Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia's Wales Reverses Decision on Problem Admin
ToiletDuck writes "Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales appears to have changed his mind concerning Essjay, the administrator who was caught lying about his academic credentials. Wales issued a statement today on his User Talk page requesting that EssJay voluntarily step down. Wales defended his earlier comment about EssJay, claiming 'I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes ... I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on.' Wales did not comment on whether EssJay would continue to serve in his paid position at Wikia, the for-profit cousin of Wikipedia."
Jimbo may have questions to answer, but -- since you're so concerned with factual accuracy -- you might want to get your facts straight before making any more accusations or indictments. To wit, Essjay was hired by Wikia *this* January (i.e., about 60 days ago) not *last* January. And now that Jimbo has found out the extent of Essjay's deception -- i.e., not a simple case of pseudonymity -- Jimbo has asked Essjay to resign from his positions of trust at Wikipedia. For a longer tome on my views, please see my blog post: http://blog.xodp.org/2007/03/credentialists-and-im postors.html
>Ben Franklin used pseudonyms in the traditional sense, to hide his identity. He did not present himself as someone with qualifications he did not have or earn.
Not true. Ben Franklin used a pseudonym to present himself as a free man, when in fact he was a runaway apprentice.
He was using his fake credentials to enhance his reputation on Wikipedia. Reputation is everything for the typical Wikipedean. Special privileges are doled out to those that have convinced The Community that they are trustworthy servants to The Project. They say these positions are janitorial roles; that they are but a mop and a bucket for servants to The Project. In reality, they are status symbols for the obsessed, or tools used to enhance one's ability to push a particular point of view.
He was using his fake credentials to speak from authority on article content issues.
He cited his fake credentials in correspondence with real academics to try to enhance Wikipedia's credibility.
He cited his fake credentials to the media, apparently because those fifteen minutes of fame are much more fun when one is a tenured professor with four degrees instead of a college dropout living with a cat in Kentucky.
You're next, you bureaucratic fuck.
The real problem is that when the story first broke, Jimbo refused to believe that the problem was serious. It isn't EssJay that appaled me so much (while I believe it to be completely wrong), but Jimbo's arrogance in thinking it was minor. It's about Jimbo that the issue lies, not EssJay. Read the editoiral note (especially the last paragraph) at the end of the New Yorker article that percipitated all this and judge for yourself. Note that the New Yorker talks about the persona, but Jimbo states he has no problems with it, regarding a whole fake persona on the level of a psuedonym.
THAT is the real issue. EssJay claimed that he was someone that he wasn't, got busted by New York post, and Jimbo didn't even think he did anything wrong. Larry Sanger argues the point more coherently than I can.
EssJay's lies were strong enough for the New York Post to print a correction (that he wasn't who he said he was)
The major thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it *isn't* the ideal, 'everyone is equal and qualifications don't matter' playground that it claims to be. It is a dictatorship, and everyone that participates in Wikipedia is at his pleasure and descretion. (It reminds me of real-world communism.) These days, it's rather quiet (used to be brushed under the rug) that Bomis.com (Jimbo's original company) originally sold online soft-core porn. Or the edits that he did to the page about him, no matter HOW minor. (Something that Wil Wheaton rightly refrained from doing - to the extent of asking someone else to make a minor factual correction on the article's talk page).
For the record, when directly asked about the New Yorker article, the following interchange took place on a now deleted talk page: (as best as I can still find online, anyway.)
-------
Your New Yorker bio
(Removed post from banned user. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
It's in the archive but he explained that it was disinformation. My question is how the New Yorker hasn't gotten its butt kicked for publishing it as fact without the slightest fact-checking. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did six hours of interviews with the reporter, and two with a fact checker, but I was really surprised that they were willing to do an interview with someone who they couldn't confirm; I can only assume that it is proof I was doing a good job playing the part. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
--------------
Who am I? I'm an Anonymous Coward. I'm not misleading you about my identity, as I'm not claiming to have degrees, qualifications or charateristics that I do or do not have in real life. EssJay, whoever he was, did.