'Essjay', 'Ryan Jordan' and 'Essjay controversy' got a great deal
of
publicity in world dailies. Hell, there was a column in the Times of
India about the Wiki incident that allegedly shook public trust in the
integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information; yada yada
yada
OK, so now we've got the article on Wikipedia, which basically does
nothing but make a mockery of an individual named Ryan Jordan and
reminisces about how he fooled us all.
Call it - "Revenge of the Wiki", but this individual is suffering for
his series of bad judgment calls and attributed malice. Call it
whatever you want, you cannot dispute the fact that if we were some
other encyclopedia, we wouldn't be having this article at all.
Yes, I am well aware of the "paper encyclopedia" argument and the
consecutive jabberwocky; about how this passes all the notability
tests ever made. The bigger problem (which creates a question of
ethics, something probably alien to those who have been defending the
article's existence aggressively) is the impact of this article's
existence on the subject's life.
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website; it IS the world's largest
compendium of knowledge, the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have
responsibilities? What about ethics? We are ACTIVELY affecting the
lives of various individuals worldwide, and one aspect of those
impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but
well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"
Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of hindrances while
applying for employment and placements. Who are we to exacerbate the
situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent
enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy? Why should we
constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does
more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to be the total
sum of human knowledge but with certain responsibilities to the
society and its members. If getting featured in various publications
and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an
encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias.
Wikipedia is not a joke, nor is Ryan's life.
An alternative solution which might appease both the sides would be to
remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the article itself.
--Anirudh
On 7/5/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
White Cat wrote:
It was established as simple coincidental
vandalism.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> White Cat wrote:
>> We are living in an era where simple vandalism on en.wikipedia becomes
>> headline news on CNN not once but twice (that professional wrestler's
>> death).
> I would hardly consider an edit that suggested the editor may have had
> inside knowledge of a murder to be "simple vandalism." IMO you're
> gravely misrepresenting it by calling it that.
"Simple vandalism" does not become headline news, unless it happens to
become something other than simple vandalism. There is a firehose of
simple vandalism that does not make headlines. This was "simple
vandalism" that became something else when it turned out to closely
coincide with what was at the time recently realized reality.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l