'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@gmail.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
It was established as simple coincidental vandalism.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l