staff (March 6, 2007). "Fake professor in Wikipedia storm". BBC News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Key Wikipedia 'editor' unmasked as fraud". Irish Independent. 6 March 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Elsworth, Catherine (6 March 2007). "Fake Wikipedia prof altered 20,000 entries". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Cherian, Jacob (6 March 2007). "Controversy Emanates Over Fake Editor On Wikipedia". All Headline News. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Staff (6 March 2007). "Bogus professor resigns as Wiki editor". United Press International. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Foley, Stephen (6 March 2007). "Wikipedia 'Prof' Is A Fraudster". The Statesman. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Cohen, Noam (6 March 2007). "Wikipedia ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

• Staff (6 March 2007). "Wikipedia editor resigns after credentials exposed as bogus". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Goldman, Russell (6 March 2007). "Wikiscandal: A Prominent Editor at the Popular Online Encyclopedia Is a Fraud". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-03-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Cherian, Jacob (March 6 2007). "Controversy emanates over fake editor on Wikipedia". BizReport. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Withers, Stephen (March 6 2007). "Bogus professor quits Wikipedia". iTwire, Australia. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Wolfson, Andrew (March 6, 2007). "Wikipedia editor who posed as professor is Ky. dropout". The Louisville Courier-Journal. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Goldman, Russell (March 6, 2007). "A prominent editor at Wikipedia might not be what he says". 7 Online. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Doran, James (March 6 2007). "Wikipedia chief promises change after 'expert' exposed as fraud". Times Online. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

March 7 2007

• Staff (March 7 2007). "Wikipedia's 'bogus' editor ousted". Freelance UK. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Staff (March 7 2007). "Fake 'expert' scandal forces Wikipedia to review editor policy". CBC News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Bergstein, Brian (March 7 2007). "Wikipedia to seek proof of credentials". Associated Press. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Doran, James. "Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed". Fox News. Retrieved 2007-08-07.

• Morphy, Erika (March 7 2007). "Phony Prof Triggers Wikipedia Uproar". TechNewsWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Nichols, Shaun (March 7 2007). "Contributor scandal rocks Wikipedia". vnunet. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Morphy, Erika (March 7 2007). "Phony Prof Triggers Wikipedia Uproar". Tech News World. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

March 8, 2007

• Zaharov-Reutt, Alex (March 8 2007). "Wikipedia: Rogue editor EssJay resigns in shame". IT Wire. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Staff (March 8 2007). "Fount of all wisdom - and foolery". Telegraph.co.uk. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Vallis, Mary (March 8 2007). "Editor scandal rocks Wikipedia". National Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Associated Press (March 8, 2007). "Wikipedia to writers: Prove your expertise". CNN. Retrieved 2007-03-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Elsworth, Catherine (8 March 2007). "Wikipedia professor is 24-year-old college dropout". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

March 9, 2007

• Annunziata, Luca (March 9 2007). "Wikipedia controllerà le credenziali degli editor". Punto Informatico. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

March 11, 2007

• Staff. "Fact or fiction?". The Economist. Retrieved 2007-03-11.

Internal link

• Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07.

Please note that this is a cross namespace link and needs to stay out of the article. Guidelines say doing this is wrong. (→Netscott) 05:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think such links are probably OK given the subject of this article. That guideline seems to be more intended to cover self-references as in "this Wikipedia article" or references to the site interface, or links to non-article pages that aren't formatted as external links, which they should be so they still point back here if the site is mirrored and only the articles are copied – Qxz 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

According to polciy [sic] the internal link is O.K. because their is no specific policy against using this internal link. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I will put the internal link back it since there is no specific rule against it. QuackGuru ^TALK 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is not outright forbidden by policy, does not mean it isn't subject to normal editorial decision making. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Audio and video

• Wikipedia Weekly: Episode 12: Essjay (special episode) - March 3 2007
• ABC News broadcast on Essjay - March 6 2007

Back to the letter again

Resolved

Aside from the webcite link, has anyone else seen a reference to this letter in any of the dozens of media reports? If not, doesn't this become more or less self-reference? Risker 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Guardian article which is cited as support and even includes a quote:

"There was a letter sent to a professor, in which his phony credentials were used as part of an endorsement of Wikipedia's value and accuracy: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia." Later, describing fooling magazines, he bragged about "doing a good job playing the part".

I had checked the bragging statement a few minutes ago and I remembered having seen the letter referred to also. Gwen Gale 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I'd missed that. Risker 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru's reverts

Resolved

QuakGuru has also reverted back to the ragged, PoV, bloggy factoring scheme. I don't think that's a very helpful reaction to the lifting of protection. Gwen Gale 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely inclined to revert User:QuackGuru's problematic changes but I'm holding off in the interest of seeing the article not become locked again. (→Netscott) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted, it is a step backwards. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the factoring and structure but have left the images in. QuackGuru, please heed the need for other input ok? Gwen Gale 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed in you User:QuackGuru for just leaping ahead without discussing. You still have not provided a rationale for including each of these images. We need to discuss this; much as I hate edit warring, these images are all problematic and we need to have a better reason for having them there than "there's no rule against it." Keeping anything in this article that is not supported by reliable, outside sources makes it a target for AfD. Risker 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Gwen Gale 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, User:QuackGuru has reverted all the way back again. Is this bordering on true 3rr or what? Gwen Gale 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given User:QuackGuru's inappropriate editing behavior I'm now thinking that the article's come off of protection too soon. (→Netscott) 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have organized the article. The other version was clutter and hard to read. QuackGuru ^TALK 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The last diff looked mostly cosmetic to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Those "cosmetics" turn it into a bloggy, strident mess. If you can't see that, there's not much more I can say. Gwen Gale 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see the part Risker just rm'd. Yeah, that is kinda bloggy. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The headings have all been reverted back to versions that were improved upon some time ago. I concur that protection came off too soon; there was insufficient discussion prior to unprotection to warrant the change. Risker 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was assuming good faith, but the edit warring has continued. Not much choice but to reprotect. Trebor 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Internal Link

The internal link is a historical event. It is the offical "My response" from Essjay himself in its entirety. QuackGuru ^TALK 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read the response on the "internal link" (which should have a clearer name) and feel strongly that it should be included. Someone learning of the user Essjay and his actions would want to see how he presented himself on his talk page, I imagine--I know I did. Especially telling is comment #17 on his talk page, where someone who was burned by a content-specific decision attacks him and his fake credentials. These types of real responses are extremely important. 100DashSix 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07. < Please add this link to article.

I suggest the internal link be put back in the article. People who are not familiar with this event may want to read it. The "My response" is of historical significance. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why

Mr. Ryan [sic] was a friend,... Why is there a [sic] here? QuackGuru ^TALK 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He's Mr Jordan. Wales wasn't familiar with his true name yet, I guess. Gwen Gale 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Great work. QuackGuru ^TALK 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think you have been wholly disruptive, heedless and uncivil. Meanwhile this mangled and re-protected article speaks loudly as a witness to your skill as a Wikipedia editor. Gwen Gale 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While normally it's adviseable to discuss contributions and not contributors on article talk pages I agree with Gwen Gale here. (→Netscott) 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have politely asked QuackGuru to return to this talk page and explain the editorial judgement he used in the edits he made. Unfortunately, he seems to have viewed my request as an ad hominem attack. I am at a loss as to what the appropriate next steps would be. Risker 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action would be the undo changes made against consensus and enforce 3RR. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me - QuackGuru seems uninterested in discussing consensus so I think there is little other alternative Munta 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The behaviour was clearly willfull and there's no evidence it'll stop. Gwen Gale 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in discussing the topic in the above subsection, and would very much like to hear why that information should not be included in this article. 100DashSix 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

100DashSix, there are several arguments against including this link. From my own perspective, the primary one is that it is original research; the entirety of this statement has not been published by a reliable, secondary source. Sections of it have been published now, and are included in the article proper. Removing the link at this point is part of the process of cleaning up an article that is getting close to a stable version. Risker 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that another source has not duplicated his talk page, but I do not see how the linked information is somehow more unsubstantiated than, say, a link to a zdnet blog that does not cite from where it retrieved the included quote (http://blogs.zdnet.com/keen/?p=108, reference #11 in the current article, used to avoid 'original research').

It is, from my perspective as a relative newcomer to this topic, easy to perceive this omission as a deliberate attempt to hide unflattering information. The linked information is not obtainable without visiting Essjay's retired user page, visiting this page's retired discussion, and finding an italicized link at the bottom regarding "last revision before departure." Is anyone here familiar with: "[the plans] were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on it saying "beware of the leopard" ?" 100DashSix 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, we share the same literary taste. ;) This is a particularly thorny issue, because under other circumstances, links to people's user pages are not permitted in articles. If we are going to go against that practice, then we have to have a very clearly articulated, well thought out, logical reason to do so. "Because it's hard to find otherwise" isn't quite there yet. Risker 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Because those who read this article for the first time will be left with the question: he sounds like a jerk, but how can I tell?" Should we not let them answer this question by linking the page? Perhaps this is not a good reason, in which case I hope someone else will come up with a convincing one, as I feel it should be included, but lack the knowledge of Wikipedian arguments to convince those familiar with the system of rules and conventions. 100DashSix 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. And glad you like Douglas Adams.)

Okay, as there seems to be consensus against protection, I'll unprotect again (and probably could have judged this better from the start). User:QuackGuru is on a warning that any further reverts without discussion will result in a block. I'll ask again that any edits be made with at least a modicum of consensus on this page, and that if you disagree with the edit please discuss instead of reverting. Thanks. Trebor 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I propose reverting back to this revision by Doug Bell. Gwen Gale 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That version is cluttered and hard to follow when reading. I organized each section for flow and easy reading. It was merely cosmetic. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice between the two versions, the Doug Bell one is easier to read from my perspective. Having said that, perhaps we need to compare the two indices to figure out where the middle ground lays, and what information needs to go into which section to better organize the contents and identify what we still need to add. Risker 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When I compare Doug's reivision that with the current article[18] the only substantial difference is the image gallery and a few section titles. What's this argument about exactly? (Speaking of section titles, does anyone have an idea for a better name for the "proposed solutions in the coming months" section? It sounds ackward.) --tjstrf talk 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, with the re-factoring you and I have done since the lift that's about all there is left. Gwen Gale 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So do we have consensus to kill/keep the images yet? --tjstrf talk 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rm them please, WP:SELF, WP:NPOV (undue weight). Gwen Gale 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think the images should be removed, I like the wording by Doug Bell that Gwen suggested. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur that they should be removed because nobody has yet justified why they should stay in. Having said that, the article has already been protected once on this issue today, and I am not exactly sure we have consensus yet. Risker 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above sections of talk suggest tipping towards removal of at least the screen shots... with Doug Bell holding out on the photo shot. With User:C.m.jones and User:QuackGuru out of reverts for today I doubt an edit war would recommence though. (→Netscott) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because I see a consensus to remove the images. I suppose there is no harm in waiting though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From my earlier survey of today's discussion I'm seeing 75% in favor of removing the screenshots and 25% in favor of keeping them.... User:tjstrf's view would secure a general consensus about this right now though with a support for removal. (→Netscott) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. Doug Bell is welcome to give his reasoning as to why the photo is more relevant than the screenshots, but since he never explained himself it's hard to see why he says that. --tjstrf talk 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the first two images should be kept. Unless I am very much mistaken, they serve as the sole record of how this user chose to present himself on his own user page, and this information is directly relevant to the topic; it is a record of his personality that is otherwise lost due to his "retired" status. I imagine that a first time reader of this article would find a direct copy of his words worthwhile. 100DashSix 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sole record? The article text handles that rather pithily with full support from independent, reliable sources. Why is his personality notable? I thought it was agreed that this article wasn't about Essjay, but about the Essjay controversy. Only my thoughts, mind :) Gwen Gale 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, which referenced article has a direct copy of his user page on Wikipedia and Wikia? Perhaps the scope of this article is smaller than what I think it is or should be, but I'd like to see archived information about this person's dishonest actions; these actions constitute the true controversy, not the fact that a news outlet caught him. 100DashSix 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF. Anyway the scope of the article is as the title says. I don't think a snap of his userpage adds a thing and yes, the article puts it rather starkly that he was dishonest about his academic background. Gwen Gale 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I accept your argument that this article is only about him as a person insofar as his dishonest credentials. I submit, then, that the information about him personally (only regarding his involvement with Wikipedia, edits he made, people he interacted with and how they feel) is interesting in and of itself and deserves content-space somewhere. Also, this information has direct relevance to criticisms & support of Wikipedia and consequently should not be lost or hidden. 100DashSix 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I so do agree that project space information about the Essjay controversy mustn't be dropped down the memory hole. So put it up on a free blog or web-page somewhere, it's GFDL, after all and meanwhile let's work to preserve those project pages. The article however, is in the encyclopedia space and is built under very clear policies as to citation, NPOV and narrative. Gwen Gale 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're gonna have to disagree on that then :) Gwen Gale 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't apply, see WP:SELF#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself. Feel free to continue being wrong, and I will feel free to continue restoring the images. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, RE:100-6) Then link to it from your userpage or something. Essjay is not himself a notable individual outside of Wikipedia, except for his starting a messy PR fiasco, so neither is his userpage. --tjstrf talk 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These images are directly related to the Essay controversy, which is the topic of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, exactly how do essentially unreadable thumbnails of userpages help this article? The WP user page does not include the credentials that caused the uproar (except the professorial claim)-and those are already discussed and better sourced in the article. The Wikia userpage tells even less - and again the information is better sourced in the article. Risker 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SELF does apply, as this self reference is not needed as a primary source to confirm information in the text, which can be supported by secondary sources. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with User:HighInBC. Besides the primary source question, Wikipedia in general is not considered a reliable source. (→Netscott) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they pass WP:V. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They do pass WP:V IMO (my worries are strictly sr and pileon). Gwen Gale 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is not the only one thing to consider, there is relevance, and self reference to consider too. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to convince me they are irrelevant. Go on. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Now this might be a nitpick but those blockquotes seems awfully over-dramatic to me. Wales and Essjay aren't Charlotte Bronte and Karl Popper, for example. Why not straight quotes like, uhm, a text? Gwen Gale 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think quotes that are too long and included in text are ugly. Put 'em in a block quote just for style. (This is just me voicing personal preference, I have nothing to back it up other than "I think long quotes look prettier as block quotes") --Dookama 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But two sentences are not "long". According the the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 11.12, block quotes are usually reserved for >100 words or eight lines of text. There are other exceptions, but the quotations here do not seem to fil those requirements either. My opinion is that both gramatically and æsthetically speaking, these {{cquote}} tags for tiny excerpts are improper. -- Avi 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the way

to deal with really controversial topics--and this one counts as such at least around here--is to rely on quotes--and the screen shots are essentially quotes. The article should be built around them.DGG 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But not quotes from a reliable source. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting what the screenshots say (and using the screenshots as a source) is one thing. But what does including the screenshots achieve? They are not readable in the size they would appear in the article, so are just pictoral links. What does having them achieve? WjBscribe 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't quote what the screen shots say or use them as a source. That would be WP:OR. All we can do is present them as they existed as such. Of course, you realize these thumbs act as links the curious can click on and see a bigger version? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues remaining to be resolved

Based on the active threads on the talk page right now, the following issues remain to be resolved in this article:

• Lead section is weighted on the inciting activity rather than the controversy itself (identified by User:Kendrick7)
• Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)
• Images of Essjay's Wikipedia user page, Wikia user page, and photo uploaded by Essjay continue to be an issue based on comments from several editors
• Whether or not the full text of Essjay's post to his Wikipedia user talk page, dated 15:06 on 1 March 2007 and titled "My response" should be included in the article as a direct link to userspace, or if the quoted section of this post currently in the article is sufficient (identified by User:QuackGuru)

I think this is an accurate summary of the key issues to be addressed at this point. Is there anything else I have missed? Risker 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually perfectly happy with the lead as is. Not sure where we are on that one.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, the new lead is rather more succinct. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were right on target there. After working on the same article for so long, it was easy for us to get some tunnel vision. Good to have a fresh set of eyes on board. Risker 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

About the user page screenshots

OK, so it seems that a majority of editors feel that the images of the screenshots of Essjay's Wikipedia and Wikia pages are inappopriate, for various reasons. I can understand that. But I feel that the ability to see Essjay's claimed identity in the context in which he presented it is useful for readers of the article. Some users have suggested that links to cached versions of these pages would be acceptable. One possible problem: the only site that I know of which has all of these screenshots is Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch. It has screenshots of Essjay's user page from August 2005, during the period when it contained the degree claims, and his Wikia page from the period when he identified himself as Ryan Jordan, "a 24 year old guy from Kentucky". These seem to me to be two key visual elements of the story which readers may wish to see.

The question is whether it would be acceptable to link to Wikipedia Watch or not. Daniel Brandt does, but of course that article is perpetually on AfD and probably shouldn't be cited as an example. How do other editors feel about possibly adding external links to these two pages on Wikipedia Watch [19] [20]? Is this an acceptable compromise on the image/screenshot issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be. Linking to cached versions is nothing but an indirect way of inserting the exact same self-reference, and linking to troll sites especially should be discouraged. --tjstrf talk 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the running issue that screenshots can be modified (having had that happen to me in Real Life, I have no question about that), and Mr. Brandt and Wikipedia Watch are hardly impartial in this situation. Risker 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...wonder if that means Daniel Brandt is notable?

I'd have to say I like this idea a bit less. (1) Daniel Brandt's site can be considered a reliable source? (2) Possible conflict of interest given that Brandt supposedly has been directly involved in all of this. (→Netscott) 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(reply after several edit conflicts) I'm no fan of Brandt's, but I'm not sure that "troll site" is a particularly useful characterization. And I didn't think that self-reference was the problem, exactly — as Kendrick points out above, WP:SELF#Writing about Wikipedia itself indicates that self-reference in an article about Wikipedia is unavoidable and non-problematic.

The question I see is whether Wikipedia Watch can be considered a reliable and verifiable source. For most purposes, it almost certainly wouldn't be, but an argument can be made that for the subject of this article, the Essjay controversy, it may be considered a reliable source for the perspective of one participant in the affair. (Recall the definition of a reliable source, from WP:ATT#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. ") Verifiability is more problematic: I happen to know (because I'm a Wikipedia admin, and can see the deleted content) that the screenshot of Essjay's Wikipedia is accurate and has not been altered, but a random reader of this article can't verify that. On the other hand, the standard for links to external sites are not quite the same as the standards for sources — many featured articles contain links to sites which provide additional information about their subjects, but which would not be acceptable sources for claims in the article.

I can see both sides on this one, but I do think that on balance these links would benefit the article, and their inclusion might be a compromise between those who support and those who oppose the inclusion of the screenshots as images. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do all this. We already have the screenshots on the wikipedia. If people aren't happy with the thumbs nails we can always use the leading colon notation [[:like this]] to just link the the images themselves. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have the same screenshots. The Wikia one is only a partial page and does not include Essjay's credentials. The Wikipedia one is from March 2007. I'm not advocating a link to Wikipedia Watch, I just don't want to lose sight of what we do and don't have right now. Risker 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought he didn't lie about his credential on Wikia? But OK, I looked at Brandt's screenshots. That was also published on Slashdot[21], though of course, the link is now dead. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised lead

I have revised the lead to be more in keeping with the title of the article, that is, the focus on the controversy. I've left the citations blank for the various media right now, because I'd appreciate input from other editors on how many citations we would need to add for each one. The easy way would be to use references we already have in the article, and we certainly couldn't include all of the outlets that have referred to the story (which is over 100, if I remember correctly). Opinions? Risker 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Gwern is of the opinion they are not needed. Risker 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already had to make some changes. "Jordan" appeared out of nowhere in the third paragraph after your changes, because he now wasn't identified until later in the article. The fact tags in the second paragraph were redundant at best, because the first paragraph already referred to media sources. There were even spacing problems between paragraphs. Gwern and I fixed these problems. Really, though, the new lede seems less informative than the old, and I almost did a complete revert. But I didn't want to set off another edit war. Casey Abell 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Casey Abell and Gwern for jumping in. I have no intention of reverting anyone, so feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate, including reverting to the previous version if you feel that is best. The intention of my changes was to redirect focus on the controversy rather than the actions of an individual; however, I have no doubt my efforts can be improved upon. Risker 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This Is A News Worthy Story About How Wikipedians Are Editing the Essjay Controversy Article.

Serious Questions:

Currently the quotes are gone from the "Wales response" and "Essjay's response" and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step forward in this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading.

Any suggestions? QuackGuru ^TALK 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there you are on the talk page! Good. Your overdramatization with this headline seems slightly disruptive but better than mindless non-discussion reverting. Which line is factually inaccurate? (→Netscott) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Whoever is reading this: eyes in the sky above; notice the words above: disruptive and mindless) The first sentence of the Essjay's letter. Compare it now to the prior version earlier. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Which line is factually inaccurate? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm tired or something but I'm not seeing a factual difference between the two versions myself. (→Netscott) 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify QG, are these 'your'questions or someone else's? Risker 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) Thanks for your replies above. Essjay's advocacy letter: The first line of the first sentence is confusing. QuackGuru has fixed a previous confusing sentence that had a reference. References must back up the sentence but more importantly as to not to cause a hint of confusion. Reconsider a rewrite to the dispute of the sentence. QuackGuru has many more questions as stated above that weren't responsed to. A response would be appreciated and noteworthy. A widespreadedness discussion about the body of the article is warranted. Many questions have not been appropriatly addressed. How will there be collaboration? Please tell us. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I asked whether these were your questions or someone else's, because if they are someone else's, it would be good to have that person join in this conversation directly. I apologize that my inquiry could have been perceived as a comment on you personally, as that was not my intent. While I do not necessarily agree with some of your positions, I respect you as an editor. Risker 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, to whom are you addressing yourself when you make little notes like this: "(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) "? That strikes me as unecessary and uncivil. The way that you've titled this section of talk it is normal for editors to be wondering if you are asking questions on another's behalf. I wondered this myself. (→Netscott) 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Many questions have been raised above without appropiate attention. Please consider answering the questions for the betterment of the article. Thank you QuackGuru ^TALK 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly answer my question: Whom are you addressing with such seemingly unecessary commentary? (→Netscott) 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have reinserted the blockquote wikification as suggested by Dookama (the quotes were there, just part of the text). Risker 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I took them out, see above section for why. -- Avi 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the quote from the advocacy letter. The quote within the article has not changed for some time, and is as referenced; only the introductory sentence has been modified. Risker 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter has not thoroughly been discussed on the talk page about the various aspects to the style and organization of this article. Many questions have been raised without any appropriate responses to the specific questions at hand. In this situation, when other editors have ignored questions, what is the next step to take. After discussion, on the talk page, then can editing begin to orgainize the sections in a resonable time appropiated. The edits speak for themselves. I did a good job of organizing the sections. Currently there is a huge reactions section. It is recommended to divide that section into to separate sections and put back the styling of the quotes to Wales' response and Essjay's response. I see nothing wrong with restoring the images. We (amomg many editors) do not understand the reason behind the image removal. For example, Mr. Wales has a picture of himself in an article about him. Their is a clear pattern among editors. I want to include information and organize the article. All my edits have been to organize and maintain accuracy. Addtionally, I removed the links under the references because that was clutter under the references. That was not a revert. There was a long list of links which has not been put back in the article. That affirms that edit. Someone added incorrect info to the article and I remove it and replaced it with a >fact<. Because of that effort it has been corrected now. That affirms that edit. I organized many sections. Although some of my organizations have been removed, but some still remain. That affirms organizing the sections. There is still some organizing left though. At the moment it seems a bit cluttered. Again a huge section under reactions is undue weight. I suggest to divide it into two headings. I still believe there can be an improvement for style and organization of sections. Any suggestions. Please comment to better the quality of this article. This is essential. Thank you. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ignoring your comments, QG. I've taken the opportunity to review this whole page and ferreted out a couple of other issues that need to be addressed as well. I've grouped them together here: [22]. Can you please review this list and add in any issues that are not identified there? This might be an appropriate time to seek out opinions from "fresh eyes", and it would be easier for them to see what we know still needs to be resolved. Thanks. Risker 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. The neutrality is now disputed. This article is in need of an expert to organize the sections for better flow of reading. Clearly, its "undue weight" to have such a long reactions section. Please divide the reactions section into two separate sections. QuackGuru ^TALK 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

q for Quackguru

What other editors disagree with the current consensus besides yourself and Dab? Please list them and diffs/links showing they oppose. - Denny 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

q for Dab

Also, question for Dab... but your logic in your reply to me we should delete/merge John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Agree/disagree? And why, compared to this article? I am curious as to how you differentiate the two and why, and future articles like this, of this nature. Note that WP is notable enough itself to generate these stories more and more with each passing year... - Denny 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, following his highly PoV logic, one might merge Jimbo Wales with Internet. Gwen Gale 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the Siegenthaler case is already notable for the history of Wikipedia. It has resulted in major new guidelines (BLP) and software updates (semiprotection). Once the "Essjay" case gives rise to similar consequences, I will admit it deserves its own article, but not before. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So by your logic articles on things related to Wikipedia should only be kept if they significantly alter/change how WP does things... and discard the policies we use for every other article? Why should Essjay get extra protections/provisions that other articles dont? - Denny 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

like what policies? My entire point is that this is unnotable off-WP. People who keep removing the {{notability}} tag without addressing my concerns are trolling in my book. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Source for this? For the article

Gwen said: "dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia."

Do we have a source for this? Would be good for the article. - Denny 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this one then. Gwen Gale 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing it in there... I wasn't able to find it on Google with some searches of Jimmy refering to it as that? No worries if it was a paraphrase, just got me thinking that having that with RS would be great to settle some of the semantic squabbling. - Denny 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Add this one, citing WP as 9th most visited in US. Gwen Gale 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

QuackGuru has thrown up a neutrality tag. With all due respect to good faith editors who may not agree with me, I believe this is disruption following the warnings Quack was given by an admin about his edits here yesterday. Gwen Gale 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. (→Netscott) 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for an explanation because, as far as I know, neutrality hasn't been raised as an issue yet. Trebor 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case I would say the tag is less about neutrality, and more about not getting what he wants. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile what was Quack up to with this edit? Gwen Gale 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There may be errors occuring with MediaWiki judging by other edits on this talk page. (→Netscott) 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

I don't think anyone is blanking anything... my history/contribs lists are all screwed up somehow. anyone else seeing odd things? - Denny 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen of my oddness... MediaWiki is definitely having problems. - Denny 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, yes weird blankings are happening when I try to edit. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here, so let's not jump to any conclusions about anyone's edits for the next little while. Very odd. Risker 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For a second I was wondering why Gwen, Scott, and HBC were trolling me! :P somehow it blew away the preceding four edits and replaced it with the one that preceded mine. I'm almost expecting a random edit summary to appear saying "What am I looking at?" "Now, sir, you're looking at now." "When?" "Just now." - Denny 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also posted it to ANI... - Denny 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile when C.m.jones re-added the tags I could only grin wide :) Gwen Gale 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's happening at other pages too. See this post, which deleted a previous one, and which I fixed here. Perhaps people should be extra careful to check the diffs for their own edits as soon as they've made them, until this has been sorted out, because it's easier to replace eaten-up posts if you do it immediately! Or perhaps we should even stop posting for a while, and gather our thoughts together about what we want to post! ElinorD (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just a few minutes ago I saw a removal of a large swath of text by HighInBC with the edit summary 'blanking', and it was the last of several edits in a row by that editor. The edits are now gone. Anchoress 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh weird, now they're back in the history again. Anchoress 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

merge with extreme prejudice

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay_controversy

whatever happened to "no self-reference"? Wikipedia:Recentism? WP:UNDUE? This article is pure omphaloskepsis. Speedy merge into Criticism of Wikipedia. dab (�) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism may be a problem, but this also is an international story. No merge required, or warranted. Also, please read WP:SELF - articles about Wikipedia are not bad "self-references." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do please cite any item of text in the article which is supported by a direct self-reference to Wikipedia's article space. I'll be happy to delete it myself. I thought they'd all been rm'd though. Thanks! Gwen Gale 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, anyway. The article is wholly sourced, has been widely documented in the media and stands on its own. Gwen Gale 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

sheesh, not self-reference then. Still a recentism, and way below Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Wikipedia does not, should not, and cannot cover every news headline, redirect and transwiki to wikinews then. 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge: Let this article mature and let the dust settle and then let's revisit the idea of deletion/merging. (→Netscott) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:N recently? This is getting to be silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge, clearly notable, don't see WP:UNDUE issues, we are fighting against self-references. That same issues would exist in the Criticism of Wikipedia, but it would be too large for it. This is fine, it just needs plenty of attention from people who uphold policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this has made foreign-language international press, so clearly notable enough. – Chacor 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Charcor and HighIn, clearly notable enough to stand on its own, and much too long to be merged into the already overly long criticisms article. JoshuaZ 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the Criticism of Wikipedia article should be shaved down. Interesting to see though that the whole section about Larry Sanger and his blog - you remember, the one that didn't fly in this article - seems to be present in that article. Not sure why his comments are more important in that article than, say, the New Yorker's. Also interesting that someone managed to get a screenshot of Essjay's user page from an unknown date, but one that includes the disputed credentials on the front page, and that it was uploaded on March 3rd. Also interesting that several people have edited both articles. Striking my comment that failed to assume good faith. Risker 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Right now, I do think that this article is superior and considerably less "navel-gazing" than the entry in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, so would not be bothered to merge it for the reasons noted by HighInBC and Chacor and others. Risker 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Press/Notability I think this ranks with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy in terms of coverage/public interest. (→Netscott) 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge. Notability/public interest trumps other interests, keep independent. - Denny 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

um, you cannot just claim it is notable. You'll have to show it is. Unless you do that, I would ask you not to remove the templates. It's not like I deleted the article: I placed these templates in good faith, and they should not be removed until the issue is resolved (as Netscott puts it, until the dust has settled). The article is categorized in "History of Wikipedia", "Scandals" and "Internet culture". I ask you, is it notable in the history of Wikipedia? Not yet at any rate, and "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball". Does it qualify as a notable scandal (think Dreyfus or Abu Ghraib)? Don't make me laugh. Is it a notable part of Internet culture? Notability is not popularity: popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable. I suggest we can branch the article off "Criticism of Wikipedia" once "Essjay" appears in hacker's jargon on similar. At this point, simply no case is being made as to why there should be an article on the topic except that it concerns Wikipedia (which is not a valid argument per "no self-references"). dab (�) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

e/cDbachmann, with all respect due you've had two people revert you with a third gesturing to do so (User:JoshuaZ who apparently hadn't seen that the tags were already removed). This is becoming disruptive (in particular given the strong evidence of consensus right here). Kindly self-revert before someone has to revert you again. (→Netscott) 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just claim anything, I stated my opinion... which is backed by the AfDs and everyone's opinion. We have articles on Wikipedia also. This one is heavily sourced, and too big to merge I think, but no one person gets to make choices thankfully and have them stick (yours, mine). Everyone decides, but opinion seems to be to keep it seperate... - Denny 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is based on almost 300 articles now showing on a Google news search for Essjay, dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The plethora of mainstream sources brought in the article about the event and fallout should more than adequately suffice for a reasonable claim for notability. The {{notability}} tag is not warranted; further discussion of notability needs to be handled through AfD, which should be on hold for now as well. -- Avi 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More I think about this, I believe the notability tag is a tactic of disruption and I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at it, thanks. Gwen Gale 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Already gone... - Denny 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile the merge tag remains. Consensus is so far is overwhelmingly against a merge. The article already survived two AfD attempts with overwhelming consensus to keep. Why is this tag still on the article? Gwen Gale 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it stick for 24 hours, and then we'll remove it when the consensus is explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, we're in no rush; the article is solid as-is... - Denny 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But if people re-add it repeatedly/ongoing (the notability one too) after consensus shows it to be unsupported, remove it then as disruption. - Denny 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A 24 hr window sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to wait 24 hours... general consensus is clear on this. (→Netscott) 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is plenty of consensus already, this has been demonstrated to be notable 10 times over. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be settled, but just so I'm on the record about this:

• Oppose merge: the dozens of independent media citations listed above, including many from international sources, show that this is a notable event in itself. Criticism of Wikipedia is already 69 kB, which is another argument against a merge into that article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and EXPERT tags

I completely agree with both tags. For the NPOV tag, a small group of abut 4 or 5 editors have apparently considered they WP:OWN this article and gone about bowdlerizing it. For the EXPERT tag, yes, an expert writer. Good gosh, this thing reads like it was written by a bunch of teenagers and like a hodge-podge of news stories rather than an encyclopedia article. See WP:FA?: (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. - C.m.jones 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, does the word civility mean anything to you, or was this worded that way on purpose? (→Netscott) 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My reply to C.m.jones: Codswallop. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. Gwen Gale 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Read the {{expert}} tag. "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" (emphasis added). If you believe the writing is poor, {{copyedit}} would be far more applicable, but I request some examples of where it can be improved before you add the tag. Trebor 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{copyedit}} connotes a few minor corrections and/or formatting. This article does not need minor but major re-writing work. C.m.jones 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not owning anything, we're discussing it. Concensus right now is just against these. 1. User:Gwen Gale, 2. User:HighInBC, 3. User:Avraham, 4. User talk:Trebor Rowntree, 5. User:DennyColt, 6. User:JoshuaZ, 7. User:Netscott, 8. User:Badlydrawnjeff, and 9. User:Risker all seem to be against the tags. Once consensus is achieved they can go in... if you are unhappy with something in the article, make suggestions here. Trying to edit war force tags onto the article against consensus is disruptive... - Denny 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

10 - User:Munta - Munta 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The expert tag is not warranted by any stretch of the imagination. As for the NPOV tags, do you have any specific concerns? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, you previously made a complete revision of the article; that revision left us with the article protected because of disputes about its sudden and mass change. But during the protection, it seems you were unwilling to consider modification of the revision you had developed, despite the fact that several editors were providing you with commentary on it. If you are willing to incorporate that critique into the revision you developed, then we'd have something to talk about here. I don't think anyone is expecting this article to get anywhere near featured article level in just over a week, with all the new information that has come in since it was initiated. (and yes I would be against the tags if I could get a post in edgewise) Risker 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why, with some specific examples. At any rate, you can see the {{expert}} tag is inappropriate, as it suggests an expert on the subject, rather than in writing. Trebor 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article needs it (I haven't read it in a bit), but what about: {{cleanup-rewrite}}? Anchoress 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's supported. Anyone, pls provide specific examples which can't be swiftly fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup-rewrite}} along with {npov}} is better. C.m.jones 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific than "better," thanks. Gwen Gale 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be specific about the way in which this article fails NPOV? Issues cannot be resolved until they are identified. Risker 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, unless you take the time to explain on this article's talk page why you feel those tags are necessary, there is really nothing for other editors to "see and comment on" per your edit summary when you put the tags back on just now. Even I am finding this disruptive. Risker 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

jones, Risker is right, explain what you mean or stop adding the tag. You are in violation of 3RR right now, I gave you a warning instead of a block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of article

This is a good idea, I appreciate the idea. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems the only way. Let's get this to GA status, then aim for FA. that is the only reason we're here, isn't it...? Link to the peer review. - Denny 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be satisfied of the article can be kept within policy. But hey, FA is a noble goal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review is a good idea. Thanks. Risker 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is still too new and fluid IMO, but I've already posted that on the peer review page . -- Avi 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible page move

As this has mostly to do with Wikipedia, should this article be moved to Essjay Wikimedia controversy, in the same vein as John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It does fall more in line with the pattern established by John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I don't know how many articles of this type there are, so I cannot tell if it is an exception or if it is the common naming convention. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it if it said "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikimedia;" the notability derives from the controversy as it affected Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Risker 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that title is a bit limiting myself. The Seigenthalere case revolved almost exclusively around what occured here on Wikipedia. The Essjay story involves The New Yorker, etc. I'm open to other titles though. (→Netscott) 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay credentials controversy or Essjay controversy or Essjay wiki controversy are all good, but I'd prefer them in the order listed. Lets not move it (again) yet though for at least a few weeks... - Denny 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the first one. Why not boldness? --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruption. Gwen Gale 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has already gone through 3 or 4 moves.... let's not WP:BOLD this one again... let's come to consensus on a new title and go from there. (→Netscott) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Netscott. A little stability is needed, both in terms of the article, as well as media coverage. A few weeks will make a significant difference, IMO. -- Avi 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

4pagemoves? I thought it was 2. Oh well, just as the peer review says, lets get this out of CE status, so we can deal with naming and encyclopedic copyedits. --w^{L<speak·check>} 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review stuff

I don't know if anyone's actually reading that, so I wanted to make my peer review comments here:

• Can we please have some more background on Essjay? He had been on Wikipedia for over two years and climbed up our ranks, it would be nice to have some info on that.
• Some more stuff on academic reactions would be good, otherwise the paragraph is too short and needs to be merged.
• This controversy has made international news, some mention of the foreign language media's reaction would be nice (I am thinking of the links on the German article).
• Essjay's alleged partner presumably went along with this deception, especially this edit (everybody probably would have assumed writing projects referred to academia). If we can get this in that would be good.
• What happened to the stuff about credential verification?

I realised that most of this isn't mentioned in the press, but with some digging we might find something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think Essjay is notable at all. I think the Wikipedia MUD he slipped into is notable. Gwen Gale 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that would explain what I'm doing with all these rat pelts. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that information could be relevant to show how he came to gain so much trust and power and was able to influence decisions with his false credentials. It wouldn't be about him, it would be about how the "controversy" happened. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article is about the essjay controversy not about Essjay. I think we should remove the BLP notice as well because this article is not about a living person nor is it a biography, SqueakBox 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, is it clear User:Robbie31 was a WP:SOCK? The should probably be checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange his probably libellous if untrue user page (ie claiming a gay relationship with Essjay) has been protected rather than removed, SqueakBox 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How would it be libellous if Essjay is the one who wrote it about himself? (note: I am NOT saying that, I do think it is his partner who went along with the charade) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all unremarkable MUD. Gwen Gale 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If its his partner it isnt libellous but if it isnt then it would be, it would also be unacceptable, SqueakBox 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning (namely, I don't see any). There are 3 options: a) Robbie is a sock of Essjay, b) Robbie is Essjay's actual partner who backed up Essjay's story, c) Robbie is someone other than Essjay without Essjay's knowledge. C) can be eliminated because Essjay knew about and conversed with the Robbie account. So, it's either a or b, neither of which could amount to "libel". If you see things differently, please explain, otherwise, please stop throwing around legal terms that are irrelevant. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I get that the article is about the Essjay controversy and not Essjay, but if we have no background on Essjay, it's hard to understand why this made such a big impact. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Dev. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It made a big impact because it involved a correction published by the New Yorker about it's Wikipedia article. Wikipedia and the New Yorker are notable, Essjay is not. Gwen Gale 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, the fact that Essjay was an administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser, arbitrator, and was referred to the magazine by the WMF had no effect on the size of the controversy? I'm sorry, I simply can't agree. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that makes it a big deal within Wikipedia. It had far less of an effect on the rest of the world; most articles don't even mention it. The foundation has recommended many others for interviews around the world, some of whom aren't even admins, and I think the impact may well have been just as big. Risker 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said :) Gwen Gale 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are over 300+ news articles (not including blogs) indexed by Google News and Lexis Nexis about what is now being described as the Essjay controversy and many of them do in fact make reference to the positions he held, both with Wikimedia and Wikia, prior to his dismissal. Burntsauce 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably true, for the ones written well after the fact. They are using this article as a reference. Prior to it hitting AP, it was mentioned in very few. Risker 23:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with you, Gwen. That is like saying that Dennis Rader is non-notable, only the murders he committed were. We could apply that false argument to any number of articles that Wikipedia has to offer. Burntsauce 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I cannot countenance faking a resume being compared to mass murder. Please reconsider that last statement. Risker 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Forgive me if I deftly skirt any comparison of Essjay's MUD play to BTK! Gwen Gale 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay did not commit mass murder, so I apologize if my point is lost upon you two. I believe I made myself pretty clear. Burntsauce

Erm, yeah, you did. Gwen Gale 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference in header

I think that this:

The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had posted false information on his Wikipedia userpage about his age, background, and academic credentials; and the Wikipedia community noted he had cited these false credentials in the context of discussing article content and had used his persona's credentials to vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy in a letter he claimed to have sent to a college professor.

Is blatant self-reference and unsupported advocacy, never mind the semicolon in the first sentence of an article (never a hopeful sign). IMHO. Gwen Gale 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, especially as the reference source says no such thing. It says a lot, but not the part after the semi-colon. Risker 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the part after the semi colon that worries me. Gwen Gale 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems Kendrick7 agreed with this position and has deleted. Risker 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

F'k! Kendrick7 and I wholly agree on something! Yay! :) Gwen Gale 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Syntax : suggested for opening paragraph

 Done

For readability and more logical grouping of thought, I suggest the following:

The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator Essjay, later identified as Ryan Jordan, had posted false information on his Wikipedia userpage about his age, background, and academic credentials. Although Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law as a tenured professor at a private university, he was in fact a community college dropout from the U.S. state of Kentucky and had relied on sources such as Catholicism for Dummies when editing articles.

I find it disconcerting not to have the identity of Mr. Jordan not revealed to much later, and also, I think that his employment at Wikipedia fits better with the claims about his credentials. As well, the opening sentence was a bit long. Also, the two sentences could stand as their own paragraphs if it was deemed better.

Given the general tensions, I am suggesting it here rather than making the change. -- Kavri 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a wish to downplay Essjay's true identity a bit. While I don't think this is needed, I've supported it nonetheless since I don't think Jordan is notable: The scandal stirred up by his MUD fantasy professor Essjay is notable. Gwen Gale 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point about not including the name earlier, though...it doesn't actually show up until the "Identity Unraveled" subsection halfway through the article. A little dramatic tension may be good, but...Risker 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that 'dramatic tension' is required (could add unneeded POV), and the article names him, so it seems like mentioning him at the beginning will makes things clearer. I don't see how being clear is 'playing up' his identity. It's not that 'he' is notable, but he is the person that triggered the controversy.

When he is unveiled in the "Identity Unravlled" section, the first reference to him is "... reported the Essjay/Ryan Jordan identity discrepancy ...". Not having any reference to the hame before this, in my opinion, is confusing. I think it falls under the same idea when journalists don't refer to a last name, until they've mentioned the whole name. In a smilar fashion, not being told explicity 'who' Ryan Jordan is, and then the first reference being 'the Essay/Ryan Jordan identity discrepancy' creates un-needed obtuseness. A 'slash' can be interpreted a number of ways, including two different people 'the Shakespeare/Bacon identity discrepancy' for example. -- 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the 'when to name him' disagreement, I still feel adding his work connection to Wikipedia belongs with his false credentials sentence, and that shortening the sentence by breaking it in two makes it read better. -- Kavri 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kavri, I think you are on to something here, and I don't have any problem with this change. I agree that the name "Ryan Jordan" should indeed show up sooner in the article (makes mental note to rein in absurdist sense of humour) and have no problem with the Wikia mention earlier. Risker 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I had left the suggestion here, hoping for some talk/consensus. Unfortunately QuackGuru thought I wasn't sure 'how' to make the edit and went ahead, which was then changed by Gwen Gale. I felt that my suggestion was proper syntax, and currently feel that inserting Mr. Jordan's name between 'dropout' and the institution he was at, is clunky. Also, it is counter to her own assertion of it being dealt with in the talk pages.

I would ask that discussion continue, and to leave my edit unless there is significant reason to change it. (my preference would have been to roll it back, but was unsure of my ability to do that, so went ahead and changed it to my suggestion).

Currently we have myself, QuackGuru, and Risker assenting to the suggestion. Once others weigh in, it can be decided whether there is significant reason to change it. Please can we keep the discussion here and not start an edit/revert squabble. -- Kavri 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was a great suggestion for the lead. A great improvement. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What this article is about (again)

It wasn't the posting of false information on the user page that was the root cause of the controversy, it was that he claimed what was on his userpage was true to the media. The lead seems to get this wrong currently; I don't think it reflects what our RS's actually say. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. More of our sources focus on the false credentials angle, rather than the "lying to the media" angle. Risker 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't know about that, then someone more familiar with that specific topic should clarify this. You did say, I don't know about that. Posting of info on a userpage is not what this is about. There is a lot more to it. All angles of the story can be presented in a detailed and accurate fashion. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

QG, please don't be so literal-minded. I was politely saying that I disagreed with Kendrick7's assessment. Actually, having had a greater opportunity to read the various sources than Kendrick7, I was fairly certain of my assessment. Risker 06:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I looked back over some of the sources; I suppose I was mistaken. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken another shot at the Introduction. The lead in is answering how it 'arose'. The main points are his not disclosing that he was using a pseudonym and that he later called the reporter herself into question. That one can use false details (name/age/location) for protection is valid, but false academic credentials are not needed, especially ones of high caliber (if he had said he got a BA from Simon Fraser U. when it was really from the University of Calgary, there would not be near the amount of concern amongst the public). I find too, that the two paragraphs seperate it into what triggered the incident, and the issue of credentials. Also, his use of the Dummies book is irrelevant, so I removed it. As anyone can use outside sources to help edit an article (the idea that he said it was a book he gave his students is a misuse of credentials, not a misuse of the book). NOTE: I ask in advance no one add it until people have some time to weigh in on it, if at that time it appears agreed on, it can be editted in. Soooo....here is my shot at it:

The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator Essjay, later identified as Ryan Jordan, was found to have posted false information on his Wikipedia userpage which he did not disclose as pseudonymous to the New Yorker, as well as at a later point casting an unfounded allegation at the reporter who interviewed him.

Besides creating pseudonym with a false age and background, more problematic was his claim to fabricated false academic credentials. Although Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law as a tenured professor at a private university, he was in fact a community college dropout from the U.S. state of Kentucky. The discrepancy in credentials was brought to public attention in late February 2007 when the New Yorker attached an editorial note to a July 2006 article about Wikipedia, for which Essjay had been interviewed.

-- Kavri 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of the For Dummies book was widely reported and makes for an interesting contrast. I would keep it in. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Refering to the title of this section, "What this article is about", I don't see how including that he used information from a book to edit entries is pertinent. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I don't see how 'contrast' needs to be introduced into an article that is in itself about a controversy. Personally I am not that attached to the matter, though it it was re-introduced into my proprosed Introduction, I'd rather it show that said book was used inapporpriately in terms of his credentials (ala the mention where he says he had his students read it). Other than the issue of the book it would be helpful if you mentioned whether you supported the proposed change, or not (with or without the book being mentioned). Thanks -- Kavri 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The unfounded allegation is not mentioned anywhere in any of the sources that I have read; it seems to be a Wikipedia-centric issue. I am afraid I find this quite editorial and not NPOV. Let's continue to try to work on this, though. Risker 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, it's not so much that he "did not disclose as pseudonymous" the info to the New Yorker, he actually said it was true. This makes it sound as if all he commited was a sin of omission. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, The New Yorker did not "report" the information; an editor's note is not a report. And it is obvious the reporter was well aware she was dealing with someone using a pseudonym - after all, who goes by the single name "Essjay" in real life? Fabricated means the same thing as false - and it is editorializing to say that the credentials were more problematic. That would require WP:RS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Forgive me for seeming overly critical, Kavri. This article has already been through three AfDs and so any major edits to it have to be essentially bulletproof. Every statement needs to be backed up by a solid, reliable source. This makes for slightly stilted writing, I know. (At one point, someone actually had a {{fact}} tag on the term "Essjay controversy.") It is good to have fresh eyes on the article; I hope you understand the need for caution in making major changes. Risker 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it was only a shot at tackling the intro again, for comment *grin*. Obviously it didn't hit the mark. I do see how it becomes editorializing. Risker thanks for your comments, and I don't find you overly critical at all, as well, I've taken to heart your meaning that any changes have to be bullet-proof. *smile*. I don't have particular problems with it, however, there are some issues I've found confusing from all sources, and am still unsure as to what the 'facts' are:

A pseudonym to protect from stalking only needs basic false identification, not high level academic credentials. That the New Yorker knew he was un-named is one thing, but did they, or didn't they, know that his credentials and information on his userpage was false?

While it is editorializing to call the academic credentials issue 'problematic'...the general public reaction seems to be that there was a problem not with him cloaking his identity as it was with including academic credentials. Kendrick, is it actually sourced that he told them his credentials were true?

It's minor, but I still think the inclusion of the Dummies book in the intro is unecessary and adding confusion. The use of the book was not a problem, except in regards to his stating his use of it as a professor, other than that, his using it as a 'source' is not an issue, and there for I don't see its pertinence in the opening paragraphs. That said, it's not a crucial point, and I'm only stating an opinion. I'd support a change, but I'll not make it, or fight over it.

-- Kavri 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec about Brandt....

While it may be fair to say that Brandt reported it to the New Yorker, I have no doubt that many other people including many Wikipedians "discovered" the discrepancy in the personas back in January too. I'm not inclined to promote this fact, it would be original research of the worst kind but at the same time let's not give the man more credit than he is due. Risker 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I revised the sentence. Risker 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And I stuck in another sentence, sourced to the (actually very good) Martyn Williams article, which describes how things started to come unglued when Essjay posted his Wikia profile in January. There really wasn't much "discovery" by anyone. It was just a matter of noticing what Essjay posted himself. The timeline makes this clear, but the article itself was kind of fuzzy. Casey Abell 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=114992698&oldid=114986879 I believe this edit should be reverted. A lot of well sourced information and references just happened to vanish. I believe this edit should be reverted. This edit was drastic. QuackGuru ^TALK 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you had read above in the heading "Blogs?" you would have seen that I have gone back to the source material to ensure that this entire section is attributed to reliable third party sources rather than directly to Larry Sanger's blog. The actual quotes have remained the same, and only minor edits to the text itself were required. Sanger remains credited for what he said, just not directly from his blog. I made this change specifically to address a weak point, which is that blogs are not always considered a reliable source. Risker 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sanger's blog is a reliable source that was previuosly discussed. You made these changes that eliminated a lot of information. I going to revert now. QuackGuru ^TALK 06:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I have not eliminated a single, solitary bit of information. In fact, additional editors had questioned the use of the Sanger blog today. The only thing that has been eliminated is a reference source that is shaky; instead of eliminating the information, I found the exact same information in reliable sources and ensured that the information was properly attributed as quotes from Sanger. Risker 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Refer to this discussion please: [23] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I've looked over the changes and it appears no content was removed. QuackGuru, if there is something removed, could you cite it specifically? I see no changes other than citing better sources for the same information. -- Kavri 06:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tranfers this comment via toto from another editor's comment above: Sourcing Sanger from his blog, is that OK under WP:ATT? Blogs in general are not, but someones own blog as a source for their own reaction should be. -- Avi 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I totally agree. Sanger's blog is NPOV and reliable and a strong point. Yep. The reliable references were removed without validity. Suggest this should not continue. Removing reference that are acceptable according to guidelines of Wikipedia can be a bit unwarranted. QuackGuru ^TALK 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you're not helping, knock if off. The crap you're putting us through is completely needless. This issue is over, move on. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, quoting your own opinion is not helpful here. My error, I misread your message; this was another editor's opinion. Risker 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I have reverted to the version that does not rely on blogs as sources based on the discussion in this thread. Please do not create an edit war over your personal interpretation of the use of blogs as reliable sources. Risker 06:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, what I meant by that statement was that I think the Sanger blog could be considered proper attribution for his direct quote, not that it should be reliable for the claim that he is the wiki founder. *I* could set up a blog in a few minutes claiming that I am the wiki founder (which I was, by the way, AND discoverer of the Internet in the jungles of Borneo, and a mean shortorder cook, to boot), it is NOT a valid source for that claim anywhere outside the Larry Sanger article. I hope that clears my quote up for you. Further, questions of attribution in no way shape or form answer questions of relevance. I can reliably source that Jimmy Wales has a beard, but is this necessary in the article? Sanger's quote may not be any more relevant than any oher blogger, now that it has been years since he parted ways with wikipedia. -- Avi 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps QuackGuru might have posted because of my asking him to cite specifics, though I meant that in the context of removal of content if he thought there was any. I think that the outside sources for Sanger's remarks make for stronger references. I think Sanger's remarks are relevant due to the fact that his new enterprise is directly focused on issues of accountability. If any other public information gathering online was happening, whether a dictionary or 'how to' or whatever, and their emphasis is on security/credentials, then if their PR person or CEO or whatever made comments regarding their perceptions of what is 'wrong' with Wikipedia, then I would think it relevant and should also be included. The fact that Sanger has a past with Wikipedia should not de facto preclude his comments from being included. -- Kavri 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it de facto grant him any more status than anyone else. It should be judged on its own merits, and should definitely NOT be used as a source for his being "co-founder" (in any wiki page OUTSIDE of Larry Sanger or pages that specifically discuss the dispute) any more than EssJay's user page should be used as a source for his doctorates in theology . -- Avi 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about undue weight or co-founder in this section here. We are talking about modifying quotes and removing references. And we are talking about removing information because Risker is stating the source is "shaky." Shaky is not a policy. The rewriting is poor and has eliminated some quotes. Here is a revert by an editor modied sentences and also removed verifiable references. This is important for the Peer Review Team to evaluate. Removal of references which meet Wikipedia policy without justication is a serious matter. QuackGuru ^TALK 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Peer review team" is just any editor who decides to comment, you know :) -- Avi 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I went to a lot of trouble to make sure I did not remove any content; if anything, Sanger is credited more directly with his quotes than he was before. For any editor reviewing the changes made, here is the diff between the previous version and the one using only secondary sources instead of Sanger blogs as references. Risker 07:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I made my position clear. I would support 'anyone' that had similar business situation to be quoted, therefor, I support the Sanger quotes, not because he is Sanger, but because he matches the sort of criteria I mentioned above. I'm not sure why you inserted talk of co-founder here, as it wasn't the question at hand. What I said was that anyone in a position of their own company, speaking about the controversy, in the circumstances I mention above, would in my opinion, have merit (could be Joe Business with a secure 'how to fix it' wiki, his comments about credentials/security would still be relevant, imo)

As to my thoughts on 'co-founder', since it was mentioned, I think that a compromise is the only solution and best NPOV practice. I mention it above, and would hope any talk of it can go to the Village Pump or such. In fact, part of the work I was doing on Wikipedia tonight was reading to understand its procedures better, and to find which forums are used for various kinds of questions. I would hope that that particular unresolved issue can be argued in another location, as it encompasses more than this article. (Please other posters, don't argue it here just because it got brought up in passing by Avi and I... *looks around with a hopeful pleading look*)

I hope that I clarified both my support of Risker's reference changes, my support of keeping Sanger's comments included, and my view that the 'co-founder' issue needs a compromise solution (of course, I'm fond of the one I suggested, but any workable one would be good) but that that discussion is not suitable for this talk page. Cheers. -- Kavri 07:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kavri. Actually, I think we finally resolved the "co-founder" issue by calling both Wales and Sanger "a founder." Took three days to get there, it will be interesting to see if the same logic is applied in other articles. Risker 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker, just didn't want to see Avi's mention and my response cause it to re-ignite. I supported Denny's solution, and actually proposed it become policy here (scroll to bottom) -- Kavri 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bad compromise if one reads the talk page discussions, but the situation on the article page is still not optimal because the cited source doesn't back up this claim. I was confused when I clicked on the link to the cited article and the text is: Sanger, who at times calls himself the cofounder, and says he got the idea of using "wiki" technology... Wales's profile says he got the idea from someone else, and last week he said "it's preposterous" to call Sanger the cofounder. I now noticed this same source is used for Jimbo as well, so there is no doubt the intentions have been to be extremely NPOV here, and the compromise idea is good in general, the problem I see is that it doesn't match the cited source, which obviously doesn't use this "a founder" approach. I mean you can't expect me to read all the discussions on talk pages to understand why the sources are being interpreted in this way. --Merzul 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)