On 3/9/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
stvrtg wrote:
Would somebody please provide a source for the claim that he used his fake
credentials to "strongarm people" or to influence "content disputes?"
I was hoping not to rehash this stuff anytime soon, but strictly because you asked on the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay#Outside_...
I didnt ask you if you could provide links to examples where he flaunted his credentials. I asked you to provide a source for the claim that he used his flaunted credentials in the ways that people have characterized him to have done.
Ironically, I asked for this same clarification on [[Essjay controversy]] - adding a {{fact}} tag to the statement: "However, after reviewing evidence that the false credentials had been used in Wikipedia content disputes with other editors." The {{fact}} was replaced by a ref to the NYT article, but the NYT article itself doesnt assert this claim, but rather it cites two interpretations, one by Michael Snow: MS: "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," "Those will get looked at again."
The other is by Jimbo, made in his own defense: "my past support of Essjay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on." The statement "What has been going on" is ambiguous: someone who knows "what's going on" might understand Essjay's misrepresentations to be unacademic and damaging to himself, but it also leaves the door open to the overstated view that he "abused his fake credentials"... "in the context of disputes."
The NYT story doesnt support the latter, (hence it doesnt satisfy the {{fact}} tag and has to be removed) but instead states it properly (as a POV) that: "Some Wikipedia users argued that Essjay had compounded the deception by flaunting a fictional Ph.D. and professorship to influence the editing on the site."
Interpretations made by Wikipedians are quoted in a newspaper, which is in turn cited in Wikipedia. Where are the RS nazis when you need them?
Note that I personally don't think part was a huge deal; as I mention
elsewhere, this is not an uncommon thing for a teenager with a shiny new identity to do, and from there it looks like he just let it get out of control. Since he didn't do it a lot, and since we are famously
uninterested in credentials anyhow, I think this did little harm.
Its nice to hear you moderating your tone. "Didn't do a lot" is interpretive. 20K edits is plenty, and as some news stories have spun it, represent a possibly contaminated body of work.
Essjay's internal standing was not based on his academics. However, his
standing when he wrote to professors as a "fellow professor" and his social standing in the New Yorker article were based his claim of high academic success.
No, they were based on a recommendation by the Foundation. The scandal (internal) is that Jimbo placed trust in him in accordance with his wiki credentials, and the story (media) is how the worlds of academic representation and internet identity collided.
Whether or not people should have taken him more seriously because of that is an interesting question, but not one that's relevant. They did, and they will continue to hold professors in high regard no matter what we think about it.
Over time Wikipedia has grown in its appeal to experts. It started off as something experts wouldnt touch, and has proven itself to be worthwhile for them to contribute to. There still remains the damaging perception that Wikipedia's openness is its peril. Sadly, I think the only peril here came with Jimbo's appointment of Essjay. Perhaps all of this anger at Essjay is really just a dislike how Jimbo's powers of appointment somehow represents a dismissal for the wisdom of the masses. Unfortunately there was no such wisdom that found Essjay out until after he was appointed. This whole asking for credentials thing only has meaning in the context of Jimbo making appointments. If Essjay had been elected, the community itself would have been duped and there wouldn't have been much of a stink made about it. An election process would no doubt have involved a prior investigation in which case there would have been no after the fact scandal.
-Stevertigo