[WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

[Rich Holton]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> stvrtg <stvrtg at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 3/2/07, Jeff Raymond 
> <jeff.raymond at 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)