[[Essjay controversy]] up for Featured Article, Hold the main page! Options

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Essjay controversy has been nominated for Featured Article, articles which are supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia. Featured Articles may appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. Is this navel gazing? Or is it important for Wikipedia to air its own dirty laundry on its front page?

[everyking]

FAs aren't just about going on the front page, you know. An FA doesn't have to go on the front page at all. I would say that this one shouldn't, but that also shouldn't keep it from being an FA.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

FAs aren't just about going on the front page, you know. An FA doesn't have to go on the front page at all.

That's true; I actually doubt it would ever be accepted for the Main Page even if it passes FA. And so far, both reviewers have objected.

I think even the title is a little too Wikipedia-centered. I think this article had a more neutral title when it was named Essjay scandal, because the event was really only controversial on Wikipedia itself; few (if any) sources are disputing that Ryan Jordan used false credentials while editing Wikipedia, during content disputes, and to the press. Few people outside of Wikipedia would argue that Essjay was justified in making false claims to the press or during edit disputes, so the "controversy" exists only on Wikipedia. Elsewhere it's pretty much a scandal.

The thing is: I'm not sure this article could ever meet the Featured Article requirements, even with a completely objective editor (if one exists). FAs are supposed to be articles of a quality better than that of existing encyclopedias. Since no other encyclopedia is going to have an article about Essjay, there's no way to objectively measure this article against existing encyclopedia articles.

[alienus]

Wiki-censored, not wiki-centric.

I think even the title is a little too Wikipedia-centered. I think this article had a more neutral title when it was named Essjay scandal, because the event was really only controversial on Wikipedia itself; few (if any) sources are disputing that Ryan Jordan used false credentials while editing Wikipedia, during content disputes, and to the press. Few people outside of Wikipedia would argue that Essjay was justified in making false claims to the press or during edit disputes, so the "controversy" exists only on Wikipedia. Elsewhere it's pretty much a scandal.

Uhm, the bad title isn't about being too wiki-centered; it's an attempt at whitewashing the truth. Yes, you're right that it's not a controversy, but calling it a scandal, while accurate, makes Wikipedia look bad.

Under the broken view of NPOV that is often held by biased admins, anything that makes your side look bad isn't neutra, even when it's entirely factuall. Just look at how Jayjg and the rest of Team Israel tacked on "Allegations of" to [[Israeli Apartheid]]. The term, as cited, is simply "Israeli apartheid", and the article is about the term. Whether it's alleged or actual is irrelevant; it exists as a term. For comparison, look at [[Zionist Occupation Government]], which doesn't start with 'allegation of" because it's too ridiculous to take seriously.

Al

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Wiki-censored, not wiki-centric.

Uhm, the bad title isn't about being too wiki-centered; it's an attempt at whitewashing the truth. Yes, you're right that it's not a controversy, but calling it a scandal, while accurate, makes Wikipedia look bad.

Under the broken view of NPOV that is often held by biased admins, anything that makes your side look bad isn't neutra, even when it's entirely factuall.

Yeah. I just meant if those folks weren't so focused on Wikipedia, they'd notice people outside Wikipedia don't seem to find what Essjay did was "controversial" at all. To have "controversy", you have to have people who disagree with one another. Outside of Wikipedia, no one really disagrees that Essjay perpetrated a fraud to the NYT. On Wikipedia, while it was happening, there were editors who actually refused to believe it had ever happened (and with his sub-pages, including his confession page, deleted it couldn't be "proved" to them).

The title may be a whitewash, but (groan) at least the article is an acknowledgement that something unprofessional did happen, unlike the quickly deleted subpages.

Taking a look at the FAC now, it's clear this article will never pass FAC; the comments are mostly of the "having an article about ourselves on the main page would make us look stupid" variety.

[Pwok]

The title may be a whitewash, but (groan) at least the article is an acknowledgement that something unprofessional did happen, unlike the quickly deleted subpages.

"Unprofessional?" Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to be unprofessional? To be a professional, you need the following:

1. Advanced training and/or education

2. An ethics code separate from that of the enterprise you associate with

3. Substantial discretion over your job

None of these are present at Wikipedia. To expect "professionalism" from them is to misunderstand what a professional is.

This post has been edited by Pwok:

[JoseClutch]

The title may be a whitewash, but (groan) at least the article is an acknowledgement that something unprofessional did happen, unlike the quickly deleted subpages.

"Unprofessional?" Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to be unprofessional? To be a professional, you need the following:

1. Advanced training and/or education

2. An ethics code separate from that of the enterprise you associate with

3. Substantial discretion over your job

None of these are present at Wikipedia. To expect "professionalism" from them is to misunderstand what a professional is.

I'm not sure this is a good description of professionalism, and the only point of these that Wikipedians *might* not meet is the first one. All of them apply their own ethic code, and as an undirected volunteer you have substantial discretion over your job. Editors aren't forced to make any edits, and admins aren't forced to take any actions. We all have discretion. We all have our own ethics code, although there are some rules, I've never had a job without rules. And while many Wikipedians have little or no formal training, there are lots of Wikipedias with extensive formal training. Check out the math articles, it's rife with genuine Ph.D.s (which is evident just from the writing), and being mostly "nerds", many have at leave reasonable training (bachelors or what have you).

We're not professional because we don't get paid. I meet all three of those points, (more or less - I'm in the middle of a Ph.D. so how "advanced" my education is can be debated - I have a four year honours degree in science, you may not consider that "advanced"), but I'm not a professional, I edit Wikipedia as a hobby.

[Jonny Cache]

The title may be a whitewash, but (groan) at least the article is an acknowledgement that something unprofessional did happen, unlike the quickly deleted subpages.

"Unprofessional?" Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to be unprofessional? To be a professional, you need the following:

1. Advanced training and/or education
2. An ethics code separate from that of the enterprise you associate with
3. Substantial discretion over your job

None of these are present at Wikipedia. To expect "professionalism" from them is to misunderstand what a professional is.

I'm not sure this is a good description of professionalism, and the only point of these that Wikipedians *might* not meet is the first one. All of them apply their own ethic code, and as an undirected volunteer you have substantial discretion over your job. Editors aren't forced to make any edits, and admins aren't forced to take any actions. We all have discretion. We all have our own ethics code, although there are some rules, I've never had a job without rules. And while many Wikipedians have little or no formal training, there are lots of Wikipedias with extensive formal training. Check out the math articles, it's rife with genuine Ph.D.s (which is evident just from the writing), and being mostly "nerds", many have at leave reasonable training (bachelors or what have you).

We're not professional because we don't get paid. I meet all three of those points, (more or less - I'm in the middle of a Ph.D. so how "advanced" my education is can be debated — I have a four year honours degree in science, you may not consider that "advanced"), but I'm not a professional, I edit Wikipedia as a hobby.

In ordinary usage, being a professional means you get paid, as in professional hitman. Sorry, gals, hitmen as a rule are a hidebound traditional sexist bunch — and there's a thick, even •proof glass ceiling among hit professors, and even though we all know there are many fine hitmisses, hitnymphs, and hitwomen, somehow those more PC termofarts just ain't made the hit parade yet, with or without a •.

Where was I ??? Oh yeah, professionalism …

The question is whether Wikipediots observe Norms Of Research Methodology (NORM's) that are analogous to those observed in the relevant professions.

Now that is such a good question that I think it's worth starting another thread devoted to discussing it — give me a second, as thinking up new titles is always something of a strain for me.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)


This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Yehudi]

In ordinary usage, being a professional means you get paid, as in professional hitman.

That's rather an abuse of language. Doctors, accountants, lawyers and people like that are in the professions. Hitmen are tradesmen, so when they visit me they have to use the rear entrance.

[Jonny Cache]

In ordinary usage, being a professional means you get paid, as in professional hitman.

That's rather an abuse of language. Doctors, accountants, lawyers, and people like that are in the professions. Hitmen are tradesmen, so when they visit me they have to use the rear entrance.

Yes, they tend to come and go the same way.

Wait !!! &madash; I hear a helicopter on the roof …

Jonny Ricachet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: