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...
-----
I find the lack of discussion on this disturbing. Normally I would not post to the list, but I must say something. I have read the discussion on Jimbo's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_New_Yorker_quotes_you) and the linked pages. Some people are very concerned about Essjay's actions, but others think it is no big deal.
I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with credentials he does not have.
This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation, especially since Essjay is one of our most trusted users. It also damages the community, because some people will find it difficult to trust him, and the leadership that supports him (i.e. Jimbo).
I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
I wish to know if the community will sweep this under the rug, or if we will discuss it before it gets buried in Jimbo's archives. Does anyone here care?
Sincerely,
Fang Aili
On 3/1/07, fangaili@gmail.com fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with credentials he does not have.
...
I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable. However, I do not think it lies within Wikimedia's "jurisdiction", so to speak. What matters only, from our perspective, is what Essjay is doing or has done within the Wikimedia projects. If he ever misrepresented himself to gain an advantage in an editorial dispute, for example, that would be something that an ArbCom case would have to take into consideration.
I'm simply saddened and disappointed ever since I learned about this. I don't know what else there is to say.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/1/07, fangaili@gmail.com fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with credentials he does not have.
...
I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.
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. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case, somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.
Stan
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/1/07, fangaili@gmail.com fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself
within
Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the
Wikimedia
community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not,
with
credentials he does not have.
...
I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However,
misrepresenting
himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.
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. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case, somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.
Stan
What about the perception he was rewarded for doing so?
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case, somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.
Stan
What about the perception he was rewarded for doing so?
"Perception"? You mean punish people because third parties misperceive things? So if I revert pro-Serbian POV, and the Belgrade press twists an offhand remark on my user page into evidence of Albanian sympathies and so I clearly have nasty motives and clearly WP is biased against Serbs, that I should be banned?
He may not know it yet, but Essjay has bigger problems than his reputation in WP - since this is now all over the net, it's going to affect his employability forever. John Draper's resume once crossed my desk, and I thought, OK, this guy looks good, but then a colleague says, "Don't you recognize the name? That's Cap'n Crunch!", and after that I really found it hard to treat it like any other resume, even though I didn't actually consider him to be a bigtime evildoer.
Stan
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
He may not know it yet, but Essjay has bigger problems than his reputation in WP - since this is now all over the net, it's going to affect his employability forever. John Draper's resume once crossed my desk, and I thought, OK, this guy looks good, but then a colleague says, "Don't you recognize the name? That's Cap'n Crunch!", and after that I really found it hard to treat it like any other resume, even though I didn't actually consider him to be a bigtime evildoer.
As *fangaili *obsreved above,
This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation... the community.... and the leadership that supports him...
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. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
That's a great point.
Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then it would be a different thing for me.
William
Essjay's main contributions to Wikipedia are administrative tasks, which I still hold in high regards.
I was interested in seeing his article contributions and found out he actually rarely works in the main namespace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#You.27re_famous_on_Slas... February 8, 2007
His top article contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Assumption_in_Louisvillehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral(58) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman Catholic Churchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman(24) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Louisville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman (10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Collegehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacon (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass (9)
Though he's edited topics relating to his "credentials", these contributions are not all that numerous and don't concern me too much.
-Aude
On 3/1/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
That's a great point.
Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then it would be a different thing for me.
William
-- William Pietri <william@scissor.com > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
William Pietri william@scissor.com writes:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than
"unacceptable".
There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he
chose a
fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't
see any
reason for that other than to get people to respect him more,
which is
rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone
says
about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I
still
wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
That's a great point.
Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If
he
never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials
in, then
it would be a different thing for me.
William
Hard to say. He doesn't do too much in the main namespace, and most of that is reversion or related to administrative tasks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Essjay&namespace=0); if one wanted to find that sort of thing, one can look at his early contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20050803105743&limit=500&target=Essjay&namespace=0) where quite a few edits related to ecclesiastical articles are listed. This of course in no wise proves that he abused his faux authority or anything - but on that note, a subpage of his (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter) makes for interesting reading.
On 3/1/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
That's a great point.
Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then it would be a different thing for me.
William
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vi...
This is very disappointing. Consider all the high-level positions that Essjay holds, now including ArbCom, and with that in mind, look at this situation. It is harder now to trust someone who has done something like this. How are we supposed to know that he says who he is now?
On 3/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable". There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
That's a great point.
Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then it would be a different thing for me.
William
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vi...
-- 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 Mar 1, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Pilotguy wrote:
This is very disappointing. Consider all the high-level positions that Essjay holds, now including ArbCom, and with that in mind, look at this situation. It is harder now to trust someone who has done something like this. How are we supposed to know that he says who he is now?
The choice is yours, Pilotguy. My choice is to chose trust, rather than distrust, regardless of this very sad incident.
-- Jossi
On 3/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vi...
In the AfD Essjay clearly used his fake credentials to support an argument. IMHO this is a bad faith action and absolutely something that could be used in an ArbCom case.
At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this misrepresentation.
On 3/1/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vi...
In the AfD Essjay clearly used his fake credentials to support an argument. IMHO this is a bad faith action and absolutely something that could be used in an ArbCom case.
It is an open question if arbcom would have the authority to act in this case and what they could do. Essjay is an arbcom member. While arbcom have in the past critisised the actions of it's members they have never taken action against someone apointed by Jimbo.
At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this misrepresentation. -- Peace & Love, Erik
Got one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&...
On 3/1/2007 5:12 PM, geni wrote:
At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this misrepresentation. -- Peace & Love, Erik
Got one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&...
While it is good of him to apologize for any hurt caused, it would be better to acknowledge that this hurt was not incidental but the result of a wrongful and inappropriate action on his part. The stance he is taking at the moment is that his actions were appropriate, and that any damage done was unforeseeable or otherwise excusable. In my view, this stance is not justified by the facts and is indicative of continuing poor judgment. I would be very much comforted if Essjay amended it.
--Chris
And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robbie31? Essjay claimed he was gay and he was "in a long-term relationship with his partner, Robbie..." How are we to know if this guy is for real too? His few contributions don't add up.
On 3/1/07, Christopher G. Parham cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
On 3/1/2007 5:12 PM, geni wrote:
At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this misrepresentation. -- Peace & Love, Erik
Got one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&...
While it is good of him to apologize for any hurt caused, it would be better to acknowledge that this hurt was not incidental but the result of a wrongful and inappropriate action on his part. The stance he is taking at the moment is that his actions were appropriate, and that any damage done was unforeseeable or otherwise excusable. In my view, this stance is not justified by the facts and is indicative of continuing poor judgment. I would be very much comforted if Essjay amended it.
--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
Tariqabjotu just brought this up on Essjay's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucrats...
I sure hope Robbie is real, otherwise...
On 02/03/07, Pilotguy pilotguy.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robbie31? Essjay claimed he was gay and he was "in a long-term relationship with his partner, Robbie..." How are we to know if this guy is for real too? His few contributions don't add up.
On 3/1/07, Christopher G. Parham cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
On 3/1/2007 5:12 PM, geni wrote:
At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for
this
misrepresentation.
Peace & Love, Erik
Got one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&...
While it is good of him to apologize for any hurt caused, it would be better to acknowledge that this hurt was not incidental but the result of a wrongful and inappropriate action on his part. The stance he is taking at the moment is that his actions were appropriate, and that any damage done was unforeseeable or otherwise excusable. In my view, this stance is not justified by the facts and is indicative of continuing poor judgment. I would be very much comforted if Essjay amended it.
--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
-- Pilotguy pilotguy.wikipedia@gmail.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
http://pilotguy.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tariqabjotu just brought this up on Essjay's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucrats...
I sure hope Robbie is real, otherwise...
This is the most concerning development yet. If he was lying about the rest of his real life, why would he tell the truth about his love life? Before I saw that link, I was sure the Robbie account was a sockpuppet (and had no great problem with it). Now, I just don't know... The vote would never have affected the result, but it's still unforgivable if it was a sockpuppet.
On 3/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
This is the most concerning development yet. If he was lying about the rest of his real life, why would he tell the truth about his love life?
Rubbish. I think you just crossed the line into gossip.
Thoughts.
1. At issue is the question of a correction in public identity. 2. Wikipedia has an anti-credentialist ethos for a reason, and this reason is the reason for Wikipedia's success. 3. The quote where Essjay pulls his "credentials" is taken out of context:
"Unless of course he is the Bishop of Rome. However, the censor, who is an agent of the Roman Curia/Holy See may certainly place a text on the "blacklist" of heretical publications. I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text "Catholicism for Dummies" by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility."
Note that the book he recommends is "Catholicism for Dummies" which he adds (almost certainly with a chuckle ) that "I would hang my own Ph.D on its credibility." I find it a bit funny myself.
4. If Essjay misrepresented himself in any substantial way in arguments related to his claimed expertise, how is it that noone qualified in that area suspected he wasnt a Phd/Thd? I suspect the reason is because his ventures into misrepresentation were quite limited to the cantankerous. I suspect also that this fact might bother people who might have thought they could tell just by looking at someones pixels.
5. We edit for different reasons (some of us even while naked), and I suspect that the real reason people are upset is because they have a feeling of being deceived, finding that theyve somehow based their respect on a claimed credential, not on Essjays actual work. Disappointing, perhaps, but disappointment carries some elevated expectation. What was the expectation?
- SV
stvrtg wrote:
- If Essjay misrepresented himself in any substantial way in arguments
related to his claimed expertise, how is it that noone qualified in that area suspected he wasnt a Phd/Thd? I suspect the reason is because his ventures into misrepresentation were quite limited to the cantankerous. I suspect also that this fact might bother people who might have thought they could tell just by looking at someones pixels.
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their academic credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if he were making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the word is now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the charade up enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway. That's a problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
- We edit for different reasons (some of us even while naked), and I
suspect that the real reason people are upset is because they have a feeling of being deceived, finding that theyve somehow based their respect on a claimed credential, not on Essjays actual work. Disappointing, perhaps, but disappointment carries some elevated expectation. What was the expectation?
You suspect incorrectly. We're upset because he lied about having a high degree of education, used that high degree of education as leverage, and quite possibly lied regarding why he created the trumped-up persona as well. Not that he ever had to trump up his creds to achieve the same goal, of course, which is the other problem.
-Jeff
On 3/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their academic credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if he were making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the word is now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the charade up enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway. That's a problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
Why not? And why would you suppose if you for example tried to pass yourself off as a Th.D that people who actually are wouldn't find certain things odd about what you say? This entire charge against Essjay falls under the pseudonym issue, and of course is entirely ironic that most of the critics happen to be either disgruntled (Kelly) or themselves anonymous. The issue is between Essjay and the New Yorker. We dont have a personnel screening policy. The onus was on the Pulitzer prize winning author to check her sources, not to rely on a third party.
he lied about having a high degree of education, used that high degree of education as leverage, and quite possibly lied regarding why he created the trumped-up persona as well. Not that he ever had to trump up his creds to achieve the same goal, of course, which is the other problem.
Nor would there be much of a way he could accomplish this if he wrote things about which he didnt know or understand. I agree that it seems improper to represent oneself as an expert to gain weight. But theres a paradox here: A site that owes its existence in part to its anti-credentialist ethos is all of a sudden to now supposed to conform to a credentialist modality when its unpaid participants interact with the "national media"? (below). The real reason people are upset is because noone with credentials could tell, even in spite of his attaining a position as a "respected authority" on Catholic subjects. Are our experts on trains supposed to have engineering degrees now? Is the credibility of the site somehow diminished due to one editor's mistake in misrepresenting himself? Nonsense.
Giano wrote on User talk:Essjay:
"Fortunately though the rules and laws of fraud are very clearly defined. Deceiving the national press with false qualification to add weight to one's statements has disgraced us all."
No, it hasnt. Please keep things in context. Your usage of words like "rules" "laws" "national press" and "disgrace" are so out of context as to be meaningless.
- Stevertigo
stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com writes:
On 3/2/07, Jeff Raymond
jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their
academic
credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if
he were
making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the
word is
now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the
charade up
enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway.
That's a
problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
Why not? And why would you suppose if you for example tried to
pass yourself
off as a Th.D that people who actually are wouldn't find certain
things odd
about what you say? This entire charge against Essjay falls
under the
pseudonym issue, and of course is entirely ironic that most of the critics happen
to be
either disgruntled (Kelly) or themselves anonymous. The issue is between Essjay and
the New
Yorker. We dont have a personnel screening policy. The onus was on the
Pulitzer
prize winning author to check her sources, not to rely on a third party. ....
- Stevertigo
As one of those "anonymous" users (I certainly hope I cannot be counted among the disgruntled), I feel I must protest. I do not think the criticism of myself and people like me is "ironic" in any way: our very ability to work peaceably and quietly on the wiki demonstrates that one does not need to fabricate a false life, ostensibly in order to defend oneself against trolls and assorted ne'er-do-wells. Our existence militates against the very suggestion of a false dichotomy (between either risking your personal life by revealing everything truthful, or simply making stuff up which sounds plausible) - there is at least a third option: to say nothing. Americans might be familiar with the idea of a 'Fifth amendment'; I would like to say that on a wiki, about your private life you *do* have the right to remain silent.
Gwern Branwen wrote:
stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com writes:
On 3/2/07, Jeff Raymond
jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their
academic
credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if
he were
making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the
word is
now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the
charade up
enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway.
That's a
problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
Why not? And why would you suppose if you for example tried to
pass yourself
off as a Th.D that people who actually are wouldn't find certain
things odd
about what you say? This entire charge against Essjay falls
under the
pseudonym issue, and of course is entirely ironic that most of the critics happen
to be
either disgruntled (Kelly) or themselves anonymous. The issue is between Essjay and
the New
Yorker. We dont have a personnel screening policy. The onus was on the
Pulitzer
prize winning author to check her sources, not to rely on a third party. ....
- Stevertigo
As one of those "anonymous" users (I certainly hope I cannot be counted among the disgruntled), I feel I must protest. I do not think the criticism of myself and people like me is "ironic" in any way: our very ability to work peaceably and quietly on the wiki demonstrates that one does not need to fabricate a false life, ostensibly in order to defend oneself against trolls and assorted ne'er-do-wells. Our existence militates against the very suggestion of a false dichotomy (between either risking your personal life by revealing everything truthful, or simply making stuff up which sounds plausible) - there is at least a third option: to say nothing. Americans might be familiar with the idea of a 'Fifth amendment'; I would like to say that on a wiki, about your private life you *do* have the right to remain silent.
Right. And this makes us even more suspicious when we find out that someone has been providing false information about their own biography. The reason given--that it was to throw potential trouble-makers off track--just doesn't seem convincing.
When it comes to anyone's contributions to articles, the content is the determining factor. But when it comes to interactions on talk pages, assuming positions of power and trust, and representing Wikipedia to others, credentials *do* make a difference. One can argue whether they *should*, but the reality is that they *do*, for a great many people.
Now, I have to reason to be "disgruntled" with EssJay...I don't recall having any significant interaction with EssJay. I have chosen to reveal some details of my bio on my user page, but I certainly don't expect that everyone will. It is precisely because I have no such expectation that I am likely to assume good faith on the part of those who do chose to put personal information on their user page.
Come to think of it, isn't the principle of "Assume Good Faith" really at the core of this whole issue?
-Rich Holton (user:Rholton)
On 3/2/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
As one of those "anonymous" users (I certainly hope I cannot be counted among the disgruntled), I feel I must protest. I do not think the criticism of myself and people like me is "ironic" in any way: our very ability to work peaceably and quietly on the wiki demonstrates that one does not need to fabricate a false life, ostensibly in order to defend oneself against trolls and assorted ne'er-do-wells. Our existence militates against the very suggestion of a false dichotomy (between either risking your personal life by revealing everything truthful, or simply making stuff up which sounds plausible) - there is at least a third option: to say nothing. Americans might be familiar with the idea of a 'Fifth amendment'; I would like to say that on a wiki, about your private life you *do* have the right to remain silent.
I think most people agree that what Essjay did was a mistake. But I dislike people who find it easy to dismiss someone's years of good work on the basis of a mistake, and moreso if that dismissal rests on some inflated concept about what that mistake was or means.
-Stevertigo
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, stvrtg wrote:
I think most people agree that what Essjay did was a mistake.
That's like saying that most people agree that a hurricane is a breeze.
But I dislike people who find it easy to dismiss someone's years of good work on the basis of a mistake, and moreso if that dismissal rests on some inflated concept about what that mistake was or means.
Think of it as a years-long mistake. Or think of it as a continually- occurring series of mistakes that happened for those years, not just a single mistake.
And a "mistake" is generally something done inadvertently. Calling this a "mistake" tends to absolve him of blame.
stvrtg wrote:
On 3/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
he lied about having a high degree of education, used that high degree of education as leverage, and quite possibly lied regarding why he created the trumped-up persona as well. Not that he ever had to trump up his creds to achieve the same goal, of course, which is the other problem.
Nor would there be much of a way he could accomplish this if he wrote things about which he didnt know or understand. I agree that it seems improper to represent oneself as an expert to gain weight. But theres a paradox here: A site that owes its existence in part to its anti-credentialist ethos is all of a sudden to now supposed to conform to a credentialist modality when its unpaid participants interact with the "national media"? (below). The real reason people are upset is because noone with credentials could tell, even in spite of his attaining a position as a "respected authority" on Catholic subjects. Are our experts on trains supposed to have engineering degrees now? Is the credibility of the site somehow diminished due to one editor's mistake in misrepresenting himself? Nonsense.
I very strongly agree with stvrtg. This has been an incredible exercise in making a mountain out of a molehill. We have verifiability standards for article pages. We do not have them for user pages, and it does not strike me as irregular that a fictitious persona would have a fictitious biography. That is perfectly consistent with a view that what matters is the content, and not the qualifications of the person who put up the contents. If I see that someone who has contributed lists himself as a PhD I can say to myself, "That's nice," but I should not use that as an excuse to turn my brain off. What makes a claim here that an edit is made by a PhD any more credible than a claim by a highschool student using Wikipedia as a reference. We are not immune from such amateurish fallacies.
Did EssJay lever his stated credentials into a position of authority? I don't know. Unless there is clear evidence that Wikipedians were massively influenced by such claims as a basis for supporting his promotions those arguing that point now are only doing so with the benefit of hindsight. Now that we see "the truth" there is a massive rush to look for scapegoats for our own stupidity in taking such a claim seriously. We need a Lord of the Flies to whom we can pay homage. Brilliant minds often forget how close to the surface lies the descent to barbarism.
Should EssJay have revealed the truth about himself? Perhaps. But when? And how should that transition be made? I hardly see the need to retroactively correct all the inaccuracies of the last two years. I see the real biography on Wikia as a good faith attempt to begin setting the record straight. It should be viewed in that way, and not as an excuse for digging up every bit of dirt on EssJay for the last two years.
Instead of making a mountain out of a molehill when such issues come up we really need a mechanism to get over it.
Ec
On 03/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Did EssJay lever his stated credentials into a position of authority?
Well, um, no. EssJay came by his assorted jobs by a process of working on Wikipedia for ages and having jobs land on his head for his flagrant and continued cluefulness in public. That's not credentialism, that's noticing actual ability in action.
- d.
Hi, Ray. I enjoy your posts, so it pains me to disagree with you, but I can't avoid it here. Sorry for the length of this, but I couldn't find a way to do it and still be as clear as I wanted.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
stvrtg wrote:
[...] Is the credibility of the site somehow diminished due to one editor's mistake in misrepresenting himself? Nonsense.
I very strongly agree with stvrtg. This has been an incredible exercise in making a mountain out of a molehill. We have verifiability standards for article pages. We do not have them for user pages, and it does not strike me as irregular that a fictitious persona would have a fictitious biography. [...]
[...] Now that we see "the truth" there is a massive rush to look for scapegoats for our own stupidity in taking such a claim seriously. We need a Lord of the Flies to whom we can pay homage. Brilliant minds often forget how close to the surface lies the descent to barbarism.
Should EssJay have revealed the truth about himself? Perhaps. But when? And how should that transition be made? I hardly see the need to retroactively correct all the inaccuracies of the last two years. I see the real biography on Wikia as a good faith attempt to begin setting the record straight. It should be viewed in that way, and not as an excuse for digging up every bit of dirt on EssJay for the last two years.
Instead of making a mountain out of a molehill when such issues come up we really need a mechanism to get over it.
I would like to feel that way, but I can't. Looking at the root of this deception, among his very first edits on Wikipedia he falsely claimed credentials in an effort to win a content dispute. A dispute about which, it turns out, he was wrong. Even so, had it ended there, I think this would be more anthill than molehill.
Unfortunately, he continued, both expanding the deception and using it in other on-WP discussions. Even there, I think we get somewhere above the molehill size, but only modestly. Again, had he stopped here, I'd be in the so-what camp. For me, though, it's the next three issues that make it a pretty big deal.
First, he contacted real-world professors, representing himself as a fellow professor and Wikipedia administrator, to advocate for Wikipedia. He specifically suggests they look at his claimed credentials to bolster his standing. Committing fraud (by which I mean misrepresentation for gain) while citing his administrative position is to me a big violation of the trust that adminship represents.
Second, he appears to have actively deceived a top reporter and a fact checker in an on-the-record interview as a leading member of Wikipedia. (I'm basing that on this bit: "He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz [...]" The reporter could have made that up and tricked the fact-checker, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.) This has caused actual harm to Wikipedia's reputation. [1] As well, you can bet that any journalist who has done a Wikipedia story quoting an anonymous user broke out in a cold sweat when they read about this. Any future articles about Wikipedia will surely be much more skeptical of anything said by an anonymous admin, making it harder for people who are using anonymity legitimately to serve as sources.
Third, he tried to cover this up through further deception. From Jimbo's statements, it's clear that Essjay was not frank with him. Essjay was certainly not frank with others in his explanations of this, at least the ones on Wikipedia that I've read. This caused further harm to Wikipedia externally and internally. As the Washington mantra goes, "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up."
Now personally, I feel terrible for Essjay in this. I can only dimly imagine the awfulness of having such big portions of one's personal and professional lives come crashing down like this. Especially when it's all due to a stupid mistake that snowballed out of control. I wish him only the best in recovering from this. I look forward to him having a successful RfA in a few months and resuming his position as, by every account, a whirlwind of positive contribution.
I also don't think this is anywhere mountain-sized. This will pass, and I expect it will be much less of landmark than, say, the whole Seigenthaler thing was. As you point out, articles were generally not harmed in the making of this, and there have been no credible claims of abused powers. And certainly, some portion of the people talking about this are failing to stay cool, creating unnecessary froth.
But to my mind, it's no molehill either. The community placed a lot of trust in Essjay. Very regrettably, he betrayed part of that trust, and betrayals always hurt. Making the both project and Jimbo look bad in public [2] is no small thing to me. More objectively, Jimbo asking somebody to resign as an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and member of ArbCom is a sign that this is not a molehill.
William
P.S. Maybe part of the difference in reactions here is that I look at a lot of the comments and I tend to automatically discount the very emotional ones? Doing that and trying to pull some consensus position out of the RFC gives me some comfort, as I feel like it's not far from what Jimbo decided to do.
[1] If you're not sure about this, see the commentary in reaction to this. For example, from the Chronicle of Higher Education: "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
[2] For example, this quote from Stephen Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics: "This is hardly a felony, but it does make you wonder about what else happens at Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales doesn’t have a problem with."
On 03/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
P.S. Maybe part of the difference in reactions here is that I look at a lot of the comments and I tend to automatically discount the very emotional ones? Doing that and trying to pull some consensus position out of the RFC gives me some comfort, as I feel like it's not far from what Jimbo decided to do.
People were deleting comments from the RFC they felt "didn't help" matters, i.e. were not sufficiently negative toward Essjay. So I would discount it as a test of public opinion.
- d.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:01:45 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
People were deleting comments from the RFC they felt "didn't help" matters, i.e. were not sufficiently negative toward Essjay. So I would discount it as a test of public opinion.
Who? If that's the case (and I have not checked yet) then they should at the very least be slapped with a wet trout.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:01:45 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
People were deleting comments from the RFC they felt "didn't help" matters, i.e. were not sufficiently negative toward Essjay. So I would discount it as a test of public opinion.
Who? If that's the case (and I have not checked yet) then they should at the very least be slapped with a wet trout.
I did in fact slap the person who did so with a wet trout. It was certainly a remarkable new application of "IAR" to my experience at least.
- d.
William Pietri wrote:
Hi, Ray. I enjoy your posts, so it pains me to disagree with you, but I can't avoid it here. Sorry for the length of this, but I couldn't find a way to do it and still be as clear as I wanted.
Disagreements are a necessary part of synthesizing agreement. You do disagree respectfully so I can't complain.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
stvrtg wrote:
[...] Is the credibility of the site somehow diminished due to one editor's mistake in misrepresenting himself? Nonsense.
I very strongly agree with stvrtg. This has been an incredible exercise in making a mountain out of a molehill. We have verifiability standards for article pages. We do not have them for user pages, and it does not strike me as irregular that a fictitious persona would have a fictitious biography. [...]
[...] Now that we see "the truth" there is a massive rush to look for scapegoats for our own stupidity in taking such a claim seriously. We need a Lord of the Flies to whom we can pay homage. Brilliant minds often forget how close to the surface lies the descent to barbarism.
Should EssJay have revealed the truth about himself? Perhaps. But when? And how should that transition be made? I hardly see the need to retroactively correct all the inaccuracies of the last two years. I see the real biography on Wikia as a good faith attempt to begin setting the record straight. It should be viewed in that way, and not as an excuse for digging up every bit of dirt on EssJay for the last two years.
Instead of making a mountain out of a molehill when such issues come up we really need a mechanism to get over it.
I would like to feel that way, but I can't. Looking at the root of this deception, among his very first edits on Wikipedia he falsely claimed credentials in an effort to win a content dispute. A dispute about which, it turns out, he was wrong. Even so, had it ended there, I think this would be more anthill than molehill.
That would be unethical, though I don't have the intention to review the facts at [[Imprimatur]], which is the article to which I presume you refer.
Unfortunately, he continued, both expanding the deception and using it in other on-WP discussions. Even there, I think we get somewhere above the molehill size, but only modestly. Again, had he stopped here, I'd be in the so-what camp. For me, though, it's the next three issues that make it a pretty big deal.
First, he contacted real-world professors, representing himself as a fellow professor and Wikipedia administrator, to advocate for Wikipedia. He specifically suggests they look at his claimed credentials to bolster his standing. Committing fraud (by which I mean misrepresentation for gain) while citing his administrative position is to me a big violation of the trust that adminship represents.
Second, he appears to have actively deceived a top reporter and a fact checker in an on-the-record interview as a leading member of Wikipedia. (I'm basing that on this bit: "He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz [...]" The reporter could have made that up and tricked the fact-checker, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.) This has caused actual harm to Wikipedia's reputation. [1] As well, you can bet that any journalist who has done a Wikipedia story quoting an anonymous user broke out in a cold sweat when they read about this. Any future articles about Wikipedia will surely be much more skeptical of anything said by an anonymous admin, making it harder for people who are using anonymity legitimately to serve as sources.
That may end up a good thing. In the short run there is apparent harm to Wikipedia's reputation. If the result is that reporters become more circumspect about what they write that's not entirely bad.
Third, he tried to cover this up through further deception. From Jimbo's statements, it's clear that Essjay was not frank with him. Essjay was certainly not frank with others in his explanations of this, at least the ones on Wikipedia that I've read. This caused further harm to Wikipedia externally and internally. As the Washington mantra goes, "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up."
I agree that he may not have told everything to Jimbo; however, Jimbo has accepted his apologies, and his Wikia page had already begun the path to getting the proper information on record.
Now personally, I feel terrible for Essjay in this. I can only dimly imagine the awfulness of having such big portions of one's personal and professional lives come crashing down like this. Especially when it's all due to a stupid mistake that snowballed out of control. I wish him only the best in recovering from this. I look forward to him having a successful RfA in a few months and resuming his position as, by every account, a whirlwind of positive contribution.
It is about recovery and healing, not about blame and punishment. How much effect this has had on his personal credibility outside Wikipedia remains to be seen.. There may be others who have lied about their credentials, but who have flown beneath the radar because they didn't have the ambition. At what threshhold do they come clean, and when they do how can they avoid the overreaction by some members of the community? Anticipation of such reactions can make these admissions more difficult than thye should be.
I also don't think this is anywhere mountain-sized. This will pass, and I expect it will be much less of landmark than, say, the whole Seigenthaler thing was. As you point out, articles were generally not harmed in the making of this, and there have been no credible claims of abused powers. And certainly, some portion of the people talking about this are failing to stay cool, creating unnecessary froth.
Sure, but mountains crafted from molehills are most often illusions anyways. The froth gives such an issue a longer life and more exposure than it could everhave garnered on its own.
But to my mind, it's no molehill either. The community placed a lot of trust in Essjay. Very regrettably, he betrayed part of that trust, and betrayals always hurt. Making the both project and Jimbo look bad in public [2] is no small thing to me. More objectively, Jimbo asking somebody to resign as an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and member of ArbCom is a sign that this is not a molehill.
Fair enough.
P.S. Maybe part of the difference in reactions here is that I look at a lot of the comments and I tend to automatically discount the very emotional ones? Doing that and trying to pull some consensus position out of the RFC gives me some comfort, as I feel like it's not far from what Jimbo decided to do.
[1] If you're not sure about this, see the commentary in reaction to this. For example, from the Chronicle of Higher Education: "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
[2] For example, this quote from Stephen Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics: "This is hardly a felony, but it does make you wonder about what else happens at Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales doesn’t have a problem with."
It's not just a matter of Jimbo "not having a problem". It's impossible for him to keep fully in touch with every potential problem, and still do a good job at the things he does best.
Ec
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:44:39AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
We do not have them for user pages, and it does not strike me as irregular that a fictitious persona would have a fictitious biography.
I find it disturbing that so many here accept this characterization of the falsified credentials.
On 06/03/07, Andrew Cady andrew.cady@gmail.com wrote:
I find it disturbing that so many here accept this characterization of the falsified credentials.
You shouldn't be surprised though. If it was known who everyone was on Wikipedia, there are people involved now that you wouldn't let near it with a ten-foot barge pole.
Without disrespect to the well-educated, mature and balanced members of Wikipedia, there are undoubtedly many here who not only have difficulty deciding what is acceptable, but are not suitable people to do anything bar contribute trivia to Wikipedia. And even then you'd not be sure that it was accurate trivia (I'm sure the even Pokémon article editors have to deal with ignorant people mucking up even those articles with inaccurate and false details).
There's no way our Adminning procedure can discern whether someone is suitable for helping the smooth running of the project either. All it can do is discount those who have already shown themselves up on Wikipedia, or else have stepped on people's toes too much. Even then, if they are familiar enough with existing editors and admins...
People have just got a bit too carried away with the potential of wikis for an attempt to collect together information on everything. Wikipedia is useful, but it isn't magically going to work out.
Zoney
Jeff Raymond wrote:
stvrtg wrote:
- If Essjay misrepresented himself in any substantial way in arguments
related to his claimed expertise, how is it that noone qualified in that area suspected he wasnt a Phd/Thd? I suspect the reason is because his ventures into misrepresentation were quite limited to the cantankerous. I suspect also that this fact might bother people who might have thought they could tell just by looking at someones pixels.
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their academic credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if he were making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the word is now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the charade up enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway. That's a problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
But we don't just defer to experts, even trusted ones, especially in situations where other people are also experts. If I came across another person claiming to be an expert in artificial intelligence, I would still check their edits, and sometimes contest them---whether they're telling the truth about their credentials is actually pretty irrelevant, because there are plenty of CS PhDs with non-mainstream POV views on the subject. I'd imagine theology is similarly contentious.
In fact wasn't this exactly what Larry Sanger criticized us for a while back---that we *don't* actually defer to experts?
-Mark
I think we should now leave the dead to die. Just a thought.
On 3/3/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
stvrtg wrote:
- If Essjay misrepresented himself in any substantial way in arguments
related to his claimed expertise, how is it that noone qualified in that area suspected he wasnt a Phd/Thd? I suspect the reason is because his ventures into misrepresentation were quite limited to the cantankerous.
I
suspect also that this fact might bother people who might have thought
they
could tell just by looking at someones pixels.
Because, generally, we don't expect people to lie about their academic credientials. How many editors in that area who would know if he were making it up do we even have? And, again, Essjay was (yes, the word is now was) a very trusted member of the community - he kept the charade up enough where few, if any, would bother questioning him anyway. That's a problem, and it's disturbing that you don't recognize it.
But we don't just defer to experts, even trusted ones, especially in situations where other people are also experts. If I came across another person claiming to be an expert in artificial intelligence, I would still check their edits, and sometimes contest them---whether they're telling the truth about their credentials is actually pretty irrelevant, because there are plenty of CS PhDs with non-mainstream POV views on the subject. I'd imagine theology is similarly contentious.
In fact wasn't this exactly what Larry Sanger criticized us for a while back---that we *don't* actually defer to experts?
-Mark
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 Mar 2, 2007, at 7:35 AM, stvrtg wrote:
- If Essjay misrepresented himself in any substantial way in
arguments related to his claimed expertise, how is it that noone qualified in that area suspected he wasnt a Phd/Thd? I suspect the reason is because his ventures into misrepresentation were quite limited to the cantankerous. I suspect also that this fact might bother people who might have thought they could tell just by looking at someones pixels.
This is an interesting point. Many seem to be taking this as why we can't engage in credentialism. But it seems to me to be an example of the worst case scenario in credentialism working out OK.
Some observations on how this worked.
1) It was never blind argument - it used its credentialism as a supporting detail, not as the whole argument. 2) It was never totally wrong. He may not have a PhD in theology, but he demonstrated that he knows his stuff.
This is an interesting situation. It suggests to me that, in fact, we probably can [[WP:AGF]] when people cite credentials, take them seriously as credible, smart, dedicated users, pay heed to their arguments, etc. We have to resist letting them just dictate the content of our articles. We have to also listen to people who go "Look, I'm sure you do know your stuff here, but you did just make this error: [cites source]." (Which I've had happen in a debate regarding webcomics - I was making a point about the comparative notability of two sites, and just completely forgot that one site, in addition to all the random "anyone can host their comic here" stuff, hosted Tom Hart's work. Whoops.) But those are safeguards we'd put into place even if we knew absolutely that Stephen Hawking were editing [[Black hole]].
This ties in with another interesting point. It may be my limited experience, but it seems like most times experts have intervened as experts have been something like this.
Expert: This article/policy/whatever is complete crap. Other editor: What? No it's not! Expert: Look. I have a PhD in field X and have published articles about Y. This is complete crap.
That is to say, it's not that we tend to have experts slipping information in with no justification other than "I'm an expert. I know stuff." Their contributions as experts are more subtle, and, I would wager, less dangerous.
What Essjay's case suggests, which is striking, is that the safeguards of not letting expertise be the sole reason for something and of still taking seriously arguments against experts, particularly when they cite source are actually all we need in order to be able to deal with being respectful towards claimed experts and take seriously their critiques of articles.
-Phil
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 07:56:00 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What Essjay's case suggests, which is striking, is that the safeguards of not letting expertise be the sole reason for something and of still taking seriously arguments against experts, particularly when they cite source are actually all we need in order to be able to deal with being respectful towards claimed experts and take seriously their critiques of articles.
Yes, exactly that. But we have a residual issue, external to the matter of edits, which is that Essjay has a number of trusted positions and seems to have lost the trust of a significant proportion of the Wikipedia community. That is primarily Essjay's problem, not ours, of course.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 2, 2007, at 7:35 AM, stvrtg wrote:
- It was never blind argument - it used its credentialism as a
supporting detail, not as the whole argument. 2) It was never totally wrong. He may not have a PhD in theology, but he demonstrated that he knows his stuff.
This is an interesting situation. It suggests to me that, in fact, we probably can [[WP:AGF]] when people cite credentials, take them seriously as credible, smart, dedicated users, pay heed to their arguments, etc. We have to resist letting them just dictate the content of our articles. We have to also listen to people who go "Look, I'm sure you do know your stuff here, but you did just make this error: [cites source]."
But those are safeguards we'd put
into place even if we knew absolutely that Stephen Hawking were editing [[Black hole]].
This ties in with another interesting point. It may be my limited experience, but it seems like most times experts have intervened as experts have been something like this.
Expert: This article/policy/whatever is complete crap. Other editor: What? No it's not! Expert: Look. I have a PhD in field X and have published articles about Y. This is complete crap.
That is to say, it's not that we tend to have experts slipping information in with no justification other than "I'm an expert. I know stuff." Their contributions as experts are more subtle, and, I would wager, less dangerous.
What Essjay's case suggests, which is striking, is that the safeguards of not letting expertise be the sole reason for something and of still taking seriously arguments against experts, particularly when they cite source are actually all we need in order to be able to deal with being respectful towards claimed experts and take seriously their critiques of articles.
-Phil
In otherwords, just cause somebody may be an "expert", or actually hold a Ph.D., this still doesn't preclude them from being a "POV warrior".
Pilotguy wrote:
And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robbie31? Essjay claimed he was gay and he was "in a long-term relationship with his partner, Robbie..." How are we to know if this guy is for real too? His few contributions don't add up.
What difference does it make?
Ec
Thomas Dalton 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. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
He made a comment at one point referring to would-be stalkers trying to find a professor matching the description, but not being able to pin down an actual person to go after, which suggests that maybe his strategy was accomplishing its intended purpose.
One of the interesting aspects of this is that there are hundreds of user pages with obviously-ridiculous claims, purported English professors that can't speel and the like, and yet nobody cares about those. It's like there is some line past which the person's self-description matters - it's not just admin status, because I think we would be just as troubled if we were to discover that a non-admin editor with 40K edits and 20 featured articles was not the person we thought. I've noticed that when I see an editor doing lots and lots of good work, but the user page is blank, I'm intensely curious to know more about the editor personally.
Stan
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social status as his real job.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social status as his real job.
So that means you would be OK with it if I used a pseudonym and claimed to have a PhD in biology, rather than computer science?
I wonder if some of this is just a belated horrified realization that Wikipedia can be exploited by the pseudonymous just as much as mySpace or any other website. I think I got jaded early on, when some pseudonyms claimed vast backgrounds that didn't jibe at all with their edits, and so now if someone doesn't supply a real name on the user page, I tend to treat the whole bio section as random noise ("tenured professor"? yeah whatever - real professors give specific ranks, if they qualify the term at all).
However, there is a long tradition of distinguished scholars using pseudonyms, and it's certainly a nice fantasy to imagine all the Nobelists secretly adding content under some of those funny names.
Stan
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social status as his real job.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social status as his real job.
Why create an "alter ego" at all? Using a username like Essjay doesn't give anything away about him. How could stalkers find him based on that?
If you're worried about stalkers, just remain anonymous. There's no reason to "throw them off the track" with an alter ego.
-Rich
Rich Holton wrote:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social status as his real job.
Why create an "alter ego" at all? Using a username like Essjay doesn't give anything away about him. How could stalkers find him based on that?
If you're worried about stalkers, just remain anonymous. There's no reason to "throw them off the track" with an alter ego.
If I understand his argument rightly, it is that one is bound to leak, so it's better to go with red herrings to throw stalkers off. That's what I've gathered from his talk-page comments, though.
Not that I necessarily agree with the argument, or at this point even have much confidence that such was his real motivation. But seeing some of what people have theorized about me based on my edits, I don't think it's a crazy argument.
William
On 01/03/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.
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. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.
I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case, somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.
I occasionally have to remind myself that not everyone is me. Having tangled with the Church of Scientology (who have tried to find out where I work and get me fired more than once), I laugh off a pissant like Brandt. Others may not be so cavalier.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.
While there is some irony there, I suspect many "this isn't a big deal" people are, well, missing the point. If Essjay simply said "I'm a guy who's initials are S.J. from Location, and my specialty is in religious areas," and then it turns out that he's R.J from Different Location, then there's no real problem - he created a pseudonym and sent people off-track in a whole different area. The problem comes when he claimed to be a tenured professor, a PhD even. His expert opinion was then solicited in discussions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&...), probably giving extra weight to it, and he even made a claim of being one of Wikipedia's "foremost experts" on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confession&diff=prev&...), which I posit was possibly blatantly false given his true education levels, and certainly not a statement he could make an educated stab at.
I've edited for a very long time with a nickname I use across the internet, and with my real name readily available. When I've been interviewed by a newspaper for Wikipedia, I used my real name. If he felt worried about trolls and maliciousness, then that's fine, but that's also not a free pass to misrepresent one's education levels, and to continue up the Wikimedia ladder after it's been revealed. The line in the sand is pretty clear here - no one would have said a peep if minor, inconsequential facts were blurred for the sake of anonyminity. When you start working advanced degrees and tenureship into the equation, well...
-Jeff Raymond BA, History and Political Science And nothing else.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.
While there is some irony there, I suspect many "this isn't a big deal" people are, well, missing the point. If Essjay simply said "I'm a guy who's initials are S.J. from Location, and my specialty is in religious areas," and then it turns out that he's R.J from Different Location, then there's no real problem - he created a pseudonym and sent people off-track in a whole different area. The problem comes when he claimed to be a tenured professor, a PhD even. His expert opinion was then solicited in discussions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&...), probably giving extra weight to it, and he even made a claim of being one of Wikipedia's "foremost experts" on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confession&diff=prev&...), which I posit was possibly blatantly false given his true education levels, and certainly not a statement he could make an educated stab at.
Wow. This combined with the letter to a professor claiming tenured professorhood suggests that this went well beyond merely evading stalkers, and Geni's point that the deception starts well before Brandt doesn't improve the situation.
The initial lie isn't so good, although I could wave that aside as a youthful mistake. But what appears to be a continuing pattern of deception, including about the initial deception, makes it hard to know where some actual truth starts. It certainly makes Wikipedia look pretty bad to the guy on the street.
William
On 3/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.
Nyet. Page on Brandt first appeared18:46, 28 September 2005
First claims to degrees appeared 07:58, 10 May 2005 and the full story was in place by September.
On 3/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.
Nyet. Page on Brandt first appeared18:46, 28 September 2005
First claims to degrees appeared 07:58, 10 May 2005 and the full story was in place by September. -- geni
So the question here again, Why did Brandt feel the necessity to "stalk and harass" editors?
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:35:45 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
So the question here again, Why did Brandt feel the necessity to "stalk and harass" editors?
Because he's an obsessive, and given his occupation why would that surprise us?
Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:35:45 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
So the question here again, Why did Brandt feel the necessity to "stalk
and
harass" editors?
Because he's an obsessive, and given his occupation why would that surprise us?
Guy (JzG)
There's an element of truth to this; Brandt may have a habit of reacting impulsively prior to analysing a situation. Given the nature of the invidious smear leveled at him, how would any one else have reacted?
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 07:27:54 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Because he's an obsessive, and given his occupation why would that surprise us?
There's an element of truth to this; Brandt may have a habit of reacting impulsively prior to analysing a situation. Given the nature of the invidious smear leveled at him, how would any one else have reacted?
Sure, nobody would be happy about that. Where I come from, one measure of the quality of an organisation is how it handles a civil complaint. I'm not sure Brandt ever tried a civil complaint, but I think we're pretty hard on crap in biographies of living individuals these days.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I think we're pretty hard on crap in biographies of living individuals these days.
Guy (JzG)
If that's true than somebody please remove this link to CODOH from this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Wilcox#Further_reading
it has no place here.
Thank you.
On 3/6/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I think we're pretty hard on crap in biographies of living individuals these days.
Guy (JzG)
If that's true than somebody please remove this link to CODOH from this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Wilcox#Further_reading
it has no place here.
Thank you.
It appears to be to something he wrote. Is that a forgery, or ???
Context?
On 3/6/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I think we're pretty hard on crap in biographies of living individuals these days.
Guy (JzG)
If that's true than somebody please remove this link to CODOH from this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Wilcox#Further_reading
it has no place here.
Thank you.
It appears to be to something he wrote. Is that a forgery, or ???
Context?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
It is; however CODOH cannot be used as a cite for anything other than itself.
As I have made clear on Jimbo and Essjay's talk pages, I am deeply concerned about the "no big deal" attitude conveyed by Jimbo, considering the fact that Essjay is serving on Arbcom and other positions of trust. I would be way more comfortable continuing with Wikipedia, if Essjay would step down from Arbcom and allow time for this to shake out and the community to regain trust in him.
Regards, Aude
On 3/1/07, fangaili@gmail.com fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
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 incanon
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...
I find the lack of discussion on this disturbing. Normally I would not post to the list, but I must say something. I have read the discussion on Jimbo's talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_New_Yorker_quotes_you ) and the linked pages. Some people are very concerned about Essjay's actions, but others think it is no big deal.
I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with credentials he does not have.
This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation, especially since Essjay is one of our most trusted users. It also damages the community, because some people will find it difficult to trust him, and the leadership that supports him (i.e. Jimbo).
I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
I wish to know if the community will sweep this under the rug, or if we will discuss it before it gets buried in Jimbo's archives. Does anyone here care?
Sincerely,
Fang Aili _______________________________________________ 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, fangaili@gmail.com fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
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 incanon
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...
I find the lack of discussion on this disturbing. Normally I would not post to the list, but I must say something. I have read the discussion on Jimbo's talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_New_Yorker_quotes_you ) and the linked pages. Some people are very concerned about Essjay's actions, but others think it is no big deal.
I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with credentials he does not have.
This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation, especially since Essjay is one of our most trusted users. It also damages the community, because some people will find it difficult to trust him, and the leadership that supports him (i.e. Jimbo).
I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
I wish to know if the community will sweep this under the rug, or if we will discuss it before it gets buried in Jimbo's archives. Does anyone here care?
Well you have this, about 1 week before appointed to Arbcom
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&...
"I love my job" after stating here "I've been pretty upfront about using disinformation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#Profiles_don.27t_mesh ...