Stan Shebs wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself, it's not our problem.
No, it's unacceptable. Essjay didn't merely misrepresent himself on his user page (behavior that in and of itself might not be so bad). He made the situation much, much worse by LYING TO A REPORTER while acting as a spokesperson for Wikipedia. Moreover, he did this to a reporter at The New Yorker, which is a famous stickler for factual accuracy. No serious journalist will trust him ever again. I'm frankly amazed that Jimbo would say he doesn't have a problem with this.
I've looked at Essjay's rationale and the rather weasely way he tries to pretend he didn't quite lie, but the fact is that he did. Let's call a spade a spade. By his own account, he spent eight hours being interviewed by a reporter and knowingly led her to believe that he possessed academic credentials which he did not in fact possess. Moreover, the details of the original New Yorker story show that during the interview, he elaborated on the fictions in his user page so that he could perpetuate the deception. He told the reporter that he was a teacher who "often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz."
As for the notion that this is somehow acceptable as a form of self- defense against "stalkers and freaks," I don't buy it. I happen to be a writer of controversial books, and I've even gotten a few threats myself as a result, but nevertheless I write under my own name. Moreover, someone who wants to conceal their identity with a pseudonym can easily do so without assuming false academic credentials. Pretending that he was a professor didn't help conceal his identity. It was just a lie, and there's no excuse for it.
-------------------------------- | 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: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself, it's not our problem.
No, it's unacceptable. Essjay didn't merely misrepresent himself on his user page (behavior that in and of itself might not be so bad). He made the situation much, much worse by LYING TO A REPORTER while acting as a spokesperson for Wikipedia. Moreover, he did this to a reporter at The New Yorker, which is a famous stickler for factual accuracy. No serious journalist will trust him ever again. I'm frankly amazed that Jimbo would say he doesn't have a problem with this.
That's a good point - I've only been paying attention to the on-WP aspect. While we can't regulate all editors' user pages, we can certainly set a higher standard for people who are given out as "spokespersons".
I can see more than a little embarassment for the New Yorker here too. Retired professors tend to have left a long trail behind them - I talked casually with one the other day, took just ten minutes with Google to reconstruct his professional career given only last name and a mention of a couple of his research interests. I wonder how NYer managed not to take any interest in independently looking up any of Essjay's background.
Stan
I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what Essjay did, on one level or another.
I don't expect a lot of support for this position, but it's the logical extension of the outcry against Essjay's charade.
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself, it's not our problem.
No, it's unacceptable. Essjay didn't merely misrepresent himself on his user page (behavior that in and of itself might not be so bad). He made the situation much, much worse by LYING TO A REPORTER while acting as a spokesperson for Wikipedia. Moreover, he did this to a reporter at The New Yorker, which is a famous stickler for factual accuracy. No serious journalist will trust him ever again. I'm frankly amazed that Jimbo would say he doesn't have a problem with this.
That's a good point - I've only been paying attention to the on-WP aspect. While we can't regulate all editors' user pages, we can certainly set a higher standard for people who are given out as "spokespersons".
I can see more than a little embarassment for the New Yorker here too. Retired professors tend to have left a long trail behind them - I talked casually with one the other day, took just ten minutes with Google to reconstruct his professional career given only last name and a mention of a couple of his research interests. I wonder how NYer managed not to take any interest in independently looking up any of Essjay's background.
Stan
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 3/1/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what Essjay did, on one level or another.
I don't expect a lot of support for this position, but it's the logical extension of the outcry against Essjay's charade.
I don't particularly feel like criticising Essjay on this point, having roleplayed various pseudonyms online for various reasons before. Caught a lot of socially dumb early hackers that way back in the day...
I will make two points, though:
One, as I've said before, it's easier to avoid some of the pseudonym problems if you just use your real name. I don't think there's any cause to abolish pseudonyms, but I do suggest that people reconsider using them. My opinion is that use of real names does not in fact bring any significant risk of real life consequences, and is simpler and ultimately better for you and the project.
Two, keep in mind that anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
I will make two points, though:
One, as I've said before, it's easier to avoid some of the pseudonym problems if you just use your real name. I don't think there's any cause to abolish pseudonyms, but I do suggest that people reconsider using them. My opinion is that use of real names does not in fact bring any significant risk of real life consequences, and is simpler and ultimately better for you and the project.
Two, keep in mind that anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
-george william herbert
Those two observations seem inconsistent with each other.
Newyorkbrad
On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I will make two points, though:
One, as I've said before, it's easier to avoid some of the pseudonym problems if you just use your real name. I don't think there's any cause to abolish pseudonyms, but I do suggest that people reconsider using them. My opinion is that use of real names does not in fact bring any significant risk of real life consequences, and is simpler and ultimately better for you and the project.
Two, keep in mind that anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
-george william herbert
Those two observations seem inconsistent with each other.
Attempted clarification:
I doubt anything will happen personally to Essjay over this (and would hate to see that happen). I think it's dinged us somewhat in the press, based on the blogosphere at least.
That it may not affect you (personally) doesn't mean it won't affect us (collectively, the project).
Does that work?
On 3/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
it's dinged us somewhat in the
press, based on the blogosphere at least.
Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing it took this long to bring attention to it.
Josh Gordon wrote:
I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what Essjay did, on one level or another.
I wouldn't be against it.
Then again, you're still missing the point. This isn't about anonymous editing, this is about falsifying expert creditials. No one would care if he kept a normal guy persona.
-Jeff
Josh Gordon wrote:
I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what Essjay did, on one level or another.
It's actually a really interesting thing to think about. Why *does* it matter whether a pseudonym's user page says untrue things? It's intrinsically unverifiable, after all.
And in the same vein, what if there were untrue things on *my* page, which is easily tied to a real-life person? Would it be a problem if it turned out that I hadn't quite completed my PhD? (Remember the admiral who purportedly committed suicide because some of his medals weren't valid? He was sure his whole career was over.) What if my user page said my favorite color was green, when it's actually blue? What if somebody from WP Review calls up a family member on the phone (that being their style), and then reveals my dastardly color deception?
My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences other people in course of our work. Even though we're supposedly all about the content and not who adds it, we still factor in what we think we know about the editor. When I think someone is a theology professor, I'm going to defer a bit in article edits, or spend more time researching before arguing a point of Catholicism. So I've been cheated if that person is not really as knowledgeable as claimed. I would feel cheated even if the false claim was merely to have read a particular book; I will have edited on the wrong assumption that the book informed the other person's work.
Conversely, if I'm found to be lying outrageously about my color preference, no one would care. Review 40K+ edits to look for evidence of color chicanery? Not too likely! A few might take it as evidence of general untrustworthiness, but if on a talk page someone said "that guy lied about his color preference, how can we ever trust him again!", I don't think it would be taken as a license to revert all my past and present edits; instead people just go back to the default process of evaluating content on its own merits.
Stan
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Why *does* it matter whether a pseudonym's user page says untrue things? It's intrinsically unverifiable, after all.
My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences other people in course of our work. Even though we're supposedly all about the content and not who adds it, we still factor in what we think we know about the editor.
Let's take 'em at their word, then, "I've been pretty upfront about using disinformation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#Profiles_don.27t_mesh ...
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences other people in course of our work.
That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking for evidence of negative effect.
But basically what seems to be upsetting people most is not that Essjay established the persona, but that he stayed in character when approached by the press.
Really, it's the New Yorker that should be embarassed here; they didn't fact check the identity of someone they only knew online. Lots of people make that mistake, once.
FWIW, please see [[Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay]], where all messages to him have been moved.
... and promptly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&curid=5068191.... Sigh, edit war coming?
On 02/03/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, please see [[Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay]], where all messages to him have been moved.
Josh Gordon wrote:
Really, it's the New Yorker that should be embarassed here; they didn't fact check the identity of someone they only knew online. Lots of people make that mistake, once.
Especially ironic that it's them, when you think of one of their most famous cartoons...
Stan
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Josh Gordon wrote:
Really, it's the New Yorker that should be embarassed here; they didn't fact check the identity of someone they only knew online. Lots of people make that mistake, once.
Especially ironic that it's them, when you think of one of their most famous cartoons...
Woof.
Josh Gordon wrote:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences other people in course of our work.
That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking for evidence of negative effect.
That's definitely happening. This is the latest from the trawl, found by user Rcade:
"This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imprimatur&diff=prev&...
This was 12 April 2005, so per Geni's dates, it's well before Brant turned up, and a month before he claimed the identity on his user page. It was his fourth edit, and backing up his very first edit. That pokes a pretty big hole in the just-throwing-the-stalkers-off claim.
This has to be very hard for somebody who has put so much into Wikipedia. I hope he takes this chance to own up to this and any other mistakes like this he's made on the project.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Josh Gordon wrote:
That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking for evidence of negative effect.
That's definitely happening...
...
William
"Should you run across a theology contribution from me, it is important to remember that I am a Catholic scholar, not a Catholic."
With a statement like that on his user page, he's practically asking for it.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
This was emphasised in both his RFA and RFB, too...
And someone pointed out that warning signs were easy to spot - just no-one did. Some who studied canon law with la-1 babel box?
On 02/03/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Josh Gordon wrote:
That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking for evidence of negative effect.
That's definitely happening...
...
William
"Should you run across a theology contribution from me, it is important to remember that I am a Catholic scholar, not a Catholic."
With a statement like that on his user page, he's practically asking for it.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"NSLE (Wikipedia)" nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com writes:
This was emphasised in both his RFA and RFB, too...
And someone pointed out that warning signs were easy to spot -
just no-one
did. Some who studied canon law with la-1 babel box?
Is that so really easy to spot? I don't believe it is, except with the benefit of hindsight.
When I go to [[canon law]], I see "Canon law is the term used for the internal ecclesiastical law which governs various churches, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion of churches." Now, this doesn't directly say that 'canon law' with reference to Essjay *must* be referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, and it's easy to forget that most Catholic literature is in Latin even now - I know that it is very easy for even Catholics to forget that most historical Church literature is Latin (as my family is Catholic, if I may claim some personal experience in this matter). Indeed, I myself sometimes forget this, such as when I go to read a Papal encyclical and unawares am taken to the official English translation, never noticing the fine print saying the original is in Latin.
Even if I were to consider this, I still couldn't be sure that this is a contradiction: maybe canon law degrees just don't require that much expertise in Latin, or maybe a modern canon law degree deals with Greek and Aramaic texts primarily, or maybe they can just use translations or English originals these days. Even if I were a ultra-curious layman, if I search for the obvious [[canon law degree]] (which didn't exist until I created it just now), I (might) end up at [[Doctor of Canon Law]] - which never mentions Latin except to translate the title! In fact, even after pondering and searching a fair bit, I honestly have to say I am not sure enough that a claim of canon law degree and la-1 babel box is contradictory enough for me to enquire further (which definitely does not AGF, as it at least implicitly is calling what was a very respected user a liar).
To give an analogy, if I saw a user page of someone which claimed to be a Doctor of computer science with a specialty in functional programming, and it said that the person wasn't an expert in assembly or Haskell or the ML family or a Lisp, I would not be suspicious - looking up their Wikipedia entries, they are all fairly hard and rarefied languages compared to more popular languages like C or Java; but if I saw that they were unfamiliar with types, or functions, or objects, then I could be sure they were claiming unwarranted expertise. The latter would be more suspicious to me than the former - although in point of fact, being the knowledgeable person I am, I would know that it is very very unlikely these days for someone to achieve a PhD while specializing in functional programming *and* not know one of the cited languages, and I could be appropriately suspicious. I believe the warning signs were Essjay were more of the former sort, ones that enough data was there for experts and very interested laypersons to figure it out if they thought about it, but just not enough for the rest of us unless we already know.
On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
I can see more than a little embarassment for the New Yorker here too. Retired professors tend to have left a long trail behind them - I talked casually with one the other day, took just ten minutes with Google to reconstruct his professional career given only last name and a mention of a couple of his research interests. I wonder how NYer managed not to take any interest in independently looking up any of Essjay's background.
Where is editorial control and fact checking when you need it? Incredible...
-- Jossi