Talk:Essjay controversy

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

News sources - Moved from article to talk page here

In the absence of opposition here [1], I have moved the News sources section from the article to the talk page. This way, they are still available for editing purposes but do not clutter the article itself. Please note that information from several of these news sources is already included in the article proper, and has been appropriately referenced.

Primary sources

It is time to get rid of any primary sources that are not directly referenced in the articles. Many of them have made their way into the media now so we have secondary sources, and several of them are unrelated to the article as it is currently written. I realise this may be contentious, so I am putting it here first before deleting anything. Risker 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, move them to talk (or a talk subpage) along with the uncited news articles. --tjstrf talk 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't see a point in keeping the primary sources that are uncited in news articles, and I will remove them. Risker 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Thanks, someone else beat me to it. Risker 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing primary sources makes sense. As time goes by more and more of these details can be properly gotten from reliable sources so there's really not much need for them. (→Netscott) 16:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they were a tolerable cheat to begin with, I didn't think they were needed, never mind they provided a big docking target of self-referentiality for this article's critics. Gwen Gale 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage images and photo

With the article in its current, fully supported and un-self referential context, I don't understand the need for Essjay's userpage images (never mind their sourcing is a bit thin, that's not what I'm wondering about). Comments anyone? Gwen Gale 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is. They show in context the claims made in the article. Illustrations are as good for this as words.DGG 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to them would make more sense, as they are an illustration of words. In the thumbnail view they tell you nothing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a link would be more helpful and less self-referential. Gwen Gale 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are they illustrating? The userpage image doesn't support a thing - no credentials on it. The Wikia page has nothing to do with the article, which is about his editing on Wikipedia. And the photo is gratuitous. Risker 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the gallery as both superfluous and too thinly sourced (if at all). If someone wants to put in external links to these images (not to Wikipedia project pages, however) I'm ok with that but can't speak for other editors. Gwen Gale 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen Gale's removal. (→Netscott) 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep - Agree - I was never that comfortable about the inclusion of the photo. As far as the screenshots are concerned, I'm not bothered if they are in but I don't think they add to the article so might as well be removed. Munta 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with removing the screenshots- they should be treated as source and not part of the article (which they add nothing to...). WjBscribe 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as well. I was thinking of doing it myself, but Gwen was braver than I. Thanks, Gwen. :) ElinorD (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of images

It has already been discussed the pictures were useful and many contributors wanted the pictures in the article. Please do not remove again when people expressed to keep. No wikilawering. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering? Gwen Gale 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is rather disagreeable to see that term used so loosely. Such usage isn't very civil. (→Netscott) 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, consensus can change, as it seems to be doing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The people who wanted the images in the article have NOT expressed change in keeping. Consensus was reached to keep images. Thier [sic] consensus has NOT changed. Can we say wikilawering?! QuackGuru ^TALK 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd been through this already. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, see this → WP:CCC. (→Netscott) 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically: WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change. (→Netscott) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I agree with that. I just don't forsee any consensus forming here. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

END OF DISCUSSION on IMAGE REMOVAL!

The folks trying to get the screenshots removed are making some of the most asinine wikilawyering arguments I have ever heard.

The screenshots are referenced to DEAD LINKS. One is right now in Google cache HERE. Now, from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They will not be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

However, The other is not in Google cache. Now again from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

End of discussion!

C.m.jones 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is easy to verify the screenshots. Just get an e-mail from someone at the Foundation who will verify them. Then we file this e-mail appropriately for others to view for all time to come. We do this with other agencies, we can do it with Wikimedia. Johntex\^talk 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, we have long-standing precedent that images have much less in the way of verifiability that is required. Otherwise we could never have users upload images of locations where they personally took the photographs (for example). Let's not wikilawyer about this. JoshuaZ 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm going to ask this question again, broadly now: Is anyone saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering about these screenshots/images? Gwen Gale 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No jones, not the end of the discussion, we discuss forever and consensus can change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me, Gwen Gale. The removal of these images is an editorial decision. The presence of these images is not supported by the text of the article itself, therefore they should not be there. Essjay's image (whether his or not) has nothing to do with the subject of the article. An image of his user page that doesn't have the controversial credentials on it is probably worse than no image of the user page at all. Risker 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, truth be told I was mostly asking C.m.Jones and QuackGuru, who have both used the term, Gwen Gale 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry to much Gwen, I for one don't take those allegations seriously. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, what are you all afraid of. You know, letting the images stay up and letting a discussion about it go on for a week or so??? What;s the big huge rush?? (No-brainer inferred answer already taken). C.m.jones 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't have any relevant information, it is an editorial decision. Consensus can change at whatever speed the editors manage to change it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My worry is self-reference along with pileon. If the article breaks WP policy it can be attacked by editors who want it erased. If it seems like it carries unsupported, negative PoV about Essjay, the article loses credibility and hence is less helpful to readers looking for a supported, verifiable take. Gwen Gale 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mob Attack

The next step might be to report this incident to the noticeboard. Again, many contribtors [sic] expressed to keep images. Their consensus has NOT changed. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Save for the fact that it might waste folks' time I'd say by all means head on over to WP:AN or WP:ANI and make a report. (→Netscott) 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a input from uninvolved people will settle this, but I think they will tell you that consensus can change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey QuackGuru, to nick the words of a widely known arbcomm member, I would think long and hard before taking this to the admin noticeboard. Gwen Gale 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice.... back to protection. Come on folks... (→Netscott) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, this article has had a very rapid evolution. As it has progressed, and more and more reliable sources have been identified, the need for such stop-gap measures as those images, the primary sources, and the mountain of external links has decreased. They are no longer helpful to the article. Risker 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, so too. Gwen Gale 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreeance as well over here. (→Netscott) 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And another Munta 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I reject the notion that repeating the mantra concensus can change is really going to cause it to happen. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I don't wanna sound like an echo here or anything but I agree with that too. I based my rm'l of the screenshots on WP policy against self-reference along with concerns about NPoV. Gwen Gale 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Consensus has changed". That much is clear from recent discussions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

* it, echo that. Gwen Gale 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No consensus has been reached. Further, many editors have stated previously they want to maintain the images in the article. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So then we are back to where we were before, WP:NPOV and WP:SELF. So: Who's POV these pictures represent? Answer: no ones that I can tell. What part of WP:SELF applies to these screenshots? It doesn't; we're allowed to have articles about wikipedia, so of course we can have articles containing screenshots of wikipedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick image survey

The following content is under discussion:

---

• 
  Screenshot of Google's cache of Essjay's Wikipedia user page, March 1 2007
• Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007
  Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007
• 
  Image posted by Essjay as himself

---

Here's where it looks like we stand of the folks voicing themselves in this image discussion:

• For images:User:DGG, User:Kendrick7, User:C.m.jones, User:QuackGuru
• Not for images:User:WJBscribe, User:ElinorD, User:HighInBC, User:Gwen Gale, User:Risker, User:Netscott, User:Munta
• For photo, against page images: User:Doug Bell

Is this right? (→Netscott) 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks right to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forgot JoshuaZ, he takes Saturdays off I believe. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about previous discussion (of which User:JoshuaZ was a part of), I'm talking about this one. (→Netscott) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having had a cup of tea, I keep coming back to the idea that these images are now superfluous to the article; they just aren't all that pertinent[2]. The user page image, in particular, is a version that does not include the much-discussed credentials and thus fails to support the information in the article. I think we need to be absolutely clear why each of those images should be in the article - those of you who feel they should stay, please give your reasoning based on policy/guidelines so that we can reach a consensus. Risker 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. Therefore a keep. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you cannot just say there is no consensus and expect that to change anything. The consensus is clear, deal with it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You really should refamiliarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually does contain the crendentials; it doesn't mention the exact degrees he claimed to have. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The false credentials are fully described and cited from independent sources in the article text. Why is a picture of text so helpful? (my question is sincere) Gwen Gale 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think the message we are being given by this block is that it is time for us to sit back as a group of interested editors and make some editing decisions based on the current, evolved status of the article. The last time we had a discussion about the images was two days ago, and there have been dramatic changes and a ton of new reliable sources since then. It's entirely reasonable that we look at the article as a whole and see what is missing and what no longer needs to be there. Risker 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My rational for keeping is still WP:ENC; these could be of interest in 100 years, maybe not. I'm pressed to a good reason to exclude them. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) btw, can someone archive the talk page? my comp is giving up the ghost

I'd like to see more input here then. Meanwhile I'm asking protection be lifted, I'm indifferent as to whether the images are tucked onto the bottom of the article while we try to stabilize it and find out what the consensus truly is. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lifted protection, but if the edit warring continues it will have to go right back on. Please discuss before making any further changes. Thanks. Trebor 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha way to go QuackGuru, thanks for talking about it before leaping in to put the images back. :) So leave 'em in for now and let's see what others have to say. Gwen Gale 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I save remove them. Munta 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think they should be removed, what changed, why are they back? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked for protection to be removed and QuackGuru leapt through the window of opportunity to restore the images and revert a bunch of other stuff too. Gwen Gale 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote KEEP the damn images. Say no to censorship. --Jayzel 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the images. The fact that Essjay claimed the false bio was to protect privacy and yet posted a free image is further evidence of his duplicity. —M (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • This is not a censorship issue, the fact is that self references are to avoided when independent reliable sources will do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why

Mr. Ryan [sic] was a friend,... Why is there a [sic] here? QuackGuru ^TALK 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He's Mr Jordan. Wales wasn't familiar with his true name yet, I guess. Gwen Gale 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Great work. QuackGuru ^TALK 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think you have been wholly disruptive, heedless and uncivil. Meanwhile this mangled and re-protected article speaks loudly as a witness to your skill as a Wikipedia editor. Gwen Gale 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While normally it's adviseable to discuss contributions and not contributors on article talk pages I agree with Gwen Gale here. (→Netscott) 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have politely asked QuackGuru to return to this talk page and explain the editorial judgement he used in the edits he made. Unfortunately, he seems to have viewed my request as an ad hominem attack. I am at a loss as to what the appropriate next steps would be. Risker 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action would be the undo changes made against consensus and enforce 3RR. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me - QuackGuru seems uninterested in discussing consensus so I think there is little other alternative Munta 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The behaviour was clearly willfull and there's no evidence it'll stop. Gwen Gale 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in discussing the topic in the above subsection, and would very much like to hear why that information should not be included in this article. 100DashSix 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

100DashSix, there are several arguments against including this link. From my own perspective, the primary one is that it is original research; the entirety of this statement has not been published by a reliable, secondary source. Sections of it have been published now, and are included in the article proper. Removing the link at this point is part of the process of cleaning up an article that is getting close to a stable version. Risker 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that another source has not duplicated his talk page, but I do not see how the linked information is somehow more unsubstantiated than, say, a link to a zdnet blog that does not cite from where it retrieved the included quote (http://blogs.zdnet.com/keen/?p=108, reference #11 in the current article, used to avoid 'original research').

It is, from my perspective as a relative newcomer to this topic, easy to perceive this omission as a deliberate attempt to hide unflattering information. The linked information is not obtainable without visiting Essjay's retired user page, visiting this page's retired discussion, and finding an italicized link at the bottom regarding "last revision before departure." Is anyone here familiar with: "[the plans] were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on it saying "beware of the leopard" ?" 100DashSix 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, we share the same literary taste. ;) This is a particularly thorny issue, because under other circumstances, links to people's user pages are not permitted in articles. If we are going to go against that practice, then we have to have a very clearly articulated, well thought out, logical reason to do so. "Because it's hard to find otherwise" isn't quite there yet. Risker 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Because those who read this article for the first time will be left with the question: he sounds like a jerk, but how can I tell?" Should we not let them answer this question by linking the page? Perhaps this is not a good reason, in which case I hope someone else will come up with a convincing one, as I feel it should be included, but lack the knowledge of Wikipedian arguments to convince those familiar with the system of rules and conventions. 100DashSix 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. And glad you like Douglas Adams.)

Okay, as there seems to be consensus against protection, I'll unprotect again (and probably could have judged this better from the start). User:QuackGuru is on a warning that any further reverts without discussion will result in a block. I'll ask again that any edits be made with at least a modicum of consensus on this page, and that if you disagree with the edit please discuss instead of reverting. Thanks. Trebor 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I propose reverting back to this revision by Doug Bell. Gwen Gale 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That version is cluttered and hard to follow when reading. I organized each section for flow and easy reading. It was merely cosmetic. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice between the two versions, the Doug Bell one is easier to read from my perspective. Having said that, perhaps we need to compare the two indices to figure out where the middle ground lays, and what information needs to go into which section to better organize the contents and identify what we still need to add. Risker 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When I compare Doug's reivision that with the current article[3] the only substantial difference is the image gallery and a few section titles. What's this argument about exactly? (Speaking of section titles, does anyone have an idea for a better name for the "proposed solutions in the coming months" section? It sounds ackward.) --tjstrf talk 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, with the re-factoring you and I have done since the lift that's about all there is left. Gwen Gale 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So do we have consensus to kill/keep the images yet? --tjstrf talk 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rm them please, WP:SELF, WP:NPOV (undue weight). Gwen Gale 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think the images should be removed, I like the wording by Doug Bell that Gwen suggested. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur that they should be removed because nobody has yet justified why they should stay in. Having said that, the article has already been protected once on this issue today, and I am not exactly sure we have consensus yet. Risker 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above sections of talk suggest tipping towards removal of at least the screen shots... with Doug Bell holding out on the photo shot. With User:C.m.jones and User:QuackGuru out of reverts for today I doubt an edit war would recommence though. (→Netscott) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because I see a consensus to remove the images. I suppose there is no harm in waiting though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From my earlier survey of today's discussion I'm seeing 75% in favor of removing the screenshots and 25% in favor of keeping them.... User:tjstrf's view would secure a general consensus about this right now though with a support for removal. (→Netscott) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. Doug Bell is welcome to give his reasoning as to why the photo is more relevant than the screenshots, but since he never explained himself it's hard to see why he says that. --tjstrf talk 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the first two images should be kept. Unless I am very much mistaken, they serve as the sole record of how this user chose to present himself on his own user page, and this information is directly relevant to the topic; it is a record of his personality that is otherwise lost due to his "retired" status. I imagine that a first time reader of this article would find a direct copy of his words worthwhile. 100DashSix 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sole record? The article text handles that rather pithily with full support from independent, reliable sources. Why is his personality notable? I thought it was agreed that this article wasn't about Essjay, but about the Essjay controversy. Only my thoughts, mind :) Gwen Gale 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, which referenced article has a direct copy of his user page on Wikipedia and Wikia? Perhaps the scope of this article is smaller than what I think it is or should be, but I'd like to see archived information about this person's dishonest actions; these actions constitute the true controversy, not the fact that a news outlet caught him. 100DashSix 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF. Anyway the scope of the article is as the title says. I don't think a snap of his userpage adds a thing and yes, the article puts it rather starkly that he was dishonest about his academic background. Gwen Gale 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I accept your argument that this article is only about him as a person insofar as his dishonest credentials. I submit, then, that the information about him personally (only regarding his involvement with Wikipedia, edits he made, people he interacted with and how they feel) is interesting in and of itself and deserves content-space somewhere. Also, this information has direct relevance to criticisms & support of Wikipedia and consequently should not be lost or hidden. 100DashSix 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I so do agree that project space information about the Essjay controversy mustn't be dropped down the memory hole. So put it up on a free blog or web-page somewhere, it's GFDL, after all and meanwhile let's work to preserve those project pages. The article however, is in the encyclopedia space and is built under very clear policies as to citation, NPOV and narrative. Gwen Gale 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're gonna have to disagree on that then :) Gwen Gale 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't apply, see WP:SELF#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself. Feel free to continue being wrong, and I will feel free to continue restoring the images. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, RE:100-6) Then link to it from your userpage or something. Essjay is not himself a notable individual outside of Wikipedia, except for his starting a messy PR fiasco, so neither is his userpage. --tjstrf talk 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These images are directly related to the Essay controversy, which is the topic of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, exactly how do essentially unreadable thumbnails of userpages help this article? The WP user page does not include the credentials that caused the uproar (except the professorial claim)-and those are already discussed and better sourced in the article. The Wikia userpage tells even less - and again the information is better sourced in the article. Risker 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SELF does apply, as this self reference is not needed as a primary source to confirm information in the text, which can be supported by secondary sources. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with User:HighInBC. Besides the primary source question, Wikipedia in general is not considered a reliable source. (→Netscott) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they pass WP:V. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They do pass WP:V IMO (my worries are strictly sr and pileon). Gwen Gale 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is not the only one thing to consider, there is relevance, and self reference to consider too. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to convince me they are irrelevant. Go on. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Now this might be a nitpick but those blockquotes seems awfully over-dramatic to me. Wales and Essjay aren't Charlotte Bronte and Karl Popper, for example. Why not straight quotes like, uhm, a text? Gwen Gale 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think quotes that are too long and included in text are ugly. Put 'em in a block quote just for style. (This is just me voicing personal preference, I have nothing to back it up other than "I think long quotes look prettier as block quotes") --Dookama 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But two sentences are not "long". According the the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 11.12, block quotes are usually reserved for >100 words or eight lines of text. There are other exceptions, but the quotations here do not seem to fil those requirements either. My opinion is that both gramatically and æsthetically speaking, these {{cquote}} tags for tiny excerpts are improper. -- Avi 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This Is A News Worthy Story About How Wikipedians Are Editing the Essjay Controversy Article.

Serious Questions:

Currently the quotes are gone from the "Wales response" and "Essjay's response" and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step forward in this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading.

Any suggestions? QuackGuru ^TALK 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there you are on the talk page! Good. Your overdramatization with this headline seems slightly disruptive but better than mindless non-discussion reverting. Which line is factually inaccurate? (→Netscott) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Whoever is reading this: eyes in the sky above; notice the words above: disruptive and mindless) The first sentence of the Essjay's letter. Compare it now to the prior version earlier. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Which line is factually inaccurate? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm tired or something but I'm not seeing a factual difference between the two versions myself. (→Netscott) 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify QG, are these 'your'questions or someone else's? Risker 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) Thanks for your replies above. Essjay's advocacy letter: The first line of the first sentence is confusing. QuackGuru has fixed a previous confusing sentence that had a reference. References must back up the sentence but more importantly as to not to cause a hint of confusion. Reconsider a rewrite to the dispute of the sentence. QuackGuru has many more questions as stated above that weren't responsed to. A response would be appreciated and noteworthy. A widespreadedness discussion about the body of the article is warranted. Many questions have not been appropriatly addressed. How will there be collaboration? Please tell us. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I asked whether these were your questions or someone else's, because if they are someone else's, it would be good to have that person join in this conversation directly. I apologize that my inquiry could have been perceived as a comment on you personally, as that was not my intent. While I do not necessarily agree with some of your positions, I respect you as an editor. Risker 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, to whom are you addressing yourself when you make little notes like this: "(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) "? That strikes me as unecessary and uncivil. The way that you've titled this section of talk it is normal for editors to be wondering if you are asking questions on another's behalf. I wondered this myself. (→Netscott) 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Many questions have been raised above without appropiate attention. Please consider answering the questions for the betterment of the article. Thank you QuackGuru ^TALK 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly answer my question: Whom are you addressing with such seemingly unecessary commentary? (→Netscott) 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have reinserted the blockquote wikification as suggested by Dookama (the quotes were there, just part of the text). Risker 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I took them out, see above section for why. -- Avi 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the quote from the advocacy letter. The quote within the article has not changed for some time, and is as referenced; only the introductory sentence has been modified. Risker 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter has not thoroughly been discussed on the talk page about the various aspects to the style and organization of this article. Many questions have been raised without any appropriate responses to the specific questions at hand. In this situation, when other editors have ignored questions, what is the next step to take. After discussion, on the talk page, then can editing begin to orgainize the sections in a resonable time appropiated. The edits speak for themselves. I did a good job of organizing the sections. Currently there is a huge reactions section. It is recommended to divide that section into to separate sections and put back the styling of the quotes to Wales' response and Essjay's response. I see nothing wrong with restoring the images. We (amomg many editors) do not understand the reason behind the image removal. For example, Mr. Wales has a picture of himself in an article about him. Their is a clear pattern among editors. I want to include information and organize the article. All my edits have been to organize and maintain accuracy. Addtionally, I removed the links under the references because that was clutter under the references. That was not a revert. There was a long list of links which has not been put back in the article. That affirms that edit. Someone added incorrect info to the article and I remove it and replaced it with a >fact<. Because of that effort it has been corrected now. That affirms that edit. I organized many sections. Although some of my organizations have been removed, but some still remain. That affirms organizing the sections. There is still some organizing left though. At the moment it seems a bit cluttered. Again a huge section under reactions is undue weight. I suggest to divide it into two headings. I still believe there can be an improvement for style and organization of sections. Any suggestions. Please comment to better the quality of this article. This is essential. Thank you. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ignoring your comments, QG. I've taken the opportunity to review this whole page and ferreted out a couple of other issues that need to be addressed as well. I've grouped them together here: [4]. Can you please review this list and add in any issues that are not identified there? This might be an appropriate time to seek out opinions from "fresh eyes", and it would be easier for them to see what we know still needs to be resolved. Thanks. Risker 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. The neutrality is now disputed. This article is in need of an expert to organize the sections for better flow of reading. Clearly, its "undue weight" to have such a long reactions section. Please divide the reactions section into two separate sections. QuackGuru ^TALK 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

q for Quackguru

What other editors disagree with the current consensus besides yourself and Dab? Please list them and diffs/links showing they oppose. - Denny 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the way

to deal with really controversial topics--and this one counts as such at least around here--is to rely on quotes--and the screen shots are essentially quotes. The article should be built around them.DGG 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But not quotes from a reliable source. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting what the screenshots say (and using the screenshots as a source) is one thing. But what does including the screenshots achieve? They are not readable in the size they would appear in the article, so are just pictoral links. What does having them achieve? WjBscribe 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't quote what the screen shots say or use them as a source. That would be WP:OR. All we can do is present them as they existed as such. Of course, you realize these thumbs act as links the curious can click on and see a bigger version? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify exactly what this article is about

I'm afraid we are all getting trapped in the minutiae again, which is to be expected when many of us have been working on this article for a few days running. So let's step back and reaffirm exactly which article we are writing here.

What it is not: An article about Essjay and his actions. I think the point is widely conceded that Essjay should not have claimed credentials that he did not have, and that he used those non-existent credentials inappropriately.

What it is: An article about the resultant reaction to the discovery that Essjay had claimed credentials he did not have and had used them inappropriately. The issue is not that Essjay did something wrong, it is that his error created a firestorm of reaction, both inside and outside Wikipedia. It is this reaction that we are trying to document in this article.

Have I missed something here? Risker 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, unless something has been reported by a reliable source, then we should not include it. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are not relevant unless a reliable source has featured the content. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again User:Risker (along with User:Gwen Gale) bringing clarity to the editing/discussion here. Totally agree... which explains why the "reactions" section is the size it is (at least up to this point). (→Netscott) 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from some of the other editors who have also been working hard on this article. QuackGuru? DGG? It's important that we are heading in the same direction, or we will wind up with more edit warring and frustration. Your perspectives are important. Risker 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the nut graf here, is that he lied to the media about his credentials, claiming what was on his user page was true (gee, we should get a screenshot of that...) when in fact it wasn't. That was his cardinal sin, as a professor of theology might put it. So it is about that action, and what resulted from that action. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the screen shot of the user page that is kicking around right now doesn't list any of the problematic credentials except the professorship. I could probably go for a screen shot of his user page on the day the article appeared, but that doesn't exist. And I have to tell you that I can't think of another page on Wikipedia where a screenshot like that would be considered acceptable - not for content reasons, but because it is barely identifiable, let alone legible, in the thumbnail size. Risker 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the nut graf, though. It should be reworked. Risker 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it is a good point that the shot doesn't exactly correspond with what the author of the article saw. Still thinking about that one.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was only about the reaction, then wouldn't the article be named Reaction to the Essjay controversy? --Dookama 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues remaining to be resolved

Based on the active threads on the talk page right now, the following issues remain to be resolved in this article:

• Lead section is weighted on the inciting activity rather than the controversy itself (identified by User:Kendrick7)
• Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)
• Images of Essjay's Wikipedia user page, Wikia user page, and photo uploaded by Essjay continue to be an issue based on comments from several editors
• Whether or not the full text of Essjay's post to his Wikipedia user talk page, dated 15:06 on 1 March 2007 and titled "My response" should be included in the article as a direct link to userspace, or if the quoted section of this post currently in the article is sufficient (identified by User:QuackGuru)

I think this is an accurate summary of the key issues to be addressed at this point. Is there anything else I have missed? Risker 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually perfectly happy with the lead as is. Not sure where we are on that one.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, the new lead is rather more succinct. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were right on target there. After working on the same article for so long, it was easy for us to get some tunnel vision. Good to have a fresh set of eyes on board. Risker 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

About the user page screenshots

OK, so it seems that a majority of editors feel that the images of the screenshots of Essjay's Wikipedia and Wikia pages are inappopriate, for various reasons. I can understand that. But I feel that the ability to see Essjay's claimed identity in the context in which he presented it is useful for readers of the article. Some users have suggested that links to cached versions of these pages would be acceptable. One possible problem: the only site that I know of which has all of these screenshots is Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch. It has screenshots of Essjay's user page from August 2005, during the period when it contained the degree claims, and his Wikia page from the period when he identified himself as Ryan Jordan, "a 24 year old guy from Kentucky". These seem to me to be two key visual elements of the story which readers may wish to see.

The question is whether it would be acceptable to link to Wikipedia Watch or not. Daniel Brandt does, but of course that article is perpetually on AfD and probably shouldn't be cited as an example. How do other editors feel about possibly adding external links to these two pages on Wikipedia Watch [5] [6]? Is this an acceptable compromise on the image/screenshot issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be. Linking to cached versions is nothing but an indirect way of inserting the exact same self-reference, and linking to troll sites especially should be discouraged. --tjstrf talk 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the running issue that screenshots can be modified (having had that happen to me in Real Life, I have no question about that), and Mr. Brandt and Wikipedia Watch are hardly impartial in this situation. Risker 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...wonder if that means Daniel Brandt is notable?

I'd have to say I like this idea a bit less. (1) Daniel Brandt's site can be considered a reliable source? (2) Possible conflict of interest given that Brandt supposedly has been directly involved in all of this. (→Netscott) 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(reply after several edit conflicts) I'm no fan of Brandt's, but I'm not sure that "troll site" is a particularly useful characterization. And I didn't think that self-reference was the problem, exactly — as Kendrick points out above, WP:SELF#Writing about Wikipedia itself indicates that self-reference in an article about Wikipedia is unavoidable and non-problematic.

The question I see is whether Wikipedia Watch can be considered a reliable and verifiable source. For most purposes, it almost certainly wouldn't be, but an argument can be made that for the subject of this article, the Essjay controversy, it may be considered a reliable source for the perspective of one participant in the affair. (Recall the definition of a reliable source, from WP:ATT#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. ") Verifiability is more problematic: I happen to know (because I'm a Wikipedia admin, and can see the deleted content) that the screenshot of Essjay's Wikipedia is accurate and has not been altered, but a random reader of this article can't verify that. On the other hand, the standard for links to external sites are not quite the same as the standards for sources — many featured articles contain links to sites which provide additional information about their subjects, but which would not be acceptable sources for claims in the article.

I can see both sides on this one, but I do think that on balance these links would benefit the article, and their inclusion might be a compromise between those who support and those who oppose the inclusion of the screenshots as images. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do all this. We already have the screenshots on the wikipedia. If people aren't happy with the thumbs nails we can always use the leading colon notation [[:like this]] to just link the the images themselves. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have the same screenshots. The Wikia one is only a partial page and does not include Essjay's credentials. The Wikipedia one is from March 2007. I'm not advocating a link to Wikipedia Watch, I just don't want to lose sight of what we do and don't have right now. Risker 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought he didn't lie about his credential on Wikia? But OK, I looked at Brandt's screenshots. That was also published on Slashdot[7], though of course, the link is now dead. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised lead

I have revised the lead to be more in keeping with the title of the article, that is, the focus on the controversy. I've left the citations blank for the various media right now, because I'd appreciate input from other editors on how many citations we would need to add for each one. The easy way would be to use references we already have in the article, and we certainly couldn't include all of the outlets that have referred to the story (which is over 100, if I remember correctly). Opinions? Risker 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Gwern is of the opinion they are not needed. Risker 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already had to make some changes. "Jordan" appeared out of nowhere in the third paragraph after your changes, because he now wasn't identified until later in the article. The fact tags in the second paragraph were redundant at best, because the first paragraph already referred to media sources. There were even spacing problems between paragraphs. Gwern and I fixed these problems. Really, though, the new lede seems less informative than the old, and I almost did a complete revert. But I didn't want to set off another edit war. Casey Abell 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Casey Abell and Gwern for jumping in. I have no intention of reverting anyone, so feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate, including reverting to the previous version if you feel that is best. The intention of my changes was to redirect focus on the controversy rather than the actions of an individual; however, I have no doubt my efforts can be improved upon. Risker 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comma placement

In English, commas go inside quotes in spite of logic. It's not "Essjay", it's "Essjay," which follows the standard punctuation convention. Many literate readers will tend to shake their heads at a comma placed outside quotation marks. Gwen Gale 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And many won't Glen 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That project page says it's ok in UK English but in truth it's more "tolerated" than "ok." Anyway I wanted to bring it up is all, it's not like I think my nitpicky change'll stick or anything :) Gwen Gale 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that the whole time I've been editing up here. I always thought it was inside, but having seen in incorrect so often, I was having serious doubts. Thanks for the tip. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For those wanting a reference, check CMS 6.8 :) -- Avi 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of us (or at least me) find common sense preferable to grammatical correctness as regards this particular rule. --tjstrf talk 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

merge with extreme prejudice

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay_controversy

whatever happened to "no self-reference"? Wikipedia:Recentism? WP:UNDUE? This article is pure omphaloskepsis. Speedy merge into Criticism of Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism may be a problem, but this also is an international story. No merge required, or warranted. Also, please read WP:SELF - articles about Wikipedia are not bad "self-references." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do please cite any item of text in the article which is supported by a direct self-reference to Wikipedia's article space. I'll be happy to delete it myself. I thought they'd all been rm'd though. Thanks! Gwen Gale 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, anyway. The article is wholly sourced, has been widely documented in the media and stands on its own. Gwen Gale 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

sheesh, not self-reference then. Still a recentism, and way below Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Wikipedia does not, should not, and cannot cover every news headline, redirect and transwiki to wikinews then. 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge: Let this article mature and let the dust settle and then let's revisit the idea of deletion/merging. (→Netscott) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:N recently? This is getting to be silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge, clearly notable, don't see WP:UNDUE issues, we are fighting against self-references. That same issues would exist in the Criticism of Wikipedia, but it would be too large for it. This is fine, it just needs plenty of attention from people who uphold policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this has made foreign-language international press, so clearly notable enough. – Chacor 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Charcor and HighIn, clearly notable enough to stand on its own, and much too long to be merged into the already overly long criticisms article. JoshuaZ 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the Criticism of Wikipedia article should be shaved down. Interesting to see though that the whole section about Larry Sanger and his blog - you remember, the one that didn't fly in this article - seems to be present in that article. Not sure why his comments are more important in that article than, say, the New Yorker's. Also interesting that someone managed to get a screenshot of Essjay's user page from an unknown date, but one that includes the disputed credentials on the front page, and that it was uploaded on March 3rd. Also interesting that several people have edited both articles. Striking my comment that failed to assume good faith. Risker 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Right now, I do think that this article is superior and considerably less "navel-gazing" than the entry in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, so would not be bothered to merge it for the reasons noted by HighInBC and Chacor and others. Risker 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Press/Notability I think this ranks with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy in terms of coverage/public interest. (→Netscott) 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge. Notability/public interest trumps other interests, keep independent. - Denny 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

um, you cannot just claim it is notable. You'll have to show it is. Unless you do that, I would ask you not to remove the templates. It's not like I deleted the article: I placed these templates in good faith, and they should not be removed until the issue is resolved (as Netscott puts it, until the dust has settled). The article is categorized in "History of Wikipedia", "Scandals" and "Internet culture". I ask you, is it notable in the history of Wikipedia? Not yet at any rate, and "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball". Does it qualify as a notable scandal (think Dreyfus or Abu Ghraib)? Don't make me laugh. Is it a notable part of Internet culture? Notability is not popularity: popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable. I suggest we can branch the article off "Criticism of Wikipedia" once "Essjay" appears in hacker's jargon on similar. At this point, simply no case is being made as to why there should be an article on the topic except that it concerns Wikipedia (which is not a valid argument per "no self-references"). dab (𒁳) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

e/cDbachmann, with all respect due you've had two people revert you with a third gesturing to do so (User:JoshuaZ who apparently hadn't seen that the tags were already removed). This is becoming disruptive (in particular given the strong evidence of consensus right here). Kindly self-revert before someone has to revert you again. (→Netscott) 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just claim anything, I stated my opinion... which is backed by the AfDs and everyone's opinion. We have articles on Wikipedia also. This one is heavily sourced, and too big to merge I think, but no one person gets to make choices thankfully and have them stick (yours, mine). Everyone decides, but opinion seems to be to keep it seperate... - Denny 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is based on almost 300 articles now showing on a Google news search for Essjay, dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The plethora of mainstream sources brought in the article about the event and fallout should more than adequately suffice for a reasonable claim for notability. The {{notability}} tag is not warranted; further discussion of notability needs to be handled through AfD, which should be on hold for now as well. -- Avi 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More I think about this, I believe the notability tag is a tactic of disruption and I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at it, thanks. Gwen Gale 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Already gone... - Denny 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile the merge tag remains. Consensus is so far is overwhelmingly against a merge. The article already survived two AfD attempts with overwhelming consensus to keep. Why is this tag still on the article? Gwen Gale 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it stick for 24 hours, and then we'll remove it when the consensus is explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, we're in no rush; the article is solid as-is... - Denny 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But if people re-add it repeatedly/ongoing (the notability one too) after consensus shows it to be unsupported, remove it then as disruption. - Denny 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A 24 hr window sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to wait 24 hours... general consensus is clear on this. (→Netscott) 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is plenty of consensus already, this has been demonstrated to be notable 10 times over. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be settled, but just so I'm on the record about this:

• Oppose merge: the dozens of independent media citations listed above, including many from international sources, show that this is a notable event in itself. Criticism of Wikipedia is already 69 kB, which is another argument against a merge into that article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

q for Dab

Also, question for Dab... but your logic in your reply to me we should delete/merge John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Agree/disagree? And why, compared to this article? I am curious as to how you differentiate the two and why, and future articles like this, of this nature. Note that WP is notable enough itself to generate these stories more and more with each passing year... - Denny 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, following his highly PoV logic, one might merge Jimbo Wales with Internet. Gwen Gale 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the Siegenthaler case is already notable for the history of Wikipedia. It has resulted in major new guidelines (BLP) and software updates (semiprotection). Once the "Essjay" case gives rise to similar consequences, I will admit it deserves its own article, but not before. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So by your logic articles on things related to Wikipedia should only be kept if they significantly alter/change how WP does things... and discard the policies we use for every other article? Why should Essjay get extra protections/provisions that other articles dont? - Denny 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

like what policies? My entire point is that this is unnotable off-WP. People who keep removing the {{notability}} tag without addressing my concerns are trolling in my book. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Source for this? For the article

Gwen said: "dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia."

Do we have a source for this? Would be good for the article. - Denny 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this one then. Gwen Gale 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing it in there... I wasn't able to find it on Google with some searches of Jimmy refering to it as that? No worries if it was a paraphrase, just got me thinking that having that with RS would be great to settle some of the semantic squabbling. - Denny 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Add this one, citing WP as 9th most visited in US. Gwen Gale 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

QuackGuru has thrown up a neutrality tag. With all due respect to good faith editors who may not agree with me, I believe this is disruption following the warnings Quack was given by an admin about his edits here yesterday. Gwen Gale 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. (→Netscott) 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for an explanation because, as far as I know, neutrality hasn't been raised as an issue yet. Trebor 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case I would say the tag is less about neutrality, and more about not getting what he wants. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile what was Quack up to with this edit? Gwen Gale 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There may be errors occuring with MediaWiki judging by other edits on this talk page. (→Netscott) 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

I don't think anyone is blanking anything... my history/contribs lists are all screwed up somehow. anyone else seeing odd things? - Denny 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen of my oddness... MediaWiki is definitely having problems. - Denny 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, yes weird blankings are happening when I try to edit. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here, so let's not jump to any conclusions about anyone's edits for the next little while. Very odd. Risker 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For a second I was wondering why Gwen, Scott, and HBC were trolling me! :P somehow it blew away the preceding four edits and replaced it with the one that preceded mine. I'm almost expecting a random edit summary to appear saying "What am I looking at?" "Now, sir, you're looking at now." "When?" "Just now." - Denny 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also posted it to ANI... - Denny 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile when C.m.jones re-added the tags I could only grin wide :) Gwen Gale 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's happening at other pages too. See this post, which deleted a previous one, and which I fixed here. Perhaps people should be extra careful to check the diffs for their own edits as soon as they've made them, until this has been sorted out, because it's easier to replace eaten-up posts if you do it immediately! Or perhaps we should even stop posting for a while, and gather our thoughts together about what we want to post! ElinorD (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just a few minutes ago I saw a removal of a large swath of text by HighInBC with the edit summary 'blanking', and it was the last of several edits in a row by that editor. The edits are now gone. Anchoress 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh weird, now they're back in the history again. Anchoress 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and EXPERT tags

I completely agree with both tags. For the NPOV tag, a small group of abut 4 or 5 editors have apparently considered they WP:OWN this article and gone about bowdlerizing it. For the EXPERT tag, yes, an expert writer. Good gosh, this thing reads like it was written by a bunch of teenagers and like a hodge-podge of news stories rather than an encyclopedia article. See WP:FA?: (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. - C.m.jones 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, does the word civility mean anything to you, or was this worded that way on purpose? (→Netscott) 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My reply to C.m.jones: Codswallop. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. Gwen Gale 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Read the {{expert}} tag. "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" (emphasis added). If you believe the writing is poor, {{copyedit}} would be far more applicable, but I request some examples of where it can be improved before you add the tag. Trebor 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{copyedit}} connotes a few minor corrections and/or formatting. This article does not need minor but major re-writing work. C.m.jones 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not owning anything, we're discussing it. Concensus right now is just against these. 1. User:Gwen Gale, 2. User:HighInBC, 3. User:Avraham, 4. User talk:Trebor Rowntree, 5. User:DennyColt, 6. User:JoshuaZ, 7. User:Netscott, 8. User:Badlydrawnjeff, and 9. User:Risker all seem to be against the tags. Once consensus is achieved they can go in... if you are unhappy with something in the article, make suggestions here. Trying to edit war force tags onto the article against consensus is disruptive... - Denny 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

10 - User:Munta - Munta 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The expert tag is not warranted by any stretch of the imagination. As for the NPOV tags, do you have any specific concerns? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, you previously made a complete revision of the article; that revision left us with the article protected because of disputes about its sudden and mass change. But during the protection, it seems you were unwilling to consider modification of the revision you had developed, despite the fact that several editors were providing you with commentary on it. If you are willing to incorporate that critique into the revision you developed, then we'd have something to talk about here. I don't think anyone is expecting this article to get anywhere near featured article level in just over a week, with all the new information that has come in since it was initiated. (and yes I would be against the tags if I could get a post in edgewise) Risker 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why, with some specific examples. At any rate, you can see the {{expert}} tag is inappropriate, as it suggests an expert on the subject, rather than in writing. Trebor 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article needs it (I haven't read it in a bit), but what about: {{cleanup-rewrite}}? Anchoress 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's supported. Anyone, pls provide specific examples which can't be swiftly fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup-rewrite}} along with {npov}} is better. C.m.jones 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific than "better," thanks. Gwen Gale 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be specific about the way in which this article fails NPOV? Issues cannot be resolved until they are identified. Risker 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, unless you take the time to explain on this article's talk page why you feel those tags are necessary, there is really nothing for other editors to "see and comment on" per your edit summary when you put the tags back on just now. Even I am finding this disruptive. Risker 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

jones, Risker is right, explain what you mean or stop adding the tag. You are in violation of 3RR right now, I gave you a warning instead of a block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of article

This is a good idea, I appreciate the idea. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems the only way. Let's get this to GA status, then aim for FA. that is the only reason we're here, isn't it...? Link to the peer review. - Denny 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be satisfied of the article can be kept within policy. But hey, FA is a noble goal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review is a good idea. Thanks. Risker 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is still too new and fluid IMO, but I've already posted that on the peer review page . -- Avi 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible page move

As this has mostly to do with Wikipedia, should this article be moved to Essjay Wikimedia controversy, in the same vein as John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It does fall more in line with the pattern established by John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I don't know how many articles of this type there are, so I cannot tell if it is an exception or if it is the common naming convention. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it if it said "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikimedia;" the notability derives from the controversy as it affected Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Risker 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that title is a bit limiting myself. The Seigenthalere case revolved almost exclusively around what occured here on Wikipedia. The Essjay story involves The New Yorker, etc. I'm open to other titles though. (→Netscott) 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay credentials controversy or Essjay controversy or Essjay wiki controversy are all good, but I'd prefer them in the order listed. Lets not move it (again) yet though for at least a few weeks... - Denny 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the first one. Why not boldness? --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruption. Gwen Gale 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has already gone through 3 or 4 moves.... let's not WP:BOLD this one again... let's come to consensus on a new title and go from there. (→Netscott) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Netscott. A little stability is needed, both in terms of the article, as well as media coverage. A few weeks will make a significant difference, IMO. -- Avi 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

4pagemoves? I thought it was 2. Oh well, just as the peer review says, lets get this out of CE status, so we can deal with naming and encyclopedic copyedits. --w^{L<speak·check>} 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Pardon me, but did anyone happen to notice THE TOTALLY FREAKIN’ HUGE ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM?? HELLO?? The greater part of the whole Essjay scandal is not about Essjay and what he did (although that was certainly bad enough). The really scandalous part is how Essjay was dealt with, and not dealt with, at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I shall explain, since it would appear (*sigh*) that explanation is actually required.

It is simply not credible that an elaborate false CV would be created for any legitimate purpose. The only possible exception that I could see would be for matters involving national security (Will this be the next Essjay whopper? Tune in tomorrow!). You do not fabricate a false CV to protect your anonymity. You fabricate a false CV to perpetrate a fraud–to gain material advantages you otherwise could not obtain, or would not obtain until significantly later. This is exactly, and unsurprisingly, what happened.

The truly scandalous thing here is that not only was Essjay given a paid position at Wikia after self-exposing his fraud (while incidently creating a few new misrepresentations along the way), but that he was also rewarded several weeks later with a promotion to ArbCom here at Wikipedia! It was not until it was obvious to even the most obtuse that this whole thing was going to blow up into a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media that “God-King” Jimbo finally gave Essjay/Ryan Jordan/Whatever-His-Name-Really-Is the ol’ heave ho. It would appear, accordingly, that either Jimmy Wales is one of the biggest pollyannas that ever lived, or he is just as morally oblivious as Essjay himself, if not more so.

If after reading this you cannot understand why I am so throughly disgusted, then I pity you. I truly do. Edeans 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the forum to discuss this and frankly I'm not sure where on Wikipedia would be the place. You might try User talk:Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. This talk space if for how we as editors can improve this article. Please read: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I think it's ok to bring this up for context. Wales has said he made a mistake and has apologized, something a skilled leader might do when this kind of thing happens. That's helpful IMHO. Mind, Wales referred to Jordan as "Mr Ryan" even after he'd asked him to resign. Meanwhile if Edeans can find a verifiable citation from a reliable independent source supporting this take, by all means let's put it in the reaction section (or whatever it ends up being called). Gwen Gale 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a forum for people to express why they are " so throughly disgusted". (→Netscott) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree that's over the top but it's not like he's throwin' tags up on the article is it? Gwen Gale 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole notwithstanding, Edeans may well have a point that pro-and re-active responses to the controversy should be part of this article. If they can be sourced to the same level, and the same absolute care to prevent assumptions and conclusions and implicit points of view that we require for all biography-type articles. Much of the news coverage is about possible (or mistakenly assumed definite) reactions by Wikipedia (and Jimbo personally) to this event. -- Avi 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the hyperbole, but the substantive point is valid. A major part of this controversy concerns inportant positions that Essjay achieved after his false credentials were apparently known to Wikipedia higher-ups, including Jimmy Wales. I have added a very carefully worded sentence to the article which states that Larry Sanger criticized Wales on this issue. The sentence is referenced to Sanger's Citizendium blog, which is completely reliable as a source for the fact that Sanger made the criticism. Casey Abell 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's helpful. Gwen Gale 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs?

Reactions! We have co-founder Wales' response and we also need Larry Sanger's response to be fair. Thanks for the idea Edeans. Your comments has expanded the article because you gave me an idea. I will add Larry Sanger's response. QuackGuru ^TALK 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really simple, if there is a reliable source that we can attribute to, we include it, otherwise we do not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Sanger from his blog, is that OK under WP:ATT? Blogs in general are not, but someones own blog as a source for their own reaction should be. -- Avi 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sourcing Sanger from his blog is not ok, I've rm'd it. Never mind there could be a question of whether or not Sanger's remarks are relevant at all in this article. However, I noticed Quack had restored the "I don't have a problem with it" quote, which I have retained and placed in chronological order earlier in the article. Gwen Gale 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs that fall under the editorial control of reliable sources can generally be considered reliable themselves but personal blogs generally are not considered reliable. (→Netscott) 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If links to Sanger's blog are to be included in this article then that should be based upon Sanger being mentioned in a reliable source relative to this article. I think in that case then there's a case for a link. (→Netscott) 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more clear? Do you think citing Sanger in his own blog qualifies as a reliable independent source or not? Gwen Gale 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well optimally a reliable source that quotes him would be the best. What I am saying is that as the article stands now there's no reason to be quoting Sanger. He's not mentioned anywhere in the article so it looks odd if suddenly there's this quote from him. If a reliable source mentioning him can be worked into the article and his relativity to the article in terms of this controversy can be established then I don't see why he couldn't be included so long as primary source policy is abided by. (→Netscott) 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. So someone might want to find a reference to this Sanger quote somewhere other than on his blog. By the bye, what does everyone think of the "co-founder" title given to Wales in the article (yes, it's supported by the citations but we all know what it's about don't we). Thoughts? Gwen Gale 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Being well aware that this statement is outside of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, isn't it a little dumb to be saying, "This notable person who nobody thinks had no effect in getting Wikipedia off the ground can't be quoted straight from his blog -- but if he was at a news conference and said the exact same thing, we'd allow it."?--Dookama 11:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with saying he claims to be co-founder. Gwen Gale 11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent + ec) It's my understanding that using a person's own blog as a source is acceptable if you are quoting them. However, why Sanger's comments have any relevance is beyond me. He hasn't been involved in Wikipedia in over 5 years, and he now runs a competing project (tangential comment removed). His involvement in the "creation" of Wikipedia is debatable depending on who you ask. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Netscott and BBatsell here; Sanger has no role in this episode. If anyone else thought he was important, they would have interviewed him or linked to his blog. Seems to me that was one of the problems we had with C.m.jones' version of things. We have dozens of news sources here that haven't been included in the article, and I would think they might take priority. In any case, the Sanger quotes are already in the Criticism of Wikipedia article; having them here makes something redundant, and I am betting it would be considered this article. Risker 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say go with Netscott's suggestion that someone find a reliable independent source referring to the Sanger quote and putting it into context relative to this event before including it (or discussing it further, anyway). Gwen Gale 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales is "founder" not "co-founder"

To whomever keeps re-inserting "co-founder" as it applies to Jimmy Wales, this is inaccurate. While Larry Sanger had a core role in the establishment of Wikipedia, he is not considered a "co-founder" by the Wikipedia Foundation. Someone has taken to attributing the "co-founder" claim to a January 30, 2003 article from The Guardian, which states, "It's so successful that its founders, internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger, have started Wiktionary.org - a dictionary version." This is clearly incorrect -- as for one, Sanger had resigned a year earlier, on March 1, 2002! [8]

Not to turn this into a "war of attribution", but here are some of the many articles which list Wales alone as "founder". Choose any that one wishes for citation:

• Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales , The Guardian, Saturday November 4, 2006: "Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia." (no mention of Sanger)
• No. 7 Jimmy Wales, founder and chair, Wikimedia Foundation, Silicon.com "Agenda Setters 2006"

• Jimmy Wales - Time magazine, Apr. 30, 2006:"That such a remarkably open-door policy has resulted in the biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world is a testament to the vision of one man, Jimmy Wales."

• How Wikipedia Breaks News, and Adjusts to It, All Things Considered, NPR, February 9, 2007: "Robert Siegel talks to Jimmy Wales, founder and chairman emeritus of Wikipedia."

• Jimmy Wales will destroy Google - RU Sirius interviews Wales, 29 January, 2007 (transcript on 10ZenMonkeys.com): "In fact, Jimmie Wales is the founder of Wikipedia and remains the man in charge of what is essentially an Open Source encyclopedia."

• Wales himself has clarified what he believes to be the "founding" role of Larry, even breaking etiquette to edit his own bio -- as noted at a December 2005 Wired news article, which wrote,

“ Wales admitted he made the changes, but argued the edits were meant merely to emphasize a technical point about the specific roles the two had at the time.

"It's very neutral," he said. "The point wasn't to write Larry Sanger out of the story. I think Larry doesn't get enough credit."

”

--Leflyman^Talk 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Larry Sanger can be considered a "co-founder" of Wikipedia, is one of the most contentious issues ever, akin to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the sake of general peace and everybody's sanity, let's stay clear of that can of worms. 131.111.8.104 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I've rm'd all three references to it from the article (three?! methinks someone had something to flog there) Gwen Gale 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed; while Sanger, as an employee of Boomis, was an important early organiser during the first year of the project, he hasn't been a part of Wikipedia for the last five years. He has an historical place in the foundation, just as the many, many editors who helped shape what Wikipedia is today. But ultimately, sources list that Jimbo, as the leader of the whole shebang, is considered the "founder". --Leflyman^Talk 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but comparing this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is taking Wikipedia's history a bit more seriously than is warranted. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, I took it as a chatty, tongue-in-cheek but sincere simile, nothing more. Gwen Gale 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:-) 131.111.8.104 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales are both the Co-Founders of Wikipedia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Larry_Sanger/Origins_of_Wikipedia&oldid=39843351

According to Larry Singer he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. Also, there was a reference removed from the article that proves this too. End of discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=114430680&oldid=114426380

The co-founder's "Sanger's response" is therefore highly relevant, notable, and part of the story of the Essjay controversy. The reference to a blog from the personal blog of Larry Singer meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Have a nice day. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His own statement doth not make it so. -- Avi 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that Larry Sanger (not Singer btw) has claimed to be the co-founder of Wikipedia does not make him the co-founder of Wikipedia. I think you'll need a stronger basis than that to assert such a claim... WjBscribe 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I recommend that folks read Larry Sanger it seems fairly neutral point of view about this. (→Netscott) 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a reference in the article that stated he is the co-founder. The reference met Wikipedia's standard. AGF towards Larry please. I said, end of discussion. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean "end of discussion"? You're talking as though you own this page. You don't... kindly refrain from this and remain civil. (→Netscott) 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The brown nosing by editors in here is pretty sad. Do you score points by defending this revision of history? Do you think if Larry still worked for Wikipedia and if Jim and Larry were best friends, Sanger's co-founder status would even be on the radar? Oh course it wouldn't. He would still be called co-founder as he was way back when. I love Wikipedia because you can go back and see how articles err, "evovle" over time. This is one of the best examples of how material facts can "morph" over time. Its like whisper down the lane. Go back to any of the articles about Wales or Sanger or Wikipedia or its history and see how they have changed that co-funder fact. Larry who? Again, do you folks get points for defending this revisionist tale? I know, its like the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln article. In a few years time, more "material" will be fleshed out and ol' Abe will finally be outted of the closet and proven to be the homosexual that he was, right? Whatever, --Tom 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, not to put too blunt a point on it...this article already has all the controversial issues it can handle. This whole Wales/Sanger/co-founder stuff doesn't need to be here. There are more than enough sources for this article that it is not necessary to include Mr Sanger's personal thoughts. Risker 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Mr. Larry Sanger is the offical co-founder of the world's largest encyclopedia -- Wikipedia. QuackGuru ^TALK 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Larry Sanger's response is an essential part of the story. After all he is the co-founder no doubt. And yet, he directly responded to Mr. Jimmy Wales as the story unfolded. This belongs in the body of the article. QuackGuru ^TALK 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, no matter what you or I may call him, Sanger is only the "official co-founder" by his own contention-- not by attributable sources, and not by Jimmy Wales, who actually began the company and original encyclopedia that became Wikipedia, and has lead this project since its start. Sanger's place in history as being instrumental in getting Wikipedia off the ground in 2001 is secure-- but that doesn't make him a co-founder, any more than EssJay, who held a bevvy of titles, over a period twice as long as Sanger was here. Here's specifically what Wales said on the matter, when it was brought up a few months back at Talk:Citizendium#Clarification:

I have never agreed that Larry should be called co-founder and have contested it from the time when Larry awarded himself the title. Has Wikipedia made this error in the past many times? Yes, and so have the press. Nonetheless, it remains very much in dispute, and therefore it is always wrong to call Larry co-founder without at a bare minimum noting the dispute. In most cases, it is sufficiently irrelevant to a given mention of Larry that his self-awarded title need not be mentioned at all, in order to avoid pointing out that it is in dispute.--Jimbo Wales 13:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

--Leflyman^Talk 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to source a controversial claim barely relevant to the article from a statement on Wikipedia by the subject of the controversial claim? Even if you can make a case that Sanger is an essential part of this story, you have to find a source that isn't his personal blog. And if you want to claim he is the co-founder you're going to have to convince the rest of Wikipedia to change the articles on Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, and Jimbo Wales so we don't have articles with conflicting statements. From what I've seen you haven't even made a case that Sanger's statement is "essential."AniMate 03:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mr. Larry Sanger was the original person who thought of the Wiki concept. He and only he brought the idea to Mr. Jimmy Wales. I could make an arguement that Jimmy Wales is not the co-founder because it was Larry's idea not Jimmy's idea in the very very beginning.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030618043804/www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,884666,00.html QuackGuru ^TALK 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that having the idea is not the same thing as founding the reality. Founder would imply a financial backing or commitment, not simply being the person in the organization who first had the idea. Regardless, however, I don't see the relevance of this to this article. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter-of-fact, Larry Sanger is the originator of the concept of Wikipedia and not Jimmy Wales. Next, he was there in the beginning and was an essential part in uplifting Wikipedia on its feet and off the ground along with Jimmy. "Mr. Larry Sanger is the grandfather of Wikipedia." QuackGuru ^TALK 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if I take all of that at face value, "originator" does not necessarily equate to "founder"—which was the point of my previous post. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, isn't there enough controversy on this article already? Just word it so it doesn't matter one way or the other and forget about it. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ned. Either find that one citation where Jimmy Wales said Sanger was cofounder once--I've seen it, can't find it--or leave it neutral. - Denny 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Give it a try and put it in the heart of the article. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Quack...none of us is inclined to include it, and you know that any number of editors (not just the ones posting here) will edit out anything that isn't properly sourced. So...the ball is in your court. Frankly, I'm not sure why so much energy has been expended on something that is completely unrelated to this article, which is *about the controversy involving an editor who claimed credentials he did not hold*. Larry Sanger had nothing to do with this situation. At least I haven't seen a reliable source that indicates he had any involvement. Risker 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response

Initially Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, had said on the issue of Essjay's identity: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."

Soon after Larry Sanger, co-founder[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] of Wikipedia, responded to Wales on his Citizendium blog by writing in part:

There’s something utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic, about Jimmy telling The New Yorker that he doesn’t have a problem with Essjay’s lies, and by essentially honoring Essjay after his lies were exposed.... Doesn’t Jimmy know that this has the potential to be even more damaging to Wikipedia than the Seigenthaler situation, since it reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Wikipedia?

• Message: Who has the heart to firmly put this in the body of the article? Lets get this done and wrap this up. Are you going to read this talk page or are you going to start to act and edit the wiki way. This is a free encyclopedia where anyone can edit. Give it a try. QuackGuru ^TALK 06:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru...nobody else is going to do it for you. If you proceed, you need to be fully prepared to accept that someone else is likely to delete anything that is not properly cited, simply for the sake of accuracy and full sourcing. As well, other editors (and not just the ones who are posting here) may come along and make an editorial decision to remove it. The ball is in your court. Either make the edit or move on to another subject. Risker 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Message: The ball is in everybody's court. Anyone at any time can put it in the center of the article. Lets see what happens. QuackGuru ^TALK 06:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's opinion has absolutely no place in this article. None. Glen 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an impressive argument? Did you know that every time you type "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", etc., you are citing Sanger? CyberAnth 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, right down to the intial editorial comments, "move content - this whatcha want, LMS?" LMS = Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger, that does put things into perspective doesn't it? (→Netscott) 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless an external source has noted Sanger's response, then it shouldn't be included. Leaving behind founder/cofounder arguments, he left the project several years ago so there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for his response to be there (anymore than the dozens of blogs that included something on the matter). If the media haven't shown any interest in it, then neither should we. Trebor 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two sources have cited and linked to both blog posts QuackGuru wishes to add: http://www.webcitation.org/5NHN8wyHD and http://www.webcitation.org/5NHLsGxze CyberAnth 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sanger's response is notable criticism. It colors the picture quite well. Who is a more notable critc than the grandfather of Wikipedia itself? Sanger is also the co-founder of Wiki. If we include Wales response then we must give a quote from Sanger as well. QuackGuru ^TALK 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The logic that we have to include his two cents every time Jimbo is quoted is retarded. Personally, I don't care. I think Sanger has a reasonable claim to such a title, but he's being a big baby by crying over Jimbo's rejection of the title (and Jimbo being immature for thinking that denying the title is significant as well). We don't have to bring in something that is it's own separate controversy into another article on controversy. Just find another word that works and move on. This is not the place to dispute the whole Sanger cofounder title thing. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru has suggested in calling Mr. Larry Sanger the grandfather of Wikipedia. QuackGuru ^TALK 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

tjstrf has suggested that QuackGuru stop being obnoxiously pretentious and talk like a normal individual. Calling him the "Grandfather" would be us making words up, not acceptable. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response is nothing but the "me-too"ing of what a bunch of Wikipedia editors had already said, important only so far as it provides a citeable example of that view. Doesn't need more than a couple sentences in the article, anything more is major undue weight. The more interesting criticism is Finkelstein's, since he actually uses it to say something about the Wikipedia community and interactive community system "hiveminds" as a whole rather than staying at the "that was morally reprehensible Essjay! Bad boy!" surface level. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You were saying? ... see next subsection ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fleshing out the "Reaction" section

Well, despite the sense that Larry Sanger's blog isn't really a great source, I think QuackGuru may have a point about adding more into the reaction section - after all, it seems that is the main point of the article. Thoughts about building another paragraph or two into the article about how the media picked up on this story? Also, I seem to recall a link from someone where some educators were interviewed about the continued value of WP despite this controversy. Risker 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to this plea, I've boldly added the East Anglia academic with a new subsection: there was an earlier more critical response from educators in the US, That could also be added. At the same time I picked out the MUD points from the Grauniad's opinion piece by Seth F., inadvertently meeting a request from tjstrf in the section above this. Hope all are happy, .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. The Chronicle of Higher Education report added. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales v. Sanger co-founder dispute

Folks, this is such a no-brainer it amazes me that gigs of words have been wasted on it.

• "Sanger, who says he is Wikipedia's co-founder which Wales disputes saying he his sole founder...."
• "Wales, who says he is Wikipedia's sole founder which Sanger disputes saying he is co-founder...."

Simple, plain, and completely NPOV. CyberAnth 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is far more complicated than that and thus it is unwise to deal with that issue here in this article at all. Avoid "founder" or "co-founder" in this article. Simply link the names to our articles about those persons where the issue can be dealt with properly. WAS 4.250 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to dispute this but Sanger was an early manager of Wikipedia, an employee of Wales who provided both the capital and thus the ultimate direction. Gwen Gale 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, almost every comment I've seen you provide in the pages linked to this, I find myself thinking "good, now I don't have to respond, that was just what I might have said". But you are mistaken about the contributions of Sanger. He was far more than you make him out to be. WAS 4.250 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree his contributions were big. Didn't he recommend the wiki as an input tool for Nupedia? Didn't he write lots of the original policies? Don't call him founder is all. He was Wikipedia's early, innovative manager though, spot on. Gwen Gale 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez people, if you wanna talk about this go to Talk:Jimmy Wales or Talk:Larry Sanger. I'm sure they'd love to hear it there. --Dookama 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally support keeping this debate out of the article and towards that end I've reworded the concerned line to be, "who helped in the founding of Wikipedia". Alternatively I was thinking of, "who played key roles in the founding of Wikipedia" ← this makes him a bit more authoritative. I think either one would be acceptable, no? (→Netscott) 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Having proposed the text read. "who claims to be a co-founder of Wikipedia" I will not participate any further in the co-founder thing, I think it's a distraction and a tool for PoV. Gwen Gale 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-founder, whatever. More relevant is his role on Citizendium, which I have added. Risker 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep and his early contributions to WP, which by all accounts (including Wales') were very significant. I was only saying that the "founder" thing is fraught with ways to waste time on meaningless wording. Gwen Gale 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Arbcom stuff generally significant?

I don't want to bowdlerize the work that many have put into the Sanger criticism without discussing, but I am not certain that I have seen a reference to the Arbcom issue anywhere but from Sanger's quotes. Adding it here does seem to be a little bit on the navel-gazing side, if it is apparently unimportant to anyone but Wikipedians. Risker 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, but could be changed to "position of trust." Gwen Gale 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...leaving the Arbcom appointment as it is would be better than the "position of trust" because that also included appointments Essjay held long before the credentials were known. However, when I checked that reference, it went straight to Larry's Citizendium blog; it isn't even from a secondary source. Will look around to see if it did indeed get quoted elsewhere. Risker 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't change it. Good luck finding a stronger reference though :) Gwen Gale 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty easy to find in the Google news cache. Just check "Essjay arbitration". The Daily Telegraph mentioned it here, the Register (our good friend Andrew Orlowski) mentioned it here, and WebProNews mentioned it here. Not all of the descriptions of ArbCom are completely accurate, but the appointment was definitely noted in third-party sources. Casey Abell 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Put 'em in then (as refs)? Gwen Gale 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

#REDIRECT Talk:Larry Sanger

It is my humble opinion that the level of Sanger's involvement with Wikipedia is irrelevant in the context of this article, thus I have boldly removed it before an edit war starts over this. "Former Wikipedia manager" is enough IMO (because it seems unquestioned), more can be found on the Larry Sanger article, to which we link for a reason. Let's not drown in digressions in the article. Cheers and sorry for the tyop in the edit summary. ;-) Миша13 14:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I see it's been re-added again. Please reconsider the importance of this statement in the context of this article. Миша13 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Misza completely- if the co-founder claim is in, someone will want to rebutt it. And the article is drawn down a tangent. If we have to include Sanger's views (and I remain unpersuaded on this point) can we describe him as what everyone agrees he is, rather than bringing up a dispute that has no place on this article? Those who want to know more about Sanger will visit Larry Sanger and find out all juicy details there. That is how Wikilinks work... WjBscribe 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding this debate on the article (if the Sanger bits are kept). Whether or not Sanger is included in this article should depend upon how much our sources are including him. We're not to be making an article that through original research becomes a source itself. (→Netscott) 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with Sanger's criticisms in the article, so long as they're supported with reliable cites. Sanger is notable as Wikipedia's early manager and as the founder of CZ, a widely noted WP fork with an approach to credentials which is at odds with Wales' views in ways which are relevant to this article. Gwen Gale 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not up for discussion whether Sanger's critique is to be included, but rather the seemingly controversial claim that he is or claims to be the co-founder of WP. In my opinon, noting that he managed WP and is the current CZ editor-in-chief are just about enough. Adding anything more is just spilling the flaming fuel from the Larry Sanger article. Take a look at the article title again - it's >Essjay< controversy, not >Larry Sanger< controversy, so let's avoid unrelated controversies (lol repetitions). ;-) Миша13 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wholly agreed! Meanwhile my edit of "claims to be co-founder" was only for one or two editors here who seem to want to make this article an attack piece on WP. I think if there is a consensus to leave the co-founder codswallop out altogether, editors here should show that consensus through their edits, which I would support. Gwen Gale 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source uses the information then their interpretation may be included, otherwise it is not relevant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For tom, Lincoln and Wales and NPoV

Look, Wales botched and has apologized. Next? Meanwhile Lincoln was indeed a psychotic mass murdering dictator who corrupted and chaveled the US and their civil war had little to do with slavery but Wikipedia only reflects the PoV of mainstream scholarship in blowing all that off for now. If scholarship one day sways into a take I can deal with, I might even edit there :) In my bloody dreams. Meanwhile who cares about AL's sexuality anyway (as if one could support any of the speculation)? This is a public wiki. Articles must be supported by independent and verifiable sources, weighted as to provenance and written by consensus. Worries about Wikipedia? Haha! Any of mine tend to have roots running straight back into the world we all live in. Cheers to all (Quack too!). Gwen Gale 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

References

*sigh* I wish all Wikipedia articles had such rich, wonderful, diverse and reliable sources and references...</sarcasm> Миша13 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

hi2u, constructive comment :) --Dookama 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I must agree, there are way over 1,000,000 WP articles without a shred of cited support and that's relevant to this discussion in many and sundry ways. Gwen Gale 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Quick Survey Vote"

Here is my proposal to organize the article.

• 1 New Yorker interview
• 1.1 Essjay's advocacy letter
• 2 Reaction
• 2.1 Wales
• 2.2 Essjay
• 2.3 Wikipedia community
• 2.4 Media Please restore "media" heading and properly place it in the corrent position to organize the article.
• 2.5 Critics
• 2.6 Academics
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 Gallery
• Support QuackGuru ^TALK 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I will try again below. QuackGuru ^TALK 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Voting is teh ebil/Oppose. Firstly, no discussion has preceded this poll, making it an improper use of straw polling. Secondly, that's not any different than the current setup except that you're trying to readd the gallery (which was removed by consensus and has not been discussed since at all) for some obscure reason. --tjstrf talk 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually this page describes how "polling isn't a substitute for discussion". Therefore in that sense Tjstrf is right in that what you're proposing hasn't even been disussed at all. (→Netscott) 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They changed the shortcut again? Well, at least the WP:!VOTE shortcut doesn't have the same "interesting" phonetic reading that WP:PNSD did. --tjstrf talk 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

VIE is m:Voting is evil and "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" is WP:!VOTE now. They are two separate but related concepts. (→Netscott) 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No voting on editorial content (my humble, wee take :) Gwen Gale 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Proposal To Organize The Article"

Here is my proposal to organize the article.

• 1 New Yorker interview
• 1.1 Essjay's advocacy letter
• 2 Reaction
• 2.1 Wales
• 2.2 Essjay
• 2.3 Wikipedia community
• 2.4 Media Please restore "media" heading and properly place it in the corrent position to organize the article. (This one is easy.)
• 2.5 Critics
• 2.6 Academics
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 Gallery
• Any suggestions? QuackGuru ^TALK 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• We don't need the gallery, all the relevant content is already sourced externally so self-refs are unnecessary now. No opinion on the media section, and everything else is identical to the current layout. --tjstrf talk 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure we need the media section, now that so much additional commentary has been added in the other sections, and the lead has been re-written to emphasize the widespread media attention the controversy received. Concur with tjstrf about the gallery, it isn't adding anything at this point, particularly as the screenshots don't include the much-discussed credentials that were available for Ms. Schiff to see. Risker 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, just rereading the article again, the Louisville reference is (I think) quite important, but doesn't exactly fit under the heading "Reaction." I think the lead is missing a sentence that ties things together to, will go work on that now. Risker 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Louisville ref is helpful but got orphaned by all the over-factoring. Which reminds me, why the whole section for Essjay's letter? Gwen Gale 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• No gallery please as above. No media section please, WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Altogether I'd rather not settle into any agreements about the factoring, let unfolding events have their sway. Gwen Gale 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The lead to the "Reaction's" section is poorly organized. The "media info" is poorly placed. It will never stand. A little organizing will greatly improve the article. Organizing the article supercedes undueweight when the article badly structured. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the gallery was still under debate. WP:SELF still doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told I think the phrase "badly structured" has zero meaning. Please be specific, I mean, give quoted examples with your take on what you don't like and what you want to do. Thanks. Gwen Gale 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, he needs to be more specific. I would normally think an article was "badly structured" if it lacked sections, or was written as a flow-of-conciousness textdump or something. --tjstrf talk 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Media Section: It is badly structured because the media section is out of place. As for the truth, I am giving you space to develop as an editor.
• Gallery Section: The hard fact that Essjay claimed the false bio was to protect privacy and yet posted a free image of himself is further evidence that brightly enlightens the picture. This is highy relevant and connected to the topic about this controversy, use of false credentials, and behavior of a so-called online persona. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this bolded text helpful? Gwen Gale 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to collect "evidence." The screenshot of Essjay's user page is not the one that the journalist would have seen at the time she was reviewing his credentials, so it bears no actual relationship to the controversy. The Wikia page didn't exist at the time of the original article, and even if the argument was that it was how the New Yorker found out there was a discrepancy - Essjay's actual credentials are not visible in the screenshot. As to the photograph, at one point this article was in the fraudsters category; though it has been removed from that category, a quick look at a half dozen articles in that category had no photographs of the reported fraudsters, despite their availability. Risker 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent to respond to initial question) There do seem to be a few areas that need work. I agree with Gwen Gale that the sentence about the letter is orphaned right now, and as noted above, the Louisville reference is also not quite in the right place. It also strikes me that Jimbo had a lot more reaction than the one quote we have there now. I've beefed up the lead a bit, edit to your heart's content. Risker 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway yeah Quack, Essjay scammed. I think the article makes that clear. Gwen Gale 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just to a look at the article. It is worse now than it was 25 minutes ago in terms of organizing the heading and structure. It is way too cluttered again. This is reaffirming a case for the peer review team to act upon. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Gwen Gale has done a very good job of refactoring the content to organize it more logically. Essjay and Jimbo were commenting in their roles within Wikipedia for the most part. This has also taken care of the misplaced sections. Risker 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Less subheaders is more clear, not less. What clutters the page is excessive subdivision without substantial content in each section. Also, peer review teams do not "act upon" anything, they're not some sort of official grand jury of article wars, they just say what they think. --tjstrf talk 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Quack's notion of dividing small fragments of text into a pre-defined skeleton could unhelpfully spin the article's weight and PoV later on. Gwen Gale 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is cluttered again and difficult to follow and read. The article is improperly structered. A beautiful disaster. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please type normally, your formatting abuse is cluttering the talk page the same way your attempted header spam is cluttering the article. Article formatting should be as simple as possible. --tjstrf talk 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SPA afd

A new user just AfD'd it. - Denny 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. The AfD will be dead from hypothermia within an hour. --tjstrf talk 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it's disrutpion. I ask that a disinterested admin have a look, thanks. Gwen Gale 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also a vandal-only account. - Denny 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What fun. Gwen Gale 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for my own education, is this an uncommon practice that seems to relate to a narrow range of controversial articles or is this something that happens quite often? I don't spend a lot of time in AfD. Risker 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If an article is controversial, this is what happens. I've seen much worse. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mind though, a verifiable citation from a reliable source is truly so too handy at times like this. Gwen Gale 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean repetitive AfD attempts trying to wear down the community into giving the desired outcome? Those are pretty common on controversial/"offensive" articles, uncommon on everything else. --tjstrf talk 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is disappointing to see that this nomination was made by what is clearly a sockpuppet. It practically illustrates the problem that led to this whole controversy in the first place. prepares to be taken to the woodshed for stating the obvious Risker 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fwap! :) Gwen Gale 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORTHEPEOPLE. - Denny 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssjay_controversy&diff=114666596&oldid=114666344 Are we allowed to remove comments that are constructive criticism? The anon who is probably new here, is granted an AGF and welcome with open arms. Criticism is the best way to learn IMO. Learn from our mistakes. I welcome you, the newcomer, to contribute to our community. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the given link you gave, and the link it leads to. Are you saying the anon IP that trolled this page is those three editors and a sock puppeteer...? - Denny 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I put the wrong link from another edit I did earlier. I can't and I won't point fingers at anyone. There is another case at the moment. Come to your own conclusions. Sometimes things get strange and confusing around here. No worries. QuackGuru ^TALK 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, please think long and hard about what you're doing here. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Larry Sanger Was A Lot More Than Just A Former Manager."

Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, a former Wikipedia manager... Please correct this bias one-sided statement in the critics section. QuackGuru ^TALK 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not biased- he was indeed a former manager. He claims to have been more, but this article should avoid that controversy. People can find out more by visiting Larry Sanger. Discussing his claims to co-founder status will simply bog this article down an argument that is tangential. The present statement explains why his comment is more relevant than that of any other commentator. This seems sufficient. This is not an article about Sanger. WjBscribe 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WjB has hit the nail on the head. What makes his comments relevant to this article is the fact that he is Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium - a wiki-based encyclopedia-in-development that has a different philosophy about credentials and anonymity. His career at Wikipedia, whatever role he played, ended years before Essjay started editing here; Larry is not writing as a former Wikipedia (whatever), he is writing in his current role. Risker 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As above there is no bias, Sanger's biographical claims are irrelevant to this article. The "former-manager" description is fully supported and neutral. Gwen Gale 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Larry Sanger believed he is the co-founder. So state it such as Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, who claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia... Not giving him credit where credit is due is a POV article. It may be time to tag the article. {{pov}} When did Wales start saying he is the founder. Years later after Wikipedia was in full running. When? After he and Larry weren't communicating very well and begun to part ways. Please. Do not rewrite history. Or erase history. Or write a revision of history. If Wales left Wikipedia, then will you start saying he is not the co-founder anymore. Mr. Sanger has a significant role in Wikipedia. Just add a half a dozens words to properly represent him. who claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia... Mr. Wales never ever said he was the founder in the very beginning. Never. Do we understand now. Uh. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is your reference from a reliable source he was just a former-manager. According to who, Jimmy. You are giving me your opinion. I have cited many sources which weren't disputed he is the co-founder. He is being introduced all over the world as the co-founder. We go by the real world. Not a group of a handle of editors. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it out if you like. However, "co-founder" is insufficiently supported, irrelevant and distracting to the article content never mind the pith of this article is to inform, not piss people off, 'k? Gwen Gale 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Given http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html I am placing POV tag in this article until Sanger is mentioned as "co-founder" something like this: "Sanger, who is widely reported as co-founder of Wikipedia which Wales denies". The reason for naming him as such is on its face obvious. We give more credibility to claims about WP by former important WP insiders, who per their experience have very unique perspective. C.m.jones 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a coordinated tactic of disruption and an explicit threat of continued disruption unrelated to Wikipedia policy, a misuse of the PoV tag. I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at this. Thanks. Gwen Gale 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

{{POV-section}} seems more appropriate so I have switched to it. I expressly do not endore the tagging of the article. Avoiding the whole co-founder debate seems to me to satisfy POV competely and I think the tags are simply being used as a protest by editors who have not gotten their own way, rather than reflecting a policy-based concern. WjBscribe 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag move was helpful, thanks. I'm still worried about the foregoing discussion and the original placement of the tag. Hey and cheers to all. Gwen Gale 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The neutrality Of This Article Is Disputed."

• Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, who is widely reported as the co-founder[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] of Wikipedia which Wales denies,[25]... This belongs in the body of the article. I have many references. These references are the wiki way. Please let the truth be told. Do not erase history. I have provided many many references that are fully supported for inline citations. I stick to the facts from the real world. I have a lot more problems with this article too. The organization of this article makes it hard to read and follow. Lets start the collaboration process if you will. Thank You. QuackGuru ^TALK 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  You still haven't addressed the crucial question, why is Sanger's assumed status as co-founder of Wikipedia relevant to this article? Which is about a controversy concerning a Wikipedia administrator long after Sanger left the project.... WjBscribe 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that NewYorkBrad has reviewed the POV tagging and has moved it to cover the single section involved. I would like to urge QuackGuru and C.m.jones to consider whether they are writing an article about Larry Sanger or an article about a specific situation, on which Sanger may have an opinion worthy of inclusion. There are two alternatives here that I could comfortably support:

• Focus on Sanger's position with Citizendium. His comments can be reasonably considered notable in that role.
• Just eliminate Sanger's comments altogether. The only thing that makes his comments worthy of inclusion now is the Citizendium role. The opinions of someone who left Wikipedia (regardless of the role he played) several years before Essjay ever edited here are not particularly relevant.Risker 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad make some edits to the page- I moved the tag. But agree that one of your two proposals should be the way forwards. WjBscribe 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the diffs. :) If I was to create an analogy for this situation, it would go something like this. An architect helps to design a school, but withdraws from the project early in its construction; one day several years later, some kid a teacher sets the Chemistry Department on fire. Nobody would care about what the architect had to say. Risker 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC) edited to reflect authority role, please note no motives ascribed to either party. Risker 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, give it a rest. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Critics Explained and the 101 of Writing a Real Encyclopedia:

The role of writing a piece about criticism is to paint where the criticism came from. When addressing critics it is important and normal to mention who the critic is to color the picture. Such as... Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said... which is in the article. If you read a real encyclopedia you will see detailed information and background. Mr. Larry Sanger is a noteworthy critic because he is one of the most vocal critics of Wikipedia and he will always be the co-founder of Wikipedia in the real world. Mentioning a little bit about his background as the co-founder of Wikipedia and his current position is necessary to show the reader who is doing the criticism. After all, he is the co-founder and its a normal concept of writing an encyclopedia. Leaving that bit of info out would make the article poorly written. Further, Larry's criticism has been reported in the media.[26] as well as his official status as the co-founder which is well noted regardless. Forget not, I supplies the fully sourced references that do in fact show that Larry is the co-foundr of this place. When you mention Mr. Sanger, especially when talking within the parameter of Wikipedia it is more than fair to mention his background and scope as connected with Wikipedia. What is more notable as far as critics go than a critic who is the widley repoted as the co-founder of Wikipedia. He is a very notable and prominent critic. A talkative critic about Wiki. It colors where and who the criticism is orginating from. Otherwise, it would be a revision of history. Otherwise, the factual accuracy of the article will remain disputed. The article is not neutral because some folks do not want to let people know where the criticism is coming from. I do not understand the reason people do not want reader to find out about Larry. The factual accuracy is disputed because the article does not accurately portray who Mr. Larry Sanger is as written in the history books about Wikipedia. Please do not write a revision of history and hide his co-foundedness of Wiki.

Read this sentence beneath about the description of the person. Notice the detail of the description.

As the controversy unfolded the Wikipedia community began a review of Essjay's previous edits and discovered evidence he had relied upon his fictional professorship to influence editorial consideration of edits he made. "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper, The Wikipedia Signpost. "Those will get looked at again."[10]

Here is an example of how sentences are written above. Note: These sentence above are in the article at this time.

It mentions: said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper.

This is a very detailed description as you can see and read above.

Here is another detailed sentence (presently in the article) in which it demonstrates who the critic is. However, lecturer Nicola Pratt of the University of East Anglia stated...

Then, I ask the reason for the denial of the facts about the co-founder Mr. Larry Sanger. Thus, the factual accuracy will continue to remain disputed in any case as long as many editors do not face the music. This article can never be neutral when the revised history of the facts or revoking of the facts are presented. Nevertheless, a description of who the critic is especially when that person is the co-founder of Wikpedia as widely reported is relevent due to his notability as a vocal Wikipedia critic and connectiveness as a co-founder of this project. Any replies. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)