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?

[Somey]

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?

Well, he's certainly not going to do it under the name "Essjay"...?

I mean, this guy was at it for 12-14 hours a day at one point. It seemed almost inconceivable that he had a real job, and knowing what I know about how much time and effort it takes to be a functioning college professor, it all seemed incredibly phony to me the whole time... Brandt too, of course, since he's had some experience in the Wonderful World of Education.

You don't beat the addiction that easily - I'm sure he was horribly embarrassed by the whole affair, but he was no quitter. Eventually you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and decide that the next time around, you're not going to make the same mistakes. He's probably at it right now, maybe even an admin already. And to be honest, I wish him all the best.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

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?

Essjay certainly was a nice guy. I don't believe his balls got put in a vice by anyone (no one forced him to say those things about himself, or claim expertise during edit disputes, and certainly no one forced him to conduct false interviews with newspapers and write letters to people claiming expertise: if Essjay's "balls were put into a vice", it was Essjay who put them there, which was quite unfortunate, both for him and for Wikipedia).

A look at Essjay's contributions show he was only a regular contributor to two or three articles, and only had around 1,300 contributions to article space. The rest of his edits were to talk/project space. I'm not certain I'd call that "wildly productive".

Do not misunderstand me: I liked Essjay a lot. But the weight of his contributions, at least in terms of encyclopedia space, was quite light, and it's hard to imagine why people would have such a difficult time discussing Essjay rationally (without using terms like "wildly productive", etc).

[everyking]

Essjay certainly was a nice guy. I don't believe his balls got put in a vice by anyone (no one forced him to say those things about himself, or claim expertise during edit disputes, and certainly no one forced him to conduct false interviews with newspapers and write letters to people claiming expertise: if Essjay's "balls were put into a vice", it was Essjay who put them there, which was quite unfortunate, both for him and for Wikipedia).

He seemed very mean-spirited to me. He enjoyed wielding power and didn't seem genuinely interested in the encyclopedia. His whole game was deceiving people to get the respect he needed to gain the power, and then using the power for its own sake. Not a nice guy.

[Somey]

Personally, I think the guy was victimized by the failure - or rather, impossibility - of Jimbo & Co. to successfully differentiate between Wikipedia and Wikia. Technically there was no reason why he couldn't have been a productive Wikia employee, but politically, the media would never have forgiven Jimbo for it. He still gets criticized for hiring him...

Mind you, I doubt Wikia has much in the way of long-term prospects, so he would have had to find another job eventually anyway... but it would have given him some valuable work experience and resume material. After a couple of years, he might have gotten a job with Nokia, Sakia, or Bekia... Indeed, he might have even found a good recipe for Chicken Tikka Masala.

You just never know!

[Jonny Cache]

I can hear him now at the Hello Delhi —

Do you want wikipapadam with that ?

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

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

He seemed very mean-spirited to me. He enjoyed wielding power and didn't seem genuinely interested in the encyclopedia. His whole game was deceiving people to get the respect he needed to gain the power, and then using the power for its own sake. Not a nice guy.

See, I never got that vibe from Essjay; plenty of other folks, but not particularly Essjay (though I admit I never worked with him on any articles, so my perception may be skewed). He certainly deceived a lot of people for a long time, but was it to gain power, or just to feel better about himself? His local newspaper painted him in a rather sad light: college dropout who had lied even to get the Wikia job. I'm not sure that he was lying to gain power, though the edit disputes might indicate so.

I certainly don't think Essjay was a "victim", as Somey calls him. Victims don't lie to the NYT and lie on their resumes. Somey says there was no reason he couldn't have worked at Wikia, but standard practice at many businesses is termination if an employee has been caught lying on his or her resume. Of course, this is tangental to my original question: if you knew your participation in Wikipedia had caused irreperable (no spell check on this thing?) harm to Wikipedia, why would you immediately come back and keep contributing? (To be fair, Somey did reply to this; the addict thing is certainly possible).

[Cedric]

He seemed very mean-spirited to me. He enjoyed wielding power and didn't seem genuinely interested in the encyclopedia. His whole game was deceiving people to get the respect he needed to gain the power, and then using the power for its own sake. Not a nice guy.

Indeed. "Mean" in the sense of malice, "mean" in the sense of slight regard for others, "mean" in the sense of selfishness, and "mean" in the sense of low value contributions. I believe our English cousins refer to such a person as a "rotter".

[Somey]

See, I never got that vibe from Essjay; plenty of other folks, but not particularly Essjay (though I admit I never worked with him on any articles, so my perception may be skewed).

I will say this: Essjay was the only admin ever to block Finest-Wikipedian-Ever User:Sbharris, and quite unfairly too I might add. Sbharris never really forgave him, though I suspect he probably would have if Essjay had apologized... he never did, of course. The high-ranking ones never do. Essentially, anyone who mistreats Sbharris, and doesn't make it right, deserves to have bad things happen to him/her. There simply can be no excuse for ill-treatment of my personal favorite Wikipedian ever, period!

I certainly don't think Essjay was a "victim", as Somey calls him. Victims don't lie to the NYT and lie on their resumes. Somey says there was no reason he couldn't have worked at Wikia, but standard practice at many businesses is termination if an employee has been caught lying on his or her resume.

Those are excellent points... I might argue that "being victimized" isn't the same as "being a victim," since the latter implies a certain attitude or behavior on his part which he didn't stick around long enough to demonstrate, one way or the other. Also, we never saw the actual resume, but the very fact that he was applying for a job at Wikia in the first place implies that the resume didn't contain any reference to his being a college professor...

Still, I continued to sympathize with him, at least WRT keeping his Wikia job, until he started blaming his deception on a need to "protect himself" from "stalking and harassment" at the hands of "trolls and vandals."

(To be fair, Somey did reply to this; the addict thing is certainly possible).

Thanks for being fair! But there's another aspect to it that we don't always bring up because it makes people dislike us, and that's narcissism. Wikipedia is a narcissistic project by its very nature, and it attracts narcissists like Paris Hilton attracts annoying photographers. Among the classic signs of narcissism is the refusal to accept blame, assumption of feigned expertise with no basis, insistence that others can't understand or appreciate the narcissist's needs/motives/rationale, and the tendency to use others for ego-gratification, if not tangible gain, without giving anything back... among other things. Without going so far as to make some sort of direct "internet psychiatrist" diagnosis here, it's not like it would be especially unusual.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

I will say this: Essjay was the only admin ever to block Finest-Wikipedian-Ever User:Sbharris, and quite unfairly too I might add. Sbharris never really forgave him, though I suspect he probably would have if Essjay had apologized... he never did, of course. The high-ranking ones never do. Essentially, anyone who mistreats Sbharris, and doesn't make it right, deserves to have bad things happen to him/her. There simply can be no excuse for ill-treatment of my personal favorite Wikipedian ever, period!

I can't comment on the Sbharris block, as I know absolutely nothing about it. By 'high-ranking ones', do you mean admins, or high-ranking admins (is there such a thing?)? I think there have been quite a few admins who have apologized.

Those are excellent points... I might argue that "being victimized" isn't the same as "being a victim," since the latter implies a certain attitude or behavior on his part which he didn't stick around long enough to demonstrate, one way or the other. Also, we never saw the actual resume, but the very fact that he was applying for a job at Wikia in the first place implies that the resume didn't contain any reference to his being a college professor...

No, I meant the resume he must have used to get the Wikia job. His Wikia profile had all that stuff about his working for a Fortune 100 company, etc. The info on his Wikia profile is logically the stuff he would have used on his resume when applying for the Wikia job, as it would be a bit awkward to apply for a job as a theologian and then put up a different profile on that same employer's web site. Essjay's local newspaper printed a story that the Fortune 100 company story was as bogus as the theologian story. I felt bad for him then, as it seemed unlikely he'd be able to get a good job anywhere with all that publicity.

Thanks for being fair! But there's another aspect to it that we don't always bring up because it makes people dislike us, and that's narcissism. Wikipedia is a narcissistic project by its very nature, and it attracts narcissists like Paris Hilton attracts annoying photographers. Among the classic signs of narcissism is the refusal to accept blame, assumption of feigned expertise with no basis, insistence that others can't understand or appreciate the narcissist's needs/motives/rationale, and the tendency to use others for ego-gratification, if not tangible gain, without giving anything back... among other things. Without going so far as to make some sort of direct "internet psychiatrist" diagnosis here, it's not like it would be especially unusual.

I don't think that concept makes WR nherently unlikable, though I don't believe Wikipedia is a "narcissistic project by its very nature". Certainly the old men who write about, for example, the early days of TV or radio broadcasting are doing so, in part, through narcisism (because they want to tell how it used to be, back in the days), but I think the main point is the preservation of this knowledge before it's lost for good. I won't go on about the virtues of Wikipedia, because I know you don't want to hear it, and you're sick to death of hearing it, but I just can't agree that Wikipedia is narcissistic by its very nature, Somey. Sorry for going off-topic...

[Rootology]

All I can add is that Essjay, on the whole, was productive--he was a meta gnome of extreme caliber. And, a damned nice guy overall. Zits? Shit, who doesn't have them?

The biggest failure was the way that things went down on his end and externally. If he were to work his way up again on a clean alternate account, privately, good for him, if he enjoys it.

[Jonny Cache]

I don't think that concept makes WR nherently unlikable, though I don't believe Wikipedia is a "narcissistic project by its very nature". Certainly the old men who write about, for example, the early days of TV or radio broadcasting are doing so, in part, through narcisism (because they want to tell how it used to be, back in the days), but I think the main point is the preservation of this knowledge before it's lost for good. I won't go on about the virtues of Wikipedia, because I know you don't want to hear it, and you're sick to death of hearing it, but I just can't agree that Wikipedia is narcissistic by its very nature, Somey. Sorry for going off-topic ...

Yup, that's our raisin detour here, becoming nherently lickable. The way I see it, human beings are narcississississtic by their very nature — but it takes a hothouse like Wikipedia to bring that flower into full bloomin ediocy.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't think that concept makes WR nherently unlikable, though I don't believe Wikipedia is a "narcissistic project by its very nature". Certainly the old men who write about, for example, the early days of TV or radio broadcasting are doing so, in part, through narcisism (because they want to tell how it used to be, back in the days), but I think the main point is the preservation of this knowledge before it's lost for good. I won't go on about the virtues of Wikipedia, because I know you don't want to hear it, and you're sick to death of hearing it, but I just can't agree that Wikipedia is narcissistic by its very nature, Somey. Sorry for going off-topic ...

Yup, that's our raisin detour here, becoming nherently lickable. The way I see it, human beings are narcississississtic by their very nature — but it takes a hothouse like Wikipedia to bring that flower into full bloomin ediocy.

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

All the sentimental discussion of Essjay reminds me, for reasons I am not quite clear about myself, those kind people who put out teddy bears and flowers for Diana.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

If he were to work his way up again on a clean alternate account, privately, good for him, if he enjoys it.

Yeah, but if ole dim Firsfron can spot the account, it's not all that private... :/

[Somey]

By 'high-ranking ones', do you mean admins, or high-ranking admins (is there such a thing?)? I think there have been quite a few admins who have apologized.

High-ranking admins. And you're right, there's been a significant effort on the part of WP'ers lately to stress the importance of being apologetic to people who have been offended, insulted, or wronged... I'd like to think that's mostly a reaction to what had been an extremely well-deserved reputation for not doing so in the past, though!

No, I meant the resume he must have used to get the Wikia job. His Wikia profile had all that stuff about his working for a Fortune 100 company, etc. The info on his Wikia profile is logically the stuff he would have used on his resume when applying for the Wikia job...

True, but I'm assuming the college professor thing wasn't on the resume, and that was the main issue for the WP folks. I could be wrong about all of it - and either way, we'll probably never get to see the resume itself, if there even was one in the first place. Jimbo might have hired him simply because of his obvious talent, enthusiasm, commitment, and experience with the software.

Yeah, but if ole dim Firsfron can spot the account, it's not all that private... :/

If you're thinking what I'm thinking, probably not! And then we also have to consider other motives, chiefly revenge, but also defense-of-honor, and possibly even an eventual redemption attempt.

But any direct speculation about what specific account the user-formerly-known-as-Essjay might currently be using on WP should probably be carried on in the Tar Pit, if at all... I'm not super-concerned about Essjay or protecting his feelings, but we definitely should refrain from unnecessary rumor-mongering over this that might inadvertently cast suspicion on anyone who isn't him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

But any direct speculation about what specific account the user-formerly-known-as-Essjay might currently be using on WP should probably be carried on in the Tar Pit, if at all... I'm not super-concerned about Essjay or protecting his feelings, but we definitely should refrain from unnecessary rumor-mongering over this that might inadvertently cast suspicion on anyone who isn't him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I have no interest in "outting" any accounts, as I hope my circumspection indicated, natch.

[the fieryangel]

But any direct speculation about what specific account the user-formerly-known-as-Essjay might currently be using on WP should probably be carried on in the Tar Pit, if at all... I'm not super-concerned about Essjay or protecting his feelings, but we definitely should refrain from unnecessary rumor-mongering over this that might inadvertently cast suspicion on anyone who isn't him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If Essjay is indeed stupid enough to continue editing WP under another account (and this is pure speculation, although I too have my own theory....), at one point or another, the wrong person is going to find out. The resulting fallout is going to be extremely entertaining to watch.

Now, everybody believed Jimbo when he said that Essjay was fired from Wikia, but what proof do we have that this is actually the case?

[Jonny Cache]

Duh, I know it's the last thing that would occur to a Wikipediot, but couldn't he just open an account under his real name, cry the requisite riverrun of really rueful lachrymal excretions, and promise to be good forever hereafter? It worked for that other tele-theologian, Jimmy Swaggart.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Duh, I know it's the last thing that would occur to a Wikipediot, but couldn't he just open an account under his real name, cry the requisite riverrun of really rueful lacrimal excretions, and promise to be good forever hereafter? It worked for that other tele-theologian, Jimmy Swaggart.

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

There are obviously a ton of Wikipedians (and WReviewers!) who would welcome him back with open arms. And there would be those who would leave those hate-filled messages he was getting on his talk page at the end.

Either way, the press would have a field day when they found out.

[Jonny Cache]

There are obviously a ton of Wikipedians (and WReviewers!) who would welcome him back with open arms. And there would be those who would leave those hate-filled messages he was getting on his talk page at the end.

Either way, the press would have a field day when they found out.

Sure 'nuff, but far worse sinners have survived the glare of public de-lousing and even seem to thrive on the beneficial affectations of their periodic born-aginning.

Using his real name — whatever that is, we still don't know for sure — would serve as an outward sign of inward grace, a signal that he intends to live hencefwd by a higher standard than the average Wikiparishioner who remains as yet unbaptized by fire.

Who knows, a thing like that might even be caching ...

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Using his real name — whatever that is, we still don't know for sure [...]

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports his name really was Ryan Jordan. There's no reason to doubt that his name on his Wikia profile, along with the college records, the local newspaper, and a local business which employed him, are all wrong.