David Gerard wrote:

I just can't get my head around the idea of a default assumption other than honesty if you're going to work on an encyclopedia project.

I would have thought everyone was on the same page with that too, if I hadn't seen a significant outpouring of support for deception in the Essjay case. It was a case where we clearly had deliberate deception over an extended period of time, but nevertheless people defended it on in grounds that it was okay and even "brilliant" if it was "just on the user page" or if it helped protect anonymity. It appears clear therefore that some people think honesty is *not* a "default assumption." That's what a policy should clarify. Is honesty something we should expect always, or are there circumstances in which it's okay to mislead?

I know this sounds odd to be discussing. It reminds me a bit of that Seinfeld episode where George Kostanza is fired for having sex with the cleaning lady on his office desk, and he tells his boss, "If only I'd known this sort of thing was frowned upon..." However, we have a very clear transcript in front of us which tells us that some people think deception on Wikipedia user pages is okay, and if we don't address that, this community will have learned nothing from this whole sad episode.

-------------------------------- | 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 --------------------------------