Wikipedia's Wales Reverses Decision on Problem Admin

ToiletDuck writes "Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales appears to have changed his mind concerning Essjay, the administrator who was caught lying about his academic credentials. Wales issued a statement today on his User Talk page requesting that EssJay voluntarily step down. Wales defended his earlier comment about EssJay, claiming 'I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes ... I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on.' Wales did not comment on whether EssJay would continue to serve in his paid position at Wikia, the for-profit cousin of Wikipedia."

But more importantly...

Who really cares.

Re:But more importantly...

He [slashdot.org] does!

From the...

Who gives a *&@# department.

What difference does it make? A nobody fakes his way into a coveted spot, only to get busted in the future. History is full of such low-lifes.

Bad hiring decision

Wales did not comment on whether EssJay would continue to serve in his paid position at Wikia, the for-profit cousin of Wikipedia."

Ulp.

We need more info from Jimmy

Jimmy has more questions to answer [citizendium.org]. He makes no attempt to explain several fundamental points that got people worked up in the first place. What did he mean in telling The New Yorker "I have no problem with" Essjay's duplicity? When did he learn of that duplicity? (I think it was last January, since that's when Essjay got on the Wikia payroll.) And then why did he ignore the obvious moral implications of that duplicity--to the point of giving him a job and even appointing him to Arbitration Committee--until now? Jimmy needs to answer these questions convincingly, if he can.

Enough with the Cheap Shots, Larry

Jimbo may have questions to answer, but -- since you're so concerned with factual accuracy -- you might want to get your facts straight before making any more accusations or indictments. To wit, Essjay was hired by Wikia *this* January (i.e., about 60 days ago) not *last* January. And now that Jimbo has found out the extent of Essjay's deception -- i.e., not a simple case of pseudonymity -- Jimbo has asked Essjay to resign from his positions of trust at Wikipedia. For a longer tome on my views, please see my blog post: http://blog.xodp.org/2007/03/credentialists-and-im postors.html [xodp.org]

What cheap shots?

NetEsq writes: "...now that Jimbo has found out the extent of Essjay's deception -- i.e., not a simple case of pseudonymity..."

Wait a second here. Of course Jimbo knew that "Essjay" was not Essjay's real name, since "Essjay" isn't a person's name. The point is that, if Jimmy's company, Wikia, hired Essjay last December or January, then Essjay had to come clean then about the fact that he wasn't a tenured Ph.D. theologian guy after all. That's heavy-duty deception that Jimmy presumably had to have learned about then. Indeed, Jimmy admitted that he knew as much The New Yorker: what else was "I don't have a problem with it" refer to? All that Jimmy says he learned this morning is that Essjay used his false credentials to win debates on Wikipedia. And he couldn't be bothered to check whether his employee had done this? And isn't it obvious, in any case, that Essjay must have risen through the Wikipedia ranks faster partly on the strength of his credentials?

These are legitimate questions, not "cheap shots."

Re:Relevance, Your Honor?

You're missing my point entirely, NetEsq. If Jimmy knew three months ago that Essjay had lied to the community about being a tenured professor, etc., and then hired him and put him on the ArbComm, what does that say about Jimmy's judgment?

Surely you're not saying that it matters only if Essjay used "real credentials to win a debate." Doesn't it matter even more if Essjay used his credentials implicitly to rise through Wikipedia's ranks?

Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless

I presume someone being a liar, and a seriously committed one at that, is not irrelevant on Wikipedia.

So the argument about credentials being irrelevant, is in fact itself irrelevant, as it is the deception that is the issue, not the perceived effects of it in influencing Wikipedia editing.

Bizarrely, Wales appears to think the latter is the most important thing, and that up until he found out about that, was perfectly happy with the deception.

This suggests a very big disconnection from reality for the figurehead (indeed more than that) of a project like Wikipedia.

Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless

You are twisting reality around in a truly bizarre fashion. Doesn't truth matter any more? You appear to be hung up on some kind of abstract concept ("credentials" and whether they matter or not) while holding your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" with respect to the giant elephant in the room - which is the simple fact that what this admin did was unethical, manipulative and just plain WRONG, and moreover Larry probably knew this, and didn't seem to care. It's quite amazing the mental contortions people will go through (calling all of this "disinformation" or "misinformation" rather than LIES) in order to convince themselves that they are in the right and ok. These are traits of truly mentally disturbed people, when they can't even admit to themselves that they deceived everybody. It's not about credentials, man, it's about right and wrong in the most fundamental sense.

He didn't reverse his decision

He simply edited it with updated information.

Tortured prose

"Fully based on a lack of knowledge", indeed. But what kind of fool conflates the use of a pseudonym with claiming credentials one never earned? So much for the vaunted Objectivist reputation for truth and integrity.

O RLY?

was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on.'

When has lack of knowledge about a subject ever stopped anyone on wikipedia? If it's good enough for ordinary users, it's good enough for Jimbo!

Essjay still has my support

He didn't deliberately flood wikipedia with false information to mislead. He didn't offer false medical advice deliberately while claiming to be a doctor.

What about all the good he has done? Are we to flush it down the toilet.

Ben Franklin aka Silence Dogood "lied" about his identity too .. I ask .. so what? I trust people based on whether i think they'll screw me over. And nothing else.

Re:Essjay still has my support

• False information is always intended to mislead. The aim of misleading may be innocent or harmless, but its intent is always deception.
• He claimed to be a doctor of theology, not medicine.
• The good he has done cannot be separated from the lying he has also done. To regard them separately is a double standard.
• Further, it isn't as if his past good has magically vanished just because he lied—however, his potential as a source of future good must be evaluated. Right now he is a significant black eye to Wikipedia.
• Ben Franklin used pseudonyms in the traditional sense, to hide his identity. He did not present himself as someone with qualifications he did not have or earn.

Re:Essjay still has my support

He didn't deliberately flood wikipedia with false information to mislead.

Most of us put "lying" and "misleading" on roughly the same footing.

What about all the good he has done? Are we to flush it down the toilet.

Yes. Because at this point, it's probably impossible to tell how much influence he improperly exerted through his lies. Every single article he's touched has to be considered tainted until it can be generally agreed that:

• He posted accurate information that stands on its own merits, and not just random junk that people let stand because, hey, it was written by a Th.D., and/or
• He didn't prevent anyone else from posting accurate information by way of the prestige he lied his way into.

Essjay's damage is particularly bad because it could be so subtle. How many people deferred to his judgment at the expense of correctness? We'll probably never know.

Ben Franklin aka Silence Dogood "lied" about his identity too .. I ask .. so what?

Indeed: so what? Silence Dogood was a middle-aged widow. What particular authority did that lie grant Franklin, assuming that he wasn't writing about childbearing or what it's like to lose your spouse? Essjay, though, directly stated that he had the educational background to make authoritative statements in his pages. Surely you can see that there's much more than a semantic difference between the two actions?

I trust people based on whether i think they'll screw me over. And nothing else.

Essjay screwed you over.

Following In the Master's Footsteps

From the Article Summary:

my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on.

EssJay did exactly the same thing. To this I can only add that I did not read the article so this post is also fully based on lack of knowledge.

A serious blow for Wikipedia

Even before this there were serious doubts as to the accuracy and credibility of the information on Wikipedia. That a top administrator and contributor to Wikipedia has faked his academic credentials and used them to influence Wikipedia content will only make this worse.

I can't think of a more damaging relevation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia may be totally discredited by this scandal.

One nagging question that I have is why there is no push to validate academic credentials on Wikipedia. Ordinary users that do not claim to have any academic credentials beyond their own knowledge are fine, ones that claim to have advanced degrees in such-and-such should be required to prove this, or at least be able to validate their credentials when asked. I have no idea how this would be done, only that it SHOULD be done.. Essjay is an excellent example as to why.

I shudder to think how many more Essjays are out there right now, editing articles and claiming expertise, when in fact they have none.

-PxB

Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia

To understand why this happened, you have to appreciate the full background of Essjay's activities on Wikimedia. He made around 20,000 edits, especially in an administrative function. Imagine seeing a single person showing up in the Recent Changes of Citizendium every day, making hundreds of diligent little edits, chasing vandals and trolls away, sending friendly messages ... a person willing to help at every opportunity whenever you need someone intelligent and reliable to work with. That was Essjay; nobody in this whole story has claimed otherwise. His reputation was flawless, his work respected by all. When he revealed his identity to Jimmy and others who had long worked with him, he probably did so in an underhanded way, slightly embarrassed, with the rationalization we all know ("protection against trolls"), one which (for a mere pseudonym) would actually be credible given Essjay's role in the community.

In other words, the conditions were perfect for many of those who trusted Essjay to accept this deception and ignore it. And so they did. I agree that doing so was foolish and wrong. It was also human nature. Look at the story of any exposure of fraud, and you will find that the people closest to the person being exposed are often the ones who will defend them beyond reason. There are some who continue to defend Essjay even now, including people in the community I have a lot of respect for. I barely knew Essjay; if I had worked with him as closely as many in the community have, I might be inclined to defend him, too. This is not specific to the nature of the deception, but to the strength of the emotional bonds that were established.

For the most part, I am happy with the way Jimmy has responded now. Not entirely, because I would have preferred it if he had also acknowledged the error of downplaying false credentials as a "pseudonym." But I agree with him that we should also be capable of showing forgiveness to a person like Essjay. I can easily see how a young, gay Wikipedian found it "funny" to create a fake persona diametrically opposed to their real lifestyle ("All my students must read ''Catholicism for Dummies''", paraphrased, was one of his earlier comments), and then (getting increasingly addicted to the project) becoming trapped in their deception and rationalizing it. That doesn't make that person a criminal, or someone we should never permit to contribute again. It makes them someone who has made a mistake, who should acknowledge that mistake, and then make a renewed effort to establish trust in the community.

The Wikimedia Foundation is not a one-man show. This is a difficult situation, and we are collectively dealing with it in the best way we can. As we so often do, we will have to balance openness and control, and implement reasonable mechanisms of oversight. I am confident that we can only improve through this experience. What we are not going to do is jump to conclusions, place authoritarianism above reason, and dogma above human beings. Truth is not black and white; it is often subtle and elusive. I have much more confidence in the open, noisy, passionate, but ultimately human debates that are characteristic for Wikipedia's culture, than I do in the approach you have taken.

Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia

I can't think of a more damaging relevation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia

Wait, wait... are you suggesting that citations from the Wikipedia should be acceptable for academic research? Even without this case of someone contributing with fraudulent credentials, the Wikipedia just isn't authoritative enough to cite.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Wikipedia. It's incredibly useful and it's a great example for people to understand the power of mass-collaboration that the internet allows. When someone brings up a topic I'm not familiar with, the Wikipedia is often the first place I look to get an overview. However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which certifies that any given fact in the Wikipedia is going to be correct at any given time. Sure, the general ideas are probably correct (excepting cases of vandalism, which happens too), and incorrect facts are likely to get fixed sooner or later. However, there isn't any authority that is even attempting to make sure that the page you're about to load will be absolutely correct at the exact moment you load it.

College professors refuse to accept citations from Wikipedia are right to refuse. This is especially true given that they're dealing with fricken college students. If you're a college student, it's your job to do research. You have few responsibilities other than to ensure that your research is reliable, and if you can't handle that, then what the hell are you doing in college?

Ironic!

People just make shit up and other people believe it without checking. You'd expect the guy who founded Wikipedia to be aware of the problem and of how important checking facts are, but there you go.

Is Dave Grohl still dead this week?

Innevitable

"my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on."

Well, that's what happens when you get all your info from Wikipedia.

You guys are taking too hard on this subject

I know this is Slashdot, but you guys are overreacting on this whole matter. Imagine it was not Wikipedia, but any other company, let's say, Canonical. Imagine there is this guy whose online curriculum says is a M.S. in Computer Science, Java Certified and whatnot. He finds and files a lot of bugs on Ubuntu, helps to create packages, contribute with code, and do such a great job that Canonical decides to hire him, just to discover that he is really only an undergraduated in C.S. Canonical hires him anyway.

Three questions: 1) Would it be the wrong decision? 2) Would your confidence on their product (Ubuntu) be diminished? 3) Would it make front page on Slashdot?

I really must be new here (I'm not), because this sounds more like British sensationalist tabloid-like journalism, that likes to blow things out of proportion. That, or there is some "vast conspiracy" involving other players that aims to take the place now occupied by Wikipedia. (Citizendium, maybe, who knows. Every article mentioning some wikipedia flaw is automatically followed by comments praising the virtues of Citizendium.)

This is all a terrible misunderstanding

Essjay has faith in the idea that he holds a PhD. Doesn't that qualify him in the field of theology? ;)

Nail, meet Head.

"...was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on." I think that statement can go with most of the decisions the heads of Wikipedia make concerning their admins.

This is not news!

Some of us have known for a long time that Wikipedia administrators are evil. See what the highly reliable Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] has to say about them:

The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American. For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school, yet many Wikipedia administrators accept it as a sourced fact, and will censor material that contradicts evolution.

As everyone knows, Conservapedia editors are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

How are credentials important for WP?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here, I'll confess right out that I knew nothing about this until 5 minutes ago and I haven't bothered to try and look into it much further, but how are the credentials of a poster or an administrator relevant to WP?

Surely the entire point of WP is that it's an encyclopedia, therefore it contains no original research meaning that (in theory at least) any and every point of contention in each article can and should be backed up by a reference, meaning that no poster should need to provide any credentials. Even if Stephen Hawking provided content for the Hawking Radiation article it shouldn't be included unless referenced.

I'm sure I'm probably wrong. Now, anyone care to explain why?

Jimbo shows it again...

Jimmy Wales shows us the qualities of a good Wikipedia administrator:
1. Doesn't know what he's talking about, yet talks anyways.
2. Soft on folks who deliberately falsify information.

What more could you ask for? Er, wait...

I support Jimbo's original position

I don't really see what the problem is. If he really was a tenured professor and was going around telling people he was a high school dropout, would anyone care? His edits need to be factual and sourced just like anyone else's. This is Wikipedia's biggest strength. Larry Sangar is starting a Wikipedia fork where the biggest difference is that it will still let 12 year old kids edit, but it will prevent the 12 year old kid from editing the work of a PhD prof. The thing is, if the work of a PhD can't stand up to the criticisms of a 12 year old then that certainly says something. The only reason you would take someone with a PhD more seriously is if you are unable to think for yourself.

Any system where a certain class of people are given a free pass and aren't forced to defend their ideas can only result in intellectual bankruptcy.

The fact that the Wikipedia community is up in arms about this suggests to me that some of the core ideals may be going by the wayside.

Wikipedia Drama

Wikipedia — Serious business.

Speaking of serious, I seriously can't believe someone would lie about themselves on the Internet, of all places (and on Wikipedia too!), for their own benefit!

This article is missing...

...the "The Almighty Buck" icon.

Lol Jewbo

"I want to make it perfectly clear that my [previous decision] was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on" Jimbo making decisions and statements when he has no clue what's really happening? Who would've thunk it?

Update on EssJay's status

EssJay altered his userpage to indicate that he has quit Wikipedia. His account still has all its user rights, though.

Jimbo Wales is in denial

...on a number of issues. He may not have known precisely to what extent Essjay was using his falsified credentials to gain the upper hand in a multitude of content disputes, but Wales was fully aware that Essjay had created a persona based on fictitious credentials.

It's not an overreaction

I've seen dozens of posts where people say everyone is overreacting. I think a lot of those people are losing sight of the core of the issue.

This isn't a simple case of "He wasn't who he said he was." If it were just a matter of hiding his name, age, or location, that would be fine. It's a matter of falsifying credentials, namely, having a doctorate and being a tenured professor. People work years to achieve both of those, he just sits down at his computer and decides "I got those."

It's all part of this "Generation Me" syndrome. They think they deserve anything they desire, without working for it. Honorific titles, titles of achievement, tenure, knighthood, a million dollars, whatever, they deserve it because they're so fucking special. They were breastfed self-esteem, they jerk off to pictures of themselves, and they think the whole world should appreciate their blessed presence.

I have an AAS in Software Applications and Programming. I don't care what anyone says about my degree or where I went to school (ITT Tech), it doesn't matter, because I earned it, and that's more than this wanker can ever say for himself.

No more questions: EssJay WAS part of Wikia.

I guess the question if EssJay would leave Wikia (his paying job) has been answered: "Essjay was a member of the Wikia staff from January to March 2007." (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Essjay [wikia.com]).

I don't think there was another option for him. Apparently he had possitively contributed to Wikipedia, but there was not much to discuss after his claim to have so many degrees was found to be a lie.

Jimbo on the job

Why is Jimbo making decisions on what happens on Wikipedia anyhow? Hasn't he stepped down both from Wikipedia and Wikimedia foundation?

EssJay *was* a member....

"Essjay was a member of the Wikia staff from January to March 2007."

quote from the Wikia page linked in the submission.

If he wants to, he may not really leave

... he may come back under another pseudonym

How a serious encyclopedist may not reveal his (real-life) identity is beyond me.

Grateful thanks for Wickipaedia, and its creators

I read through the original article. Then through the links. Then some of the posts. Oh dear, oh dear. Most upsetting.

We should not believe all we read in the web. We should not believe all we read in books either. Some stuff is accurate, some is mistaken, some is made up. Unless it is all chaos, and will always be chaos, we believe that in time the errors should be found and be corrected. Sometimes people come across a large chunk of fakery. The discrediting of the work of Dr. V.J. Gupta cast doubt on much of the geolegy of the Himalayas for the last 20 years ( see http://www.scientificvalues.org/newsnovember2002.h tml [scientificvalues.org] ). Nevertheless, we sift through the rubble, and find out what can be kept, and what can't. Or we sit in the chaos.

Wikipaedia relies on voluntary contributions. Take a cross-section of the internet who will do somethig for nothing, and you will always get a generous helping of dross - spammers, trolls, phishers, fundamentalists, vandals, and general nutbars - with, maybe, a tiny fraction of people who have understood a subject, and simply want to share that understanding with others. I admire the spirit that believes that this tiny fraction may prevail. The fact that someone with suspect credentials is found out, and their work is given a second look, shows that the thing is working. You see this when newspapers have to print a retraction, or TV programs broadcast a correction. If you didn't see this, then you should worry.

It seems there are a lot of people out there with heart and spleen problems. Good lord, but there is some serious vitriol there. Who are all these people without fault, jostling to get their stone in first? What makes them think Jimbo Wales owes them a personal apology? Who elected you lot the Guardians of Truth, eh? Sheesh...

So, my grateful thanks, Jimbo and all Wikipaedians, for a most useful and valuable webpage.

Okay - I have probably earned myself a good flaming in Internet Hell for that heresy. Might as well do a proper sheep-for-a-lamb job. This next bit goes out to EssJay...

Hi, EssJay. I am not in your field, so I can't read what you wrote, but your friends seem to like you and speak well of you. Cheer up. You don't need a doctorate. I have got one, and it's not a lot of use. Dr. V.J. Gupta had a doctorate. If your contributions are good - and I do hope they are - then pick another name, and come back a bit later when the legions of shit-throwing monkeys have found something else to amuse them. Do no harm, do a bit of good when you can, and we'll all get there in the end.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on.'

In other words, he thinks WikiPedia is great because he does not know (or is in denial) about the problems within it.

Krueger Industrial

The more Jimmy Wales is in the news, the more he sounds like Krueger from Seinfeld. "Whatever." He probably nicknamed essjay "Coco the Monkey."

qualifications overrated

http://arestudentsmiddleclasswankers.org.uk/#19nov 99b [arestudent...ers.org.uk] says"

'I have always had a very strong work ethic, but have been disinterested in the academic and I firmly believe that educational qualifications should not be the main yardstick by which people are measured. If you can cut corners academically to reach the same goal this should always be done. I also believe that academic cheating is a good thing ( if you can get away with it) because it gets you through the educational process to areas of life and work where you can really prove your worth to an employer having overcome the "academic results" stumbling block.'

And later...

In Evidence and Education in our Education and Training Section there is a quote from Alison Wolf's book "Does Education Matter"

"...we cannot conclude ... that the skills that employers are actually using and looking for are indeed the ones gained late in the day. The most valuable could have been acquired much earlier - by age fourteen, sixteen or eighteen - and we have seen strong suggestions that this may indeed be the case."

I love this.

Essjay was the reason I quit Wikipedia, after he suspended a user for just asking a question that had been previously asked. When I called him on his overreaching and ignorant behaviour, he refused to participate in the very processes he helped put in place to deal with dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

Being that he was so high up in the admin ranks, there was no way to argue against his wrong actions.

I feel completely elated that one of the biggest jerk admins on Wikipedia got caught being a fraud. Now, I only hope that those others who have been claiming false credentials will either disappear or get similarly nailed. And then hopefully Jimmy Wales will put some real teeth into controlling rogue admins. Maybe then I'll come back and enjoy editing there.