Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia's Wales Reverses Decision on Problem Admin

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who-can-you-trust dept.

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."

3 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Credentials Really Are Meaningless by Internet+Esquire · · Score: 0, Troll

    I admit that I am intrigued by Jimbo's failure to properly vet Essjay before hiring him at Wikia and/or appointing him to ArbCom. However, credentials are supposed to be irrelevant on Wikipedia, and they mean less than nothing to me, so I could easily see how someone could overlook inflated credentials on a resume. In sum, if there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that credentials (whether real or fabricated) really are meaningless.

    1. Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless by Internet+Esquire · · Score: 0, Troll

      Truth does, in fact, matter to me, and I agree that Essjay is ethically challenged. That's why I called for him to resign from his positions of trust at Wikipedia. And when you say "Larry probably knew this," I assume you mean "Jimbo probably knew this." However, this is a red herring. As Jimbo has already done the right thing and requested Essjay's resignation, what Jimbo knew once upon a time is wholly irrelevant.

  2. Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia by owlnation · · Score: 0, Troll

    I can't think of a more damaging revelation 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.
    Sadly, I don't think this will happen. It really should be the final nail in the coffin of wikiality, but I suspect that, although we here on /. know the perils of wikipedia's lack of provable accuracy and precision, and its ability to be easily manipulated by zealous or biased admins, the greater public largely does not.

    It is of constant irk to me that Wikipedia appears high in the rankings of any search you do on Google. There are many many (most) people out there who do not know wikipedia's flaws and limitations. Which is why I have always believed that it should have clear and bold warnings and disclaimers at the top of every page. That's fair, true and responsible.

    However, I seriously doubt they will until some (inevitable) lawsuit forces them to do so. The Wikipedia foundation and the admins have too much ego invested in their work to ever admit it's potentially unsafe for the public. I think this Essjay thing proves that beyond doubt. They want people to believe they are a quality factual source regardless of the reality, and sadly, I think that many do.