QUOTE
If Durova's "evidence" that I gave misleading information to journalists is anything like this, I now fully realize why she never disclosed it to me, and why Brian Bergstein found it to be irrelevant to his story about me.
Particularly when you consider that
she's the one giving misleading information to journalists these days. If not
outright misinformation. This was talked about a month or so ago when it was initially published, but it bears repeating:
http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/articles/2007/0817d.htmlQUOTE
durova: Here's one fact that I don't think got reported anywhere in the press in late February - early March when the Essjay scandal made news...remember our 24-year-old administrator who faked his credentials?
me: yea
durova: At the time when that story broke, Jimbo Wales was in India working toward improving the Indian language Wikipedias. Part of that time he was in locations where access to the Internet was almost nonexistent. That delayed his response as well as his ability to keep abreast of developments.
me: yes, I remember that too
durova: I was among the first (if not the very first) to call for Essjay's resignation. I also think, in the big picture, what Jimbo was doing at that time was more important.
me: once outed, his resignation was pretty much given wasn't it?
durova: I thought so. I hadn't been aware of any problems until then. He wasn't someone I interacted with very much.
me: apparently he had a good cover
durova: I just hadn't seen any reason to check things out.
He had 20,000 edits and was well respected.
I didn't notice any red flags.
me: if I remember correctly, he was dealing with catholic liturgy and 17th century art
durova: Well, once the request for comment was opened and other editors pointed out what those red flags were, I agreed immediately.
Wikipedia's too big for one person to track everything. My attention had been elsewhere.
me: And Wales was away setting up another Wikipedia. How long did it take the collective/community to deal with the matter? It seemed over as quickly as it made the news
durova: Would you like me to show you the request for comment?
me: but of course
durova: This might be a moment. Things moved so quickly it was fractal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFCThe earliest part of that discussion is at another location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Com...nity_discussionme: wow. so this was dealt with within 36 - 48 hours of exposure
durova: There's also some history here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=historyAnd here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=historyme: how long do you think it would take a corporation to do the same?
durova: Well, it was my view at the time that immediate resignation was necessary. The problem was legitimate and it had happened in a venue that the journalism community was certain to appreciate fully. I doubt the young guy understood what a big deal it is to lie to a Pulitzer-winning reporter from The New Yorker.
me: heh
durova: Regardless of who he'd told, my basic reaction would have been the same.
There's just so much about this that's misleading, if not simply
wrong, I don't even know where to begin. But why even bring it up at all? Why go out of her way, months after the fact, to point out how she was supposedly instrumental in getting Essjay to resign - which could hardly be considered true in any respect whatsoever - and needlessly reopen a bunch of old wounds?
I mean, other than sheer egotism?
Oops, Durova's Mea culpa
