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

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.

He didn't reverse his decision

[Anonymous Coward]

He simply edited it with updated information.

Enough with the Cheap Shots, Larry

[Internet Esquire]

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

Re:Essjay still has my support

[Dan Slotman]

• False information is always intended to mislead. The aim of misleading may be innocent or harmless, but its intent is always deception.
• He claimed to be a doctor of theology, not medicine.
• The good he has done cannot be separated from the lying he has also done. To regard them separately is a double standard.
• Further, it isn't as if his past good has magically vanished just because he lied—however, his potential as a source of future good must be evaluated. Right now he is a significant black eye to Wikipedia.
• 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.

What cheap shots?

[Larry Sanger]

NetEsq writes: "...now that Jimbo has found out the extent of Essjay's deception -- i.e., not a simple case of pseudonymity..."

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."

Innevitable

[nEoN nOoDlE]

"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.

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.