On 3/9/07, William Pietri <william(a)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#Outsideā¦
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