[WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

[William Pietri]

Josh Gordon wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at 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&oldid=12614544

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 <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri