Talk:Essjay controversy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:44, 11 April 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Essjay controversy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons (biographical material on a living person). Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Speedy keep, 12 March 2007, see discussion.
Speedy close, 8 March 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, Keep due to dramatic article changes, 2 March 2007, see discussion.

An entry from Essjay controversy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 07 March, 2007.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Noam Cohen (March 6, 2007). "Wikipedia ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Restarted peer review

I restarted the peer review and added it to the Community Portal. People have made comments here, which you may wish to read. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some basic formatting issues that need correcting, but beyond that, can anyone consider any compelling reason why we should not nominate for FA? The edit wars have died down, every sentence is referenced, and there is little press coverage any more we need to keep an eye out for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start with GA? - Denny 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Why? If it's good enough for GA, we may as well put the little effort in to reach FA, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the peer review is favourable, then I agree with trying for FA. If it fails FA we can always fall back on GA. --tjstrf talk 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, nevermind me. :) - Denny 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... Essjay controversy is not going to become a mainpage featured article, for obvious reasons that I truly hope I don't need to adumbrate here. It was considered inappropriate a couple of weeks ago even as a "Did You Know" item. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can it have FA status bestowed by the community while not being on the front page (hypothetically)? - Denny 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but there's no reason it can;t be featured, is there? I like to think that the lack of feedback on the peer review indicates there's not a lot to say. :) Shall we get someone from the League in to copyedit, I'll fix the formatting I referred to, and then go for it? I think everyone here has done a fantastic amount of work on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be Featured, but never be on the main page. Prodego ^talk 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul says he keeps a list of FAs that he will never put on the front page, which seems justified. It would be incredibly narcissistic to put up Wikipedia for example, when it eventually passes again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it will never make front-page this will still be a rather momentous occasion seeing as it has not only been built at max-level citations from the ground up, but hammered out between a coalition of meta-editors and trolls. --tjstrf talk 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... remind me again why this is a good thing? Newyorkbrad 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Because most FAs are written by one or two people and this article has truly demonstrated the power of crowds that Wikipedia was created for? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it would help discount the opinions of the WP:1FA-type people who think Wikipedia space editors aren't capable of writing good content so they just sit around and argue all day instead. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Essjay Letter Confirmation

Cbrown1023 deleted the letter on March 4, 2007, providing the following reason(s): "Essjay's Request"

Identity revealed

At some point, Essjay sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials,^[1] vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy.^[2] In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."^[2]

^ Cite error: The named reference Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

1) References #7 in the article > ^ a b c d e Finkelstein, Seth (March 8, 2007). Read me first. Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

2) Reference #27 in the article > ^ a b Blacharski, Dan (March 6, 2007). Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud. ITworld. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

Foremost, I have provided evidence that the letter did exist. Further, many Wikipedians within the community have actually read the letter. Even Essjay said in his own words it was a letter. Therefore, the references are verifiable. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those references external to Wikipedia itself? By which I do not mean you rehosting it somewhere else either. If not, then it's not a notable occurrence. --tjstrf talk 08:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html

http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/nlsblog070306/

Here are the external references. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ITworld reference quotes the Guardian reference; that really tangles things up quite a bit. I am not convinced this needs to be there, particularly the selected quote. Given the large number of published sources that reported the controversy, and the fact only two referred to this particular issue (and one of them was quoting the other), I am hard pressed to see how adding this isn't giving the "letter" undue weight. Risker 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The letter was sent to a real world professor, vouching for Wikipedia accuracy using the false credentials. The usage of the false credentials is a major part of what this article is about. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the "undue weight" concern, Quack. Two sources out of hundreds of published sources - one quoting the other. More sources referred to any number of other things (number of edits, which articles were edited, etc) than this "letter." Risker 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight is a straw man here, I think. The letter is sourced and extremely relevant to the controvery at hand. What does counting of sources have to do with its relevance? —Doug Bell ^talk 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no undue weight concern. The letter is part of the events of the online persona and the false credentials. The letter was sent to vouch for the accuracy of Wikipedia using false credentials. "A central issue." :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I do understand your perspective, Doug - clearly I am having difficulty expressing my concern. The article is about the external reaction to the discovery of the false credentials. We have to go with what our external sources think are the issues of concern. The letter is a much bigger deal internal to Wikipedia than it was externally - and justifiably so. But dozens of respected reliable sources didn't feel it was important enough to even mention in passing. In particular, none of the articles in which academics are interviewed mention this letter - the exact place where one would expect to find a reference to it. Risker 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with one of your assertions. The article is about the controversy, not the external reaction to it. The external reaction may be what makes it notable, but the purpose of the article is to present a neutral description of the events. The letter is sourced and is centrally relevant. It deserves mention in the article. It does not deserve undue weight in the article, but it should be there. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. I will add the letter tidbit. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave extra time for commentary and suggestions. The letter is fully sourced and relevant. I will add the letter tidbit now. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've again removed Quack's insertion of unsubstantiated material -- the "source" for the ITWorld blog was Seth Finklestein's own blog entry at http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001157.html . As a blog post, this is not a citeable source. Just as much of what EssJay has claimed about himself has been admitted to be false, no published account has demonstrated that he actually wrote any such letter to anyone, college professor or not. --Leflyman^Talk 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided documentation the letter did exist. Both references are solid and both references are already in the article. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't have any source that the letter was actually sent. However, we do have sources for Essjay's claim that he sent the letter, so a discussion of his claim should be OK. —Doug Bell 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, you seem to be under a grave misunderstanding about how to cite claims to verifiable, published sources. You simply have not been on Wikipedia long enough to get a handle on the concept of No Original Research -- which is what you are trying to insert into the article. I'll repeat again: no matter what Finkelstein wrote in his blog entry, there is no actual source that says any such letter was really sent. Making a claim based on an unsubstantiated blog posting fails Wikipedia standards. But it seems you really don't care how accurate this article is, so long as it makes EssJay, Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia come off badly. Could you perhaps explain what your purpose in editing here is, as apart from an early interest in pseudoscience, nearly all the contributions you have made since last month are connected to the topic of how Wikipedia sucks.--Leflyman^Talk 06:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake. The refs are already in the article. Saying "claimed" he had sent the letter will resolve this discussion. And, I agree with Doug Bell's assessments. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can be used as sources for Wikipedia articles if we are using them to show what the blog/blogger said. It would be perfectly OK to say "Blogger X stated on her blog that she recieved a letter from Essjay in which Essjay..." Johntex\^talk 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it might be appropriate to quote a blogger's statement that she personally received correspondence from anyone; some of that would depend on the reliability of the individual blogger, and does not speak to the weight such a statement should be given. That isn't the case here, of course. Risker 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have expressed there support for the Essjay letter claim. Further, Essjay used his invented identity, vouching for the accuracy of Wikipedia. He claimed he had sent a letter to a real world professor. The Guardian is already considered a reliable source since it is used in this and many articles on Wikipedia. There are two solid references to use for the Essjay tidbit. Moreover, the letter is highly relevant. Essjay used his fictitious persona and his false credentials in this case. I am neutral on the wording of the letter tidbit. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another suggestion. We do not need to use the reliable ITWorld reference. The solid Guardian reference is more than plenty. This reference is currently in the article. Therefore, it is reliable and verifiable.

At some point, Essjay sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials, vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy.^[1] In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."^[1][1]

Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New screenshot of User:Essjay available

This one shows the entirety of the academic claims discussed in the article. The image is at Image:User-Essjay.png. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I think that would be workable. - Denny 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It is usable. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. It is from six months before the article was published, and we cannot tell how many times it was modified in between. We have no evidence that this is the user page the journalist referenced when writing the article. It also is a low quality image; nothing can be seen unless people click on the image and then know how to work through the wiki-world to actually view the image in a legible format. It is also a primary source, when we have already fully included the information from secondary sources. The image adds nothing to the article, and moves it back to being an article about Essjay rather than the controversy. Remember that the controversy we are reporting is how the world outside of Wikipedia reacted and observed things. When the controversy arose, this was not the user page on display, either. Incidentally, it is not a "new" screenshot, it was removed from the article three weeks ago for these very reasons. Risker 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is the user page of Essjay. Enough said. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it is a screenshot of his user page on one particular day. You have not responded to my points, Quack. There are at least four different screenshots of his user page around that I have seen; each one is different. None of them are contemporaneous to the article. That still doesn't answer any of my points, which are:

No evidence this was seen by the journalist
Poor quality image that is very user-unfriendly
Primary source, when relevant information already covered in the article from reliable secondary sources
Changes focus of article from the controversy to Essjay personally

As soon as this article reverts back to what it was in the days following the start of the controversy - that is, an article about the actions of one specific individual - we are back at AfD and quite rightly the article is no longer viable. Quack, please stop trying to insert personal information about Essjay into this article. Risker 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as currently scoped says, in the first sentence, that the controversy is about the lies he told on his User page. These are them. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risker's claims are ridiculous. He is just trying to keep stuff out he does not like. Remember these:

Edit in which Essjay claims to a user that he had a PhD and students under his charge - archive at WebCite.
Essjay's apology - archive at WebCite.
Letter by Essjay to an academic in which he falsely claims academic credentials and accomplishments. - archive at WebCite.
User:Essjay/History1 - archive at Google cache. Additional archive at WebCite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C.m.jones (talk • contribs).

I've compromised the issue in the same way that Criticism of Wikipedia handled Essjay's deleted user page. I have footnoted the Internet Archive version of the user page, to show the actual claim of the false credentials. I hate to add more footnotes to the article, but I'd like to settle this controversy. Casey Abell 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a link to Essjay's archived Wikia user page of 1-1-07, alongside the Martyn Williams footnote about how Essjay "came clean." Otherwise, the reference might be somewhat unclear. If we keep this stuff in footnotes, I think we can compromise the controversy about including the material while still informing the reader completely. Casey Abell 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this footnote was just added. Shouldn't we web citation it in case someone at Wikia inappropriately removes it? - Denny 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I added the footnote to show how Essjay identified himself as Ryan Jordan. This Wikia user template been blocked from The Internet Archive but is available directly (go figure). I misspoke slightly above - Essjay's actual Wikia user page with the (supposedly) correct information on his background has been deep-sixed and protected from web crawlers. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Casey Abell 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a copy of it on Wikipedia Watch, but there's no way I'm going to footnote that. Casey Abell 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for deletion

Folks who've been editing on this article should be aware of this redirects for deletion discussion. (→Netscott) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a" Wikipedia founder

Futher discussion can be found at Talk:Larry Sanger. Any edit warring over this will cause you to be blocked for disruption. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic of this move/merge. Most of the discussion was about whether Wales has an official title or not, why is that relevent to the Sanger article? Second, can you stop threatening people with blocks for discussing a legitimate topic. David D. (Talk) 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is quite clear: the discussion was resulting in massive disruption of an otherwise stable article, while the subject of the discussion has nothing at all to do with the scope of this article. Therefore, there is little or no benefit to discussing it here while there is great harm to doing so. We do not get to decide what Wales and Sanger are or are not on this talk page, so we don't need to be talking about it except at the minimum necessary level. --tjstrf talk 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was why didn't it get put on the Jimmy Wales talk page? 95% of those sections were discussing Wales ONLY. David D. (Talk) 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wales founding Wikipedia is not disputed. Sanger founding Wikipedia is. And we don't have a Talk:Wikipedia foundership dispute. --tjstrf talk 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sections? It was discussing his role and title in wikipedia NOW. Just knee jerk moving sections with the word founder and WALES in is not going to work here unless you read for context. Note, the discussion is continuing below, still. Is that also a disruption or a valid attempt to find a solution to this issue? David D. (Talk) 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion closure, Sanger is at the heart of the matter. But if you feel its more about Wales, then transfer it to that article. I do not need to repeat the disruptiveness of the edit war about identifying Jimbo. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the sections you moved. And it continues below. i think this is valid discussion. David D. (Talk) 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding descriptions without using the word "founder"

(un-indent) I see that the article has been unprotected. Before anyone does anything else to the descriptions of Wales and Sanger, I strongly urge everyone to (a) discuss on this page and (b) avoid at all costs the use of the word "founder" (or any related term) in suggesting an appropriate way of describing these two men in a way that makes sense to this article.

David D. had a good point in the moved conversation about the wording now in use not providing sufficient information about Wales' current role at Wikipedia, and when last our heroes were discussing this, the term "de facto leader" was being bandied about. One of the very new references used this description, and could be used as a reliable source. Does this work for everyone? --Risker 00:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an edit that attempts to address exactly that([4]) by a combination of description and equivocation.

The edit described Wales's current status by saying he has "an ongoing role overseeing the operations of the Wikipedia community", which I think is pretty accurate (albeit unsourced). And while it still says "Wales, Wikipedia founder", because of the grammar in the sentence it is intentionally unclear whether he is the only one or not. Similarly, Sanger is described as "a founding staff member", which because of the different meanings of the word founding can either mean he was simply present at the beginning or that he was a founder in sense of inventing the site. --tjstrf talk 00:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but founder should solve this whole issue. I think with the recent reference found by Risker this is a legitimate title and actually much more descriptive. David D. (Talk) 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to contrive ways to describe Wales without calling him founder misses the point of the foundership dispute. The dispute is not if Wales founded Wikipedia, the dispute is if Sanger also founded Wikipedia. If there were a dispute between them in which Sanger was claiming that Wales did not in fact found Wikipedia, that would be one thing and leaving out the mention would be proper to avoid discussing unresolved arguments and maintain NPOV. But that isn't the disputed claim. Not saying Wales founded Wikipedia because there is another guy who may also have founded Wikipedia isn't NPOV, instead it's the common NPOV-resembling fallacy of thinking that treating subjects equally is the same as treating them neutrally.
Here's an example of what I mean: let's say there was a tournament for some sport in which the final placings were determined by score (rather than elimination). Two men in the tournament do very close to equally, to the point that they seem like they are tied for first place. However, when the final judgments are being made there is a disagreement over the rules of the game: one interpretation would say that only man A has placed 1st in the tournament, while the other interpretation would say that both man A and man B have placed first. Notice that there is no dispute over man A's first place position, only man B's. This means that by NPOV, we can give an unqualified report that man A has first place, but not man B.
In the Wikipedia foundership dispute, Wales is man A and Sanger is man B. In articles that cannot go into depth on the details of the foundership dispute, Wales can be described as being founder without qualification because all interpretations of the situation say that he is founder. Sanger cannot be described as founder without qualification because only some interpretations of the situation say that he is founder.
This article has nothing to do with the Wikipedia foundership dispute in the first place and must therefore gloss over all the details in favour of minimal statements (per WP:NPOV#Undue weight). So long as we do not call him sole founder, Wales can be described as founder here because it is not disputed. Sanger cannot. (This is also why we cannot call Wales "a" founder, because it directly and unequivocally implies that there is at another one.) --tjstrf talk 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I misinterpret David D.'s point, which made sense to me when I read it, the issue isn't about who founded Wikipedia six years ago, it is about how the people involved relate to Wikipedia today. My work involves a charitable organization, and neither the founder nor the Chair Emeritus of the Board have the authority to ask an individual volunteer to step down; yet nobody doubted Wales' authority to do that very thing. This is the relationship that would be unclear to many readers. Hence the proposed description. Sanger could likely be described as Wikipedia's first and only paid editor (paraphrasing from the article about him), if we can find a reference source other than his article that uses this sort of description. Risker 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the point of the discussion relevent to THIS page. What is the title of this Wales guy, from the wiki foundation, that got involved in the dispute. Obviously he is the founder, or "a" founder as some wish (and justifiably from the references they have cited) but that is incidental to the point in this article. Worse it looks likes this has been a major dispute on this page for ages. Why not do the obvious (from my outside perspective) and remove this trivia from the article. Then you can continue editing in peace? David D. (Talk) 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that he founded Wikipedia would be rather like referring to George Washington as "military commander and husband" when his far greater claim to importance is that he was the first president of the United States. We wouldn't attribute one of Mark Twain's many famous witty quotes to "Sam Clemens, steamboat pilot", nor would we say Charles Darwin was a clergyman and neglect to mention his work as a naturalist. Basically, since Wales's foundership of Wikipedia is his primary claim to notability in the real world, not mentioning it when we introduce him in the page is absurd. More directly as it applies to this article, his founding the project is the reason that he has the "god-king" role now. --tjstrf talk 01:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tjstrf, I'm not trying to be a smart arse but this does not even stand up under partial scrutiny. I went to the GW page you link to above. I looked at what links here. Clicked on the American_Revolutionary_War and found the that the first sentence to mention GW read as follows:

"Seeking to coordinate military efforts, the Continental Congress established (on paper) a regular army in June 1775, and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief."

And this makes sense because in the context of the article that is the relevent information. Since his name is hyperlinked those that want more info can click read more at his own article, likewise with Wales. Just to check i am not cherry picking here are three others.

Articles_of_Confederation

"At times, this left the military in a precarious position, as George Washington wrote in a 1781 letter to the governor of Massachusetts, John Hancock."

Alternate_history

"He also co-authored a book with actor Richard Dreyfuss The Two Georges, which postulates what would have happened if the United Kingdom had retained the American colony, with George Washington and King George III making peace. "

Apocrypha

"For example, the Parson Weems account of George Washington and the cherry tree is considered apocryphal"

Judging from that the GW example the norm would appear to be no introduction at all. David D. (Talk) 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington is a bit more well known than Jimmy Wales, to say the least, so he may not need an introduction to show why he is relevant to an article. But what about someone like Brian Jacques, who is notable in his field but not immediately recognizable to anyone with a Western education? Mentioning him in an article without introduction, or only saying that he worked as a radio host rather than that he writes a popular series of children's books, would be quite the oversight. --tjstrf talk 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified why you think being founder is so much more important than running the show given they are subtle differences for Wales in the context of wikipedia. On the other hand you contrast Darwins naturalist role to his religious training, or Redwall author with local radio show host which are much less related. The equivalent for Jimmy Wales would be to argue about whther we introduce him as founder of the Bomis search engine vs his roles in wikipedia. But these examples are distractions from the argument at hand.

The quetion is are you willing to compromise and mention his current role (de facto head or similar) rather than his historical role (founder). Here are four reasons to consider dropping any mention of founder.

From the perspective of this article the first one (using his current role as head of wikipedia) makes more sense (See Riskers analysis above).
From an avoiding the founder controversy perspective, the first one makes more sense because then the issue of whether he is 'a' founder or 'the' founder is avoided.
From the perspective of not fanning the flames of the founder debate, which does not appear to be disappearing soon, the first one is better, again since the founder issue is avoided.
The alternative appears to be to let this article get pulled into the founder debate repeatedly over the next year which will cause you all to waste even more time rather than securing a stable article.

Why don't you outline the positives for including founder in this article? Or propose an alternative compromise that will prevent this article from continuinmg to be unstable? David D. (Talk) 06:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there are no positives? David D. (Talk) 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

As a follow-up note of policy, as it pertains to myself, TJstrf, Bramlet and DuckGuru: please be mindful of not violating the Three Revert Rule. This is a pretty strict requisite to avoid edit-wars, which is what has been set-off here due to the differing positions of particular individuals (myself included). So at this point, please take a breather from further reverts. Thanks, --Leflyman^Talk 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just as things had settled down for a moment, yet another participant, DXRAW (talk · contribs), has joined the fray to antagonise the matter. I think I count three reverts DXRAW has made now, too.--Leflyman^Talk 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why was protection removed from the article again? --w^L^{<speak·check>} 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article?

Is wikipedia more like AP and reuters or more like an encyclopedia, can someone explain why this is in main space? As time goes on wikipedia seems more and more like a newspaper. David D. (Talk) 07:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it earned major publicity and is a notable event. Read the AfDs and archives for our exhaustive lists of sources that have mentioned this. --tjstrf talk 07:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly it was an event. Is this type of news really encyclopedic? There appears to be massive activity in wikipedia documenting day to day events. To me it seems that wikipedia is losing its focus. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that an event that directly impacts processes on one of the top-10 most referred-to internet sites would be noteworthy enough for an article here. To be sure, the final fall-out of this event hasn't been determined. Perhaps now that the article is in a relatively stable, NPOV form, those who objected to its existence/deletion because it was biased (on both sides of the issue) just find it boring. Risker 07:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that anything we can write an informative and accurately attributed article on might as well be kept, so you're not getting any sympathy for deleting breaking news type articles from me. The first couple days I agreed that it didn't need a page, but then it made the evening news which sort of blew that idea out of the water. --tjstrf talk 07:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not refering to this article particularly but Portal:Current_events is far more newspaper and far less encyclopedia. I wonder how many of the nearly two million articles here represent newspaper-like stories. May be that is our role here? But that debate should be held somewhere else. David D. (Talk) 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary events can be encyclopaedic, even when they involve Wikipedia. See also, Seigenthaler_controversy and Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_mainland_China. In this case, the EssJay controversy has become a touchstone for the use and dangers of anonymity on large-scale collaborative projects such as this one. Plus, it has been now been extensively covered in the media. --Leflyman^Talk 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles do read more like a collection of news articles intended for other Wikipedians than solid introductions to topics for people who really need one. It does not have to be so, however. See this version of this article. - C.m.jones 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That version was rejected as being highly POV, sensationalist in tone, reading like a tabloid, and demonizing Essjay. We aren't reinstating it. --tjstrf talk 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to we, who are you referring to? C.m.jones 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commentators at /Archive 5#Major problems with article rewrite and several other topics on that page. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that settles it once and for all, especially since the version remained up for what, 3 minutes, thus making it so page viewers (you know, at article space where lots of people see it so some real consensus can then build back here in talk) were oblivious to it? And let's definitely ignore Leflyman, for sure. C.m.jones 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to take that last sarcastic comment, but since you brought my name into this discussion: What TJ is trying to get across is that your version, whatever merits you may think it had, wasn't encyclopaedic-- it meandered all over the place, discussing unconnected issues, making questionable claims, using sophomoric language. It was in a word, bad. Sorry.--Leflyman^Talk 07:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.m.jones, yes, that version was only on the screen for 10 minutes. That is because it was your own personal article, completely ignoring every word of discussion, consensus building and editing that had taken place involving dozens of editors in the previous six days. Not a link to your sandbox, where you had obviously developed it. The cavalier way in which you introduced this version was in opposition to just about every Wikipedia policy I can think of. As to Leflyman, he is one of the editors whose work you proposed to overwrite; he was working on the article before I was. Risker 07:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Four forks nominated for MfD

I've nominated four forks of this article, which I found in userspace, for nomination at WP:MfD. Everyone is, of course, welcome to comment. Sorry if it looks a bit messy, there were slightly different criteria and I've never done an MfD nom before, let alone a multiple, so someone might well come along and clean up the links. Risker 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Comment: Essjay controversy

This dispute is about the foundership of Wikipedia and how it has weight on this article. 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Comments

Reprotection

If you are calling about the Essjay controversy protection, please note that it was first put on to avoid the edit war. Since unprotection, the only edits made were the same warring ones. An RfC has been opened on the talk page. Please come up with a solution before I even consider unprotection. User:AzaToth (the person who protected it first) is aware of this protection. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 06:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

"Identity revealed"

Please add this tidbit to the beginning of the identitiy revealed section. Everything is fully sourced. All references are already in the article. We do not have proof Essjay sent the letters but we have proof Essjay "claimed" he had sent the letter.

Tidbit >

At some point, Essjay claimed he had sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials,^[2] vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy.^[1] In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to stay in Wiipedia."^[1]

< Tidbit

"Removal of cited information and solid references"

An editor continues to remove references, undo my edits, and make disingenuous edit summaries.

[5]
[6]
[7]
After Ned Scott had been advised his behaviour is "grossly inappropriate" and to "stop," another editor has made a comment to encourage him on be stating: "You're my hero." Risker 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Good advise will help but encouraging an editor by stating "You my hero" does not help. We should not reward this kind of behaviour. I request this edit I have identified be reverted for the reinstatement of all solid and fully sourced information be put back into the article. Everything is fully referenced. References are a part of verifying the content of articles. The references were removed without validity. Further, the edit summary does not explain any reason for the removal of text or references. Moreover, the editor is unwilling to engage in a discussion in a normal manner. Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, this appears to continue to be an area of dispute; the last time the issue was raised, it was removed by another editor, and discussed at this section above. [8]. Perhaps we have two areas that need to be hammered out in the RFC that WikiLeon would like people to contribute to. Risker 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack is further confused about appropriate use of sourcing. Just because a blog author is quoted about his opinion does not mean the blog entry is sourceable for facts. The Guardian piece by Seth Finkelstein is based on his blog -- it is an editorial/opinion, not a news report. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not cite itself (nor, for that matter, other Wiki-like sites) which is what Quack wishes to do. Finally, whatever additional claims Essjay made about his faux-identity-- among which was that he had been a department head, and multi-honorary degreed, etc. -- are meaningless; the article isn't "Lies that Essjay told", it's about the controversy surrounding the use of a fictitious identity, and the fallout thereof.--Leflyman^Talk 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay used his fictitious identity to vouch for the accuracy of Wikipedia. He claimed he had sent a letter. The Guardian is already accepted as a source for articles on Wikipedia. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything published is worth including. In the scale of reporting done surrounding this controversy, that was practically a trivia point. --tjstrf talk 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck continues to try the patience of the community. At this point, I can only take the denseness of his responses as misplaced criticism intent at disparaging Wikipedia and its participants. I would suggest that an RFC on user conduct will likely be an outcome, considering the misuse of his User space which appears to be ongoing.--Leflyman^Talk 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the difficulties I have with including mention of the letter is that even if it was sent (which I wouldn't bet on), there isn't a university professor who would have accepted any encyclopedia (online or hard copy) as a reference source in an academic paper, let alone one recommended by someone who used a pseudonym. The fact that many at Wikipedia seem to feel the letter is so very relevant now, despite relative indifference from the independent third parties who commented on this entire situation, makes it seem more like self reference than the other claims. Risker 01:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}. As long as this page is protected, it would be inappropriate for anyone to make significant edits. CMummert · talk 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small point concerning references.

Can I please point out to everyone (and I'm especially looking at Quackguru and other edit warriors) that footnotes come after a punctuation mark, usually the full stop/period. Additionally, only one footnote per sentence usually suffices. Please stop adding or proposing sentences that have five footnotes after one apparently random word: it looks crap. Thank you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay is/was a board member...?

Essjay is a board member?

03:22, 4 March 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Essjay@enwiki from boardvote to boardvote
03:21, 4 March 2007 Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Essjay@enwiki from boardvote, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, sysop to boardvote

What is that? If he was a board member I don't think we mentioned it? - Denny ^(talk) 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boardvote permissions are for the use of election officials during the elections to the foundation board. Essjay, along with several others, was an election official with access to vote information not visible to the rest of the community. As it turned out, he went on an extended break during the 2006 election process and was not so actively involved in the election work. Other boardvotes were added to cover the work involved. (see Election officials 2006 and Resolution:Election officials) NoSeptember 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thought that meant board voting as in on the board. Wonder why they didn't remove that bit, when he asked for them all to go... - Denny ^(talk) 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is here - NoSeptember 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

I request this tag be added to the article. Tag: {{totally disputed}}

The neutrality and the factual accuracy of this article is now "disputed." Just read many of the above discussions. I have provided solid references to verify the facts which some editors are still unwilling to accept. I added the facts about the letter tidbit using existing references that are already in the article. I added the facts about co-founding while adding attributable references. The references where reverted too. No valid explanation was given for removing the references. The content disputes remain unresolved. Therefore, the tag is more than appropriate. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes no sense to edit a protected page to add "totally disputed". It obviously is if it is protected due to content disputes. If you have a simple improvement suggest it. Prodego ^talk 01:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=120159876 I request these references be added back in. All the references are solid. This will improve the article. Simple enough. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, this is exactly the issue for which this article is currently protected. Risker 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jimmy is a founder - not the since he isn't the only founder -; I don't see any difference between "a founder" and "one of the founders", ect. Basically it does not matter in this article. Can't something more relevant be disputed? Considering the topic there must be something. Prodego ^talk 02:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend the 'Jimmy section' be left as is and Sanger's section reworded to

Larry Sanger, former Wikimedia staff member, currently Editor-in-Chief of online encyclopedia Citizendium.

How is that? Prodego ^talk 02:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I expect it will take a day or so, what with time zones and all, to see if there is consensus. Risker 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reworded, you can't have 'former' and 'currently' describe the same subject. It is either formerly, or current. But I will leave you to sort out the wording. Prodego ^talk 03:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I like it better as is. Let me see... Prodego ^talk 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One step at a time. First, let us all agree on adding the references back in. Eveything in the article should be fully sourced. That is the Wiki way. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, you've been warned multiple times about this situation specifically. This is disruptive and you need to stop. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disingenuous edit summary. Further, everything in an article should be fully cited. The editor who removed the solid references never had a valid reason for removing the references. The talk page is for discussion. This is not disruptive. This is the way people talk and discuss things on Wikipedia. This page is the discussion area for the Essjay controversy article. You need to stop with your interference in attempting to stop me from discussing the article. This is about talking to other editors who are involved in the content dispute. The information that was reverted was fully sourced. Additionally, the Essjay letter tidbit is also fully sourced. I believe both infos/edits belong back in the article. The Essajy letter tidbit is relevant and the reverted information is fully sourced which is part of NPOVing th article. It is normal editing to fully cite any unsourced info. Therefore, the refs should be put back in the article. The letter tidbit is part of using the false credentials and invented persona. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to stop using the talk page, I am asking you to stop pushing the same issue that has been rejected (at least give it some time before bringing it up). It's one thing to just talk about the issue and another thing to continue to insert the content in the article over and over again. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that the letter in question here is the one that Essjay wrote to a professor in defense of Wikipedia. I really don't understand how that letter doesn't apply here and why it shouldn't be included. I'm sure it's been explained before, but that should just make it easy to present a concise, persuasive argument. And don't just bring up citing policy -- try to include at least a little bit about the substance of what's involved. --Dookama 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection will expire soon - no more edit wars please

Folks, can we please avoid any further edit wars on the Wales/Sanger issue. AN/I and the editors above are quite correct, this is an incredibly lame excuse for an edit war. The current descriptions are correct, even if they may not be as complete as some people would like. Let us accept this as a compromise position, and move on.

As to the letter - Quack, the letter is so incredibly unimportant to the real world that only one blogger even editorialized about it, and was later quoted by another one. Two bloggers - that's it. Neither of them picked up on the real concerns about the letter and what it illustrated, but maybe if you stop worrying about getting it into the article and spend some time thinking about the real problem with it is, you might learn a bit about Wikipedia. Since we have pretty good evidence this article has been mined by bloggers and journalists for their reports, I will invoke WP:BEANS instead of explaining. Risker 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The letter

User talk:QuackGuru suggests on my talk page that my two cents might make a difference here. So my two cents is that the Essjay letter is relevant, sourced, and important. Exactly how it is included in the article is not too important. May I suggest putting all talk of it in a footnote? I mean, I don't think it should go in a footnote, but sometimes that is a workable compromise. I suggest we all accept this compromise and move on to other issues. And if you implement this idea and Quack still quacks, then I'll side with you guys on deleting it altogether; so Quack if they go for this then take your vacation from wikipedia or at least from this article, ok? WAS 4.250 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Blog_Insights:_Wikipedia's_great_fraud-1] Cite error: The named reference Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Guardian-2] Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Guardian-3] Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Blog_Insights:_Wikipedia's_great_fraud-4] Cite error: The named reference Blog Insights: Wikipedia's great fraud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 :::Well, I suppose it might be appropriate to quote a blogger's statement that she personally received correspondence from anyone; some of that would depend on the reliability of the individual blogger, and does not speak to the weight such a statement should be given.  That isn't the case here, of course.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 ::::Editors have expressed there support for the Essjay letter claim. Further, Essjay used his ''invented identity,'' vouching for the accuracy of Wikipedia. He ''claimed'' he had sent a letter to a real world professor. The ''Guardian'' is already considered a reliable source since it is used in this and many articles on Wikipedia. There are two solid references to use for the Essjay tidbit. Moreover, the letter is highly relevant. Essjay used his ''fictitious persona'' and his ''false credentials'' in this case. I am neutral on the wording of the letter tidbit. Any suggestions. :) - <b><font color="669966">[[User:QuackGuru|Mr.Gurü]]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>[[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/QuackGuru|contribs]]</sub></font>) 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
+:::::Here is another suggestion. We do not need to use the reliable ITWorld reference. The solid Guardian reference is more than plenty. This reference is currently in the article. Therefore, it is reliable and verifiable.
+:::::At some point, Essjay sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials, vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy.<ref name="Guardian"/> In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."<ref name="Guardian"/>[http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html]
+:::::Regards, :) - <b><font color="669966">[[User:QuackGuru|Mr.Gurü]]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>[[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/QuackGuru|contribs]]</sub></font>) 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 == New screenshot of [[User:Essjay]] available ==