Talk:Lee Jinjoon

About corruption/abuse allegations

This was previously added to the article, but deleted as the source was unreliable (X/Twitter). Now there is a Korean media source reporting on it, with significant amounts of proof that the main claims are true: https://m.ekn.kr/view.php?key=20240526025543819.

Due to Korea's defamation laws, however, the accused cannot be named in full, and is just referred to as "Assistant Professor Lee". There is only one "Assistant Professor Lee" in the KAIST Department of Cultural Technology, which is Lee Jinjoon, the subject of this article: https://ct.kaist.ac.kr/boards/lists/faculty_board.

I believe this should be good enough to reinstate the previous claims that were put on this page, yes? Albatrossahoudori (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a step forward, but has any more mainstream newspaper reported on it? ekn.kr doesn't seem to be cited a whole lot on KO Wikipedia... it'd be best to have really non-controversial, major sources discussing it. SnowFire (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So far it seems that there have not been any other news sources yet, but this is breaking news and most of it was over a weekend.

While it isn't one of the "biggest" news sources in Korea, it is a long-running newspaper, it doesn't seem "controversial" in any way, and the sad fact of the matter is that most large media outlets would be hesitant to run news critical of KAIST (for political reasons).

This news source seems good enough for KAIST professors, who have posted it to social media: https://x.com/DrByungjunKim/status/1794899027051565185 Albatrossahoudori (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sending that at RSN right now for further evaluation. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that this event was also covered by Taejon_Broadcasting_Corporation (affiliate of Seoul_Broadcasting_System, which is obviously a reliable source), but as this is a TV source it is much harder to link Albatrossahoudori (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. Have they posted their newscast on YouTube? Per WP:RSPYOUTUBE, content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability, so it could be used. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in: ekn.kr is not a controversial newspaper. It's usable. Shlht0819 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. For what it's worth the person who was continually edit warring to remove this information from the English Wikipedia article also did so on the Korean article, and there about 5-10 independent people have re-added the information and argued for its inclusion. On the Korean article there was never any question about the article's reliability, so it seems strange for it to also not be acceptable for the English article.

The edit warring user also received a COI warning, as they seem to actually be the subject of the article or someone close to him.

@SnowFire Albatrossahoudori (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This only proves that there's angry Korean users riled up about it as well. Same with slapping a COI template - anyone can do that. Even if that's legit, you're not arguing with them here, you're arguing with established users simply honoring WP:BLP.

The question is the same as before: have there been any other reliable sources that took any notice of this incident at all? Or is it still just EKN? SnowFire (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I am arguing that EKN should be seen as a reliable source in this context. Korea is a tiny country, and it doesn't even have freedom of the press as Western countries know it. Publishing this kind of information is legitimately dangerous (could lead to imprisonment). No media source would publish such a thing unless they were positive it was factual, and many would avoid publishing even if they were positive it was factual, to avoid the inevitable police investigations that would ensue.

On the Korean page, not just random people, but also the established Korean Wikipedia users have no issue with the reliability of the article. It seems strange for English Wikipedia users to apply a totally different standard of reliability, especially as that necessarily entails that the article in two different languages will be wildly different. Albatrossahoudori (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Korean Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are different, sorry. In general, English Wikipedia has just about the strictest standards (along with perhaps German Wikipedia), enabled by a large user base. We'd rather say nothing at all than say something libelous. Again, this incident potentially can go in the article, just get another source behind it. Repeatedly saying that the information is super-factual doesn't help - if it's really that factual, then others will eventually report on it as well. And if they don't because of self-censorship, that's unfortunate, but that's the Korean press's fault, not English Wikipedia's fault. SnowFire (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The argument oversimplifies media dynamics and ignores the complexities of journalism, especially in sensitive contexts like Korea. It fails to account for the unique cultural and legal constraints, such as stringent defamation laws, that significantly impact reporting. This is not merely "self-censorship" but a complex interplay of legal, social, and professional factors. By labeling reporting limitations as "the Korean press's fault," it inappropriately shifts responsibility and overlooks systemic issues. Moreover, it presents a binary view of "factual" information, disregarding the nuances of corroboration and undermining the value of specialized publications like EKN.

This stance advocates for a passive approach to information curation, potentially leading to knowledge gaps, particularly in regions with constrained media freedom. It neglects Wikipedia's crucial role in curating information from diverse sources, especially when mainstream coverage is limited. A more nuanced approach considering source credibility, context, and broader implications would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. In the case of the EKN report on Assistant Professor Lee, corroboration by academic sources and the implications of publishing such allegations under Korea's strict legal framework provide substantial grounds for considering this information credible and relevant, despite the lack of widespread mainstream coverage. 194.114.136.11 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to enforce Wikipedia's "strict standards" this page should just be deleted entirely in the first place. This page was created by an army of sockpuppets which removed the speedy deletion template over and over again -- check the oldest entries in the history.

In fact the only thing this person may be notable for are the corruption allegations in the first place, so taking them out leaves you with an empty article (as you can see -- there is no worthwhile content on the page) Albatrossahoudori (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent) 194.114: I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but WP:BLP is one of the firmest and least flexible policies on English Wikipedia. Yes, it absolutely means that some true information will be left out. There will absolutely be "information gaps". But as I already said, on English Wikipedia, it is better to say nothing than to say something libelous. If there's some sparsely sourced negative claim about a living person that's 60% likely to be true, 20% likely to be exaggerated, and 20% likely to be false, we leave it out and accept the "knowledge gap" rather than risk smearing an innocent. That's exactly the point.
• Albatrossahoudori: He already has a pretty scanty article. That said, WP:PROF is one of our most generous notability standards, so I think it would be tough to argue the article should be deleted ignoring the scandal. A professor merely needs to make an impact on their field to be worth consideration as an article. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at WP:PROF, it says 'The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?'

  I do not think this person is more notable or more accomplished than the average researcher in their field. They do not really have many articles published in international conferences/journals, and the ones that do exist are in C-tier publications. This person's history as a media artist is also not really notable (below average for practicing artists). Again, you are ignoring the Korean context here, where positions as a professor are given for nepotism reasons more often than not.

  Note that this person is an Assistant Professor (the lowest rung in the professor hierarchy) and they do not have tenure. They may not even be a professor at all in a few months. Albatrossahoudori (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  The article is indeed pretty scanty, with many impact-related online sources merely linking to galleries or personal pages. I recommend deletion. Shlht0819 (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you're correct, all we need to do is wait a few months, and include the news reports after Jinjoon is dismissed or cleared by KAIST as sources. SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're replying to the wrong person. Anyway, I think it's a pretty limited article. Shlht0819 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  For the third time, you're applying Western thought processes to Korea, where none of your assumptions hold. Even a conviction in court would not make KAIST dismiss him: KAIST refused to dismiss a professor who was convicted to leaking state secrets to China and it also took them 4 years to dismiss a professor who was convicted of procuring underage prostitutes.

  The person who is accusing Jinjoon Lee of embezzlement, abuse, etc also accused KAIST of covering up the incident, which should be a very credible assertion given the above. Albatrossahoudori (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding KAIST:

  Each case should be evaluated on its own merits. The handling of previous incidents doesn't necessarily predict how current or future cases will be managed. Therefore, we should assess the present situation based on its specific context and evidence rather than making assumptions from past events. Corcobana (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  The handling of previous incidents doesn't necessarily predict how current or future cases will be managed.

  This is entirely nonsensical -- by this logic, a woman who is being abused by her husband shouldn't file for divorce, because "previous beatings don't necessarily predict whether or not there will be future beatings.

  A large part of the point of documenting and studying history (part of the point of an encyclopedia, like wikipedia) is to find patterns in the past and use that knowledge to make the future better. Albatrossahoudori (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Shlht0819. The article seems very limited in content. Corcobana (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)