On 6/27/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/27/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)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.