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."

Comments

But more importantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really cares.

From the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a *&@# department.

What difference does it make? A nobody fakes his way into a coveted spot, only to get busted in the future. History is full of such low-lifes.

We need more info from Jimmy

[Larry Sanger]

Jimmy has more questions to answer. He makes no attempt to explain several fundamental points that got people worked up in the first place. What did he mean in telling The New Yorker "I have no problem with" Essjay's duplicity? When did he learn of that duplicity? (I think it was last January, since that's when Essjay got on the Wikia payroll.) And then why did he ignore the obvious moral implications of that duplicity--to the point of giving him a job and even appointing him to Arbitration Committee--until now? Jimmy needs to answer these questions convincingly, if he can.

Tortured prose

[Demona]

"Fully based on a lack of knowledge", indeed. But what kind of fool conflates the use of a pseudonym with claiming credentials one never earned? So much for the vaunted Objectivist reputation for truth and integrity.

Essjay still has my support

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't deliberately flood wikipedia with false information to mislead. He didn't offer false medical advice deliberately while claiming to be a doctor.

What about all the good he has done? Are we to flush it down the toilet.

Ben Franklin aka Silence Dogood "lied" about his identity too .. I ask .. so what? I trust people based on whether i think they'll screw me over. And nothing else.

Re:Essjay still has my support

[limecat4eva]

What "good" has he done? Administrators exactly like him use their powers all the time to block people they dislike from editing the Wikipedia. Those with special powers, including Essjay, alter the database to remove edits they dislike, whether those be slander and personal information or, less justifiably, information pointing out the hypocrisy that permeates the project.

Admins like Essjay are the reason Wikipedia can't attract any more contributors. Any potential new editors get disgusted and leave.

Re:Essjay still has my support

[Just Some Guy]

He didn't deliberately flood wikipedia with false information to mislead.

Most of us put "lying" and "misleading" on roughly the same footing.

What about all the good he has done? Are we to flush it down the toilet.

Yes. Because at this point, it's probably impossible to tell how much influence he improperly exerted through his lies. Every single article he's touched has to be considered tainted until it can be generally agreed that:

• He posted accurate information that stands on its own merits, and not just random junk that people let stand because, hey, it was written by a Th.D., and/or
• He didn't prevent anyone else from posting accurate information by way of the prestige he lied his way into.

Essjay's damage is particularly bad because it could be so subtle. How many people deferred to his judgment at the expense of correctness? We'll probably never know.

Ben Franklin aka Silence Dogood "lied" about his identity too .. I ask .. so what?

Indeed: so what? Silence Dogood was a middle-aged widow. What particular authority did that lie grant Franklin, assuming that he wasn't writing about childbearing or what it's like to lose your spouse? Essjay, though, directly stated that he had the educational background to make authoritative statements in his pages. Surely you can see that there's much more than a semantic difference between the two actions?

I trust people based on whether i think they'll screw me over. And nothing else.

Essjay screwed you over.

A serious blow for Wikipedia

[Parallax Blue]

Even before this there were serious doubts as to the accuracy and credibility of the information on Wikipedia. That a top administrator and contributor to Wikipedia has faked his academic credentials and used them to influence Wikipedia content will only make this worse.

I can't think of a more damaging relevation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia may be totally discredited by this scandal.

One nagging question that I have is why there is no push to validate academic credentials on Wikipedia. Ordinary users that do not claim to have any academic credentials beyond their own knowledge are fine, ones that claim to have advanced degrees in such-and-such should be required to prove this, or at least be able to validate their credentials when asked. I have no idea how this would be done, only that it SHOULD be done.. Essjay is an excellent example as to why.

I shudder to think how many more Essjays are out there right now, editing articles and claiming expertise, when in fact they have none.

-PxB

Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia

[limecat4eva]

Indeed. This says less about Wikipedia's unreliability than it does about the culture of venality and self-importance surrounding Wikipedia and its administration. It's a big reason Wikipedia can't attract more (and more diverse) contributors.

Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia

[Jack Action]

Mod the parent up.

This is very serious for Wikipedia in the real world. You can pretty much assume all the hagiographies written in the media recently will end. Essjay lied to the New Yorker and a pulitzer prize winning reporter; and Jimbo Wales backed him up. This will taint every serious article written by a journalist from this point forward.

As for Wikipedia and academia, this is the death-knell. The ultimate authority at Wikipedia -- Wales -- stated plainly that faked credentials don't matter. Like lying to a journalist, Wikipedia just won't recover. Every academic now has a professional duty to make their students exclude Wikipedia.

Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia

[Eloquence]

Wikipedia is not built on credentials. That Essjay occasionally pointed to his hoax bio when editing articles may have influenced other editors, but did not gain him special privileges. The privileges he does (to this day) have are janitorial, not editorial, and were based on the fact that he made thousands and thousands of edits, most of them administrative in nature (of the 19891 edits he made, only 1372 were in the article namespace -- see edit count tool). There is no process by which a person with an academic degree can simply go in and say "I am an authority, therefore I'm right." This kind of model was abandoned when Wikipedia replaced Nupedia, where contributing academics did indeed have to validate their credentials.

Instead, Wikipedia is built on content policies such as Neutral Point of View and Attribution. A typical featured article will have dozens or even hundreds of references for every key statement that it makes. The authors of the article, on the other hand, are not even mentioned; Wikipedia is largely egoless.

In this way, Wikipedia is the least harmed by a revelation of fake credentials. Unlike Larry Sanger's Citizendium, Wikipedia does not grant special privileges to those who claim to be experts. This explains Jimmy's initial "bleh" reaction: "So he faked his bio -- like that actually makes a difference in Wikipedia!" I disagree with this initial reaction (faking academic credentials is seriously unethical), and as noted above, the fake bio may have subtly influenced other editors who deferred to him instead of researching the topic on their own. But these are social dynamics, and if anything, this revelation will improve these dynamics.

I don't believe there is a strong need for us to validate any statement someone might make on their user page. I do agree with you that Essjay's claims should have been verified before he was given the janitorial roles that he ended up with, and recommended to the media as an interviewee. Here, we have been careless and are already discussing internally how to deal with this in a reasonable fashion. For example, there's nothing wrong per se with a Wikipedian wanting to remain pseudonymous, but they should disclose this to the reporter interviewing them. And faking credentials is certainly unacceptable in all circumstances.

As a massively volunteer-driven project, Wikipedia's community represents the entire breadth of humanity. The community rewards good behavior and ostracizes or even bans those who violate the written and unwritten norms. Now that Essjay has violated the community's trust, it is doubtful that he will ever regain it. If we were more credential-driven, then it would make sense to strongly call for validation of any claims like the ones Essjay made. As it is, verification when users cross certain thresholds of internal importance, and a renewed skepticism for anything a person might claim about themselves, should be sufficient. Certainly, this episode is a cautionary tale--but it is so especially for those who rely on identity, rather than the quality of a user's contributions.

Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia

[nine-times]

I can't think of a more damaging relevation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia

Wait, wait... are you suggesting that citations from the Wikipedia should be acceptable for academic research? Even without this case of someone contributing with fraudulent credentials, the Wikipedia just isn't authoritative enough to cite.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Wikipedia. It's incredibly useful and it's a great example for people to understand the power of mass-collaboration that the internet allows. When someone brings up a topic I'm not familiar with, the Wikipedia is often the first place I look to get an overview. However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which certifies that any given fact in the Wikipedia is going to be correct at any given time. Sure, the general ideas are probably correct (excepting cases of vandalism, which happens too), and incorrect facts are likely to get fixed sooner or later. However, there isn't any authority that is even attempting to make sure that the page you're about to load will be absolutely correct at the exact moment you load it.

College professors refuse to accept citations from Wikipedia are right to refuse. This is especially true given that they're dealing with fricken college students. If you're a college student, it's your job to do research. You have few responsibilities other than to ensure that your research is reliable, and if you can't handle that, then what the hell are you doing in college?

You guys are taking too hard on this subject

[vivaoporto]

I know this is Slashdot, but you guys are overreacting on this whole matter. Imagine it was not Wikipedia, but any other company, let's say, Canonical. Imagine there is this guy whose online curriculum says is a M.S. in Computer Science, Java Certified and whatnot. He finds and files a lot of bugs on Ubuntu, helps to create packages, contribute with code, and do such a great job that Canonical decides to hire him, just to discover that he is really only an undergraduated in C.S. Canonical hires him anyway.

Three questions: 1) Would it be the wrong decision? 2) Would your confidence on their product (Ubuntu) be diminished? 3) Would it make front page on Slashdot?

I really must be new here (I'm not), because this sounds more like British sensationalist tabloid-like journalism, that likes to blow things out of proportion. That, or there is some "vast conspiracy" involving other players that aims to take the place now occupied by Wikipedia. (Citizendium, maybe, who knows. Every article mentioning some wikipedia flaw is automatically followed by comments praising the virtues of Citizendium.)

Re:You guys are taking too hard on this subject

[DarkOx]

That situation is not the same. It would be evident to many people that the patches are indeed quality and that credentials or not the individual is talented. Then again as a potential employer I would be extremely cautious about hireling someone who misrepresents himself for no good reason. What else is he going to lie about? Could I ever expect any truthfulness from him especially when he does have a reason to lie?

Back to the issue at hand though.. In this case its not something like code that either works or does not, is readable by others or isn't. This is much more esoteric type information that can only be validated by people who really have done the research or will do it. It may even require specially qualified people to do the work, as I don't even know where outside the "Mid-evil Source Book" to go looking for original documents much of the field is based on. All the work he did is tainted and un-trustworthy and unless or until someone does the work, and at that point they might as well have produced it themselves. So yes his contribution is effectively reduced to nothing at this point.

Stuff on wiki stands based on our faith in others, when that faith becomes compromised so does the information unless its based on easily observed and verified facts or highly repeatable efforts, like running some computer code to see what is does.

Re:Relevance, Your Honor?

[Larry Sanger]

You're missing my point entirely, NetEsq. If Jimmy knew three months ago that Essjay had lied to the community about being a tenured professor, etc., and then hired him and put him on the ArbComm, what does that say about Jimmy's judgment?

Surely you're not saying that it matters only if Essjay used "real credentials to win a debate." Doesn't it matter even more if Essjay used his credentials implicitly to rise through Wikipedia's ranks?

Re:Enough with the Cheap Shots, Larry

[MadJo]

I fail to see the difference between "this January" and "last January". Aren't both actually about January 2007?

Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with Larry. You really do seem to be missing the point entirely, and you're repeatedly rephrasing the debate to terms that suit you. One has to ask you, though, that if you despise credentials so much, why is it that you have your resume posted on your consulting website? If you actually believed what you preach, you should just be able to tell the law firms that hire you that they should trust you, regardless of your qualifications.

Re:Bad hiring decision

[Petrushka]

Wait and see if he actually does resign, first. By the way, I love the fact that his WP user page is headed "stamus contra malum" -- "we stand against evil." Suuuuure you do, Essjay.

Jimbo's change of mind is a good thing but I suspect it's too late. A lot of damage has been done: journalists will have a field-day with this fiasco, and WP now has a reputation as a community that rewards lying. Not a good way of attracting contributors; not honest ones, at least. Couldn't be much worse, really. Well, no, it could be -- if Jimbo hadn't flip-flopped, I guess that'd be worse.

Re:This is not news!

[adameros]

Conservapedia is no better. The amount of bias it the same, just in the opposite direction.

then isn't this a serious blow for The New Yorker?

[Trepidity]

If Wikipedia getting duped, and as a result having inaccurate content it has to retract, is a "death-knell" for Wikipedia, then wouldn't The New Yorker getting duped, and as a result having inaccurate content it has to retract, also be a "death-knell" for The New Yorker? Here's a professional organization, with paid staff to check these things, and their article still got it every bit as wrong as Wikipedia did.

Re:Wrong about Ben

[mollymoo]

Ben Franklin said he was a old widow with kids because saying his real identity would have distorted what he was trying to say. And I am sure he felt that way, otherwise he would have described himself at least as a man.

There is a massive difference between writing a letter to your brother's newspaper and writing for an encyclopedia. Few would take a letter in a newspaper as more than a single example or an opinion, if they believed it at all. An encyclopedia is supposed to consist of a higher grade of information. Passing yourself off as an authority in that arena is correspondingly a far more serious matter.

Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless

[zoney_ie]

I presume someone being a liar, and a seriously committed one at that, is not irrelevant on Wikipedia.

So the argument about credentials being irrelevant, is in fact itself irrelevant, as it is the deception that is the issue, not the perceived effects of it in influencing Wikipedia editing.

Bizarrely, Wales appears to think the latter is the most important thing, and that up until he found out about that, was perfectly happy with the deception.

This suggests a very big disconnection from reality for the figurehead (indeed more than that) of a project like Wikipedia.

Jimbo Wales is in denial

[Gregory Rider]

...on a number of issues. He may not have known precisely to what extent Essjay was using his falsified credentials to gain the upper hand in a multitude of content disputes, but Wales was fully aware that Essjay had created a persona based on fictitious credentials.

Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless

[ngunton]

You are twisting reality around in a truly bizarre fashion. Doesn't truth matter any more? You appear to be hung up on some kind of abstract concept ("credentials" and whether they matter or not) while holding your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" with respect to the giant elephant in the room - which is the simple fact that what this admin did was unethical, manipulative and just plain WRONG, and moreover Larry probably knew this, and didn't seem to care. It's quite amazing the mental contortions people will go through (calling all of this "disinformation" or "misinformation" rather than LIES) in order to convince themselves that they are in the right and ok. These are traits of truly mentally disturbed people, when they can't even admit to themselves that they deceived everybody. It's not about credentials, man, it's about right and wrong in the most fundamental sense.

It's not an overreaction

[Jekler]

I've seen dozens of posts where people say everyone is overreacting. I think a lot of those people are losing sight of the core of the issue.

This isn't a simple case of "He wasn't who he said he was." If it were just a matter of hiding his name, age, or location, that would be fine. It's a matter of falsifying credentials, namely, having a doctorate and being a tenured professor. People work years to achieve both of those, he just sits down at his computer and decides "I got those."

It's all part of this "Generation Me" syndrome. They think they deserve anything they desire, without working for it. Honorific titles, titles of achievement, tenure, knighthood, a million dollars, whatever, they deserve it because they're so fucking special. They were breastfed self-esteem, they jerk off to pictures of themselves, and they think the whole world should appreciate their blessed presence.

I have an AAS in Software Applications and Programming. I don't care what anyone says about my degree or where I went to school (ITT Tech), it doesn't matter, because I earned it, and that's more than this wanker can ever say for himself.