[WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

[Ray Saintonge]

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