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.
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!
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
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.
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?
Essjay has faith in the idea that he holds a PhD. Doesn't that qualify him in the field of theology? ;)
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?
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.
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...
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.
To understand why this happened, you have to appreciate the full background of Essjay's activities on Wikimedia. He made around 20,000 edits, especially in an administrative function. Imagine seeing a single person showing up in the Recent Changes of Citizendium every day, making hundreds of diligent little edits, chasing vandals and trolls away, sending friendly messages ... a person willing to help at every opportunity whenever you need someone intelligent and reliable to work with. That was Essjay; nobody in this whole story has claimed otherwise. His reputation was flawless, his work respected by all. When he revealed his identity to Jimmy and others who had long worked with him, he probably did so in an underhanded way, slightly embarrassed, with the rationalization we all know ("protection against trolls"), one which (for a mere pseudonym) would actually be credible given Essjay's role in the community.
In other words, the conditions were perfect for many of those who trusted Essjay to accept this deception and ignore it. And so they did. I agree that doing so was foolish and wrong. It was also human nature. Look at the story of any exposure of fraud, and you will find that the people closest to the person being exposed are often the ones who will defend them beyond reason. There are some who continue to defend Essjay even now, including people in the community I have a lot of respect for. I barely knew Essjay; if I had worked with him as closely as many in the community have, I might be inclined to defend him, too. This is not specific to the nature of the deception, but to the strength of the emotional bonds that were established.
For the most part, I am happy with the way Jimmy has responded now. Not entirely, because I would have preferred it if he had also acknowledged the error of downplaying false credentials as a "pseudonym." But I agree with him that we should also be capable of showing forgiveness to a person like Essjay. I can easily see how a young, gay Wikipedian found it "funny" to create a fake persona diametrically opposed to their real lifestyle ("All my students must read ''Catholicism for Dummies''", paraphrased, was one of his earlier comments), and then (getting increasingly addicted to the project) becoming trapped in their deception and rationalizing it. That doesn't make that person a criminal, or someone we should never permit to contribute again. It makes them someone who has made a mistake, who should acknowledge that mistake, and then make a renewed effort to establish trust in the community.
The Wikimedia Foundation is not a one-man show. This is a difficult situation, and we are collectively dealing with it in the best way we can. As we so often do, we will have to balance openness and control, and implement reasonable mechanisms of oversight. I am confident that we can only improve through this experience. What we are not going to do is jump to conclusions, place authoritarianism above reason, and dogma above human beings. Truth is not black and white; it is often subtle and elusive. I have much more confidence in the open, noisy, passionate, but ultimately human debates that are characteristic for Wikipedia's culture, than I do in the approach you have taken.