Wikipedia's Wales Reverses Decision on Problem Admin 241
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."
Bad hiring decision (Score:2, Interesting)
Wales did not comment on whether EssJay would continue to serve in his paid position at Wikia, the for-profit cousin of Wikipedia."
Ulp.
Re:Bad hiring decision (Score:3, Interesting)
What cheap shots? (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Wrong about Ben (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm, he claimed to be a widow with kids. If I say that I'm black and that I think blacks are no longer suffering discrimination in society that carries more weight than if I was perceived as a white guy saying "blacks are not discriminated against". Now you may say that it shouldn't. And I agree it shouldn't carry more weight. But the fact is that it does.
Ben Franklin said he was a old widow with kids because saying his real identity would have distorted what he was trying to say. And I am sure he felt that way, otherwise he would have described himself at least as a man.
Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, duh. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, and the site itself says "However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here."
Yawn. Here we go with this nonsense again.
A college should never, ever accept a citation from Wikipedia or any encyclopedia in the first place! Encyclopedias are starting points, not something to be cited. I have no clue where you went to school, but when I did, nobody had heard of Wikipedia yet, and teachers made it clear that if our work consisted in copying an encyclopedia, a big fat 0 would be what we'd get.
Re:Enough with the Cheap Shots, Larry (Score:3, Interesting)
'January this year' and 'January last year' are a LOT clearer.
Also, say you are in September and say 'this January'
Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the Citizendium [citizendium.org] does not give privileges to people who claim to be experts, as you say; we give some small privileges to people who actually have them. Or perhaps you think that every college professor and every professional is just merely claiming to be an expert?
Re:But more importantly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia (Score:5, Interesting)
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.