Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Essjay controversy. 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 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Move

This needs a move NOW. Nothing in citations supports the name, and it's stupid. I'm feeling "Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia)". Or maybe even Ryan Jordan (internet personality). Milto LOL pia 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is moved, make sure to fix the double-redirects, given it has already been moved once. Daniel Bryant 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did. Milto LOL pia 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources/References/News

News - For more information, here is the relevant Google Search: "ryan jordan" wikipedia Smee 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
- Find something for the Wikia involvement, and find some relevance for it, or it's all speculation! Milto LOL pia 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  - The link itself is self-explanatory and simple perusal shows relevancy. And no need to use exclamation points please. Smee 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
    - Self-explanatory to you, but have any third-party sources called it relevant, or are you just asserting that yourself? Milto LOL pia 05:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
More info - Now here is some interesting stuff, in addition to the News Coverage, there is some significant (I know, not a reputable source), Blog Coverage - and that's not all, here is an interesting post from Larry Sanger, "Wikipedia firmly supports your right to identity fraud" Smee 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Incorrect Further Reading Address - Sadofsky, Jason S (01 March 2007). Wikipedia: J.S. on Essjay. ASCII. Retrieved on 2007-03-02. This reference should link here: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000329.html Would someone with an account please fix it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.127.158 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 March 2007

Done. John Vandenberg 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

Why is the Wikia business being mentioned? It's not sourced and not mentioned in the article, therefore there is no third part asserting its relevance. Why include his ties to Wikia? How are they relevant to this one incident? As in, how have third-party sources said they are relevant? Asking for input here. Milto LOL pia 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is an article on Ryan, it is relevant to include his current employment (source of income, job, actual credentials) at Wikia. WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but who can verify it? Any of these sources? And why is the infobox showing his Wikia userpage as the relevant website when clearly the Wikipedia one is more relevant to the actual reason for the article? Milto LOL pia 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is his occupation. Smee 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This isn't a profile website, it's supposed to show the info that makes him notable, not unverified vanity info. Where he works is irrelevant unless it's covered by a news source; if that's the case, it should be included in the main body and cited. Milto LOL pia 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see footnote in infobox. Smee 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but where's the relevance? It just mentions in passing. On the other hand, his antics on Wikipedia are what the article is actually about, so why would it not make more sense to include that link in the infobox instead of one with no asserted relevance? Milto LOL pia 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. As per the article and other sources, both are relevant. Smee 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Important point. The new "credentials" listed on the Wikia biography page are likely false, since a 24-year-old cannot possibly have those credentials. The maths simply do not add up. That is probably a good enough reason not to rely on that information. Quatloo 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion they are likely to be false. I think they are likely to be true, but I don't have any sources backing me, nor do you. Milto LOL pia 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he claims to be 24 and have had 5 years experience as a paralegal. That would mean he started as a paralegal at age 19. Quoting from Paralegal's ABA definition "A legal assistant or paralegal is a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer." This would mean his training would have had to occur prior to the age of 19. However, this neglects the readily apparent fact that EssJay has been spending just about all of his waking hours editing Wikipedia since 2005, so it is necessary to trim 2005 and 2006 off from the available years. This isn't my opinion, I am just saying the maths do not add up. Oh plus he attended three separate universities, simultaneously to all that. Quatloo 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but is there a third party source saying that it isn't possible, or just your math? Original research that turns out to be correct is still original research. My disagreement is not in your conclusion (well, it is somewhat, but that disagreement is just a difference of two unqualified opinions and so is not relevant), but in whether or not that info is verifiable via third-party sources. Milto LOL pia 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the math is original research, I am not disputing that, and importantly, I was not trying to insert this into the main page of the article. The original question on the talk page was why the Wikia information was not included in the main article. My answer on the talk page is that biography of EssJay on the Wikia site does not add up and should probably not be considered accurate. Quatloo 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Milto LOL pia 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt says

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0 28th August 2006, 3:57pm "It's possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He's too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor, maintain a relationship with Robbie, and eat and sleep too."
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=20 20th January 2007, 5:40pm "I might write to The New Yorker and complain about their fact-checking, and ask for a retraction and investigation." 20th January 2007, 11:54pm (copy of letter sent) WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the whole sequence you will see that Daniel Brandt is behind the recent publicity, which in turn was sparked by a change to Essjay's self description to create an appropriate new and different persona for his new Wikia job. There is no evidence for either description to be accurate. WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This has actually been mentioned in more reliable sources:

King, Ian (March 2, 2007). "A Wiki web they've woven". Vancouver 24 Hours.

Essjay was no theology prof; instead, he's 24-year-old Ryan Jordan, who has neither an advanced degree nor a teaching job. When hired by Wikia - a for-profit company run by Wikipedia's core team to publish more wikis. Earlier this year as a community manager, Essjay replaced his old fake credentials with new, possibly real ones.
Veteran Wikipeida critic Daniel Brandt of wikipedia-watch.org first dug up details of Jordan's bamboozling of both Wikipedians and the New Yorker, leading to the magazine running a correction this week, admitting it had been had.
The reaction from Wiki devotees to this scandal is bizarre to outsiders. Jordan pointed the finger at the New Yorker for not being wise to his game. Others attacked Brandt - a popular Wiki pastime.

And it seems like the amount of reputable sources reporting on this may increase. Smee 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

- Are there any better sources? Vancouver 24 Hours is, with all due respect to Ian King, a tiny flyer that its publishers give away for free. Most people commuting by SkyTrain in rush hour meet someone offering them one. Kla'quot 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No advanced degree

I keep seeing this statement, but AFAIK, nobody, including Ryan in his Wikia bio, has asserted that he holds any degree or even a high school diploma. Any idea on why the articles are making a distinction on "advanced" degree? —Doug Bell ^talk 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that's the distinction made in the sources. Milto LOL pia 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't ask very clearly. What I was asking was does anyone have an idea why the source articles are making the distinction? —Doug Bell ^talk 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe they assume by his age he's got a diploma, since many more people get diplomas than PhDs, or maybe it's just because he never said anything about a diploma so they aren't worried about it. Milto LOL pia 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the level of assuming by at least the New Yorker would be minimal on this subject at this point. No? I mean, how do they know he doesn't have an advanced degree? It just seems that there is likely to be something behind such a specific statement. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, probably just lazy reporting and jumping to conclusions, like the original failure to confirm his credentials. Milto LOL pia 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's userpage (as of 2 January 2006) listing his false credentials. Notice also: "For various reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous on Wikipedia, but I also believe it is important for me to offer information about myself that is relevant to my work on Wikipedia." and "My motto on Wikipedia (and in life) is Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth)." ... Essjay's current Wikipedia userpage gives the name "Ryan Jordan", at the time I write this. Of course, I cannot be sure what it will say when you read this. -- Ben 15:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Tangential material has no place here

The comments by Jimmy Wales, and Sanger's response to them, do not, on the face of it, have anything to do with the subject of the article. Just more Sanger-Wales fun. If the article were renamed or merged, they might have a place, but not now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

~~I agree, that stuff is hilarious to see edit warred over, but not really relevant. Just link to their articles, that's why wikilinks are great. Milto LOL pia 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)~~

Wait, I misunderstood. No, I think Wales' reaction is highly relevant, though I question the importance of Sanger's. Milto LOL pia 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Including either comment would be reasonable in an article on the controversy (if that article was on Wikinews; this here is an encyclopedia, not "the news magazine that anyone can edit"), but not in what purports to be a biography. Of course Essjay's pal is going to say good things; that's what friends do. No need to include it in the article. Now if the opposite were true, then that would be noteworthy, and merit inclusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Wales and Sanger material provides important context to the article. C.m.jones 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense? It adds nothing about Ryan Jordan, which would be my understanding of "important context". If the article were about the "controversy" I'd agree, but it purports to be biographical, making the Sanger and Wales remarks seem only loosely related to the subject. "Content...should be about the subject of the article specifically." I don't see that Sanger's remarks can be remotely described as "about the subject of the article specifically". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you have never noticed, Wales comment is completely central to this issue. Let me say it real plain. This article is about Essjay, a Wikipedian. Wales is the head of Wikipedia. Wales talked about this issue from his place as head. Wales comment should not be left alone. The long-standing context is that people predicted this scandal would happen by reason of WP's model. Sanger is the central figure in that. Therefore, both Wales and Sanger give the crucial context needed to help readers understand this did not crop up in a vacuum. Sanger's comments are about "Essjay’s lies", which in case you are having trouble seeing, is what this article is all about. Sanger discussed that while also discussing Wales' centrally important response. If this is hard to see, you might seek a parent's or teacher's advise to help you. Of course, you probably do not care one rip and actually see it plain as day. You just wish to bowdlerize the article for damage control. 72.153.142.146 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge strawpoll

The following discussion is an archived merge proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was leave as is.

Given the duplicate nature of the content here with Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article, I propose that it be merged into that section. In the alternative, as this article deals primarily with an incident and not an individual biography, it might be renamed. This survey is a means to help provide some ideas on how best to handle this particular issue. --Leflyman^Talk 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, optionally with a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Merge

As proposer. --Leflyman^Talk 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Definitely -- there is no useful information here which wouldn't fit equally well there. JulesH 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave as is

The proposal to merge is nonsensical. Essjay has met celebrity in his own right. C.m.jones 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the propagator of the incident, the other one is about the incident in question. I see no reason why they should be merged, at most the other article can contain a link to this one. Sfacets 06:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to have two articles on the same subject. There's nothing notable to say about Essjay as a person that doesn't directly relate to the controversy he has caused. The other article already includes most of the same information as this article. I don't see why anyone would object to a merge. JulesH 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Stand Alone Currently the topic is going far beyond the scope of a subsection in an article. There are worldwide reports of this scandal (yes, it's a scandal) which need to be addressed. This can't be swept under the rug, and there's no rational reason based in policy to avoid this topic. It's been the source of (by now) dozens of articles, and more are likely to show up. Those dozens of articles, each of which is a reliable source, make the topic notable enough for inclusion. This doesn't break WP:BLP policy because the simple fact of the matter is that Essjay represented himself to national media as an extraordinarily qualified individual, which he is not. This does not invalidate his contributions, but the attention he's drawn cannot be ignored. I also agree with those who call this Merge proposal premature. In fact, I'm pretty sure the closing admin (when the result of the AfD is keep) will remove the Merge proposal as well. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave as is

86.14.251.252 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename article

Discussion

Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) lately? Milto LOL pia 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I already commented there. The likelihood is there will be no consensus for deletion, so I invoked the snowball clause and got the ball rolling on decide what/where this material should actually be, as "Ryan Jordan" is not the actual biographical subject of this article. --Leflyman^Talk 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This comes off as forum-shopping. The AfD is still open, but is not likely to give the result advocated here, so the same question is re-opened in a different setting? This "straw-poll" gives a bad impression, of trying to do an end-run around process. Please re-consider, carefully. -- Ben 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree -- it's clear that there is already (and will inevitably continue to be, no matter how it may gall some Wikipedians) a non-consensus as to the deletion, meaning the article's content, in whatever form, will remain; but there is likewise an indication that the material from this article duplicates the Criticism of Wikipedia section (as pointed out by 20+ commenters). It's now been renamed; albeit, it is now even further confusing how "Essjay" can be considered a biographical article. On a semi-related note, is your username a recreated account? I find it rather perhaps a bit surprising that an account created six weeks ago has taken such an acute interest in this particular topic.--Leflyman^Talk 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article's title is currently "Essjay scandal" - is there any reason for this? It is among other things POV to call it a scandal. Sfacets 08:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Justin Stewart

Two questions.

Does any mention of Justin Stewart belong here? I'm thinking not, but Essjay claimed this was an alias at one time. I'm also thinking there's no point to putting it in, but thought it ought to be considered.
Maybe we should qualify any statement about Essjay's real name being Ryan Jordan...we can say that so-and-so reported this, but can we really know this or Ryan Jordan's credentials for that matter?

Sorry to sound so skeptical of basic facts, but that's the new reality with Essjay's personal claims now. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not declare his name. It only reports that the New Yorker said Essjay said that was is name. C.m.jones 09:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Self references

I know some are really willing to add information, however remember about not using primary sources, about no self references, about looking for reliable secondary sources? I think we can wait a couple of days until a reliable source picks the information up. We are not Wikinews to ignore basic attribution policies. At least, that is what I think. -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are those "webcitations" gleaned from Wikipedia? This article can't (or shouldn't, if you like) self-reference back to WP. Gwen Gale 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They are essentially saved versions of Wikipedia pages. They should all be removed. WarpstarRider 19:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, none of this stuff is allowable for something in the article space. Gwen Gale 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just hiding behind wiki policy with the very real danger of appearing to censor details? This is a new type of event where wikipedia has created a news item in its own right and therefore must reference itself in order to document what has happened. I feel the same way about references to blogs such as Larry Sangers. In this situation - shouldn't we be referring to WP:Bold. After all, wiki policy can never be set in stone and must adapt to situations as they occur. Munta 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Why are we using them? - Denny 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They should be gone. I think this article got itself muddled with being a blog somewhere along the way. Gwen Gale 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. This is more a gossip column than an encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize at first this was ~~all~~ so referenced to blogs and WP. If I was brave I'd start skiving text out of it. Gwen Gale 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I guess Rider and I have at least cut this down into an article, not a blog. Disclaimer: I'm not at all thrilled with Essjay but this article was not up to speed with either its narrative form or its sources. Gwen Gale 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, your RV got my removal of the blogs... was that intentional? I was wanting to clean them out as not meeting RS... - Denny 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, I saw you'd rm'd them but I thought the rv would take it back to a state where they'd also been previously rm'd. Gwen Gale 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. RMs within RVs within RMs... bleh. Is that web citation cite an ok source for citing on-wiki statements? Never seen it before. - Denny 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All those should be gone too, they're cheats, but anyway I don't see it now. Gwen Gale 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The blog stuff had already been removed previously, but they were then restored by User:68.215.30.127, which is what you saw. Gwen was reverting that anon's edits, so the blogs are still gone. WarpstarRider 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you just gotta smile...

The lead sentence now has a string of six (6) footnotes tagged in a row at the end. Let's go for twelve! Casey Abell 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here? I mean. A small portion of the article - vanished before my eyes. Am I seeing things? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are seeing things. :-) All that happened was the writing in the lead was tightened, and the citation templates in the lead were removed and replaced by regular refs. The removal of the templates makes the text look significantly shorter, but it isn't. It also makes it easier to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So tell me. Where is this ref that was in the article a little while ago. ^ Peter Meyers. "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You", New York Times, September 20, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-04-27. “It's kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work," said Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis, a San Diego search engine company that donates the computer resources for the project. "There's kind of this real social pressure to not argue about things." Instead, he said, "there's a general consensus among all of the really busy volunteers about what an encyclopedia article needs to be like.” There is a lot more that was also removed. Very strange. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was writing the above response, even more information is disappearing. (He said with a grin.) :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a reference has the link to the source missing.[1] How is that a fix to the reference? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's edits to the page seem a marked improvement as far as I can see... WjBscribe 02:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Content is missing, a reference has a missing link, and the meaning of content has been altered. Unbelievable. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If a link is missing you could always fix it :-). I don't see that any valuable content has been lost though - looks like a good tidy-up. WjBscribe 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the edit summary by the editor who removed the link, it is fixed. Removing the external linkage was fixing it. Edit summary: removed name from lead, fixed ref According to the intial response by WjBscribe: SlimVirgin's edits to the page seem a marked improvement as far as I can see... Wow. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a full revert before the article got hacked and work on it from there. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is the link you're refering to, it seems to be dead - just a 404 error message. I presume that's why SlimVirgin delinked it... WjBscribe 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There was previous lengthy discussions and consensus reached. A lot of information has been recently deleted without any discussion. One editor in one day should not drastically alter the article. For example, what happened to the other missing refs such as: Peter Meyers. "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You", New York Times, September 20, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-04-27. There are too many things to name. Can someone fix all this. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask SlimVirgin then. --MichaelLinnear 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what this talk page is for. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It happened again. More content and refs have been deleted. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It happened yet again. I can't believe this. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=140663544&oldid=140644561 This is massive content deletion. QuackGuru 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind tightening up the lead, despite the ridiculous string of footnotes for the first sentence. But I restored the full "Identity revealed" section, which is valuable and well-sourced. Also, the identification of Wales as "the founder of Wikipedia" in the first paragraph seems unnecessarily provocative, considering the history of this article. I'll change it to the more neutral "played a central role in the founding of Wikipedia."

I have a suggestion: why not confine the lead to only summarize the assertions that are in the main body of the text and prohibit references in the lead? I often retrofit articles to conform to this notion.--RidinHood25 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant quotations from sources

If our we're going to include a quotation in a {{citenews}} ref, it really needs to be about the article its in. The quotes that accompanied references 26 and 27 were nothing to do with this article. They are reference to the fact that Sanger is editor-in-chief of Citizendium and that he left Wikipedia. As those sources say nothing about the "Essjay controversy" we don't need quotations from them.... WjBscribe 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gator1 and Katefan0 had credentials

I added a mention of Gator1 and Katefan0 specifically to show that they did, indeed, have credentials. Really, it is to try to get the reader to think about Brandt's attitude and approach because the real interaction here was between Brandt and Jordan. They are the two people whose situations change in thie saga. Another point that I am trying to imply but not come right out and say is that Gator1 and Katefan0 have real credentials. It may or may not matter, but it contrasts with Essjay. All three were good editors and good admins.--76.203.124.55 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removed that paragraph as "not relevant". Well, I thought it made a relevant epilog to the story and provided some closure.-76.203.124.55 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Additions to timeline

There are a lot of recent additions to the timeline, many of them original research. When the anon IP who is adding them has quite finished, I think a few of us should go through and clean it up. Anything that is referred to in the timeline should be discussed in greater detail in the article; if it isn't appropriate for the article, it shouldn't be in the timeline either, in my opinion. Risker 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The timeline has gone out of control. It's even got a note on featured article production, which has no apparent (or any other kind of) relevance to the Essjay controversy. When the anons get finished, a lot of pruning is in order. We need thread ID numbers for Wikipedia Review? Or the screen names of Wikipedia contributors to Essjay's talk page? Come on. Casey Abell 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Very much agreed. The IP is also using a quite hostile tone in his writing at times, and that bit about Dev920 (which I removed) was plain inexcusable BLP violation. --tjstrf talk 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Did some pruning. The item about featured article production was already gone. I eliminated some more unnecessary stuff, formatted the footnotes, and did some rewording. Casey Abell 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeesh, the anon is back and put a reference to Essjay in an Australian court decision - more than three months after the controversy started - in the timeline. This is getting ridiculous. The timeline will stretch to just short of infinity if this continues. Casey Abell 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC) The anon also included a note about the reliability of armeniapedia.org, which is certainly relevant to Essjay. I'm not going to edit war over this, because I sense a 3RR report would be coming my way. But we've got to get some consensus on including relevant material only, and keeping the timeline to a reasonably short summary. Casey Abell 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fun, fun, fun. To be honest, I think that may well be a valuable addition to the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the timeline. Risker 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The armeniapedia.org reference is, well, weird. Frankly, any item on the Australian court decision is a stretch. The decision actually makes only a passing reference to the controversy and doesn't even mention Essjay or Ryan Jordan by name. The entire reference:

"It is also noted that in support of the submissions concerning the unreliability of the web site, reference was made to a newspaper article critical of the parent site namely Wikipedia. The article apparently appeared in The Age newspaper on 8 March 2007 under the title, "Wikipedia ‘expert’ admits: I made it up". The article involved a person purportedly claiming to be an editor of Wikipedia and who had been incorrectly referred to as a "professor of religion with a PhD in theology and a degree in cannon law" serving his "second term as chair of the mediation committee" which purportedly rules on disputes over information posted on the web site. The article reveals that the person holds no advanced degrees and in fact is a 24 year old from Kentucky. It was submitted this demonstrates the unreliability of the material."

This is very thin gruel and contributes nothing that isn't already discussed in the article in much greater detail. My preference would be to revert the item entirely. Casey Abell 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) By the way, "cannon law" is exactly how the decision reads. KA-BOOM! Casey Abell 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My semantic pragmatic disorder was what made me accept Essjay's explanation "at face value"? Or maybe it was because it was a plausible explanaton and I AGF? Lol. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

The New Yorker time *publishes* its stories on a the Monday a full week before the nominal date of issue. For instance, Wales' "Making Amends" apology was published March 12 for the issue that is dated March 19 on the cover. It does not really matter about the original July 2006 article or the apology, but it might matter in correctly describing the events around how people found out about the correction and how relevant their response then was to the growing controversy. It seems like Nick Carr wins the prize for blogging about it first, but I do not see that his blog, nor the RadarOnline entry got much notice.--75.36.170.208 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And the fallout continues

Australia's government used the Essjay case as evidence in arguing that "freely edited web sites such as Wikipedia (and by extension the linked web site "Armeniapedia"" are unreliable, saying :

It is also noted that in support of the submissions concerning the unreliability of the web site, reference was made to a newspaper article critical of the parent site namely Wikipedia. The article apparently appeared in The Age newspaper on 8 March 2007 under the title, "Wikipedia ‘expert’ admits: I made it up". The article involved a person purportedly claiming to be an editor of Wikipedia and who had been incorrectly referred to as a "professor of religion with a PhD in theology and a degree in cannon law" serving his "second term as chair of the mediation committee" which purportedly rules on disputes over information posted on the web site. The article reveals that the person holds no advanced degrees and in fact is a 24 year old from Kentucky. It was submitted this demonstrates the unreliability of the material.(source : http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2007/975.html?query=Refugee%20Review%20Tribunal ) WAS 4.250 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23/News and notes.--76.203.126.39 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add this into the Timeline for June 13 (the date of the decision) but it made User:L think that maybe it said that Wikipedia was unreliable and that made him very sad so he took it out and threatened to have me blocked. L feels better so much now, and we would not want to upset him now, would we? Of course not.--76.203.48.138 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend you read our policies against personal attacks before you make another comment like that --L^augh!

Let's be reasonable here. The Australian court case just briefly summarized the Essjay controversy, and there's no reason to put this passing reference into the timeline. I have removed it from the timeline and instead placed a brief note in the article to give an example of the wide range of comments about the incident. I believe this is a reasonable compromise that shows how the Essjay controversy has generated widespread notice while avoiding excessive detail about a very tangentially related court case. Casey Abell 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good solution, Casey Abell. I agree that this court ruling doesn't belong in the timeline, but it is usually noteworthy whenever a respected court speaks out about a specific Wikipedia article/issue. I believe your addition attributes the correct amount of weight to the reference, especially in light of the fact the court appears to have been at least partially misinformed about the nature of armeniapedia. Risker 04:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with this, as long as it stays NPOV. It has no place at all in the time line though --L^augh! 12:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. It looks like this article will always be controversial. Let's just hope that we can reach acceptable compromises and avoid any more edit wars and lockdowns. Casey Abell 12:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Correcting/editing direct quotes

Since User:SallyForth123 just used a semi-bot (peerreviewer) to edit the main article, I'd like to raise a small question about the Manual of Style.

The semi-bot changed the following sentence from Business Week's Steve Maich who used the contraction "isn't" instead of "is not" in his article. Now it reads on Wikipedia: If credibility is not an essential part of Wikipedia's business model, does it have a hope of surviving? Are we allowed to correct/alter direct quotes to account for grammar, spelling, racial epithets, etc.? (I'm just asking.) J Readings 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:SallyForth123 to revisit some of her edits, specifically the removal of contractions in quotes and the addition of double square brackets around the word "sic." She has already undertaken to revert those specific edits. (The answer is no, we should not be changing direct quotes.) Risker 02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly did restore the contractions. Also, I used [ and ] for the square brackets so that the auto-PR tool would not interfere with those bracket-in-quotes again.--SallyForth123 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New legal section below 'Academics'?

This is just a thought, everyone, but perhaps it would benefit the reader to create a subsection below "Academics" with a title like "Legal aftermath" or "Legal fallout" or "Courtroom Precedents" or something along those lines. I suspect that the Essjay affair will be cited by more than a few cases moving forward (for whatever reason), and it might benefit readers (law students in particular) to track its evolution over time. As we can see, it's already starting. What do other editors think? J Readings 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The only legal reference cited so far in the Australian decision, which does nothing except recount the controversy in a very few sentences. Sorry, but unless Essjay starts showing up in a lot of court cases, and in much more detail, I don't see such a section amounting to much. Casey Abell 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I acknowledge that it's only a thought at this stage. I subscribe to a few legal database search engines, so I'll be keeping a look-out for legal cases citing the Essjay controversy in some form or another. Perhaps we can revisit this issue of a new section on the talk page at a later date. J Readings 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes being erased

An anon SPA editor, user:75.37.10.183* is attempting to erase all the direct referenced quotes in this article and replacing them with POV descriptions of them. There needs to be a consensus for such a drastic change. --Oakshade 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (*And user:75.36.238.23, most likely a sock due to identical edit patterns and same region IP address. --Oakshade 05:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Any decent article (say on science or math) does not need a bunch of quotations to assert what is true. Neither does this article. What happened can be described in our words with our voice. Just claiming what other said is a disservice to the reader because the reader has to piece it all together for themselves at that point. You are supposed to be mature enough to developed a consensus on your words and say what happened. If the reader does not trust you, then they can go and read the original source material for themselves. Even quotations can be manipulated and taken out-of-context. You guys are supposed to come up with a fair, sober, mature rendering of what happened.--75.37.10.183 03:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think every Journalism class at every university should study user:75.37.10.183's statement above to learn how not to cover any story. (With the amount of press this story gets, the above comments might actually show up in another article.) Sorry, actual words of the persons involved in any topic are the most authentic and accurate manner of which to convey them, not poorly written descriptions about them.--Oakshade 03:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the changes I just did to the Barbaro story. The point is NOT to say that "Dr. Richardson said this..." and "Dr. Richardson said that..." and "This sports commentator said this other thing..." but to report facts about what happened to the horse. If you developed the consensus that Richardson is not a trustworthy source of information, then do not just do not talk about him. But you DO have to report what happened to Barbaro. That is the "Richardson is a liar because we do not trust him" article, now, is it? No, it is not. You people seem to forget that WP:NOT tells that Wikipedia is NOT Journalism. You are supposed to reports FACTS, not he said/she said.--75.37.10.183 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The actual quotes of people involved in any topic are FACTS, not POV descriptions of them by 3rd parties. --Oakshade 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because you are not sure you really know what is the Truth, so all you are BOLD enough to say is what somebody else said. Wimp.--75.37.10.183 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Tone. A quote from a speech is fine, but this article is suffering from quotitis. Maybe the one big Essjay quote is OK, but that is about it. I you NEED a bunch of quotes, you should create a "Quotes section" where you coral them and keep them out off the reader's way. Again, you people are supposed to mature enough and display enough judgment and character to formulate, via consensus, a report of the events on your own in a concise, objective and balanced manner.--75.37.10.183 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As you completely made up a quote from a WP guideline page to push your agenda (how ironic), all we can say at this point is your POV speaks for itself. --Oakshade 04:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not quoting from the link. I simply threw the link at you and then started to express my opinion about what you should be doing. Sorry if that was not clear. You got plenty of other articles with quotitis. I will work on some them for a while and then return here. Here is food for thought: when was the last time you read in Encyclopædia Britannica what people said (unless it was some famous speech)? Their writers know that talk is cheap. Have you ever listened to Hilary Clinton respond to a question? She takes 3-4 minutes and says nothing because she avoid takes a position. Even Essjay big quote is just an apology. "Jordan apologized." See? Two words does the job.--75.37.10.183 04:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Jordan apologized." Did he? I don't see that...in the quotes. C.m.jones 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at today's Main Page FA: Hurricane Kenna. How many words have double-quotes are in that? Two. Both are used to emphasize a given name. TV talking heads had LOTS to say about the storm, but are they quoted in the article? Nope.--75.37.10.183 04:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right! A lot of us wanted to quote Hurricane Kenna as it was the center of that article's topic. But cooler heads prevailed and not one of the clouds', waterspouts' or wind gusts' words made it in. (By the way, in yesterday's FA, Homer's Phobia, there are plenty of quotes as humans were the primary topic of that article, as is the case with this one.) --Oakshade 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the issue with TV shows. TV shows exist for themselves and otherwise have little to do with reality. They are entertaining, to be sure, and maybe talk about reality, but they are not the stuff of objective reality (I hope). They are vastly overrepresented here at Wikipedia because they are vastly overrepresented in the perceptions of reality (and logic) of some editors.--75.37.10.183 05:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, I just removed the last of the quotations from 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. There. Now you mother, your grandmother and your daughter could all read the article and understand what happened. It does not matter that she said "short dick white boys" and he said "We asked for whites, not niggers" and later some guy said "killing the bitches". That is all yummy trash talk, I suppose, and I do not want to censor it if it really matters, but I do not think it does matter. I was not afraid to leave a link to ejaculation in the article now, was I? Maybe there is a nice movie of ejaculation somewhere, just maybe one, out there somewhere on the Internet. Shocking! Anyway, quotes are not needed in this article except maybe for the critics if their verbiage cannot otherwise be deciphered. But if this or that commenter did not say anything new, then how meaningful is their criticism?--75.37.10.183 05:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the more bizarre arguments I've seen on Wikipedia, and I've seen some bizarre ones. If this article consisted exclusively or mostly of quotes, then the anon editor would have a point. But the article is plainly almost all the work of its editors, with quotes used properly to support the article's assertions. It's clear that there is no consensus for the removal of the quotes used in the article – or any support at all for the anon's actions – so please stop eliminating them. Thank you. Casey Abell 14:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As the removal of quotes by anon IPs has continued, I have requested a short burst of semi-protection for the article. Risker 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article's been semi-protected again, which is a little sad but understandable. The protection log for this page is threatening to make War and Peace look like a short story. At least this is the first action in three months. Casey Abell 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this anon user troll-like rather than someone who truly cares about the content. My humble opinion of course. --Oakshade 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is, will the anon troller (who clearly has a dynamic IP) return to actually discuss this issue, or will he simply wait out the semi-protection and return to do the same thing? I find it interesting that a registered user had the same idea only a day or two before. Risker 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Boring! What is there to discuss? Quotes do not tell the story. I continue to encourage you to find your own words to tell the story. Most of these statements by the involved speakers are being careful in what they say. Some of them do not commit to anything. Save the reader time and tell them what happened. E.g. "Jimbo supported Essjay." and then "Jimbo fired Essjay." That is what the reader wants the know. The reader does not know exactly what a "position of trust" is within Wikipedia. You and I both know that it is vague term. What *exactly* is a position of trust, anyway? If you want an excerpt from Essjay's swan song, then, I guess that is OK, but MAKE AN ASSERTION about the quote before presenting it. By that, I mean: explain what Essjay is about to say in your own words anyway. That way, people who do not want to hear Essjay's exact words can just skip over the quote. Your job is to get the reader to trust Wikipedia. Tell it like it is, and let the reader decide if they trust you enough to not read all the supporting documents. If you, over time, consistently give a fair rendering in your own words, then Wikipedia's reputation will slowly grow. If the articles simply resort to quotes on important points, then the reader will still read Wikipedia for a "quikie" version of the story and then move on to professional sources for more comprehensible prose. I realize that the pros resort to quotes, but they are dealing with news that is only hours old. You guys know how this story turns out so you can make a more coherent narrative that is factually true. Quote are "true", but you are making the reader to constant shift their literary perspective as they sort out which quotes came from where. That is tiresome and certainly not brilliant prose.--76.220.202.226 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a bizarre argument. If our job is "to get the reader to trust Wikipedia," we should provide exact and fair quotes to support this article's assertions. I can't understand why omitting quotes and substituting our own paraphrases, rather than giving the actual words of the participants in this controversy, would make the reader trust WP more. Such exclusive and possibly questionable paraphrasing would make the reader trust the encyclopedia less, in my opinion.

Of course, we should and do provide extensive narrative and footnotes to make the quotes intelligible and to place them in the proper context. But the article gains, not loses, in authority from careful quoting. At any rate, your argument has not gained consensus, or even a single supporter. So please refrain from removing the accurate and valuable quotes used in the article. Thank you. Casey Abell 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Casy Abell. Replacing "Wales initially supported Essjay's use of a persona, saying, 'I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it'" with "Jimbo supported Essjay" is not only a less-descriptive and poorly written alternative but is overly general leaving Wales' opinion at that time open to interpretation which would be a troubling disservice to readers. And replacing "When it became clear that Essjay had used the credentials in article content disputes, Wales withdrew his support and asked for Essjay's resignation from his positions with Wikipedia and Wikia" with "Jimbo fired Essjay" is non-sensical to your argument since the original sentence isn't even quoting anyone. Another example of this bizarre stipulation. --Oakshade 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

so what actual errors made it into wikipedia because of Essjay?

as a disinterested party to the essjay scandal/controversy, i came to this page to learn what factual (NPOV) errors etc actually made it into wikipedia articles because of essjay. and i can find no material on that, other than vague comments that editors will be revisiting discussions that essjay participated in. surely there are wikipedians that have gone over the logs to assess the "damage"? i would think that a brief summary of any actual issues found would be a notable aspect of this article, not to mention highly relevant to the whole discussion about user participation in general. --Psm 23:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to ask something similar. It would be useful to know, for example, how many times Essjay invoked his false credentials to win editing arguments on Wikipedia. Since the article already alludes to this fact (and it was one of the main reasons he was asked to step down), it would also make sense to offer a few very brief examples in the main text or a footnote. Whether that constitutes original research is the only possible concern for us, I imagine. J Readings 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I just inserted the most famous example into the article, where Essjay said in a disagreement on the article Imprimatur that he "would hang my own Ph.D." on the credibility of Catholicism for Dummies. To avoid any OR issues, I give a cite from a NYT story (already cited elsewhere in the article) as well as the actual diff from Wikipedia. Casey Abell 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true Essjay abused his claimed authority, but I don't think that section answers Psm's question. Has anyone claimed that the Dummys book was wrong on that issue? I recall reading that it even had an imprimatur, so it must've been at least somewhat accurate. --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 28 August 2007 (GMT)

Thx Gwern, and you're correct, that doesn't entirely answer my question. Quoting fictitious credentials in any argument is a bad thing. But strictly speaking, just because you're using the Authority Argument doesn't mean you're wrong. So, I was curious what actual errors this may have caused. If it didn't cause any actual errors, and this has been determined, then that per se is of interest to note, too.--Psm 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand what Psm is saying. Fortunately (or unfortunately), we're not allowed to discuss this issue in the article for the simple reason that a third-person publishing in a reliable source did not explore it in any detail (yet). I keep looking for journalists or academics wanting to broach the subject through Lexis-Nexis, google and other search engines but nothing surfaced yet. If I missed something, by all means, please put the citation on the talk page. I'm curious to read that analysis, too. J Readings 11:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know if Essjay was right or wrong in the fine points of his argument on the nihil obstat and imprimatur. He refers to a "blacklist of heretical publications," which sounds suspect to me. The index of forbidden books was dropped decades ago – see Index Librorum Prohibitorum – but though I'm a Catholic, I don't have any special knowledge in the area. The real point is that Essjay flaunted a fake Ph.D. and teaching career to wow his opponent. That's a no-no even if his comments were correct. Casey Abell 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Its easy to come here and ask for the list of edits and things he got wrong (it isn't so much as things he got wrong, Wikipedia publishes the consensus, not fact, he used his fake credentials to sway consensus). Actually going through the edits is extremely hard work. People did do it and posted it on his user page etc, but it all got swallowed up in the mass of posts made, and then cleaned away. I remember one user pointing out 4 very direct things where he had used his credentials to argue a point that he side was right. AFAIK these edits have all be cleaned away. I am with you though, this information should come out.--Dacium 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I take a little umbrage to "it's easy to come here and ...". I wasn't trying to minimize the work done in going through the edits, or in handling the whole Essjay mess. I was simply saying that to the extent such work has been done, and it resulted in concrete results, some of those results should perhaps be summarized in this article.--Psm 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation #29

Is blank. Just thought I'd let you all know. I would assume it may have been part of a repeatedly used source and the primary was deleted for some reason or another. Anyway, someone may want to fix that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary

"Several students interviewed at Cornell indicated that they would continue to use Wikipedia as a quick source of information, though they would not cite it in scholarly work"

This sentence seems a tad unnecessary imo. I cannot think of any university setting where it would be appropriate or acceptable to cite not just Wikipedia but any encyclopedia in scholarly work. This has nothing to do with the Essjay controversy. IvoShandor 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that that sentence shows that the people who actually USE Wikipedia are going to continue to use it, but they're going to be more wary of it from now on. Which is quite important to the article if we lose credibility among our users because of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dev920. The gen-X (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The FAC results

The greatest issue that arose from the FAC is the lack of explanatory and connecting sentences and possible excess of quotations, some of which would be better off as paraphrasings. Thus, over the next few weeks, I am going to fix these issues. This is just a notice so everyone knows what I'm doing.

What I also wanted to ask was about the image of Essjay that we used to have, but I assume was edit warred off. Someone asked on the FAC that we should put it back, so could someone explain to me why it was taken off in the first place? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let me extend my sincere appreciation to Dev920 for taking the trouble to promote this article for possible FA status. I imagine that he was a little disappointed to see it fail, but then again, some of the FAC criticisms were useful and valid (such as the lack of time and distance from the incident to the present day) so I wasn't too surprised that it was rejected this time around. For what it's worth, after reading the comments I ran another Lexis-Nexis search for the keyword "Essjay." Journalists and authors continue to cite the incident in recent months, so I'm fairly confident that we can revisit this issue again next year with fresh commentary from the media and (hopefully) court cases in which the Essjay affair was mentioned.

Regarding the Essjay photo, I was re-reading the archived commentary the other day. It seems that a small vocal minority oppossed its inclusion: User:WJBscribe, User:ElinorD, User:HighInBC, User:Gwen Gale, User:Risker, User:Netscott, User:Munta. Another eight editors (not including those from the FAC) seemed to favor inclusion, including User:DGG, User:Kendrick7, User:C.m.jones, User:QuackGuru, User:Doug Bell, User:Johntex, User:Denny, User:Mr. Guru. I might be missing a name or two (e.g., Ned Scott?), but you can add my name to the list of editors who favors inclusion. Those against, presented either some or all of the usual litany of concerns: "How do we know it's really Essjay's photo?", "right to privacy," "do no harm," "linking to the Essjay page would be more helpful and less self-referential", "the screenshot of Essjay is referenced by dead links," etc., etc. I don't really find these arguments persuasive for exclusion considering that Essjay posted the photo himself on his user page, not all of the links were dead or part of a Google cache when found and, more importantly, this article needs some kind of image (so why not Essjay?). But there you have it. I think the criticism coming out of the FAC that we need an Essjay photo to be a legitimate observation. Best, J Readings 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to throw cold water on anybody trying to get an article through FAC...but I doubt this article will ever go through. It's just too controversial. To be honest, I didn't think the criticisms in the FAC process were particularly valid or helpful, and I really don't see why we should bash around the article in what (I think) will be a vain attempt to resolve them. Especially because I don't think we ever will resolve them.

If the image requirement brings on another edit war – which it probably will – then that's another argument against reworking the article to try to get it through FAC. We've been through so much with this article, and it's finally achieved reasonable stability. I even got slapped down when I tried to use innocuous language on a completely irrelevant issue about Larry Sanger. Maybe we just should let the article rest for a while.

Of course, maybe I'm reading too much into my own experience of getting Henry James through FAC. By FAC standards, that wasn't a very rough nomination. But it tired me out so much that I don't want to see another FAC rumpus, especially on a subject vastly more controversial than a long-dead novelist. Casey Abell 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the objections on the FAC ("too controversial", "embarrassing", "bad PR") were invalid, and they continued to pour in after Raul pointed out that they were. Some were, however, valid ("article is badly written") and this is what we need to focus on, because these are the ones that could, and should, fail the next FAC. We can write a nomination that specifically points out that silly objections that would be invalid on AfD are especially so on an FAC, but we can't rewrite WP:WIAFA. So when we've dealt with valid objections, there simply is no reason why we cannot make this an FA sometime this year. I don't want to "rework the article", I want to fiddle with the prose and make it better. The FA is there, it just needs some polishing, or I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place. Take heart, man. :)

On the image, it is now seven months on, and I hope that maybe the people who opposed last have have a little more perpective to see with. Essjay's image is still available, and he has had seven months to have it deleted if he didn't want it around, so there aren't any BLP problems. The image probably is of Essjay, because 1) he said it was and 2) no-one who has met him, including Jimbo, ever cast doubt on it being of him. Whereas as the arguments in favour, that it illustrates the article, it is a free image, and it shows everyone what Essjay looked like, are, from my point of view, rather compelling. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at the article and what I propose is that we put an image of Essjay in the Identity discovered section, and image of Jimbo next to his apology, and and image of Andrew Orlowski next to his criticism. That will space it out and make it look neat. What do you think? Any other images? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I don't think the article is all that badly written. The prose has been the subject of frequent edit wars, so we're just inviting more trouble by tinkering with it to please FAC objectors who never will be pleased. And I would object myself to eliminating quotes – another invalid FAC criticism, in my opinion. The quotes are valuable to give people's exact statements on this highly controversial subject. Paraphrasing again invites dispute for no reason.

Basically, I don't see the point of messing around with an article that's been locked down repeatedly due to edit wars. This article will never get through FAC, no matter how much we tinker with the prose. So why risk setting off more trouble, especially when we've finally gotten the article to some sort of stability? By the way, the first edit war will occur when you put the picture of Essjay into the article. Casey Abell 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is currently stable but not all it could be. Why give up on a good article, ever, if it could be amazing? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dev920 for posting the WP:WIAFA. I naturally assumed that "time and distance" were included in the criteria, but even those aren't. Hmmm....interesting.

As for the images, eventually they have to be added. According to WP:WIAFA, reversions and edits that result from FAC suggestions do not constitute edit warring. Moreover, images are clearly required under the WIAFA criteria, so something has to be added. If a minority of editors continue to object, they should be asked to take their objections to the talk page following WP's policies and guidelines before they edit to reach consensus. A balance of policies needs to be made. I agree with Dev920 that an image of Essjay in the Identity discovered section would probably suffice (and not the lead) because this is not a biography of Ryan Jordan/Essjay. I'm not sure about adding the images of critics unless they commented more than once or played a larger role in the affair. I'm thinking about WP:UNDUE concerns, but maybe that just applies to text and not images. As for adding an image of Jimmy Wales in the main text, that's probably a good idea. J Readings 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me add the images and you can see exactly what I propose - to be honest, I just picked the images that were available, really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, time has given me the opportunity to rethink my position on the photograph on Essjay, and do a bit more analysis. The existence of the photograph itself is controversial; because it is GFDL, anyone can upload it at any time. It's been deleted and reinstated several times, both on en:WP and on Commons. I still keep coming back to the idea that the article is about the controversy, not the individual. As an individual, Essjay - Ryan Jordan - is not notable. Lots of people tell fibs to the media, many are found out, but very very few of them would merit a Wikipedia article. It was the worldwide media reaction to his deception that was noteworthy, not him. Our BLP policy has been strengthened considerably since the last time this debate took place, and makes it even less reasonable to include a photo of Essjay. Interestingly, I think you are the first person to suggest including photographs of some of the noteworthy commentators on this controversy, and that is an idea I actually quite like.

Frankly, if the only way this article could become a FA was to include a photograph of Ryan Jordan, I would say forego the FA classification. Even the media didn't think his photo was important - it only appeared in an oblique screen view on one newscast for a few seconds. Risker 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Risker, thanks for the comment. One thing: I don't think anyone here can make logical inferences on what the media were or weren't thinking based on the Essjay photo. Had more of them found the photo, it's quite possible that they would have used it (ABC News used it, after all). Who wouldn't since it's common practice to include photos? My suspicion is -- and I admit it's just a suspicion -- they simply couldn't find one given the time constraints, so ultimately there wasn't a photo. Either way, no one here (including me) can claim to speak for what the media were thinking. What we can say is that (1) photos are required for an upgrade based on WP policy (and I think you'd agree, we're all obviously here to improve the article), (2) it's about the Essjay controversy, so an image of Essjay is logical, and (3) if we're going to include images of other minor figures in the controversy (and you apparently approve of that), one can also include a picture of Essjay who -- let's face it -- started it all and who is at the center of this imbroglio, no? J Readings 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I get what you're saying Risker, and I'm not that bothered about including an image of Essjay per se, but what does occur to me is that where the image is at the moment is a very good visual of a change Essjay made to his Wikia profile in the section describing those changes. And we do really need an image in the top half of the article to be aesthetic. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to J Readings, actually the media spent a phenomenal amount of time looking through Wikipedia - they reported on the development of this article, they reported what was being said in the multiple threads about the subject, they quoted various Wikipedians (not just the media reps, they quoted from posts), and the photo was on and off these pages during that whole episode. Indeed, most of the Wikipedia articles about controversies/scandals do not include the photographs of individuals at the centre of such controversies and scandals - and when they do, it is usually those who have been prosecuted in a court; to include it is inconsistent with the way that "central characters" in roughly similar circumstances have been treated. Much as it is difficult to admit, to this day, his deception would not constitute a breach of Wikipedia policy, let alone result in criminal charges or be grounds for a civil suit. (I do believe what he did was ethically wrong, but it certainly wasn't against any editorial behaviour standards.) Keep in mind that the photo was initially uploaded to Commons by Essjay to meet a requirement of his employment with Wikia - it is expected of all Wikia employees to include their photo on their user page there. I cannot recall if it was ever on his WP userpage (and since all his subpages have been deleted, and probably some information oversighted, we may never be certain). It was a lesson to me about the ease with which the GFDL can lead to and compound invasion of privacy, for sure, and why I will never upload a photograph of a living person. Risker 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah lovely...and now a new edit war in the Wales/Sanger "Who really invented Wikipedia" saga - photographs on this article. How pitiful. Risker 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I really genuinely do not get this obsession with Larry Sanger. And I really don't understand the need to insert "Wikipedia co-founder" next to every mention of his name. It's like some weird geeky peace be upon him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the photos of Jimbo, Larry and Orlowski, either, because these guys are notable for other things besides the Essjay controversy. The photo of Ryan Jordan should go, though, because he has zero notability outside this controversy. Why pile on the guy? I won't revert the image myself, because I'm tired of edit wars on this article. But somebody else will probably revert it.

As for the hilarious co-founder nonsense about Sanger, all I can do any more is laugh. It's a harmless obsession, slapping "co-founder" next to every mention of Larry on WP. Of course, it's rubs NPOV the wrong way because the title is heavily disputed. But there are a few editors on this encyclopedia who think they're sticking it to Jimbo - okay, I'll AGF and call it "speaking truth to power" (snicker) - by calling Larry a co-founder every chance they get. Casey Abell 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how keeping an image of Essjay is piling on him, he hasn't taken it down in seven months and certainly if I were to meet him in the street, I probably wouldn't recognise him from it. And while he may have zero notability outside the controversy, surely within it he deserves a visual representation? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, take a look at the revert warring on the image pages themselves (and I am pretty sure the history is missing stuff). It was deleted several times and reuploaded several times. The fact of the matter is that it is a GFDL picture and so Essjay has no say on whether or not it is here - *anyone* can reupload it. The use of the picture is an editorial decision. Risker 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article can never be FA, so I will file a GAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GA

I have reviewed this article forGA status, and overall, I think it is very well written and well referenced, and mostly meets the GA criteria. My comments are based on this version of the article.

Per criterion 1, it is well written, the prose is clear and understandable, and the lead section is a good summary. I am a bit concerned that the article contains a bit too many quotations, and more actual prose could be used. But, unlike the FA review, I don't think excess quotations should hold up a GA (unless, perhaps, if the 'cquote' template was way overused, or something).

The article mainly passes criterion #2 (references) as well, though I do have a few concerns about some of them. Specifically, citation #5, which cites WikiEN-L, a mailing list (are email listservs a valid reliable source?). Reference #12 cites an archived copy of Essjay's wikipedia user page. I don't have a problem with reference #20 (the wikipedia signpost), a valid 'publication', albeit by wikipedia itself. But reference #27 refers to Talk:Imprimatur, and reference #29 cites Wikipedia:Credentials. While we normally don't cite wikipedia itself, is it ok to cite ourselves when talking about ourselves?

I don't see any major problems with criterion #3 (broad/completeness). It appears to cover the significant parts of the topic, from introducing Essjay, to what he did and was accused of, and the controversy that followed.

Criterion #4 (NPOV) is very important. While I don't see any major neutrality problems that are glaring right out at me, it's very difficult for one person to judge this, especially for an article on wikipedia about wikipedia. That's one of the main reasons that I am seeking the opinions of others by listing this at WP:GA/R instead of the passing it like a normal article at WP:GAC.

I don't see any major stability (criterion #5) problems today. There were some reversions and edit wars back in July & August on this article, which is of a minor concern, but it appears to have stabilized by now. The stability was brought up at WP:FAC, and some suggested that we should wait several more months on for FA on this article there. Though I think that GA can be a little bit more lax here, as long as there are no major WP:3RR reversions and major edit wars, I don't think that's a problem.

Finally, regarding the images (criterion #6), all check out fine. I wasn't expecting this to be a problem for an article about wikipedia itself anyways.

So, there's my review. I am listing this at WP:GA/R instead of promoting, as I think a second opinion (or more) on this is necessary for a controversial article such as this. Thanks! Dr. Cash 23:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mailing lists and blogs aren't verifiable, and if that citation is needed to pass, then it has to fail. GreenJoe 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, mailing lists and blogs can be reliable for some purposes. For instance, there's no question that the mailing list citation on Jimbo's request for Essjay's resignation was completely reliable. After all, Jimbo wrote the mailing list post himself. (The cite now been replaced with another source, not that it needed to be replaced.) Hard-and-fast rules about reliability are, well, unreliable. I really don't care if this article gets to GA status or not. But this objection is unreasonable. Casey Abell 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal, either way. I replaced one citation with a more universally accepted one without changing the text. When I (or someone else) gets the chance, we should replace or remove the last few question mark citations. I continue to assume good faith among the reviewers, so once these minor issues are quickly corrected there shouldn't be anything preventing an upgrade to "good article." J Readings 01:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the only thing preventing this article from becoming an FA is its controversial nature. If it becomes a GA, that's nice, but I wonder how long it will survive as a GA. Anyway, the automatic rejection of blogs or mailing lists as reliable sources has always been a pet peeve of mine. Such sources can be reliable for certain purposes, as they were for the Jimbo cite. Casey Abell 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: GreenJoe 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a self-admitted hater of Essjay. That said I read the article with as much neutrality as I could, and with a keen interest of the subject. I felt it was neutral, and broad in its coverage. It is very well done. I didn't go through every reference though. GreenJoe 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't have much contact with Essjay. He was one of the best users on Wikipedia, and never abused his authority. I have my own theories as to why he lied about his 'credentials' (which Wikipedia doesn't really care about). He was an excellent user, but what he did was not acceptable, especially to the the New Yorker. He made a serious mistake, but he does not deserve to be hated. </defense> Prodego ^talk 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's rather irrelevant, don't you think? I thought the article should pass. GreenJoe 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to admit my own bias as per WP:COI. GreenJoe 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA update: pass

I have listed this article for two weeks at WP:GA/R, and received the following comment, in addition tot he aforementioned second opinion.

Comment The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly. Homestarmy 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has given their own opinion already saying it should probably pass, is there anything to do here? Might as well take off the hold if there's nothing... Homestarmy 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the comment above specifically warrants exclusion from WP:GA, and therefore, based on the second opinion as well as my own opinion, I am promoting this article to GA status. Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Cash. I was getting worried that it was never going to happen no matter how much work was done in good faith on the article. J Readings 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Maich: MacLean's, Not BusinessWeek

Thanks to Casey Abell for removing the Steve Maich quote until it could be verified [2]. I re-checked Lexis-Nexis and, to my embarrassment, I found that the Steve Maich quote (in bold below) was from MacLean's, not BusinessWeek. I don't know what I was thinking (I probably was rushing.) In any case, I hope the quote can be reinserted now that the appropriate citation has been found. J Readings 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maclean's

March 19, 2007

Wikipedia's trouble with the truth

BYLINE: BY STEVE MAICH

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 39

LENGTH: 381 words

For a company attempting to transition from online co-operative into a genuine media business--one that is supposed to be founded on the bedrock of reliability and trust--the Essjay affair raises serious questions. If credibility isn't an essential part of Wikipedia's business model, does it have a hope of surviving? And if the answer is "yes," what does that say about devaluation of truth in the Wikisphere?

For the full article, click here.

No problem. I rummaged around for Steve Maich on Google, and he never seems to have written for BusinessWeek. So I checked old copies of the magazine in the library and couldn't find the quote anywhere. I did find a lively quote from BusinessWeek on fakery, which I substituted in the article. I'll add back the Maich quote, which goes more to the business implications of the Essjay controversy. Casey Abell 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The ComCom exists for a reason

If the ComCom had performed its function, then there would have been no controversy. On the contrary, the reputation of the Foundation would have been enhanced because The New Yorker could have published the ComCom's correction that they now knew that the prestigious Essjay was a complete fabrication and that the reality was that Jordan was a college drop-out. At least one member of the ComCom, Angela Beasley, definitely had that information. That would have been a better outcome, especially for Essjay who might have even then been able to keep his employment at Wikia. I do not put all that much credence into the notion that Jimmy fired Jordan over a few edits from long ago. That sounds a lot more like a lame excuse. I tend to believe the much more typical scenario that Jimmy had to protect the reputation of the Foundation and that situation required that some heads roll pronto. That is how it works at other corporations and non-profits because both usually require the goodwill and money of others to survive and, in that sense, the Foundation is no exception.--Mightyms 06:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion. While I agree with it, opinions of wikipedians do not belong to artcles. Please get yourself familiar with the corresponding bunch of policies (sorry for the alphabet soup, but I don't remember full names and I am lazy): WP:ATTR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR. Mukadderat 06:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already mentions this issue in the "Wikipedia critics" section, by referring to Orlowski's criticism of Jimbo for hiring Ryan Jordan at Wikia and appointing him to ArbCom though he knew about the identity discrepancy. There was more specific opinion on the issue, which should be added to the article. I'll rummage around for correctly cited quotes. Casey Abell 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Added more quotes from Orlowski and Ratcliffe. Casey Abell 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Added a dead-on-point quote from Sanger, which is the most accusatory I could find on the Internet. The article does not endorse (or dispute) the criticism, merely notes its existence and gives a verifiable source. Casey Abell 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jan 11 timeline

The January 11 timeline references [3]. This article says nothing about January 11, or wikipedia review. Is there a reliable source for the January 11th claims re Wikipedia Review? Thanks! MOASPN 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've determined the edit in question was from a series of OR changes to the timeline by 75.36.170.208 and removed the information that cannot be sourced to 24hrs.ca. MOASPN 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to take the responsibility for the removal of accurate information about Wikipedia Review's role in the Essjay incident. On the talk page for Criticism of Wikipedia I pointed out the reference to Wikipedia Review in this article and even predicted that the reference would be removed. Of course, the removed information is completely accurate, as can be verified from the "Who is Essjay?" thread on Wikipedia Review. But BADSITES supporters won't allow a link to WR to verify the information. I only ask that nobody edit-war on this. The article has seen enough trouble already. Thanks. Casey Abell 17:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is not a reliable source for an article about "Essjay controversy" MOASPN 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is not a reliable source about Wikipedia Review? Okay... --Gwern (contribs) 01:00 23 October 2007 (GMT)

This isn't an article about Wikipedia Review. MOASPN 01:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But when one particular fact in this article involves WR, then it's a reasonable source for that specific fact (the fact that there was a message thread there in which the controversy was "launched"). It's not a source for any other factual information about the controversy besides that one. *Dan T.* 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. "Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details." This is an article about a controversy, not a website. By your argument, I could go publish a blog that purported to reveal Essjay's duplicity years before it broke - dated posts and everything. This should not go in the timeline - self published sources are not reliable except in articles about themselves or when published by experts. MOASPN 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How is stating that the controversy originated in a WR thread (the fact in question) a "controversial" or "derogatory" statement? Or even a statement about a living person (it's more of a statement about the forum itself)? *Dan T.* 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What's our source that shows the conroversy started on a forum? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The assertion in the article wasn't that the controversy started at Wikipedia Review. The article asserted (correctly) that a member of the forum noted the identity discrepancy, Daniel Brandt responded to the message, and Brandt then contacted the New Yorker. All this is completely accurate and easily verified from the "Who is Essjay?" thread at WR. But BADSITES supporters won't let us link to the thread to verify the information. And since the BADSITERS have the upper hand right now due to Arbcom's endorsement of BADSITES (renamed MALICIOUSSITES) we have to leave the information out. So the timeline now says that Brandt contacted the New Yorker, but rather ridiculously omits the information on how Brandt learned about the ID discrepancy in the first place. At least the full story is in the article history for people interested in a complete picture of how the incident developed. My guess is that we'll eventually be able to get the full story into the article, but I really want to avoid any more edit wars right now. Casey Abell 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No. WP:RS won't let us link to the forum. 170.148.10.46 12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on, let's not play games. You're getting your way on the article. But let's not pretend that it's a reliable source issue. WR is completely reliable for the assertions that a forum member noted the discrepancy, Brandt responded to the notice, and Brandt then contacted the New Yorker. In fact, WR is the most reliable source possible for these assertions. But BADSITES reigns supreme right now, so we can't use WR as a source. At least anybody who reads the discussion page or the article history will be able to get the full story from the "Who is Essjay?" thread at WR. Casey Abell 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You want a non-forum source, anon? Fine. I will bow to your arbitrary dictates. From the fscking horse's mouth. BTW, Will Be back, this source is also for you - it states the obvious about it starting on a forum. --Gwern (contribs) 16:55 23 October 2007 (GMT)

Unfortunately, we can't use Wikipedia Watch, either, because BADSITES will zap it. I would counsel patience. My guess is that BADSITES is headed for a BADFALL. Sooner or later the story will get into the media about Wikipedia censoring sites critical of itself. The Orwellian name BADSITES will make the story memorable. After much embarrassment the policy will be properly junked. We'll then be able to link to Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia Watch for the full story on the Essjay incident. The truth will out. Casey Abell 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES shouldn't matter for this discussion about article space. It's a rejected policy, and there's nothing anywhere near to consensus, either on the draft or the personal attacks page. --Gwern (contribs) 17:24 23 October 2007 (GMT)

I agree that BADSITES shouldn't matter, but Arbcom has essentially endorsed it with their MALICIOUSSITES principle in the Attack Sites case. That principle has been used to purge many WR links already – see the discussion at Criticism of Wikipedia. Again, patience is probably the key. BADSITES and its duplicate MALICIOUSSITES are probably on borrowed time. As soon as they get some notice from respectable outside media, they're gone. Then we'll be able to fill in the missing details on how the Essjay incident developed. And who knows, maybe an impeccable third-party source will mention Wikipedia Review's role in the incident, and we'll be able to cite that. Casey Abell 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia watch, as a self published website, is not a reliable source for claims on an article about "Essjay controversy." While it may be an acceptable source for some claims in an article about itself or it's author, it is not acceptable here. MOASPN 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia Watch nor Wikipedia Review qualify as sources under WP:V.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: ...

This is an article concerning a living person. This is not an article about either WW or WR. Therefore neither may be used as a source in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of wikilawyering that gives wikilawyering a bad name. The assertions that the websites would be used for are completely noncontroversial and easily verified: a member of WR noted the identity discrepancy, Brandt responded to the notice, and Brandt contacted the New Yorker. We've already got a source that even the wikilawyers have cleared for the third assertion, and the first two are similarly accurate, non-derogatory, and noncontroversial. If BADSITES supporters don't like Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia Watch, they should just be forthright and invoke BADSITES instead of other policies that were never designed for noncontroversial, non-derogatory, and easily verified assertions. Casey Abell 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Casey Abell. What is both ironic and thought-provoking about this situation is that even journalists writing about the "Essjay controversy" are using the very same sources (Wikipedia) to comment on these issues. Yet, we as editors are forced to cite the journalist rather than the actual primary source material because (a) Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, (b) primary sources are supposedly open to interpretation, and (c) they lack the appropriate vetting mechanisms that (theoretically) newspapers and academic journals have when deciding to publish about living persons. This is ironic because anyone who has experience with journalists (especially non-American journalists) knows full well that the vetting standards are quite low in terms of verifiability, sources, etc. One primary source is usually sufficient, and that source doesn't always have to be named. While I certainly can understand the need to have reliable, reputable sources that offer peer-reviewed professional standards to very weighty subjects that sometimes attract novel interpretations by fringe groups, here we are actually just talking about something that is easily verifiable, easily documented and very much mainstream. So what's the actual problem? I suspect that the answer is obvious: a small group of editors wish to interpret policies very rigidly because they want to make the editing of this article difficult to almost impossible. Why? Again, I suspect the answer is because they are of the opinion that this article should not exist at all. Nothing else makes any sense. Best regards, J Readings 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you guys want to initate a chnage in one of our core policies, WP:V, to allow forums and blogs to be used as sources about unrelated living people, then go ahead. In the meantime, there is a clear policy probiting it. That's not "wikilawyering", that's simply preserving our basic standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Appointment to ArbCom

According to Jimmy Wales, the appointment of Essjay to the Arbitration Committee was "at the request of and [with] unanimous support of the ArbCom." This may seem unbelievable, but because Wales says it happened that way, until we see a countering explanation for the Committee, it is our best source for this claim. Libertyvalley 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I put Jimbo's exact words in quotes to make it clear that this is his claim and not a flat assertion by the article. At least Jimbo's assertion won't get pulled from the article on BADSITES grounds masquerading as a reliable source issue. After all, his assertion is self-published on a mailing list (wink). Casey Abell 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of the people arguing about "attack sites" have sometimes seemed to intimate that some of our own mailing lists were in a similar category (as in, "Just watch... now that I've reverted you, I expect you people will be whining about it on WR and wikien-l, instead of doing something productive to build an encyclopedia!"). *Dan T.* 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have we ever allowed emails as reliable sources in articles? ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's post on WikiEN-l is a completely reliable source for the assertion that Jimbo made the claim. The article is only quoting Jimbo, not flatly asserting his claim as fact. Casey Abell 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, Essjay's contributions list is a reliable source too, but we're not using it because it's a primary source and we've decided to use only the highest standards of sourcing for this article. Do we want to bend our usual rules on reliable sources for this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not bending the rules at all. We're using an absolutely reliable source for the assertion that Jimbo made a claim about Arbcom's approval of Essjay. There is no dispute that Jimbo wrote the quoted words. Casey Abell 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How many other articles are sourced from emails? I don't think I've ever seen another one. Are contribution histories accurate? If so, why don't we use those too? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to give one of several examples I've seen, Citizendium quotes extensively from Larry Sanger's posts on the project's mailing list. There's never been any controversy about the appropriate use of these posts to document various assertions by Sanger. Of course, there was never any issue with BADSITES on that article, which is the real issue here, not WP:V or WP:RS. Casey Abell 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the mailing list is a badsite. Wikipedia has, to the best of my knowledge, avoided using Usenet postings and private emails. A moderated email list is somewhat different, but similar enough to be of concern. If we did agree that mailings from the list are reliable as a source for their writer's comments we'd still have to treat them as primary sources, and give them special care. Aldo, you didn't answer my question- wouldn't a contribution history also be reliable, and if so why aren't we citing Essjays edits directly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here are some of the archived threads that discuss relevant sourcing issues

A recurring concern is over self-referencing. The use of primary sources is also questioned. I think that over and over again both self-referencing and primary sources have been deprecated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixing of article

A number of edits have been added to this article recently. Some are not helpful, or need style redaction. I have tried to address these by reference to this diff, as follows:

Date of claim fixed - the claim was first made in May 2005, and is cited and verifiable to that date. 2006 is merely the first date someone has found it in the Internet Archive.
Remove 2 random </div> tags.
Removed a large morass of overloaded "criticism of wikipedia" -- theres a separate article for this; the impact here is to note the effect of the essjay case, and crossref, not add large amounts of wordage on "criticisms of wikipedia".
Remove reference to letter which doesn't actually seem very relevant to the affair.
Reword to avoid Sanger founder/co-founder dispute issues in future.
Remove duplication of Orlowski comment - stated once as a description, then as a quote. A characterization is enough here.
Cleaned up other critical responses, to list the matters described better.
Merged 2 sections of comments by Sanger into one paragraph, no need to split them.
Refactored Sanger section and beesley/patrick refs, and summarize the section.
Removed Blacharski reference and brevify Finkelstein and Bozell, low weight general comments compared to the other more serious citations. Likewise many others. Keep the core points which these make, in addition to previous cites, and refactor for ease of reading (one solid block is too much for all these).
Remove WP:OR about student popularity after the incident.
Cite essjay's own explanation, important for NPOV to give his comment as well as the in depth comments of others, since it was pivotal in the controversy, how he explained it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Update - refactored intro. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

I've removed the image of essjay. It really doesnt add much to the article, it's prurient only. The gain from adding an image of the person isn't really that much, the article is on the controversy not the person, and the privacy concern is significant.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the controversy, and the image was not part of the controversy. (It's possible to imagine how it could have been relevant, as it revealed the subject to be a young person, but that never came up during the incident). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh gee, predicted a conflict over this. By now I don't much care if the photo stays or goes, but I did relocate it to avoid white space. Also trimmed down Essjay's defense to avoid stopping the article in its tracks. Casey Abell 21:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you "don't much care" why did you restore it? What does the photo have to do with the controversy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the history. I didn't restore the photo. I did move the image to elim a lot of white space. But there appears to be no consensus to remove the photo, so why mess with the status quo of many weeks? Casey Abell 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, my mistake. It was restored by J Readings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the hard-work of not a few dedicated editors, we were finally able to upgrade this article to GA-status. Personally, I have no objection to editors wishing to cut-down on redundant language and poor grammar, hone the introduction, and improve other minute miscellany. In fact, I welcome and appreciate many/most of FT2's edits today. I start to get very uncomfortable, however, when editors start changing the article too much without first consulting with others on the talk page, let alone without trying to seek consensus among the group. One of the things that crosses the line is the Essjay photo. We have been through this issue several times over many, many months (see archives). Indeed, it was at the request of reviewers for FA-status that finally put the Essjay picture on the page for good. I would hate to think that we would have to revisit this issue for the n-th time now that we finally achieved GA-status, article stability and editor consensus. Please gentlemen: let sleeping dogs lie. Best regards,J Readings 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I would also add that the claim that the image is "prurient" could be held to the vast majority of images on our articles, and this is, in fact, why they are there - because people want to see them. I do not see why this is a negative and/or invalid reason for an image's existence on an article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded, or maybe I firsted a few lines above. Anyhoo, there's clearly no consensus on the photo, so why upset an uneasily settled issue? As for FT2's edits, I agree that many were valuable tightenings. But Essjay's comments were allowed to ramble so long that they stopped the article and actually became less effective as a defense. So I pruned them down, but not as much as, say, Finkelstein's comments got cut. His argument became almost incomprehensible: what deceptive promise? Bozell also got pruned too much - "intellectual mischief" is one of the better phrases in the article.

Truth to tell, I figured the more emphatic examples of lèse majesté from Orlowski and Sanger wouldn't survive. Their substantive criticisms are still in the article, so there's no real loss. Casey Abell 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

I've changed some recent anon edits to the article. I restored the sourced Nicola Pratt quote. Her asssertion is at least defensible. WP's transparency, where every edit – including claims on a user page – can be traced to its source, enabled the deception to be uncovered. At any rate, an editor shouldn't remove a sourced opinion just because of a disagreement with it. I fixed a misspelling of Stacy Schiff's name, which created an awkward red link in the first sentence. I also restored the mention of Essjay's Wikipedia user page to the lede because that page played such a pivotal role in the incident. There's no problem with mentioning both the user page and the New Yorker interview. Finally, I used completely neutral language ("stated") for the Ross Brann quote. Casey Abell 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The anon is back under a different Bell South 74.233 IP, and Jossi has reverted the second removal of the Pratt quote. Jossi left a note on the 74.233.86.29 IP talk page, and I did the same with the previous 74.233.157.43 IP. Let's hope we can avoid constant reverts. Casey Abell 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And again. The 74.233 anon has deleted the Pratt quote for the third time. The account is spacing the reverts to avoid a 3RR violation, but has not discussed the issue on the talk page. Casey Abell 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states: – and the fact the student was exposed shows it works. Was Essjay a student at the time? How does Wikipedia work when Essjay was exposed? If anything, this showed Wikipedia is not so reliable. For example, we AGF but some Wikipedians have taken advantage of this by claimimg to have credentials or a higher education to win a content dispute. If it shows Wikipedia works, then it would also be mentioned in the Reliability of Wikipedia article. However, the Essjay scandal is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. The Pratt quote does not make any sense. Please explain. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There would have been no way to track the false claims to Essjay without Wikipedia's transparent system of recording the source of every edit. The contradiction between Essjay's WP user page and his Wikia user page could not have been nailed to him without this system of recording every edit. Otherwise, any contradiction between the two pages could have been explained away as misleading information inserted by somebody else. In fact, the entire structure of user pages on Wikipedia was necessary for the conflicting claims to be compared in the first place. The WP system did work in this case, by allowing both internal and external critics to examine the entire history of the false claims and the contradictions between the WP and Wikia user pages. As for the use of the term "student", it does seem to be established that at one point Essjay was a student at a community college. Whether he was a student at the exact time of the Pratt quote seems like extreme hair-splitting. Casey Abell 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, Essjay was not a student at the time of the controversy. This fact is wrong in this article. It should be deleted. WP's transparency did not uncover the contradictions. Wikia knew the contradictions when he was hired at Wikia and did nothing about it. I want to explain it was the contradictions at Wikia's website that alerted the public. Wikia or Wikipedia did not report the contradictions. Certain people knew at Wikia when Essjay was hired and did not have a problem with it. However, Daniel Brandt reported the identity discrepancy to The New Yorker. There is an error in this article. Essjay was not a student at the time of the scandal. According to Essjay: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia." We have known incorrect information that is allowed to remain in Wikipedia. Hmm. Mr.Guru talk 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru: I admire your gumption, but I think that you're trying to make a mountain out of a mohill. Had the Nicola Pratt article taken up more than one or two sentences, I would agree with you that we should at least cut it down per WP:UNDUE or maybe even WP:FRINGE. The problem that I have with your argument is that it's not about WP policy, it's about your version of "the truth." Thankfully, we're not supposed to get involved in that type of discussion. As WP policy states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (See WP:V). The bottom-line is that the Pratt quote is found in a reliable source (The Guardian) and (more importantly), it's just her opinion as an academic. That's what op-ed pieces are, after all: opinions. Are we allowed to disagree with minority opinions? Yes, of course. What we shouldn't start doing is censor any minority op-ed opinions found in reliable publications just because we disagree with them. That said, I would like to read what others think about this issue before unilaterally removing the "dubious" tag from the article. Best regards, J Readings 08:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument about "student" is pointless nitpicking. Essjay was recently a student at a community college, so Nicola Pratt's use of the term is understandable. And the only way Brandt or anybody else could be sure that Essjay himself was making the false claims was through WP's transparent system of recording the time and source of every edit. I believe the quote is not just verifiable but correct. But as J Readings points out, we don't even have to reach that conclusion. The quote is verifiable as an opinion published in a reliable source, and thus meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I am removing the dubious-discuss tag.

I remind QuackGuru that editors with different opinions from his own could attach dubious-discuss tags to his references to Larry Sanger as "co-founder" of Wikipedia. After all, QuackGuru's opinion on the subject is certainly disputed, just as QuackGuru disputes Pratt's opinion on Essjay. Such tags would be pointless disruption, however, and would contribute nothing of encyclopedic value. I respectfully request QuackGuru to also avoid such disruption. Casey Abell 14:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not my opinion I am stating. Accusing me of disruption is an ad hominem personal attack and blockworthy (at least on Citizendium). Please answer my question specifically. Was Essjay a salaried Wikia employee or a student at the time of the controversy? It is clear to me. Nicola Pratt is absolutely mistaken. Essjay was NOT a student at the time of the scandal. It is very clear to everyone that Essjay was a Wikia employee. Agreed? Mr.Guru talk 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a contradiction in the article. The article states Essjay was a Wikia employee and later on in the article it states Essjay was a student. Please explain and discuss. There is no evidence that Essjay (However, Essjay was a Wikia salaried employee) was a student at the time of the controversy. Mr.Guru talk 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[remove indent] Essjay was a community college student before he was a Wikia employee. The use of the term "student" in the Nicola Pratt quote is completely acceptable considering his relatively recent status as a student. The issue is trivial in any case, because his status as a student or a Wikia employee is irrelevant to the point of the quote, which is that Wikipedia's system aided the exposure of the fradulent claims.

I also don't understand how a respectful request to avoid disrupting an article is an ad hominem attack. Nothing I said is an attack on you personally. Is calling my request "blockworthy" a personal attack? Of course not. I disagree with your opinion, but I don't consider it an ad hominem attack on me.

At any rate, in order to avoid even the appearance of a personal conflict on the issue, I will let other editors decide whether a dispute-discuss tag is justified for the Nicola Pratt quote. I won't edit the article in any way relating to the Pratt quote. -- Casey Abell (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to contradict itself. The article states: It was later discovered that he was 24 years old, and had dropped out of community college with no qualifications.[8] The articles also states: and the fact the student was exposed shows it works."[54] There was no student. Essjay worked for Wikia at the time of the controversy. Mr.Guru talk 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru: you just keep repeating yourself without addressing the relevant policies or the replies to your concerns. I removed the tag because most readers understand the difference between a reliably sourced opinion in quotation marks (which is the case here for Pratt) and a body of text that is not identified as a quoted opinion, but rather asserts a generalized fact without sourcing. It's surprising that you don't know the difference. By saying it's "reliably sourced" the article neither agrees nor disagrees with Pratt's opinion; we are simply saying that it comes from an acceptable source for citation. By limiting Pratt's quote to one sentence we (1) maintain NPOV, (2) maintain NOR, and (3) maintain verifiability. Those are the main pillars of Wikipedia. Why do you have a problem with those WP policies? Regards, J Readings (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

{remove indent] As I said, I'm not going to touch the quote again. But a simple way to resolve QuackGuru's complaint would be to substitute "[Essjay]" (using editorial brackets) for "the student" in the Nicola Pratt quote. I think the identification of Essjay as a student is trivial and completely irrelevant to the point of the quote. But this compromise would settle the stated complaint about the quote. Casey Abell (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that compromise. J Readings (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the more that I look at the Pratt quote, the more I think we should include the editorial "[Essjay]". Otherwise, it's not completely clear that Pratt is referring to Essjay, though the cited article states that she's talking about him. So the editorial insertion can be justified on simple clarity grounds. Casey Abell (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

According to what policy we can modify the quotes? I can't find the policy. I'm not comfortable with this suggestion. Mr.Guru talk 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I added [Essjay] to the quote but we did not change the text of quote. Mr.Guru talk 22:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote's been changed but it hasn't been changed? Maybe we shouldn't change the quote at all and instead leave the status quo of many weeks intact: no change to the quote and no tags on the quote. Casey Abell (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states: – and the fact the student was exposed shows it works. Was Essjay a student at the time? How does Wikipedia work when Essjay was exposed? If anything, this showed Wikipedia is not so reliable. For example, we AGF but some Wikipedians have taken advantage of this by claimimg to have credentials or a higher education to win a content dispute. If it shows Wikipedia works, then it would also be mentioned in the Reliability of Wikipedia article. However, the Essjay scandal is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. The Pratt quote does not make any sense. Please explain. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. 74.233.157.151 (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens now?

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1480012.ece This [refactor] blocked me for "vandalism". I demand to know who is going to apologise to me now?Anwar (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he blocked your account for "Disruption: personal attacks, was warned". That was the first of many blocks you've received. There's no evidence that the block was incorrect, regardless of whether Essjay claimed to be a professor or an astronaut. Rather than asking for an apology it'd be better to focus on improving your editing behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As of course we should all try to improve our editing behaviour. I removed your attack from your user page, do not repeat. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pull quote template

A user just reverted the pull quote template to the more bland quotation template. This leads me to a question that I've been meaning to ask for a very long time, so now is as good a time as any: Why do we have a pull quote template on Wikipedia if some editors think that we are not allowed to use it in Wikipedia articles? When *can* we use the pull quote template on Wikipedia? I hope someone can shed some light on this strange issue. J Readings (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE says:

A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for "call-outs", which are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles). Use a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags. Note: The current version of Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not render multiple paragraphs inside a <blockquote> simply by spacing the paragraphs apart with blank lines. A workaround is to enclose each of the block-quoted paragraphs in its own <p>...</p> element.''

So it appears that special quote templates should only be used in rare (but undesignated) circumstances. I think they tend to give too much prominence to quotations. Perhaps they're best used when a quotation is the subject of the article, such as England expects every man to do his duty. Anyway, I suggest discussing it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, or possibly Template talk:Cquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. At some point, I think I will try to discuss this issue over there. Best, J Readings (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please

The fact that this page exists is a testament to the vanity of Wikipedia. Now, I'll wager either this edit will be reverted, or I will be warned or blocked for making it, thus proving another point that I don't even need to make. Graestan (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How much are you wagering? Can I place a counter-wager? --Chris (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a vanity piece. It doesn't put Wikipedia in a very good light. It displays how easily the community can be duped by someone stating dubious credentials. This is something that could happen again, if not already, since Wikipedia refuses to implement any vetting process. BTW, I hope you don't ferret out my Ben Burtt sleeper account on Wookiepedia. If your comments are removed it will be because talk space is for improving the article. But perhaps if you feel that the article is biased towards a good review of Wikipedia you can edit it. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"We're important and here's why." – This is the message I get from the whole page. I mean, Essjay is not that important of a topic to have an extensive article in Wikipedia. Look at all the important real people that get nothing. At any rate, it was momentary expression of disgust. I don't see why this whole Essjay nonsense can't be water under the bridge. Also, Miss Ann Thropie, I don't operate in that fashion. Graestan (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No point arguing any more: there was an attempt to delete this article, documented here cojoco (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are important real people you think deserve articles that don't yet have them, or articles that should be more extensive, by all means be bold and help out the project by making/updating them. As to why this whole "Essjay nonsense can't be water under the bridge"- As I'm sure the AfD covers, it meets all the 'pedia criteria to warrant inclusion, and encyclopedias don't care whether or not something is old news.--Hawkian (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Having taken part in the credential verification debate I would like to comment that this whole affair occupied Wikipedians for a long time. Many people participated in this debate and filled the archives with their ideas. Yet the debate is far from settled. Credential verification is still a bogeyman rearing its ugly head from time to time as the comments above suggest. Far from being a storm in a teacup this affair made the news extensively and made Wikipedia stand still and take notice of its core values. To consider this event as water under the bridge we have to construct a mighty big bridge and risk being accused of whitewashing. Dr.K. (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This event is important. I'm new, but it seems that there are no "article limits"; you can create as many articles as you can. Articles should be supported by "reliable references" I believe. Articles about "important people" can be created. This event made lots of news & made Wikipedia take notice of its core values. The gen-X (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cornell students 'indicating'

I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this. The WP article stated “Several students interviewed at Cornell indicated that they would continue to use Wikipedia as a quick source of information, though they would not cite it in scholarly work.” How many students? How did they indicate it? Did they draw stick figures or did they say it in words? If the latter, why didn’t The Cornell Sun quote them? Can anybody identify the students who said they would use WP as a quick source of info but not cite it in scholarly work? The students interviewed said something similar but they certainly didn’t say what WP says they said. This is just basic fact-checking and copy-editing; not a big deal — why make it so? Questioningly, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis: I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this. Neither do I, that's why I'm puzzled why you just don't tweak the sentence to what you feel is an appropriate summary of what's being said in the article. I asked you to do that, but instead you insist on deleting the entire sentence. That's not very helpful. Perhaps you can just make a suggestion on the talk page of how you would re-write the sentence based on the source? J Readings (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out, for heaven's sakes. The article is too long anyway. Who cares what a few college students have to say? Anyway, the editor who added the section in the first place should have the responsibility to make sure it is correct, not the poor schlub who comes along later and tries to correlate the WP version with what was in the original source. I am outta here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis: The article is too long anyway. Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt continually deleting one sentence of sourced information is going to change the length. GeorgeLouis:Who cares what a few college students have to say? Well, apparently John Albanes, the journalist who wrote the article for the Cornell Daily Sun. According to its own Wikipedia article, The Cornell Daily Sun is an independent daily newspaper published in Ithaca, New York by students at Cornell University. It is the oldest continually-independent college daily in the United States. GeorgeLouis: ...the editor who added the section in the first place should have the responsibility to make sure it is correct. Risker and I both think the citation accurately reflects what's said in the article. It doesn't make sweeping claims about the United States or academia in general, but what's stated in the article; its focus is Cornell University. If you disagree with how the sentence is worded, please feel free to contribute a suggested tweaking of the sourced sentence. J Readings (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I accidently checked the minor box. So, I redid my edit. I could not find where several students to verify the text. The students may is more correct. Stating that they would is misleading. I hope this helps. QuackGuru 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine by me; I think mentioning the students is important, and your wording seems to be closest to the text so far. Risker (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed title change.

I propose changing the title of this article to Essjay scandal, for the reasons that the Essjay scandal was a major incident in wikipedia's history, and that English regards scandal as > controversy. Do you support or not, Wikipedia community?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Essjay scandal is somewhat POV, and it does not seem to be common (and largely a phrase sourced from Citizendium): http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22Essjay%20scandal%22

Absent any decent reason to move, consensus says leave the title alone. --Gwern (contribs) 18:52 27 October 2010 (GMT)

length

I have a general feeling that this article is rather long in relation to the actual level of real-world impact outside Wikipedia. Does anyone agree? Are there any general guidelines regarding the length of articles? Thanks. Scil100 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size. See also WP:PAPER. --Gwern (contribs) 17:49 22 January 2011 (GMT)

Okay, thanks. Just that the "reactions" section is nearly as long as Reactions to the September 11 attacks... Scil100 (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So? That's the 9/11 editors' fault, not the Essjay controversy editors. (If indeed there is any disparity. There are articles on countless aspects of 9/11, and material is spread throughout Wikipedia. There is only the one Essjay controversy article, however, and the occasional short description elsewhere like History of Wikipedia.) --Gwern (contribs) 18:58 22 January 2011 (GMT)

Personally, I agree with Scil100 that the existence of this article gives absurd overcoverage to an event with zero real-world consequences; to me, it looks like sheer navel-gazing on our part. But good luck getting a consensus to get it deleted at AFD... (see the links to previous nominations above.) Robofish (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Absurd coverage"? Maybe. Maybe not. But as you know, "zero real-world consequences" was never a criterion for deletion. The article is well-written. J Readings (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I was not advocating deletion, just wondering if the "reactions" section could be pruned. I'm sure it's all well sourced, and maybe it's frowned upon to remove stuff which is relevant and well sourced, but nonetheless I have a strong suspicion that essentially every known well-sourced reaction has made it into the article, which makes it look like an impressive list as if it's a really significant event, but actually for any truly newsworthy event such a list would be immense so any article would summarise and/or give a representative sample. Furthermore, there's an important difference in the nature of the sources compared to the coverage of a truly significant event. What we mostly have here (with one or two exceptions) is essentially journalists giving their own reaction to the events, so although the journalists are secondary sources for the original event, they are only primary sources for the reaction to it; contrast that with a noteworthy event where a journalist reports a third party's reaction to the event. Scil100 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to remove well-sourced material. Gwern already provided the necessary links as to why the article length is fine. To be honest, yours is the first I've read of someone wanting to remove reliably sourced material because the third party reactions to the event are both too numerous and not significant enough at the same time. Personally, I think the article is quite useful and provides plenty of information the way it's written. J Readings (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah bro I agree. This is really a pretty small matter that will never ever affect the general public. Wikipedia is funny like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darunna (talk • contribs)

Handling trivial misspellings – sic templates

I took out three of four 'sic' templates, correcting the three most trivial misspellings while leaving "Mr. Ryan ((sic))". This is because a long time ago when I looked at WP:MOS, it said to "quietly correct" trivial misspellings. It does not say this anymore, so there I don't think my removal of the 'sic' templates is the right thing to do. What do other editors think? Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The MOS still says "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected" right at the top of the section on quotes. Since this is in the MOS, I think your removal and spelling correction is relatively justified. None of the three typos you changed affect the quote's meaning, and having the sic templates there just draws attention to an unimportant part of the quote; but leaving the typos in without the sic templates, as it currently stands, does not seem ideal either. So I would support going back to your version. Princess Lirin (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for pointing that out, in MOS. In that case I support my earlier version, too. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me point to WP:V. The spelling failed V and the corrected quotes did not pass WP:OR. You are putting words in the cited source's mouth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

At WP:MOS it says that "trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected". In this edit you restored the errors, but MOS specifies that they should be "silently corrected" if they are trivial. They are trivial in this case. Your citing of WP:V as a reason for doing this is way off the mark. That guideline says nothing on the subject. Your citing of WP:OR also says nothing about misspellings or quotes. The correct guideline is WP:MOS. There were no new words being put "in the cited source's mouth". Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are using a guideline to contradict policy. Please don't put changed words in the mouth of the authors. If the quote is not correct it is obviously WP:OR. The text must pass WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, WP:V and WP:OR have no bearing on this issue. Leave those out. If you wish to quote the relevant sections of those guidelines, be my guest. There are no relevant sections. Cheers. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it is okay to misquote journalists. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is okay to silently correct trivial misspellings when quoting journalists. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not quoting journalists when you change what they said. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No significant change comes from changing it's to its when used as possessive, and so on. No change has been made to what they intended, or to what they meant. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a change to the quotes. It was not what they wrote. You feel it is okay to misquote journalists. I see a lot of editors take text out of context and replace sourced text with original research and then accuse me of adding original research after I provided verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems elsewhere don't concern me, especially if they are against the guidelines we follow. To me, it looks like WP:MOS has the definitive word on these three misspellings. If you find another section of applicable guideline that contradicts MOS, let me know. Otherwise, I do not sense any leverage from your argument. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems elsewhere may not concern you, especially if they are against the OR editors don't follow. I don't sense a consensus to rewrite history. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotations

Shortcuts

Minimal change: Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation. Where there is a good reason to make a change, insert an explanation within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, where the context explaining him is omitted in the quotation). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic], or the template {{sic}} (which produces [sic]), to show that the error was not made in transcription. Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment)—unless the slip is textually important.

I think all the errors are significant. I think revisionism is WP:OR. I don't see a good reason to make the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your quoted guideline makes my case. It says: "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment)—unless the slip is textually important." Only the part where Jimmy Wales writes "Mr. Ryan" is the slip textually important. Original research—again—has nothing to do with making trivial spelling corrections. Please read WP:OR again so you can see it yourself. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Does your version of the spelling directly supported as presented by the source? I think we should specifically include in OR that rewriting quotes is OR. I don't think it is appropriate to change the quotes. You could start a discussion at OR and other editors can decide if changing the words meets Wikipedia's definition of OR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to change the guideline, the ball's in your court. Me, I'll follow the guideline we have now, rather than follow the guideline you wish we had. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have returned to the version of the article wherein trivial spelling mistakes are "silently corrected" per WP:MOS. I accidentally hit the Twinkle vandalism button rather than hitting the regular 'undo' button, so I apologize for that. Oops! Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction and confusing description

The main body of the article states that the "Who is Essjay?" was started on July 24 2006, while the timeline states July 26 2006. The sentence in the article's body that mentions the "Who is Essjay?" thread is also poorly phrased and confusing. I don't have enough knowledge on the topic to make corrections. 137.215.44.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Controversy", what "controversy"?

I think the title is misleading. In a controversy, there are two sides arguing from two different points of view. There are no multiple valid points of view on Essjay. There's the reality of what he did, and how it was perceived (and acted upon) when the scandal broke. But I'd just call it the Essjay scandal, because that's what it was, not a "controversy". Also, I know that Essjay scandal redirects here. My point is not about ease of finding the article. It's about the big letters at the top of the article, which currently downplay the scandal to a "controversy". --89.0.241.3 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

To be or not to be - so is he or is he not?

"Wikipedia Review found definitive proof that Jordan made false claims about his qualifications and experience, including that he was ***not*** a "tenured professor", a claim that was used to describe Essjay in the interview for The New Yorker." Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Done ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Essjay

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Essjay controversy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*7 reputable citations, international media coverage from numerous reputable sources, 6 images used under GFDL. Smee 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone reached out to Essjay since the controversy?

While writing a commentary about the Wikipedia community, I happened to recall the Essjay controversy. I'm wondering if anyone has made any effort to reach out to Essjay and invite him to consider becoming active again. I think he made some mistakes, but that was five years ago, and notwithstanding those mistakes, he also did some good volunteering and had many friends and supporters here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Rampton (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2011

I wonder. Essjay has probably moved on. --The mediocre Wikipedian (talk to me.) 14:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary to specify English Wikipedia

An unregistered editor has changed "Wikipedia" to "English Wikipedia" in about fifty places in this article. User:Moriori reverted the edits and they were re-reverted, possibly by the same unregistered user from a different IP address.

I have looked at most of the edits, and in every place "Wikipedia" is the correct term. For example:

The Essjay controversy was an incident concerning a prominent English Wikipedia participant

He was a prominent Wikipedia participant, no need to specify.

Jordan held trusted volunteer positions within English Wikipedia

If they were within English Wikiedpia then they were also within Wikipedia

the impact of this deception on perceptions of English Wikipedia

A deception would have had an impact on the whole of Wikipedia

Essjay states on his English Wikipedia user page that he teaches graduate theology

There is some justification for "English" here, but in the context it is unnecessary.

The New Yorker publishes an article on the English Wikipedia

No evidence offered that the article was restricted to English Wikipedia

Jordan retires from English Wikipedia altogether

No evidence that he did not retire from other Wikipedias

He insisted that English Wikipedia editors still would be able to remain anonymous if they wished.

It is likely that Jimmy Wales was referring to all Wikipedia editors

However, the article argued that English Wikipedia could not become a "net police" of reliability on the Internet.

The article in Business Week does not specify English Wikipedia.

I will revert these changes. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

For Henryk Batuta hoax it says Polish Wikipedia. What is wrong with precision? The different wikis have different policies. For instance, I think that the German Wikipedia has Pending Changes on all articles.--208.54.32.235 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309130922/http://blogs.zdnet.com:80/Ratcliffe/?p=271 to http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=271

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Move

Sources/References/News

Wikia

Daniel Brandt says

No advanced degree

Tangential material has no place here

Merge strawpoll

Merge

Leave as is

Rename article

Discussion

Justin Stewart

Self references

Blogs as sources

Sometimes you just gotta smile...

Irrelevant quotations from sources

Gator1 and Katefan0 had credentials

Additions to timeline

Chronology

And the fallout continues

Correcting/editing direct quotes

New legal section below 'Academics'?

Quotes being erased

so what actual errors made it into wikipedia because of Essjay?

More important referenced content attempted removal

Citation #29

Unnecessary

The FAC results

GA

Second opinion

GA update: pass

Steve Maich: MacLean's, Not BusinessWeek

The ComCom exists for a reason

Jan 11 timeline

Appointment to ArbCom

Fixing of article

Image

Recent anon edits

What happens now?

Pull quote template

Please

Cornell students 'indicating'

Proposed title change.

length

Handling trivial misspellings – sic templates

File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Contradiction and confusing description

"Controversy", what "controversy"?

To be or not to be - so is he or is he not?

External links modified

Assessment comment

External links modified

Has anyone reached out to Essjay since the controversy?

Unnecessary to specify English Wikipedia

External links modified