Essjay: Why?, And why did Jimbo support him? Options

[Lir]

From Wikipedia:

Jimmy Wales... initially showed support for Essjay's use of false credentials in creating a persona by stating, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."[4] Later, however, when it became clear that the false credentials were used in "content disputes,"[7] Wales withdrew his support...

Is Jimbo naive, stupid, or just a liar? I don't understand how he could support Essjay's claim to have a PhD, as if Wikipedia were a roleplaying game where such things don't matter, and then belatedly realize that such claims affect content disputes. Seriously, did it not occur to him that claiming to have a PhD was a means of asserting power over "trollerists"? Why is Jimbo such a sleaze-bag, who needs everything spelled out for him before he realizes the flaws in his administration? Shouldn't all of Essjay's arbitration committee votes be overruled now?

This whole affair is a microcosm of Wikipedia: corrupt politics, incompetent authoritarians, and outright inaccuracy.

According to Essjay, these credentials were part of an online persona he had created, in part, to avoid cyberstalking. "I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times."

Bullshit! He basically said, "I didn't want to be stalked, so I pretended to be a successful person." wtfe! But according to Jimbo that was a "heartfelt apology".

Florence Devouard, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, "I think what matters is the quality of the content, which we can improve by enforcing policies such as 'cite your source,' not the quality of credentials showed by an editor."

On another topic here... When I edited I was asked to "cite my source" all the goddamn time -- I realized that the cabal was using it as harrassment, to force me to fight their redtape just to add anything. People on Wikipedia ask you to cite the book you read, but they never go check the book out, as they only do internet 'fact-checking'. Anyways, the point is that cabalists get a free pass and never have to cite sources, and meanwhile people they don't like are forced to fight on every trivial issue. Oh, and for the longest time I was the only one on Wikipedia citing my sources, by putting a list at the bottom indicating where the information was coming from -- that, they said, was too spammy.

Anyways, I eventually started making bets with repeat cabal-stalkers; I told them that if I could cite a reliable source, then they should leave Wikipedia forever -- if I couldn't, then I would. One of them actually took me up on that and left for quite a while; but yah, this was used against me as a reason to ban me, because I was too 'hostile' to innocent admins.

Larry Sanger, currently Editor-in-Chief of online encyclopedia Citizendium,[26] and co-founder of Wikipedia[27] who left the project in 2002,[28] called Essjay's response "a defiant non-apology"[29] and elsewhere characterized Essjay's actions as "identity fraud."[30] Writer for The Register and Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski criticized Jimmy Wales for hiring Essjay at Wikia and appointing him to the Wikipedia arbitration committee after Essjay had apparently admitted his previously claimed academic and professional credentials were false.[30] Orlowski wrote that Essjay's actions betrayed a dangerous community mindset within Wikipedia, quoting Sanger as saying, "Wikipedians have plainly become a very insular group: they have their own mores and requirements, which are completely independent of the real world. Indeed, that's what this story is about, after all: real-world identities and credentials are rejected as unnecessary by Wikipedia."[30]

Dan Blacharski of ITworld wrote, "Legitimate writers, scholars and industry experts have very little motivation to contribute to Wikipedia—leaving the project with wannabes and posers like Essjay with too much time on their hands to churn out content."[31] Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said that Wikipedia "fundamentally runs by an extremely deceptive sort of social promise," of which he says Essjay is a product.[32] Finkelstein later wrote in The Guardian, "Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic…But all that'll happen is they will work for free, while elsewhere the Wikia investors will reap the rewards." He described Essjay as "that dream’s poster child," who had been encouraged by Wikipedia to play out a detailed fantasy role along with "a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation’s projects."[6]

[Robster]

From Wikipedia:

Jimmy Wales... initially showed support for Essjay's use of false credentials in creating a persona by stating, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."[4] Later, however, when it became clear that the false credentials were used in "content disputes,"[7] Wales withdrew his support...

Is Jimbo naive, stupid, or just a liar? I don't understand how he could support Essjay's claim to have a PhD, as if Wikipedia were a roleplaying game where such things don't matter

That's because Wikipedia really is a roleplaying game where such things don't matter.

That and Jimbo Wales is becoming increasingly disconnected from the Frankenstein's Monster that he created.

[Nathan]

Even I've spelled out things (that were obviously wrong) to Jimbo, he just doesn't get it (or chooses to ignore me, instead considering the source is a banned user and I can't possibly have anything constructive to contribute *rolls eyes*).

He has this delusion, you see, where everything on Wikipedia is completely right to him. Nobody can be faulted, everything's fine, nothing to see here, move along!

[Lir]

Even I've spelled out things (that were obviously wrong) to Jimbo, he just doesn't get it (or chooses to ignore me, instead considering the source is a banned user and I can't possibly have anything constructive to contribute *rolls eyes*).

I argued with Jimbo about depleted uranium munitions, which explode at a high temperature, and disburse radiaoctive particulates throughout vast regions, harming both sides during a conflict. He insisted that the munitions were completely safe, and that I was a naive crackpot conspiracy theorist. Sometimes, the crackpots are the ones who deny the 'conspiracy'...

[Chris Croy]

Is Jimbo naive, stupid, or just a liar?

Write-in vote: Jimbo's very loyal to his friends and genuinely believes Wikipedia should allow people to contribute anonymously. Essjay also has a point about interweb detectives and the need to throw them off of your scent if you would prefer people not make spurious police reports.

On another topic here... When I edited I was asked to "cite my source" all the goddamn time -- I realized that the cabal was using it as harrassment, to force me to fight their redtape just to add anything.

I, too, am oppressed by this reality-enforcing CABAL. As we all know, THE CABAL never cites their sources. Others only cite their sources under duress from The CABAL and only cite books in super-controversial articles .

[Kato]

Here is a revealing post from Jimbo. Adding his NPOV and subject knowledge to the Fred Singer article.

== The Monbiot stuff concerns me ==
We are talking about some pretty serious stuff in this article, and this source seems pretty questionable to me for the following reasons: first, it is an editorial, not news reporting, by someone obviously hostile to Singer. And the connection here seems quite tenuous... someone else claims something (what?) and this hostile editorialist claims that it is from Singer (somehow), and that there is no source (but where did Singer make the claim, what did he claim, has he clarified the source elsewhere), etc.

This "editorialist" and "questionable hostile source" troubling Jimbo is George Monbiot. One of the most important and well known journalists in the U.K. Advisor to the BBC etc... awards from Nelson Mandela for acheivements etc... Visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University etc....

[GlassBeadGame]

Here is a revealing post from Jimbo. Adding his NPOV and subject knowledge to the Fred Singer article.

== The Monbiot stuff concerns me ==
We are talking about some pretty serious stuff in this article, and this source seems pretty questionable to me for the following reasons: first, it is an editorial, not news reporting, by someone obviously hostile to Singer. And the connection here seems quite tenuous... someone else claims something (what?) and this hostile editorialist claims that it is from Singer (somehow), and that there is no source (but where did Singer make the claim, what did he claim, has he clarified the source elsewhere), etc.

This "editorialist" and "questionable hostile source" troubling Jimbo is George Monbiot. One of the most important and well known journalists in the U.K. Advisor to the BBC etc... awards from Nelson Mandela for acheivements etc... Visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University etc....

Interestingly 13 of 25 of the articles "references" are provided by Singer himself. This does not trouble JW, in fact he contacts Singer for more "cites."

[Cedric]

Believe me Lir, you are hardly the first person to wonder whether Jimbo is simply pathologically deceitful, or whether he lives in his own special mentalverse, cocooned away from the reality the rest of us experience. This guy couldn't recognize a properly referenced fact if it jumped out of a bush and bit him on the ass. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

After reading many Jimbo posts, and reading and watching interviews of him, over several months, I am no closer whatever to understanding how his mind really works. And you know something? I am totally comfortable with that.

[Daniel Brandt]

Jimbo has lost perspective the same way that Eric Schmidt of Google has lost perspective. You cannot run around with an adoring Web 2.0 media hanging on your every word for several years, and give speeches here and there, without losing perspective. You start thinking and saying things that are contradicted by the evidence that too many people can already see.

The reason why the media is the last to see it is because reporters are paid NOT to see it.

The main difference between Eric and Jimbo is that Eric is worth about $5 billion and Jimbo isn't. The other difference is that Eric still believes in Google, and Jimbo is just faking his belief in Wikipedia so that he can collect the speaking fees.

[Somey]

Essjay also has a point about interweb detectives and the need to throw them off of your scent if you would prefer people not make spurious police reports.

That's ridiculous. Even if you grant that the person who notified the police in Sandifer's case understood that the report was "spurious," there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to substantiate Essjay's claim that he was being subjected to "harassment," and also nothing to justify his ludicrous claim to academic standing as a means of avoiding it. We've been over this many times - there's simply no basis for comparing the two situations at all.

And frankly, the same could be said of User:Wassermann and User:Mantanmoreland. The main thing they learned from the Essjay embarrassment was simply this: "Deny everything, and Wikipedia will back you up, in hopes of avoiding further negative scrutiny."

I, too, am oppressed by this reality-enforcing CABAL. As we all know, THE CABAL never cites their sources. Others only cite their sources under duress from The CABAL and only cite books in super-controversial articles.

That's not quite as ridiculous, but just because various agenda-pushing groups on WP have been reasonably good about citing their sources recently doesn't mean that can't be, or isn't, used as an intimidation tactic. Particularly when they cast aspersions on good sources simply because they're also used by bad people elsewhere, like the recent situation with User:PalestineRemembered.

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Here is a revealing post from Jimbo. Adding his NPOV and subject knowledge to the Fred Singer article.

== The Monbiot stuff concerns me ==
We are talking about some pretty serious stuff in this article, and this source seems pretty questionable to me for the following reasons: first, it is an editorial, not news reporting, by someone obviously hostile to Singer. And the connection here seems quite tenuous... someone else claims something (what?) and this hostile editorialist claims that it is from Singer (somehow), and that there is no source (but where did Singer make the claim, what did he claim, has he clarified the source elsewhere), etc.

This "editorialist" and "questionable hostile source" troubling Jimbo is George Monbiot. One of the most important and well known journalists in the U.K. Advisor to the BBC etc... awards from Nelson Mandela for acheivements etc... Visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University etc....

I am absolutely with Jimbo here. Monbiot is a hypocritical twat with his head stuck up his arse and no journalistic (or other) ethics whatsoever.

[Chris Croy]

there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to substantiate Essjay's claim that he was being subjected to "harassment,"

That was the whole point: Pretend to be someone else so people CAN'T harass you in real life! He apparently succeeded.

[BobbyBombastic]

there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to substantiate Essjay's claim that he was being subjected to "harassment,"

That was the whole point: Pretend to be someone else so people CAN'T harass you in real life! He apparently succeeded.

That's a bit of POV pushing on your part, quoting out of context, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The quote is:

...there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to substantiate Essjay's claim that he was being subjected to "harassment," and also nothing to justify his ludicrous claim to academic standing as a means of avoiding it.

I feel a bit silly discussing this months later. A plumber from Kentucky (or where ever he was from) would have been a suitable cover as well. Not to mention, a pseudonym and saying little about one's life is suitable enough cover for most.

[poopooball]

The main difference between Eric and Jimbo is that Eric is worth about $5 billion and Jimbo isn't. The other difference is that Eric still believes in Google, and Jimbo is just faking his belief in Wikipedia so that he can collect the speaking fees.

speakng fees & wikia, whcih he makes $$$ off of. did u see his post recentyl on teh mailing list where he encorages moving info onto teh for-profit sites such as teh final fantasy info? no, wales gave up on teh project a while aog.

[Somey]

That was the whole point: Pretend to be someone else so people CAN'T harass you in real life! He apparently succeeded.

Putting aside the fact that this argument has already been completely and thoroughly debunked, has it occurred to anyone that by unsuccessfully impersonating a gay theology professor on WP, he might have engendered a lot of hostility towards gay theology professors in the real world that wouldn't otherwise have existed? Not to mention other Wikipedians in general?

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

That was the whole point: Pretend to be someone else so people CAN'T harass you in real life! He apparently succeeded.

Putting aside the fact that this argument has already been completely and thoroughly debunked, has it occurred to anyone that by unsuccessfully impersonating a gay theology professor on WP, he might have engendered a lot of hostility towards gay theology professors in the real world that wouldn't otherwise have existed? Not to mention other Wikipedians in general?

I think the real question is: Given the bad publicity concerning the Essjay affair (reports on ABC, CNN, the BBC, etc), why on earth might Essjay continue to edit Wikipedia, under a different username?

(Hi all! I had planned to discuss this on Wikipedia itself, but I realized I didn't want to deal with endless Wiki-drama; the last time I brought up reviewing Essjay's work (because it was based on false authority from an admitted amateur), my comments were removed and I was accused of "vindictiveness" against Essjay --who I quite liked, and who actually was the 'crat who authorized my admin tools. I don't feel like having my comments reverted, and I don't feel like having to put myself thru the pain of having to explain why I'm not "putting Essjay on trial" when I discuss him or his edits. The irony is that discussing Essjay's old account or more recent(ish) account is that I feel it can't be done on Wikipedia itself. Not without causing a lot more grief than I want.)

[GlassBeadGame]

That was the whole point: Pretend to be someone else so people CAN'T harass you in real life! He apparently succeeded.

Putting aside the fact that this argument has already been completely and thoroughly debunked, has it occurred to anyone that by unsuccessfully impersonating a gay theology professor on WP, he might have engendered a lot of hostility towards gay theology professors in the real world that wouldn't otherwise have existed? Not to mention other Wikipedians in general?

I think the real question is: Given the bad publicity concerning the Essjay affair (reports on ABC, CNN, the BBC, etc), why on earth might Essjay continue to edit Wikipedia, under a different username?

(Hi all! I had planned to discuss this on Wikipedia itself, but I realized I didn't want to deal with endless Wiki-drama; the last time I brought up reviewing Essjay's work (because it was based on false authority from an admitted amateur), my comments were removed and I was accused of "vindictiveness" against Essjay --who I quite liked, and who actually was the 'crat who authorized my admin tools. I don't feel like having my comments reverted, and I don't feel like having to put myself thru the pain of having to explain why I'm not "putting Essjay on trial" when I discuss him or his edits. The irony is that discussing Essjay's old account or more recent(ish) account is that I feel it can't be done on Wikipedia itself. Not without causing a lot more grief than I want.)

Welcome FoR. I'm not always known for being so friendly to admins from WP but I am impressed with your reason for posting here. Isn't it funny that WP has all of these phony rules and policies that on their face seem to be about facilitating free discussion but in the end is a repressive and stifling wasteland of conformity and stifled expression? I believe you will find WR a healthier environment for open and free discussion.

Don't even get me started on WP's "consensus."

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Welcome FoR. I'm not always known for being so friendly to admins from WP but I am impressed with your reason for posting here. Isn't it funny that WP has all of these phony rules and policies that on their face seem to be about facilitating free discussion but in the end is a repressive and stifling wasteland of conformity and stifled expression? I believe you will find WR a healthier environment for open and free discussion.

Don't even get me started on WP's "consensus."

Hey GBG!

I wouldn't say the rules and policies are phony. I would say they are open to interpretation, and that often causes a lot of undue stress on-Wiki. In fact, the rules and policies have nothing to do with why folks can't discuss Essjay and alternate accounts on Wikipedia. Other editors are the reason why open discussion about Essjay cannot occur on Wikipedia, which is sooooo unfortunate.

[GlassBeadGame]

Hey GBG!

I wouldn't say the rules and policies are phony. I would say they are open to interpretation, and that often causes a lot of undue stress on-Wiki. In fact, the rules and policies have nothing to do with why folks can't discuss Essjay and alternate accounts on Wikipedia. Other editors are the reason why open discussion about Essjay cannot occur on Wikipedia, which is sooooo unfortunate.

Well you've come about as far as you can for one day. "The destructive aspects of a dysfunctional social networking community" is an intermediate level topic at WR:U. I would suggest cranberry juice and lots of water. as tolerated, to get that kool-aide out of the system. Good luck.

[Rootology]

I think the real question is: Given the bad publicity concerning the Essjay affair (reports on ABC, CNN, the BBC, etc), why on earth might Essjay continue to edit Wikipedia, under a different username?

Because, all the pointless games and secrecy aside, Essjay *was* a nice guy that got his balls put in a vice, who was wildly productive, and a GOOD editor overall? And perhaps because he just enjoys working on Wikipedia and believes in the ideal of it?