Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Essjay affair _ [[Essjay controversy]] up for Featured Article

Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 1st September 2007, 11:18am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?


Please look up Fundamental Attribution Bias (FAB), aka Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) in a social psych textbook. The Wikipedia article used to be moderately informative on this score when I was helping to write it, but I never look bak NE more, as it always makes me cry.

It doesn't really matter if WP:Fundament Gazing is done on its front page or in its back wards, as it's all the same thing, a way of distracting from the ®eal Problem™ @ Wikipedia.

IT'S THE SYSTEM, STØØPID !!!

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Kato

The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Essjay_controversy&redirect=no is priceless laugh.gif

QUOTE
The controversy itself is now over, and the edit wars are now finished. What is left is very comprehensive and concise article that I think is now good enough for FA. Let something good come out of something bad. DevAlt 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Raul won't ever put it on the front page. As he is somehow in a position to control the process unilaterally, he'll see it for what it is. A disaster.

Posted by: blissyu2

Bizarre. Much as it might be fun to have that on Wikipedia's front page, its wrong on so many levels to do that.

Posted by: Pwok

I wouldn't be surprised if it went on their front page. It is not an example of airing one's dirty laundry; it is an example of applying lipstick to a pig. The "Essjay controversy" article is a prime example of Wikipedia's lack of respect for the truth. It brushes aside the most salient fact: Jimmy Wales knew that Jordan was a fraud and hired him anyway, and kept him in his senior position at Wikipedia anyway. This central issue is dealt with only tangentially and incompletely in the article, which is revealingly labeled as being about a "controversy" rather being about the "fraud" it that it was.

Yes, Wikipedia, put your fraudulent article on the fraudulent front page of your fraudulent encyclopedia. You are frauds who deserve to be known as frauds. Your article is Exhibit A. You fool no one.

Posted by: guy

Articles on the front page always get floods of edits of course. Can you imagine what would happen to that article?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(guy @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:43pm) *

Articles on the front page always get floods of edits of course. Can you imagine what would happen to that article?


Fly, Flypaper.
Flypaper, Fly.

Lordy, Lordy !!!

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:59pm) *

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.


Last time I looked, there's a "Featured Content" link on the Main Page and every other page.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jaranda

Of course he'll never put that in the main page, for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 1st September 2007, 5:59pm) *

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.


Posted by: jdrand

The reason why WJBscribe voted oppose is not because the article is self referential and "obsessed with itself", but because Wikipedia's ruling Class Clique (RCC) wants to diminish criticism of itself. Even though the article is very well qritten and the case received mass media coverage, and worthy of featured article status, it still will not pass because the reason for the oppose votes are not really the reason for the oppose votes.

Posted by: Pwok

WJBscribe voted "no" because he was one of Jordan's advocates. WJBscribe was pro-fraud. It speaks volumes of Wikipedia, not to mention WJBscribe, that he is still there, ruling on articles.

Posted by: blissyu2

WJBscribe helped to ban Malber. He is a good guy.

Posted by: Pwok

He's a good guy. That speaks volumes: it tells me that, yes, Wikipedia is not only hollow at the core but it's run by a bunch of kids who confuse composing accurate articles with voting for student council president. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. Fact is, this WJBscribe character has been editing facts out of articles and has been promoting and defending fraudulent people. I doesn't matter whether he's a "good guy." He doesn't belong in a position of responsibility at an "encyclopdia."

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sat 1st September 2007, 9:42pm) *
He doesn't belong in a position of responsibility at an "encyclopdia."


Luckily, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

Posted by: Pwok

QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:46pm) *
Luckily, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

They make that claim.

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sat 1st September 2007, 9:51pm) *

QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:46pm) *
Luckily, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

They make that claim.

And North Korea claims to be a democracy.

Posted by: Pwok

Look, I don't believe the claim either. The fact that this WJBscribe remains as an administrator is one of the many reasons why the claim is not credible.

Posted by: LamontStormstar

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:01pm) *

WJBscribe voted "no" because he was one of Jordan's advocates. WJBscribe was pro-fraud. It speaks volumes of Wikipedia, not to mention WJBscribe, that he is still there, ruling on articles.



QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:09pm) *

WJBscribe helped to ban Malber. He is a good guy.




Wikipedia wouldn't want something critical of them being featured.

WJScribe is pro-fraud. I never looked at the whole Malber story but I remember reading somewhere or another he banned Malber merely because Malber spoiled Harry Potter for him and I guess WJScribe was mad.

Posted by: blissyu2

Yes, apparently Malber wrote what happened in Harry Potter just minutes after it was released (it was available elsewhere on the internet just minutes later). I am not sure that that is why Malber was banned though.

Posted by: alienus

Wiki-censored, not wiki-centric.

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 1st September 2007, 3:31pm) *

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

Posted by: Pwok

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sat 1st September 2007, 3:24pm) *
I never looked at the whole Malber story but I remember reading somewhere or another he banned Malber merely because Malber spoiled Harry Potter for him and I guess WJScribe was mad.

Yet one more confirmation that Wikipedia is a nest of vindictive teenagers. So this is what it's come to: the most popular source of information on the Internet is a collection of junk arranged and rearranged by 16-year-olds who feud over Harry Potter. That's even more depressing than Big Brother, isn't it?

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sun 2nd September 2007, 12:19am) *
So this is what it's come to: the most popular source of information on the Internet is a collection of junk arranged and rearranged by 16-year-olds who feud over Harry Potter. That's even more depressing than Big Brother, isn't it?


FORUM Image

Not so depressing...

In the interests of full disclosure, all I know is that this person was a Big Brother contestent and was fired for being racists. But had I been watching her I wouldn't have been depressed!

Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester

QUOTE(alienus @ Sat 1st September 2007, 10:57pm) *

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.

Posted by: grievous

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sat 1st September 2007, 1:03pm) *

Bizarre. Much as it might be fun to have that on Wikipedia's front page, its wrong on so many levels to do that.


In it's early days it was on the main page for a about ten minutes in the DYK section. It even included Essjay's picture. It was removed after some dramabombing on ANI. Malber was the nominator. He got a stern warning about it, but the irony is that it takes an administrator to approve something for DYK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malber&oldid=113674625

Posted by: LamontStormstar

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sun 2nd September 2007, 12:19am) *
So this is what it's come to: the most popular source of information on the Internet is a collection of junk arranged and rearranged by 16-year-olds who feud over Harry Potter. That's even more depressing than Big Brother, isn't it?



I saw somewhere that people would get back at administrators by giving them harry potter spoilers.


QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sat 1st September 2007, 4:32pm) *

FORUM Image


If that picture is gone it's a hot nude chick saying she had an erotic dream about harry potter.
Well, the actor has posed nude. There's also lots of erotic fanfiction about harry potter.

Posted by: Pwok

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 1st September 2007, 5:04pm) *
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.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sun 2nd September 2007, 12:47am) *

If that picture is gone it's a hot nude chick saying she had an erotic dream about harry potter.
Well, the actor has posed nude. There's also lots of erotic fanfiction about harry potter.


He posed nude because he was in a Westend production of "Equus" and the role he played has to be nude (it's part of the story--and it's more disturbing than sexual). Since everybody was going to see him nude for most of an evening onstage every night for weeks on end, I guess that the producers decided that photos were in order.




Posted by: Rochelle

There's no way it's going to pass. In fact, it was suggested to be closed. WP:SNOW. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Waaaaaaaaayyyyyy.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sun 2nd September 2007, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 1st September 2007, 5:04pm) *
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.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 10:22am) *

QUOTE(Pwok @ Sun 2nd September 2007, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 1st September 2007, 5:04pm) *

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 cool.gif

Posted by: Yehudi

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 4th September 2007, 3:44pm) *

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.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Yehudi @ Tue 4th September 2007, 11:35am) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 4th September 2007, 3:44pm) *

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 cool.gif

Posted by: Pwok

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am) *
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.

It is close to the U.S. Department of Labor's definition used to determine whether someone is exempt from wage and hour regulations on account of being a professional.

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am) *
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).

Leaving aside the subject/object disagreement in your sentence, there is no way to verify the credentials claimed by people who edit Wikipedia's articles. Ryan Jordan fraudulently claimed that he was a professional, and was supported in his fraud by Jimbo Wales, one of Wikipedia's founders. No credential claims published on Wikipedia can be accepted without verification.

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am) *
We're not professional because we don't get paid.

This would eliminate you from consideration under the Department of Labor standard, but someone could easily be an "unemployed professional."

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 4th September 2007, 7:22am) *
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.

Being "in the middle of a Ph.D." is like being "a little bit pregnant." As for honors degrees, you can drive a semi-truck through the loopholes.

Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester

QUOTE(Pwok @ Tue 4th September 2007, 10:24pm) *


Leaving aside the subject/object disagreement in your sentence, there is no way to verify the credentials claimed by people who edit Wikipedia's articles.


Are we talking about all instances or in most cases? If it's the latter, I'd agree with you: most folks aren't willing to provide detailed information about themselves on Wikipedia. However, I've been able to verify various editors' credentials when they've linked to their university post-doctoral or MS program page with contact information. Sending off an e-mail or two to receive verification ("Yes, it's really me on Wikipedia") is an easy way to confirm someone is who s/he says s/he is. Most of the people I work with regularly on Wikipedia who have advanced degrees can easily be confirmed. I'm not saying that's the case for most of Wikipedia; it's just my experience from working within one particular WikiProject, which has attracted several professionals.

Posted by: Pwok

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Tue 4th September 2007, 6:46pm) *
Are we talking about all instances or in most cases?

Unless someone provides the means of verification, then it's impossible. This is one of the many reasons not to trust anything on The Children's Encyclopedia that calls itself Wikipedia. The organization is about as unprofessional and unfactual as those things can ever get.