Administrator WJBscribe Options

[Pwok]

So, I sat down and read the entire New Yorker article about Wikipedia, including the editor's note about Essjay, i.e., Ryan Jordan, the man-child who falsified his resume and was praised for it by Jimmy Wales. In the aftermath, The New York Times wrote about the whole thing, which wound up embarrassing Wales and Wikipedia enough to cut Jordan loose.

So far, so good, but then I noticed something in the NYT piece. An administrator identified as WJBscribe is quoted rising to the young liar's defense thusly:

Just wanted to express my 100 percent support for everything you do around here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity. Don't let all the fuss get you down!"

Folks, this is the same WJBscribe who has intervened to censor verified, public-record information from the Matt Sanchez article that I discussed previously in the Articles section of this site. He has also banned me from Wikipedia. I guess it's par for the course, but then maybe it's par for the course on this website is to point out that Wikipedia has an active administrator who removes facts and defends fabricators.

No wonder the thing is going down in flames. I don't know if anyone saw the latest Colbert segment on Wikipedia broadcast on August 22, but I'd say Wikipedia is rapidly turning into the punch line of a joke. It's their own fault. Last spring, they got a clear warning to turn things around, but their arrogance and irresponsibility prevented them from doing anything. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Thu 23rd August 2007, 7:56am

[blissyu2]

Well, I think you'll find that a lot of people on Wikipedia Review liked Essjay. He was one of the nicest Wikipedia Administrators that we ever had come in here, and he was here during a time when we had some really nasty people. And I mean it is true that he refused to tell us about Amorrow, so we were a bit upset with him, and he added WR to the spam blacklist, but at least he was nice about it, and it seemed like a genuine mistake, and like he would get in trouble if he said the real reason why they thought that Amorrow was a stalker.

And I mean in a lot of ways, who cares if he lied about his credentials? The issue is whether he used that to influence things. Did he? I haven't seen any real evidence that he did. He also wasn't editing articles of historical importance, not highly controversial articles or historical articles, or anything like that. It was important as a technicality, and it highlights a general abuse, and indeed he needed to go down to prove the point. But at the same time I do feel quite sorry for him.

I think that he probably just started off wishing he had it. Its kind of like if I tell you that I have a PhD in Maths. I mean I would have if things had gone right in my life. I certainly feel like I deserved to have that qualification, but circumstances out of my control meant that I didn't get it. Perhaps that is the same situation with Essjay. It sounds like he did a pretty good job of faking it, so perhaps it was. I am sure that I could convince people that I had a PhD in Maths, in terms of my knowledge.

So just because WJBscribe supported him I don't think makes him a bad person.

[Pwok]

Well, I think you'll find that a lot of people on Wikipedia Review liked Essjay. He was one of the nicest Wikipedia Administrators that we ever had come in here, and he was here during a time when we had some really nasty people.

That's irrelevant. Con men are often "nice." In fact, being "nice" is often why con men do so well.

And I mean in a lot of ways, who cares if he lied about his credentials?

That's something you'll have to ponder. You've just made an argument for lying, and lying is part and parcel of the critical flaw at the very center of Wikipedia. blissyu2, facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient.

It was important as a technicality, and it highlights a general abuse, and indeed he needed to go down to prove the point. But at the same time I do feel quite sorry for him.

The truth is a "technicality?" No! Sorry, but when you put yourself in the encyclopedia business you'd better have an iron-clad commitment to fact and truth, or you don't belong there. Feeling sorry for him is irrelevant. Now, I suppose this is a difference of personal attitudes, but I don't feel sorry for a liar in a senior position at an enterprise that depends upon telling the truth.

I think that he probably just started off wishing he had it. Its kind of like if I tell you that I have a PhD in Maths. I mean I would have if things had gone right in my life. I certainly feel like I deserved to have that qualification, but circumstances out of my control meant that I didn't get it. Perhaps that is the same situation with Essjay. It sounds like he did a pretty good job of faking it, so perhaps it was. I am sure that I could convince people that I had a PhD in Maths, in terms of my knowledge.

If you tell people you have a Ph.D. in Maths and you don't, that would make you a liar. And you'd be a liar regardless of your justifications for lying. I might otherwise find you pleasant and maybe even sympathize with you, but all that would do is make you a liar who I like. Yes, I'm being harsh, but the truth can be a tough taskmaster. Liars should stay out of the truth business.

Ryan Jordan -- let's use his real name, seeing as how we know what it is -- is a liar. Wikipedia's insiders defended him, knowing that he was a liar. This compounded the issue. There will be cheats and liars in any enterprise, but when those who run the enterprise tolerate them and support them, then it is not only fair but indeed necessary to be even harsher on them than on the liar himself.

So just because WJBscribe supported him I don't think makes him a bad person.

This isn't about whether WJBscribe is a "bad person." I'm not qualified to make such a judgment. I can, however, state with confidence that WJBscribe supported a liar, knowing that he was a liar, and that WJBscribe has deleted facts from the article I've cited. The people and dogs around him might "like" him, and he may well be kind to strangers and the poor, and if I met him I might like him. None of that matters. Truth is truth, and ethics are ethics. The rules apply equally to the likeable and the unlikeable.

It occurs to me that this is a significant issue at Wikipedia: Its insiders decide who they "like," and then give those they "like" positions of authority on that basis. At a practical level, that may well be why Wikipedia has run itself off the rails. To recall the old proverb, paraphrased, it's not your enemies who'll do the most harm, it's your friends. Think about it!

This post has been edited by Pwok: Thu 23rd August 2007, 8:28pm