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]

Yes, well, perhaps a more pertinent point to make is this: what harm did he cause to Wikipedia? I mean in terms of what articles did he hurt? What people did he hurt? Obviously the media storm caused harm, but that's a separate issue really.

[badlydrawnjeff]

Yes, well, perhaps a more pertinent point to make is this: what harm did he cause to Wikipedia? I mean in terms of what articles did he hurt? What people did he hurt? Obviously the media storm caused harm, but that's a separate issue really.

I don't have the time or inclination to find the posts, but it was well-established that he used his false credentials in deletion discussions, as well as posed as the professor character in "official" e-mails concerning Wikipedia situations. I put "official" in quotes not as his working for Wikimedia, but as working on Wikipedia.

Beyond that, even if he didn't explicitly use his "credentials" in terms of content, the simple fact that, anti-expert or not, people tend to defer to those who demonstrate higher levels of education is reason enough to consider the "harm" he did. Had I the tools and energy at the time, I would have seriously considered reverting all of his articlespace changes based on that alone - that he likely conned people into inherently trusting his "knowledge" based on his alleged stature.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the anti-expert model - I think most agree that it works in various forms, even if there's a vocal contingent who believe otherwise here. The problem is that you still have inherent trusts and biases, and those inherent trusts and biases make figuring out the true harm of what Jordan did uncalculable. Hell, I rarely interacted with him and would have likely deferred to him on the few issues I can think of, or at least failed to question him. Multiply that by the thousands, and you start to get the scope.

[Nathan]

Beyond that, even if he didn't explicitly use his "credentials" in terms of content, the simple fact that, anti-expert or not, people tend to defer to those who demonstrate higher levels of education is reason enough to consider the "harm" he did. Had I the tools and energy at the time, I would have seriously considered reverting all of his articlespace changes based on that alone - that he likely conned people into inherently trusting his "knowledge" based on his alleged stature.

Yes, see [[User:Essjay/Letter]].