"Stephen Park" <stephenpark15(a)gmail.com> writes:
On 3/5/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > William Pietri wrote:
> >
> > > > This especially concerns me as you used your
administrative
powers to
> > > > enforce your minority view in a
disagreement in which you
were very
> > > > actively involved. Wouldn't it
have been better to let
somebody who had
> > > > less involvement decide the
outcome?
> >
> William, I understand that feelings are running high and people
feel
> they need an outlet. Still, we have a very serious
situation
here
> where the subject has left Wikipedia and yet is
continuing to
be
> attacked. Bear in mind that he's being
discussed by what we
believe to
> be his real name, so BLP kicks in here, and we
have to be
careful what
> we say, and respectful of his right to get on with
his
life. It's
> important to discuss the political fall-out so we
can work out
what
> the lessons are, but comments about the person
aren't
necessary. As
> David said, it was an uncertified RfC, and he was
within his
rights to
delete it.
Sarah
Let's ban the New York Times as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?ref=business
March 5, 2007
A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side
By NOAM COHEN
In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the
crowd. In
the last few days, contributors to Wikipedia, the
popular online
encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found
to
have created an elaborate false identity.
Under the name Essjay, the contributor edited thousands of
Wikipedia
articles and was once one of the few people with the
authority
to deal
with vandalism and to arbitrate disputes between
authors.
To the Wikipedia world, Essjay was a tenured professor of
religion at
a private university with expertise in canon law,
according to
his
user profile. But in fact, Essjay is a 24-year-old
named Ryan
Jordan,
who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and
lives outside
Louisville.
Mr. Jordan contended that he resorted to a fictional persona to
protect himself from bad actors who might be angered by his
administrative role at Wikipedia. (He did not respond to an
e-mail
message, nor to messages conveyed by the Wikipedia
office.)
The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of
collaborative
efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors
acting in
good
faith, often anonymously and through self-designated
user
names. But
it also shows how the transparency of the Wikipedia
process
oeôòô all
editing of entries is marked and saved oeôòô allows
readers to react to
suspected fraud.
Mr. Jordan's deception came to public attention last Monday when
The
New Yorker published a rare editors' note saying
that when it
wrote
about Essjay as part of a lengthy profile of
Wikipedia, "neither
we
nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," and
that it took
Essjay's
credentials and life experience at face value.
In addition to his professional credentials and work on articles
concerning Roman Catholicism, Essjay was described in the
magazine's
article, perhaps oddly for a religious scholar, as
twice
removing a
sentence from the entry on the singer Justin
Timberlake, which
"Essjay
knew to be false."
After the article appeared, a reader contacted The New Yorker
about
Essjay's real identity, which Mr. Jordan had
disclosed with
little
fanfare when he recently accepted a job at Wikia, a
for-profit
company.
A pity they didn't bother to name Daniel Brandt as that
reader. You know it was him, I know it was him, but not naming him
means we can't mention it in his article as yet another
interesting/notable thing Brandt has done, even though we know
perfectly well who that "reader" is.
General thoughts: this actually isn't too hostile to Wikipedia,
especially given that The New Yorker said "neither we nor
Wikipedia", specifically exculpating Wikipedia in general. We come
off looking perhaps overly trusting or naive, but what
questionable actions there seem to fall under the Essjay and Wikia
rubrics.
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.