Comments on: Jimmy Wales’ latest response on the Essjay situation

By: 100iso.it » Blog Archive » Wikipedia controllerà le credenziali degli editor

Sat, 19 May 2007 09:35:09 +0000

[...] Wikipedia ed ai suoi metodi di gestione. Molto critici sulla condotta di Wales sono Larry Sanger (co-fondatore di Wikipedia) e Seth Finkelstein sui rispettivi blog. A molti non è piaciuta la [...]

By: a thaumaturgical compendium » Blog Archive » Wikipedia editor abased

a thaumaturgical compendium » Blog Archive » Wikipedia editor abased — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:40:26 +0000

[...] The black eye suffered by Wikipedia is not so much to process as it is to general respectability, and it provides another outstanding piece of ammunition for those who are already critical. As Brock Read writes over at the Chronicle, “the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia’s credibility—especially with professors who will now note that one of the site’s most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.” The Telegraph: “Deep down, though, we all knew it wasn’t that reliable.” Larry Sanger, long a critic of uncredentialed encycloping finds the initial shrug from Wales and Essjay’s “non-apology” to suggest that the moral keel of Wikipedia administrators is a more than a little uneven. [...]

By: bi

bi — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:35:25 +0000

“I doubt that it would have worked (and will not believe it until someone provides me with the diffs to it)”

Whether it works or not doesn’t matter. It’s wrong to even _try_ to pull this. Wrong, period.

And um, Wikipedia “runs on truth”? When people go to great lengths to distort the “truth” about themselves, and use their new-found “truth” in content disputes, can there be any meaning left to the claim that Wikipedia “runs on truth”?

Lies, excuses, and more lies. We don’t need Stephen Colbert to crash Wikipedia, because Wikipedia’s own defenders can easily do it themselves.

By: John Wittle

John Wittle — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:34:35 +0000

Wikipedia itself doesn’t run on “who has the degree” or “who knows more,” it runs on truth. If Essjay ever used his “degree” to sway and argument or force something into an article, I doubt that it would have worked (and will not believe it until someone provides me with the diffs to it), because whether or not you have a degree in Theology or not, it doesn’t change what the truth is or is not. Therefore, I don’t think that the fact that he lied about his credentials is a big deal. Consider this: You invent a pseudonymn to use online. You are a bit egocentric, so you give him some hefty credentials. You comment on them a bit in the beginning so no-one questions you, and then you leave them be. Later, you realize it might have been a bad idea to invent this pseudonymn, but you can’t drop it because people already know you by this person and it would be painful to the community if you were to “come out”, so to speak.

Then, the NY Times wants an interview. Well, either you destroy your reputation and tell them the truth, or you continue the lie that is commonly accepted as truth. The lie doesn’t hurt anyone, while the truth would hurt you along with anyone who trusted you. So you lie, even though it’s snowballing into something you don’t want. But what choice do you have? So you lie to the NYT.

Bam, you’re caught, and in big trouble because you didn’t come out yourself, someone else forced you out. You resign from the ‘pedia and ‘a, etc.

That’s basically what happens. While it might not have been the best course of action, it is an UNDERSTANDABLE course of action. I think, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GofG

By: Citizendium Blog » One last, brief comment on the Essjay scandal

Citizendium Blog » One last, brief comment on the Essjay scandal — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:21:34 +0000

[...] that removed all doubt on a certain point, which placed things into a clearer perspective. I know I said I wouldn’t write anything else about the scandal, so I’ll be [...]

By: ZachPruckowski

ZachPruckowski — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:58:09 +0000

Correct, I miswrote Board for Committee. My apologies. I think however, that regardless of formal structure, it’s more or less human nature to default to “Cover-your-Ass” and “Pass the Buck”. I’ll freely confess to having done that once or twice in my life.

Oh, and thanks Michel Vuijlsteke for the translation.

By: Stephen Ewen

Stephen Ewen — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:40:01 +0000

Per Mr. Wales talk page, he has apparently pulled out a Bandaid from his box.

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:27:21 +0000

A few comments. I’ll keep it simple.

* Essjay so-called “apology” is insulting. I’ve never understood why it’s so hard for people to admit their wrongdoings.
* Jimbo knowingly appointing Essjay despite his fraudulent claims is the worst part of this whole situation, in my opinion.

On the flip side:

* It does not appear like Essjay used his false status to further some agenda. On the contrary, he has made thousands of worthy edits. I think he’ll go down in history as the Pete Rose of Wikipedia. Both great, but with tarnished legacies.
* Essjay has resigned.

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:01:05 +0000

Zach wrote: “Even here, if there was an issue with a member of the Exec Board, it’d be Dr. Sanger’s call.”

Some corrections: there is no Exec. Board, there is an Executive Committee. What you say may be true now, Zach, but it won’t be for long. We aim to adopt a Citizendium Charter, I hope by this fall, which will specify nothing like a sovereign monarch as Wikipedia has (in effect), but at least two, or three, persons and/or bodies that are distinct, nonoverlapping, independent in their areas of authority, and which act as checks on each others’ authority. Furthermore, I am committed to stepping down, as I have said, in 2 or 3 years (at most) in order to set a good precedent. And when I step down, I really will step down, I won’t continue to make appointments and pretend to speak on behalf of the whole project to the media.

If you were to say I seem to have a certain model in mind, you’d be right.

By: ZachPruckowski

ZachPruckowski — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:20:25 +0000

Fred Bauder - I certainly don’t think you should feel responsible. The issue isn’t that people didn’t notice the problem, it’s that people didn’t care about the problem. If Jimbo had simply been fooled, we’d probably laugh at him for a minute or so, then we’d go back to bashing that lying guy. The problem isn’t that people didn’t do thorough enough checking (and “ran it past us” don’t compel you to do an indepth background check on the guy), it’s that people were fine with him claiming to be someone he wasn’t.

And as to your last point - that’s going to be true anywhere. Even here, if there was an issue with a member of the Exec Board, it’d be Dr. Sanger’s call.

Oh, and a quick retraction - apparently he was ex-Mediation Chair and on the ArbCom, not ex-ArbCom Chair. My apologies. Point remains, he was a bureaucrat, a checkuser, and had oversight. That’s the 3 big guns of Mediawiki privilege levels*, and he had them all. I don’t doubt that in a year’s time, had this not been discovered, he could have made Board of Trustees or something.

* = (Steward is not an official MediaWiki privilege level, it’s a hacked-on thing that Wikimedia does)