The New Yorker recently added an editor's note to an article they published in July:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
This has been noted by Nicholas Carr and Stephen Dubner (of Freakonomics), and I imagine it will be picked up by others:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/02/never_trust_an.php http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/02/28/wikipedia-oops/
This is the editor's note:
The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”
Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia admin-istrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia—a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia—as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”
William
On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
He was described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law."Where did those claims come from? I haven't seem them anywhere before.
Right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=65266249
On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
He was described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law."Where did those claims come from? I haven't seem them anywhere before.
My mistake, here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/History1&direction...
William Pietri wrote:
The New Yorker recently added an editor's note to an article they published in July:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Note to self: resist the temptation to fabricate an online identity with the idea of leading potential stalkers astray, it will make real-life trouble sooner or later.
Postscript: Unless I'm working for the CIA, in which case I will also have been trained in, shall we say, *messier* ways to deal with stalkers.
:-)
Stan
So I'm a little troubled at the chaos surrounding the current Essjay issue. I was hoping that Essjay would return, answer the many questions that have arisen, and make this problem go away. That hasn't happened, though. There seems to be a lot of discussion in a lot of places, much of it heated, and none of it apparently moving to resolution.
Several people, including those advocating deletion of [[Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay]], suggest that the right thing to do is to start up a RFC or an RFAr. That seems like a good step forward to me, or at least the least bad option on the table. I was hoping somebody else would do it, but that's not happening either.
Do people have other suggestions? And of the two, which do people see as better?
Thanks,
William
On 3/2/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Several people, including those advocating deletion of [[Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay]], suggest that the right thing to do is to start up a RFC or an RFAr. That seems like a good step forward to me, or at least the least bad option on the table. I was hoping somebody else would do it, but that's not happening either.
I think at the present time waiting for a further response from Essjay before taking further action is the best option.
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:35:06 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I was hoping that Essjay would return, answer the many questions that have arisen, and make this problem go away. That hasn't happened, though.
The story only broke yesterday. Give him a break.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:35:06 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I was hoping that Essjay would return, answer the many questions that have arisen, and make this problem go away. That hasn't happened, though.
The story only broke yesterday. Give him a break.
I regret that the question is moot. Someone has already opened an RFC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay
My apologies for not noticing this before posting my question.
William
On 3/2/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:35:06 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I was hoping that Essjay would return, answer the many questions that have arisen, and make this problem go away. That hasn't happened, though.
The story only broke yesterday. Give him a break.
I regret that the question is moot. Someone has already opened an RFC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay
My apologies for not noticing this before posting my question.
William
None of this would have happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio had been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which preceeded it..
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None of this would have happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio had been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which preceeded it..
Nyet false persona predates Daniel Brandt article first appearing on wikipedia.
On 3/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None of this would have happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio
had
been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which preceeded it..
Nyet false persona predates Daniel Brandt article first appearing on wikipedia.
-- geni
The point is, the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt article were not based upon Notability, or BLP; it was created with a specific intent to cast Brandt as a non-reputable source who could not be cited as a critic for other articles.
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None of this would have happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio had been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which preceeded it..
Wow, stop right there, Nobs. You're not bringing your SlimVirgin Review conspiracy theories onto this list.
There were no "circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio" that are relevant to this incident, or of any interest. I created the stub on Brandt because his name was showing up as a red link in the article about, as I recall, Chip Berlet. Rather than remove the red link, I created a stub so it turned blue. End of story.
Sarah
On 3/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None of this would have happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio
had
been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which preceeded it..
Wow, stop right there, Nobs. You're not bringing your SlimVirgin Review conspiracy theories onto this list.
There were no "circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio" that are relevant to this incident, or of any interest. I created the stub on Brandt because his name was showing up as a red link in the article about, as I recall, Chip Berlet. Rather than remove the red link, I created a stub so it turned blue. End of story.
Sarah
( A ) you said yourself, you did not regard Brandt as a credible source;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&...
( B ) the subject of the Berlet entry was the first to identify Brandt by name with these words:
QUOTE This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-b...
( C ) the self published citation in the Public Information Research entry * still* violates WP policy.
Rob Smith wrote:
[blah blah blah blah]
<groan> Do we *have* to rehash this for the hundredth time??
Stan
On 3/2/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
[blah blah blah blah]
<groan> Do we *have* to rehash this for the hundredth time??
Stan
Brandt was the victim of a drive by smear aimed at editors who inserted properly sourced criticism to Brandt in another article. I kept silent for 1 year, but the situation never resolved itself. It only got worse. Numerous innocents now have been caught in the crossfire in this dispute between Brandt & Berlet that goes back to 1991.
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Brandt was the victim of a drive by smear aimed at editors who inserted properly sourced criticism to Brandt in another article. I kept silent for 1 year, but the situation never resolved itself. It only got worse. Numerous innocents now have been caught in the crossfire in this dispute between Brandt & Berlet that goes back to 1991.
Nobs, everything you say about this is not only insulting, but completely factually inaccurate. Here is the article after Brandt and I had finished working on it, and just before I deleted it because he said he didn't want it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25628592 It's clearly not a "drive-by smear," and if you knew anything about my editing, you'd know that's an absurd thing to say. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Chip Berlet.
What happened then is that Brandt started talking about the deleted article on blogs, and as a result a blogger turned up and re-created it. Had Brandt kept quiet, the chances are it would have stayed deleted.
'Nuff said, hopefully.
Sarah
Stan Shebs wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
[blah blah blah blah]
<groan> Do we *have* to rehash this for the hundredth time??
I second that emotion. I know it's hard for all parties involved, but could we please leave ancient history out of this?
I will eagerly read pretty much anything that's a forward-looking suggestion or discussion about what we will do. But barring the contribution of a time machine, there's nothing anybody can do about the past. Please let it go. Please.
William
"Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com writes:
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None of this would have happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel
Brandt bio had
been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which
preceeded it..
Wow, stop right there, Nobs. You're not bringing your SlimVirgin Review conspiracy theories onto this list.
There were no "circumstances that led to the creation of the
Daniel
Brandt bio" that are relevant to this incident, or of any
interest. I
created the stub on Brandt because his name was showing up as a
red
link in the article about, as I recall, Chip Berlet. Rather than remove the red link, I created a stub so it turned blue. End of
story.
Sarah
I second this. I've followed this from the beginning, and this would've happened regardless of Brandt. Would it have made the front page of Slashdot, would the New Yorker have published a correction if he had not been involved? I do not know for sure. But the trust in Essjay was sure to be diminished the moment he posted his true profile to Wikia.