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

[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

[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

[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

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.

[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.

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.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 17th June 2007, 8:10pm

[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

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 17th June 2007, 9:20pm

[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.