John Lee wrote:
I am not sure if the circumstances are quite congruent concerning the Essjay issue. I understand his youthful indiscretion, being a youth myself and having made many youthful mistakes. I certainly would not want this being held against him in the future. But at the same time, I can find no basis for deciding the article on the [[Essjay controversy]] should be deleted that does not lie in some subjective valuation of morals.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the [[Essjay controversy]] article should be deleted. I suspect that ten years from now it will be seen as a minor blip in Wikipedia's history, and by then the argument for deleting it will be stronger than it is now.
At present, however, I think there are practical reasons *not* to delete the article. The Essjay controversy is still only a few months old and fresh enough in memory that deleting it carries an aroma of Wikipedia trying to whitewash itself. Deleting it under these conditions is therefore likely to simply produce revived controversy, attention and edit-warring, which serves neither Essjay nor Wikipedia.
On balance, therefore, I think it is better to refrain from deleting it for the time being, but consider the issue again in a year or so, by which time passions will have cooled and it will be easier to consider the article dispassionately on its merits, rather than on the basis of personal sympathy for Essjay (or hostility toward Wikipedia/Jimbo/whatever).
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the [[Essjay controversy]] article should be deleted. I suspect that ten years from now it will be seen as a minor blip in Wikipedia's history, and by then the argument for deleting it will be stronger than it is now.
At present, however, I think there are practical reasons *not* to delete the article. The Essjay controversy is still only a few months old and fresh enough in memory that deleting it carries an aroma of Wikipedia trying to whitewash itself.
I'd second that.
For a host of reasons, I think we should not just be scrupulous, but bend over backwards to make our scrupulousness clear. During the Essjay dustup, I was disappointed at the speed at which a lot of material both by and about Essjay disappeared from public view. I'm sure it was well meant, but someone legitimately skeptical of Wikipedia could easily interpret those deletions and removals as self-protective.
I think this is especially important if we want to preserve anonymous and pseudonymous contributions. Falling back on "trust us" can only work to the extend that people feel they can identify the "us". I'd rather we maximized transparency, so that instead of telling skeptics, "Trust us to manage the world's most popular source of facts!" we can say, "There's no need to trust us; investigate anything you like."
William