stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com writes:
On 3/2/07, Jeff Raymond
jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their
academic
credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if
he were
making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the
word is
now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the
charade up
enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway.
That's a
problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
Why not? And why would you suppose if you for example tried to
pass yourself
off as a Th.D that people who actually are wouldn't find certain
things odd
about what you say? This entire charge against Essjay falls
under the
pseudonym issue, and of course is entirely ironic that most of the critics happen
to be
either disgruntled (Kelly) or themselves anonymous. The issue is between Essjay and
the New
Yorker. We dont have a personnel screening policy. The onus was on the
Pulitzer
prize winning author to check her sources, not to rely on a third party. ....
- Stevertigo
As one of those "anonymous" users (I certainly hope I cannot be counted among the disgruntled), I feel I must protest. I do not think the criticism of myself and people like me is "ironic" in any way: our very ability to work peaceably and quietly on the wiki demonstrates that one does not need to fabricate a false life, ostensibly in order to defend oneself against trolls and assorted ne'er-do-wells. Our existence militates against the very suggestion of a false dichotomy (between either risking your personal life by revealing everything truthful, or simply making stuff up which sounds plausible) - there is at least a third option: to say nothing. Americans might be familiar with the idea of a 'Fifth amendment'; I would like to say that on a wiki, about your private life you *do* have the right to remain silent.