I have just posted this on my talk page:
I have blanked my entire talk page to make sure this statement gets adequate attention. Hopefully someone more clueful than me :-) can archive things properly.
I have been for several days in a remote part of India with little or no Internet access. I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc.
I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community. In terms of the full parameters of what happens next, I advise (as usual) that we take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach. From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic. People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistaken.
On a personal level, EssJay has apologized to me, and I have accepted his apology on a personal level, and I think this is the right thing to do. If anyone else feels that they need or want a personal apology, please ask him for it. And if you find it to be sincere, then I hope you will accept it too, but each person must make their own judgments. Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now.
I still have limited net access... for a couple of hours here I will be online, and then I am offline until I am in Japan tomorrow morning. I beleive I will have a fast and stable Internet connection at that time, and I will deal with this further at that time.
Wikipedia is built on (among other things) twin pillars of trust and tolerance. The integrity of the project depends on the core community being passionate about quality and integrity, so that we can trust each other. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.
--~~~~
Since I can't seem to get any edits through right now, I'll respond here:
Jimbo, thanks for clearing this up on your end, and thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I'm glad that you don't condone this. This has been a troublesome period, but hopefully everyone can move on, and Essjay will eventually get what positions he needs back.
On 03/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have just posted this on my talk page:
I have blanked my entire talk page to make sure this statement gets adequate attention. Hopefully someone more clueful than me :-) can archive things properly.
I have been for several days in a remote part of India with little or no Internet access. I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc.
I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community. In terms of the full parameters of what happens next, I advise (as usual) that we take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach. From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic. People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistaken.
On a personal level, EssJay has apologized to me, and I have accepted his apology on a personal level, and I think this is the right thing to do. If anyone else feels that they need or want a personal apology, please ask him for it. And if you find it to be sincere, then I hope you will accept it too, but each person must make their own judgments. Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now.
I still have limited net access... for a couple of hours here I will be online, and then I am offline until I am in Japan tomorrow morning. I beleive I will have a fast and stable Internet connection at that time, and I will deal with this further at that time.
Wikipedia is built on (among other things) twin pillars of trust and tolerance. The integrity of the project depends on the core community being passionate about quality and integrity, so that we can trust each other. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.
--~~~~
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:14:50 +0530, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have just posted this on my talk page:
--8<-------
Anyone notice a difference in tone between Jimmy's statement and the baying mob that swept round Wikipedia looking for a place to set up shop?
Problem solved, well before the deadline (there is no deadline). The rest? Sound and fury, signifying nothing. As a community we really are not terribly good at sitting and thinking, are we?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:14:50 +0530, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have just posted this on my talk page:
baying mob that swept round Wikipedia looking for a place
rest? Sound and fury, signifying nothing. As a community we really are not terribly good at sitting and thinking, are we?
So you're saying the community is just a bunch of stupiders? You mean that Nature's article that showed Wikipedia is actually more accurate as a "baying mob" than as an oligarchy is just terribly ungoodly thinking?
"I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community." - Jimmy Wales, not the "baying mob" that was requesting Essjay be burned at the stake after being stalked then interrogated at Guantanamo, for which JzG has all sorts of reputable and reliable citations. After all JzG is an admin who can be trusted and wouldn't be out baying unverifiable stupidities like the community.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:55:39 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
So you're saying the community is just a bunch of stupiders? You mean that Nature's article that showed Wikipedia is actually more accurate as a "baying mob" than as an oligarchy is just terribly ungoodly thinking?
Actually most of the community did the smart thing and completely ignored this teapot tempest, but the reaction was in the main hysterical and, yes, stupid.
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Guy (JzG)
I do, although I'd compare this to a large peaceful protest rather than to a violent riot that your "baying mob" characterization makes this out to be. Oh, I love how semantics can so easily twist a situation... Those who were incivil throughout this were wrong, but the rest were more than entitled to voicing their opinions and probably had some effect on the change in Jimbo's position and/or, perhaps, Essjay's imminent resignations. The large number of established users denouncing Essjay's actions (as evidenced through the RfC and other media) certainly had to mean something.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:50:33 -0500, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
I do, although I'd compare this to a large peaceful protest rather than to a violent riot that your "baying mob" characterization makes this out to be. Oh, I love how semantics can so easily twist a situation... Those who were incivil throughout this were wrong, but the rest were more than entitled to voicing their opinions and probably had some effect on the change in Jimbo's position and/or, perhaps, Essjay's imminent resignations. The large number of established users denouncing Essjay's actions (as evidenced through the RfC and other media) certainly had to mean something.
Did you see the "straw poll" on sanctions? A lot of the agitation came from people he's had past disputes with. I found the hostility and above all the haste to be distinctly inappropriate - like the tabloids descending on a politician after his opponents have dug up some dirt.
I don't think the loudness or the baying for blood helped in any way. I do think that enough people will have had quiet words in Jimmy's ear that he'd have come to the same conclusion anyway. I believe Jimmy is more inclined to listen to measured words than petitions of the disgruntled.
I don't meant to characterise all concerned as a mob, by the way - several people while taking some part in the process did their level best to make it less hostile, and I salute them. Nor does that mean the concerns expressed are not valid.
Guy (JzG)
I don't meant to characterise all concerned as a mob, by the way - several people while taking some part in the process did their level best to make it less hostile, and I salute them. Nor does that mean the concerns expressed are not valid.
Guy (JzG)
Unfortunately I'm not sure that individuals attempting to make it less hostile can possibly have much effect. No matter how reasonable and careful everyone is being with their statements, the scale from Essjay's perspective must be daunting.
"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."
--Chris
Essjay situation? Why is this even in discussion? I'd consider the matter closed the second it was mentioned. I do not know the details of the actual matter but this entire thread is nothing but gossip. Let's focus on something that is actually productive and not potentially inflammatory.
- Cool Cat
On 3/3/07, Christopher G. Parham cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I don't meant to characterise all concerned as a mob, by the way - several people while taking some part in the process did their level best to make it less hostile, and I salute them. Nor does that mean the concerns expressed are not valid.
Guy (JzG)
Unfortunately I'm not sure that individuals attempting to make it less hostile can possibly have much effect. No matter how reasonable and careful everyone is being with their statements, the scale from Essjay's perspective must be daunting.
"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."
--Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/3/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote: Essjay situation? Why is this even in discussion? I'd consider the matter closed the second it was mentioned. I do not know the details of the actual matter...
No wonder.
On 3/3/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Essjay situation? Why is this even in discussion? I'd consider the matter closed the second it was mentioned. I do not know the details of the actual matter but this entire thread is nothing but gossip. Let's focus on something that is actually productive and not potentially inflammatory.
- Cool CatOn 3/3/07, Christopher G. Parham cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I don't meant to characterise all concerned as a mob, by the way - several people while taking some part in the process did their level best to make it less hostile, and I salute them. Nor does that mean the concerns expressed are not valid.
Guy (JzG)
Unfortunately I'm not sure that individuals attempting to make it less hostile can possibly have much effect. No matter how reasonable and careful everyone is being with their statements, the scale from Essjay's perspective must be daunting.
"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."
--Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Who did the research then? Where did Jimmy learn that Essjay was using his "credentials" to influence content decisions instead of just as a pseudonym? From the JzG Admin Research Foundation?
So the "mob" can understand, here's an answer: yes, just as it affects everything else in Wikipedia. Given that Jimmy was unable to go through all Essjay's edits, the key fact for Jimmy, learning that Essjay had combined his authority and false expertise claims to affect content decisions, seems to be the result of the mob and certain smarter elements in it, like geni, highlighting diff citations over long winded talk-page excuses or unsourced diatribes on mobs.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:21:46 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Who did the research then? Where did Jimmy learn that Essjay was using his "credentials" to influence content decisions instead of just as a pseudonym? From the JzG Admin Research Foundation?
You are assuming that only a baying mob would do such research.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:21:46 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Who did the research then? Where did Jimmy learn that Essjay was using his "credentials" to influence content decisions instead of just as a pseudonym? From the JzG Admin Research Foundation?
You are assuming that only a baying mob would do such research.
No one did before the "baying mob" turned up.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:34:01 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Who did the research then? Where did Jimmy learn that Essjay was using his "credentials" to influence content decisions instead of just as a pseudonym? From the JzG Admin Research Foundation?
You are assuming that only a baying mob would do such research.
No one did before the "baying mob" turned up.
Or the mob turned up while they were checking. Or the mob caused it to be done hours if not days earlier.
When did Jimmy become stupid, exactly?
Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Or the mob turned up while they were checking. Or the mob caused it to be done hours if not days earlier.
nyet. If it was going to happen days before ti should already have happened
When did Jimmy become stupid, exactly?
jimbo has better things to do with his time than did through 10s of Ks of edits.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:30:44 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Or the mob turned up while they were checking. Or the mob caused it to be done hours if not days earlier.
nyet. If it was going to happen days before ti should already have happened
Why? It was only slashdotted a day or so back.
Guy (JzG)
Could we all stop please?
The moon has returned.
Repeat: THE MOON HAS RETURNED.
The particularly bloody sacrifice of Essjay was successful in appeasing the Great Red Monster In The Sky that Ate The Moon.
There is no need to continue further. Or the monster might come back and eat YOU.
Thanks.
- d.
Could we all stop please?
The moon has returned.
Repeat: THE MOON HAS RETURNED.
The particularly bloody sacrifice of Essjay was successful in appeasing the Great Red Monster In The Sky that Ate The Moon.
There is no need to continue further. Or the monster might come back and eat YOU.
Thanks.
Pure genius, thank you!
Enough is enough. This has to stop already. I refer everyone to Giano's post on Jimbo's talkpage.
Newyorkbrad
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:34:01 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Who did the research then? Where did Jimmy learn that Essjay was using his "credentials" to influence content decisions instead of just as a pseudonym? From the JzG Admin Research Foundation?
You are assuming that only a baying mob would do such research.
No one did before the "baying mob" turned up.
Or the mob turned up while they were checking. Or the mob caused it to be done hours if not days earlier.
When did Jimmy become stupid, exactly?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:21:46 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob
materially
affected the outcome? I don't.
Who did the research then? Where did Jimmy learn that Essjay was using his "credentials" to influence content decisions instead of just as a pseudonym? From the JzG Admin Research Foundation?
You are assuming that only a baying mob would do such research.
No, I'm asking who did the research that you claim was done outside the "baying mob" (aka, the community).
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:40:33 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm asking who did the research that you claim was done outside the "baying mob" (aka, the community).
Not all the community were part of the baying mob. Most were not.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Actually most of the community did the smart thing and completely ignored this teapot tempest, but the reaction was in the main hysterical and, yes, stupid.
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Guy (JzG)
Yes but the question has always been what is the reaction outside the community, not inside.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Actually most of the community did the smart thing and completely ignored this teapot tempest, but the reaction was in the main hysterical and, yes, stupid.
Do you think that the presence of a baying mob materially affected the outcome? I don't.
Yes but the question has always been what is the reaction outside the community, not inside.
It's really a question of which of the two you consider more important. I would normally consider the one inside the community more important because it affects how editors relate with each other. With good co-operation there is little to worry about outside.
The outside reactions will mostly be short-term reflecting the outrage of the moment. Those reactions will come even when we do everything right. That goes with the territory of being big. If we put so much emphasis on, "What do the neighbours think?" we can too easily lose focus on what we are about.
Ec
On 3/4/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Any reason why Essjay's talk page hasn't been protected yet? It's over. He's gone.
Because we're open people. ~~~~
gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Any reason why Essjay's talk page hasn't been protected yet? It's over. He's gone.
Because we're open people. ~~~~
Speaking of which, whether that gets protected or not, I'd implore people not to delete the history of his talk page.
In a month or so I'm hoping we will come back to this and see what lessons there are to learn. Personally, my top item is to learn how to handle problems in ways that are more civilized.
William
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Anyone notice a difference in tone between Jimmy's statement and the baying mob that swept round Wikipedia looking for a place to set up shop?
Jimbo can get things done through shear authority. The general wikipediam on the gorund cannot
Problem solved, well before the deadline (there is no deadline). The rest? Sound and fury, signifying nothing. As a community we really are not terribly good at sitting and thinking, are we?
Given that people were prepared to sit and dig through 10's of Ks of edits I would beg to differ.
I was unaware Essjay used fake credentials in content disputes, but seeing as that appears to be confirmed now, I think a resignation is in order. Still, I don't think the community noticeboard vote and incivil comments were not the way to go about this. I would've waited for a decree from Jimbo, and now we have one.
Mgm
On 3/3/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I was unaware Essjay used fake credentials in content disputes, but seeing as that appears to be confirmed now, I think a resignation is in order. Still, I don't think the community noticeboard vote and incivil comments were not the way to go about this. I would've waited for a decree from Jimbo, and now we have one.
If it wasn't for the CN noticeboard stuff it is doubtful the relivant difs would have come to light.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:08:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If it wasn't for the CN noticeboard stuff it is doubtful the relivant difs would have come to light.
I dispute that. I think that people would have done the digging anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:08:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If it wasn't for the CN noticeboard stuff it is doubtful the relivant difs would have come to light.
I dispute that. I think that people would have done the digging anyway.
Experence suggests otherwise. It didn't happen when the story first broke And remeber this ah "mob" appears to broadly support essjay hanging onto his adminship.
It will be easier for Jimbo to wade through comments and diffs provided by the community, if it's all together on one page rather than spread out first on Jimbo's talk page, then Essjay's talk page, then more discussion here on the mailing list, on the community noticeboard, and while I haven't been on IRC, surely discussion going on there too. Sure there were some incivil comments, but for the most part the comments were very civil and thoughtful from regular Wikipedians.
The comments also present the community's opinion on the situation to the news media and larger public. Take this piece in the Chronicle for Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 They point out that not all Wikipedians agree with Jimbo's statement to the New Yorker. Standing by silently and saying nothing, in my opinion, says "I approve of Jimbo's statement" and is an unacceptable choice. It's necessary for community members to speak up in this situation.
I think it led to a swifter response from Jimbo (the best he could do, given he's in India) which is important to mitigate the situation.
Regards.
On 3/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I was unaware Essjay used fake credentials in content disputes, but
seeing
as that appears to be confirmed now, I think a resignation is in order. Still, I don't think the community noticeboard vote and incivil comments were not the way to go about this. I would've waited for a decree from Jimbo, and now we have one.
If it wasn't for the CN noticeboard stuff it is doubtful the relivant difs would have come to light.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Anyone notice a difference in tone between Jimmy's statement and the baying mob that swept round Wikipedia looking for a place to set up shop?
Yes, I think his recent statement was about right on. Not too harsh, but still recognizing of the fact that a serious breach of trust took place. World order has once again been restored for those of us who, like Larry Sanger, were shocked not by the incident, but by the apparent ho-hum reaction to it by Jimmy Wales.
I hope Sanger will post a public response to this, as he was quick to post a public reaction to Jimmy's original statement.
Anthony
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:07:13 -0500, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yes, I think his recent statement was about right on. Not too harsh, but still recognizing of the fact that a serious breach of trust took place. World order has once again been restored for those of us who, like Larry Sanger, were shocked not by the incident, but by the apparent ho-hum reaction to it by Jimmy Wales.
Yes, exactly that. Sorrow, but recognition that there is an issue of trust. It did not need to be rammed home with a brick.
Guy (JzG)
On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:22 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Yes, exactly that. Sorrow, but recognition that there is an issue of trust. It did not need to be rammed home with a brick.
True leadership in difficult moments are measured by statements like the one made by Jimbo. Clear, forceful enough, but with an attitude and tone that demonstrate kindness and understanding of human nature. Well done.
-- Jossi
On 3/3/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:22 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Yes, exactly that. Sorrow, but recognition that there is an issue of trust. It did not need to be rammed home with a brick.
True leadership in difficult moments are measured by statements like the one made by Jimbo. Clear, forceful enough, but with an attitude and tone that demonstrate kindness and understanding of human nature. Well done.
-- Jossi
And how does this comment show any "true leadership"? To me it sounds like minimization and an evasion of responsibility:
"I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it."
And how does this comment show any "true leadership"? To me it sounds like minimization and an evasion of responsibility:
"I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it."
Have you even read Jimbo's email? He wasn't in full possession of the facts when he said that and has since withdrawn it (at least to us, I don't know if he's contacted the journalist again). Jimbo made a mistake by saying that and has now corrected that mistake - what more do you want?
On 03/03/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2007, at 7:22 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Yes, exactly that. Sorrow, but recognition that there is an issue of trust. It did not need to be rammed home with a brick.
True leadership in difficult moments are measured by statements like the one made by Jimbo. Clear, forceful enough, but with an attitude and tone that demonstrate kindness and understanding of human nature. Well done.
-- Jossi
And how does this comment show any "true leadership"? To me it sounds like minimization and an evasion of responsibility:
"I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it."
That was his *first* comment. The one in question is at the top of the thread you're replyinf to...
:: I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false :: credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the :: matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely :: understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and :: not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it :: perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully :: based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on.
(...)
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Problem solved, well before the deadline (there is no deadline). The rest? Sound and fury, signifying nothing. As a community we really are not terribly good at sitting and thinking, are we?
No, we're not, as evidenced by this very thread. At least, not if you measure the aggregate level of noise. That's kind of inevitable though, unless someone comes up with an internet equivalent to "active noise reduction". Is there an English language equivalent of antinoise?
I feel like I'm being kind of hypocritical though, going on about not going on.
Anthony
I have been for several days in a remote part of India with little or no Internet access. I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc.
I was hoping that was all that was behind your dismissal of the issue. I think that should put to rest the (few, admittingly) calls for your resignation...
I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community. In terms of the full parameters of what happens next, I advise (as usual) that we take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach.
Good call.
From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic. People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistaken.
I'm not sure I agree. There may be some things EssJay has said that I've missed, but none of the things I've seen looked like a genuine apology to me. In order to apologise, you have to admit that you were wrong, I haven't seen him do that yet. (If I have indeed missed the appropriate message, I would appreciate being linked in the right direction.)
Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now.
Indeed, there is a difference between forgiveness and trust. Forgiveness is a personal thing and carries with it no real risks, trust is quite a different matter.
And to those in this thread commenting on how different Jimbo's reaction has been to everyone else, I'll point out the main thing Jimbo did that no-one else did: He officially requested EssJay's resignation. No-one else did that because no-one else could - everyone else was limited to expressing their opinions on the matter, and as that was all they could do, they did it a lot.
On 3/3/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: >
Wikipedia is built on (among other things) twin pillars of trust and tolerance. The integrity of the project depends on the core community being passionate about quality and integrity, so that we can trust each other. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.
The problem isn't that Essjay created a false biography in order to protect himself from real life harrassment. I don't think anyone would have a problem if all he did was say he lives in a different state etc. The problem is he lied about his credentials and used those false credentials in order to give himself a false authority in a certain field (religion and theology) and used that false authority to his advantage when editing articles in that field. Indeed, claiming you have a PhD when you are not gives you a certain credibility even outside the field your PhD is supposedly in.
If Essjay just didn't want people to know who and where he was he could have said he works as a cashier in Seattle or a farmhand in Wisconsin. Instead he chose to give himself a PhD in Theology and make himself a professor. In the real world of research and writing if someone were to fake their credentials in such a way they'd be fired. In the world of Wikipedia you're elevated to the highest echelons and given a full time paid job.
Jimbo, when did you know about this deception and why did you minimize it when you talked to the New Yorker?
Those comments to the New Yorker have done much more to harm Wikipedia's reputation than Essjay's original offence. It's good that Essjay has apologized to you. When is he going to apologize to ther est of the wikipedia community and when, for that matter, are YOU going to apologize. You must have known the truth when you hired him at Wikia. Why did it take bad press to make you realize there was a problem with this?