On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
It would just about take him off the first page of Google hits. The only remaining link would be News.com.com.com.com.com.com.com...
There are a couple of hits on the second page, and if you make any attempts to rule out some of the ones that aren't him, you can get more links about the real him to show up. The only thing that's hiding him (much) on Google is that he has an extremely common name.
I suppose one's view of whether what a 24-year-old "kid" should be reckoned against him depends on what one's view of the seriousness of what he did. But then can't we let the rest of the world decide that? If the world decides that it was an easily forgivable lapse, then it won't hurt that we name him; and if the world thinks that it is an important failure (which I personally doubt), then maybe it is important that we do name him.
In any case we have an overblown sense of our importance if we think that taking his name (or for that matter the whole article) out of Wikipedia is going to make it noticeably more difficult for people to find out about him. People are more interested in Brian Peppers, because they are prurient; they are more interested in Jimbo, because he is a public figure whose name is going to be mentioned any time someone feels the need to give backstory on Wikipedia; but if they are interested either in "Essjay" or Mr. Jordan, they don't need Wikipedia to find out about him. And if we remove the article, it invites the inevitable conclusion that it embarasses us, no matter what we say to the contrary.
Oh-- and 14 is a kid. 24 is an adult who ought to know better.