Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

News sources - Moved from article to talk page here

In the absence of opposition here [1], I have moved the News sources section from the article to the talk page. This way, they are still available for editing purposes but do not clutter the article itself. Please note that information from several of these news sources is already included in the article proper, and has been appropriately referenced.

Primary sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago73 comments17 people in discussion

It is time to get rid of any primary sources that are not directly referenced in the articles. Many of them have made their way into the media now so we have secondary sources, and several of them are unrelated to the article as it is currently written. I realise this may be contentious, so I am putting it here first before deleting anything. Risker 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, move them to talk (or a talk subpage) along with the uncited news articles. --tjstrf talk 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't see a point in keeping the primary sources that are uncited in news articles, and I will remove them. Risker 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Thanks, someone else beat me to it. Risker 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing primary sources makes sense. As time goes by more and more of these details can be properly gotten from reliable sources so there's really not much need for them. (→Netscott) 16:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they were a tolerable cheat to begin with, I didn't think they were needed, never mind they provided a big docking target of self-referentiality for this article's critics. Gwen Gale 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage images and photo

With the article in its current, fully supported and un-self referential context, I don't understand the need for Essjay's userpage images (never mind their sourcing is a bit thin, that's not what I'm wondering about). Comments anyone? Gwen Gale 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is. They show in context the claims made in the article. Illustrations are as good for this as words.DGG 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to them would make more sense, as they are an illustration of words. In the thumbnail view they tell you nothing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a link would be more helpful and less self-referential. Gwen Gale 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are they illustrating? The userpage image doesn't support a thing - no credentials on it. The Wikia page has nothing to do with the article, which is about his editing on Wikipedia. And the photo is gratuitous. Risker 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the gallery as both superfluous and too thinly sourced (if at all). If someone wants to put in external links to these images (not to Wikipedia project pages, however) I'm ok with that but can't speak for other editors. Gwen Gale 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen Gale's removal. (→Netscott) 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep - Agree - I was never that comfortable about the inclusion of the photo. As far as the screenshots are concerned, I'm not bothered if they are in but I don't think they add to the article so might as well be removed. Munta 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with removing the screenshots- they should be treated as source and not part of the article (which they add nothing to...). WjBscribe 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as well. I was thinking of doing it myself, but Gwen was braver than I. Thanks, Gwen. :) ElinorD (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of images

It has already been discussed the pictures were useful and many contributors wanted the pictures in the article. Please do not remove again when people expressed to keep. No wikilawering. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering? Gwen Gale 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is rather disagreeable to see that term used so loosely. Such usage isn't very civil. (→Netscott) 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, consensus can change, as it seems to be doing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The people who wanted the images in the article have NOT expressed change in keeping. Consensus was reached to keep images. Thier [sic] consensus has NOT changed. ~~Can we say wikilawering?!~~ QuackGuru ^TALK 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd been through this already. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, see this → WP:CCC. (→Netscott) 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically: WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change. (→Netscott) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I agree with that. I just don't forsee any consensus forming here. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

END OF DISCUSSION on IMAGE REMOVAL!

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm going to ask this question again, broadly now: Is anyone saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering about these screenshots/images? Gwen Gale 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No jones, not the end of the discussion, we discuss forever and consensus can change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me, Gwen Gale. The removal of these images is an editorial decision. The presence of these images is not supported by the text of the article itself, therefore they should not be there. Essjay's image (whether his or not) has nothing to do with the subject of the article. An image of his user page that doesn't have the controversial credentials on it is probably worse than no image of the user page at all. Risker 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, truth be told I was mostly asking C.m.Jones and QuackGuru, who have both used the term, Gwen Gale 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry to much Gwen, I for one don't take those allegations seriously. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, what are you all afraid of. You know, letting the images stay up and letting a discussion about it go on for a week or so??? What;s the big huge rush?? (No-brainer inferred answer already taken). C.m.jones 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't have any relevant information, it is an editorial decision. Consensus can change at whatever speed the editors manage to change it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My worry is self-reference along with pileon. If the article breaks WP policy it can be attacked by editors who want it erased. If it seems like it carries unsupported, negative PoV about Essjay, the article loses credibility and hence is less helpful to readers looking for a supported, verifiable take. Gwen Gale 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mob Attack

The next step might be to report this incident to the noticeboard. Again, many contribtors [sic] expressed to keep images. Their consensus has NOT changed. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Save for the fact that it might waste folks' time I'd say by all means head on over to WP:AN or WP:ANI and make a report. (→Netscott) 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a input from uninvolved people will settle this, but I think they will tell you that consensus can change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey QuackGuru, to nick the words of a widely known arbcomm member, I would think long and hard before taking this to the admin noticeboard. Gwen Gale 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice.... back to protection. Come on folks... (→Netscott) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, this article has had a very rapid evolution. As it has progressed, and more and more reliable sources have been identified, the need for such stop-gap measures as those images, the primary sources, and the mountain of external links has decreased. They are no longer helpful to the article. Risker 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, so too. Gwen Gale 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreeance as well over here. (→Netscott) 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And another Munta 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I reject the notion that repeating the mantra concensus can change is really going to cause it to happen. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I don't wanna sound like an echo here or anything but I agree with that too. I based my rm'l of the screenshots on WP policy against self-reference along with concerns about NPoV. Gwen Gale 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Consensus has changed". That much is clear from recent discussions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

* it, echo that. Gwen Gale 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep No consensus has been reached. Further, many editors have stated previously they want to maintain the images in the article. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So then we are back to where we were before, WP:NPOV and WP:SELF. So: Who's POV these pictures represent? Answer: no ones that I can tell. What part of WP:SELF applies to these screenshots? It doesn't; we're allowed to have articles about wikipedia, so of course we can have articles containing screenshots of wikipedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick image survey

The following content is under discussion:

Screenshot of Google's cache of Essjay's Wikipedia user page, March 1 2007
Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007

Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007
Image posted by Essjay as himself

Here's where it looks like we stand of the folks voicing themselves in this image discussion:

For images:User:DGG, User:Kendrick7, User:C.m.jones, User:QuackGuru
Not for images:User:WJBscribe, User:ElinorD, User:HighInBC, User:Gwen Gale, User:Risker, User:Netscott, User:Munta
For photo, against page images: User:Doug Bell

Is this right? (→Netscott) 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks right to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forgot JoshuaZ, he takes Saturdays off I believe. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about previous discussion (of which User:JoshuaZ was a part of), I'm talking about this one. (→Netscott) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having had a cup of tea, I keep coming back to the idea that these images are now superfluous to the article; they just aren't all that pertinent[2]. The user page image, in particular, is a version that does not include the much-discussed credentials and thus fails to support the information in the article. I think we need to be absolutely clear why each of those images should be in the article - those of you who feel they should stay, please give your reasoning based on policy/guidelines so that we can reach a consensus. Risker 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. Therefore a keep. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you cannot just say there is no consensus and expect that to change anything. The consensus is clear, deal with it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You really should refamiliarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually does contain the crendentials; it doesn't mention the exact degrees he claimed to have. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The false credentials are fully described and cited from independent sources in the article text. Why is a picture of text so helpful? (my question is sincere) Gwen Gale 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think the message we are being given by this block is that it is time for us to sit back as a group of interested editors and make some editing decisions based on the current, evolved status of the article. The last time we had a discussion about the images was two days ago, and there have been dramatic changes and a ton of new reliable sources since then. It's entirely reasonable that we look at the article as a whole and see what is missing and what no longer needs to be there. Risker 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My rational for keeping is still WP:ENC; these could be of interest in 100 years, maybe not. I'm pressed to a good reason to exclude them. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ~~btw, can someone archive the talk page? my comp is giving up the ghost~~

I'd like to see more input here then. Meanwhile I'm asking protection be lifted, I'm indifferent as to whether the images are tucked onto the bottom of the article while we try to stabilize it and find out what the consensus truly is. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lifted protection, but if the edit warring continues it will have to go right back on. Please discuss before making any further changes. Thanks. Trebor 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha way to go QuackGuru, thanks for talking about it before leaping in to put the images back. :) So leave 'em in for now and let's see what others have to say. Gwen Gale 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I save remove them. Munta 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think they should be removed, what changed, why are they back? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked for protection to be removed and QuackGuru leapt through the window of opportunity to restore the images and revert a bunch of other stuff too. Gwen Gale 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote KEEP the damn images. Say no to censorship. --Jayzel 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep the images. The fact that Essjay claimed the false bio was to protect privacy and yet posted a free image is further evidence of his duplicity. —M (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

- This is not a censorship issue, the fact is that self references are to avoided when independent reliable sources will do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify exactly what this article is about

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I'm afraid we are all getting trapped in the minutiae again, which is to be expected when many of us have been working on this article for a few days running. So let's step back and reaffirm exactly which article we are writing here.

What it is not: An article about Essjay and his actions. I think the point is widely conceded that Essjay should not have claimed credentials that he did not have, and that he used those non-existent credentials inappropriately.

What it is: An article about the resultant reaction to the discovery that Essjay had claimed credentials he did not have and had used them inappropriately. The issue is not that Essjay did something wrong, it is that his error created a firestorm of reaction, both inside and outside Wikipedia. It is this reaction that we are trying to document in this article.

Have I missed something here? Risker 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, unless something has been reported by a reliable source, then we should not include it. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are not relevant unless a reliable source has featured the content. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again User:Risker (along with User:Gwen Gale) bringing clarity to the editing/discussion here. Totally agree... which explains why the "reactions" section is the size it is (at least up to this point). (→Netscott) 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from some of the other editors who have also been working hard on this article. QuackGuru? DGG? It's important that we are heading in the same direction, or we will wind up with more edit warring and frustration. Your perspectives are important. Risker 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the nut graf here, is that he lied to the media about his credentials, claiming what was on his user page was true (gee, we should get a screenshot of that...) when in fact it wasn't. That was his cardinal sin, as a professor of theology might put it. So it is about that action, and what resulted from that action. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the screen shot of the user page that is kicking around right now doesn't list any of the problematic credentials except the professorship. I could probably go for a screen shot of his user page on the day the article appeared, but that doesn't exist. And I have to tell you that I can't think of another page on Wikipedia where a screenshot like that would be considered acceptable - not for content reasons, but because it is barely identifiable, let alone legible, in the thumbnail size. Risker 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the nut graf, though. It should be reworked. Risker 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it is a good point that the shot doesn't exactly correspond with what the author of the article saw. Still thinking about that one.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was only about the reaction, then wouldn't the article be named Reaction to the Essjay controversy? --Dookama 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comma placement

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

In English, commas go inside quotes in spite of logic. It's not "Essjay", it's "Essjay," which follows the standard punctuation convention. Many literate readers will tend to shake their heads at a comma placed outside quotation marks. Gwen Gale 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And many won't Glen 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That project page says it's ok in UK English but in truth it's more "tolerated" than "ok." Anyway I wanted to bring it up is all, it's not like I think my nitpicky change'll stick or anything :) Gwen Gale 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that the whole time I've been editing up here. I always thought it was inside, but having seen in incorrect so often, I was having serious doubts. Thanks for the tip. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For those wanting a reference, check CMS 6.8 :) -- Avi 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of us (or at least me) find common sense preferable to grammatical correctness as regards this particular rule. --tjstrf talk 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

Pardon me, but did anyone happen to notice THE TOTALLY FREAKIN’ HUGE ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM?? HELLO?? The greater part of the whole Essjay scandal is not about Essjay and what he did (although that was certainly bad enough). The really scandalous part is how Essjay was dealt with, and not dealt with, at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I shall explain, since it would appear (*sigh*) that explanation is actually required.

It is simply not credible that an elaborate false CV would be created for any legitimate purpose. The only possible exception that I could see would be for matters involving national security (Will this be the next Essjay whopper? Tune in tomorrow!). You do not fabricate a false CV to protect your anonymity. You fabricate a false CV to perpetrate a fraud–to gain material advantages you otherwise could not obtain, or would not obtain until significantly later. This is exactly, and unsurprisingly, what happened.

The truly scandalous thing here is that not only was Essjay given a paid position at Wikia after self-exposing his fraud (while incidently creating a few new misrepresentations along the way), but that he was also rewarded several weeks later with a promotion to ArbCom here at Wikipedia! It was not until it was obvious to even the most obtuse that this whole thing was going to blow up into a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media that “God-King” Jimbo finally gave Essjay/Ryan Jordan/Whatever-His-Name-Really-Is the ol’ heave ho. It would appear, accordingly, that either Jimmy Wales is one of the biggest pollyannas that ever lived, or he is just as morally oblivious as Essjay himself, if not more so.

If after reading this you cannot understand why I am so throughly disgusted, then I pity you. I truly do. Edeans 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the forum to discuss this and frankly I'm not sure where on Wikipedia would be the place. You might try User talk:Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. This talk space if for how we as editors can improve this article. Please read: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I think it's ok to bring this up for context. Wales has said he made a mistake and has apologized, something a skilled leader might do when this kind of thing happens. That's helpful IMHO. Mind, Wales referred to Jordan as "Mr Ryan" even after he'd asked him to resign. Meanwhile if Edeans can find a verifiable citation from a reliable independent source supporting this take, by all means let's put it in the reaction section (or whatever it ends up being called). Gwen Gale 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a forum for people to express why they are " so throughly disgusted". (→Netscott) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree that's over the top but it's not like he's throwin' tags up on the article is it? Gwen Gale 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole notwithstanding, Edeans may well have a point that pro-and re-active responses to the controversy should be part of this article. If they can be sourced to the same level, and the same absolute care to prevent assumptions and conclusions and implicit points of view that we require for all biography-type articles. Much of the news coverage is about possible (or mistakenly assumed definite) reactions by Wikipedia (and Jimbo personally) to this event. -- Avi 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the hyperbole, but the substantive point is valid. A major part of this controversy concerns inportant positions that Essjay achieved after his false credentials were apparently known to Wikipedia higher-ups, including Jimmy Wales. I have added a very carefully worded sentence to the article which states that Larry Sanger criticized Wales on this issue. The sentence is referenced to Sanger's Citizendium blog, which is completely reliable as a source for the fact that Sanger made the criticism. Casey Abell 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's helpful. Gwen Gale 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs?

Reactions! We have co-founder Wales' response and we also need Larry Sanger's response to be fair. Thanks for the idea Edeans. Your comments has expanded the article because you gave me an idea. I will add Larry Sanger's response. QuackGuru ^TALK 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really simple, if there is a reliable source that we can attribute to, we include it, otherwise we do not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yep, sourcing Sanger from his blog is not ok, I've rm'd it. Never mind there could be a question of whether or not Sanger's remarks are relevant at all in this article. However, I noticed Quack had restored the "I don't have a problem with it" quote, which I have retained and placed in chronological order earlier in the article. Gwen Gale 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs that fall under the editorial control of reliable sources can generally be considered reliable themselves but personal blogs generally are not considered reliable. (→Netscott) 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If links to Sanger's blog are to be included in this article then that should be based upon Sanger being mentioned in a reliable source relative to this article. I think in that case then there's a case for a link. (→Netscott) 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more clear? Do you think citing Sanger in his own blog qualifies as a reliable independent source or not? Gwen Gale 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well optimally a reliable source that quotes him would be the best. What I am saying is that as the article stands now there's no reason to be quoting Sanger. He's not mentioned anywhere in the article so it looks odd if suddenly there's this quote from him. If a reliable source mentioning him can be worked into the article and his relativity to the article in terms of this controversy can be established then I don't see why he couldn't be included so long as primary source policy is abided by. (→Netscott) 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. So someone might want to find a reference to this Sanger quote somewhere other than on his blog. By the bye, what does everyone think of the "co-founder" title given to Wales in the article (yes, it's supported by the citations but we all know what it's about don't we). Thoughts? Gwen Gale 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Being well aware that this statement is outside of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, isn't it a little dumb to be saying, "This notable person who nobody thinks had no effect in getting Wikipedia off the ground can't be quoted straight from his blog -- but if he was at a news conference and said the exact same thing, we'd allow it."?--Dookama 11:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with saying he claims to be co-founder. Gwen Gale 11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent + ec) It's my understanding that using a person's own blog as a source is acceptable if you are quoting them. However, why Sanger's comments have any relevance is beyond me. He hasn't been involved in Wikipedia in over 5 years, and he now runs a competing project (tangential comment removed). His involvement in the "creation" of Wikipedia is debatable depending on who you ask. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Netscott and BBatsell here; Sanger has no role in this episode. If anyone else thought he was important, they would have interviewed him or linked to his blog. Seems to me that was one of the problems we had with C.m.jones' version of things. We have dozens of news sources here that haven't been included in the article, and I would think they might take priority. In any case, the Sanger quotes are already in the Criticism of Wikipedia article; having them here makes something redundant, and I am betting it would be considered this article. Risker 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say go with Netscott's suggestion that someone find a reliable independent source referring to the Sanger quote and putting it into context relative to this event before including it (or discussing it further, anyway). Gwen Gale 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BBatsell. Quoting a blog can sometimes be allowed, but Sanger is not relevant here. Johntex\^talk 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just reviewed this section again, this time with good old-fashioned hard copy and pencils, and I think it can be properly sourced using existing references with only subtle changes in the attribution sentences, thus eliminating the need to reference to Sanger's blog. Will make those changes now. Risker 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs serious reworking

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think this passes WP:SELF, but at any rate it needs significant rewriting and reworking. Perhaps 80% of the article is a news article, not encyclopedic, and already dated. What remains should really be a section of another page, not its own article. The extensive comments from various news agencies are random and often poorly informed -- since in this case any information the reporters could possible be going on is either a direct quote (which we can quote and cite) or from Wikipedia page histories, we should go directly to the source rather than relying on a game of telephone through reporters with limited understanding of the situation and their own biases (the need to write a catchy piece, make deadline, &c).

I hope the whole article can be compressed and added into a longer page on Wikipedia history, which is the only context in which this controversy is of lasting interest. +sj + 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Edit

The article does not need a rework. It needs a revert.[3] I seriously do not understand your attempt to delete content. Please explain. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The link to Andrew Wolfson's article, "Wikipedia editor who posed as professor is Ky. dropout" (March 6, 2007), on which four footnotes rely, is now broken.[4] --Jbmurray 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Found a mirror of the story on an education website and fixed the url. Casey Abell 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to my fellow-actuary Avraham for using the archive tags in the revised footnote. I overlooked them completely. I've made similar corrections to the footnote in Criticism of Wikipedia. Casey Abell 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure . -- Avi 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

needs a proper lead

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Articles aren't supposed to have citations in the lead because everything in it should be supported by more extensive information within the article. This needs to be edited so that the lead contains a proper summary and the body expands on it. Having a citation for both clauses of a parenthetical description of one commentator is excessive and distracting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Larry is cofounder?

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article states he is cofounder. Is this true? SakotGrimshine 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the archives. There was a massive fight over this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, not this again. Maybe we should change it to "self-declared" or "self-proclaimed" cofounder? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 17:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been resolved. But... if you want to continue the debate I am more than happy to help. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Omits details

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Given that the New Yorker only published after Brandt brought it to their attention, and given that Brandt only learned of it when a Wikipedia Review member posted about the Wikia page, why do we omit discussion of the antecedents? There isn't even a breath in the article that Brandt doesn't deserve all the credit for this. It's like an article on WWII not mentioning WWI or the Spanish Civil War... --Gwern (contribs) 15:02 24 June 2007 (GMT)

Actually, the article states that other WP users noticed the discrepancy before Brandt publicized it and that they questioned Essjay on his user page. The comment is cited to a Signpost article that does a good job tracing the wide public disclosure of the discrepancy. The article also makes it as clear as it can be made from published sources that the discrepancy was known to Wikipedia insiders when Essjay was hired at Wikia. Casey Abell 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with those other users - I was the one who mentioned them in WikiEN-l and here way back; but the WR poster still preceded even the earliest of them by at least several days. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 24 June 2007 (GMT)

It wasn't a controversy to the world until The New Yorker published its note; Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia Watch aren't significant in themselves, and certainly the fact that there was drama on Wikipedia is hardly newsworthy. Gwern, while I quite agree with you about the "true" history, there's a bit of a problem meeting the WP:NOR and WP:RS standards. Now, perhaps if you (as a longtime editor and admin who has been uninvolved in the "attack sites" issue) edit the article to include this information and add a link to WR, it might stick - but given that there are those who have gone through and removed "attack site" links from archives of this talk page, I wouldn't lay odds on the likelihood of acceptance. Risker 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NOR and RS don't really apply here. In the same way a blog can not be a RS when it comes to most things, but be a RS about the author, a WR posting is a RS about the poster, and it's the poster and his noticing of the discrepancy that is important. That it is on WR is unfortunate and perhaps unsurprising, but immaterial.

BTW, I'm not actually an admin, but I will try adding it to the article. --Gwern (contribs) 17:23 24 June 2007

(GMT)

Having noted the continued "discussion" on the article page, I have posted about this issue on the WP:NPA talk page. Since I have been active in that discussion, I believe it is a conflict of interest for me to push my position in the article, but I have no problems with that link. Risker 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Risker's post at NPA, while I am not going to get into it re: the links to WR, I think the posting of the subject's "real name," if it is his real name, is inappropriate. Though he has been identified as such on Wikia and in the mainstream press, I don't think "the real McCoy" would want this, unless "RJ" was a non de plume also. Still, if we are extending Brandt the courtesy of not having an article I don't see why we shouldn't be as concerned about Essjay's privacy.—AL ^FOCUS! 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a huge difference between the two. Brandt had been continually requesting removal of an article purporting to be specifically about him personally, and titled with his real name, for a couple of years and using every avenue of appeal within Wikipedia. In this case, the article is about the controversy itself, and uses the Wikipedia user name in the title rather than the Real Life name, although it does include the RL name of the Wikipedian involved in the text of the article. As far as I know, neither Essjay nor Ryan Jordan has requested changes to or removal of this article. Given that the media continue to refer to this event, I am hesitant to suggest that the article should be deleted; however, having an article without the well-known, published RL name would bowdlerize Wikipedia. Risker 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case I'd say its his prerogative, then. Still, the principle being applied to prohibit references to "attack sites" elsewhere, on the basis of supposed privacy violations, would seem to disqualify referencing a Wikipedian's "real name" in any article, though his self-identification on Wikia is the reference everyone from WR to the New Yorker and NYT seems to have used to establish the claim in the first place.—AL ^FOCUS! 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the article. It seems the Courier-Journal of Louisville did do some investigative work verifying the existence of RJ. Still, the privacy concerns stand. If RJ ever requested removal of his real name from associated WP articles, I'd fully support.—AL ^FOCUS! 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(sigh)... Yet another venue for the silly attack-site war to break out, and this time it's actually harming the encyclopedia, instead of just interfering with free discussion on talk pages. See my essay for my comments on the whole sordid affair. *Dan T.* 23:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)