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."
But more importantly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"I for one welcome our lying dumb-ass overlords ..."
Seriously, is the Wiki that hard up for talent that they have to knowingly hire liars? What next, pull a SCO and sue someone for 5 bazillions?
Re:But more importantly... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait and see if he actually does resign, first. By the way, I love the fact that his WP user page [wikipedia.org] is headed "stamus contra malum" -- "we stand against evil." Suuuuure you do, Essjay.
Jimbo's change of mind is a good thing but I suspect it's too late. A lot of damage has been done: journalists will have a field-day with this fiasco, and WP now has a reputation as a community that rewards lying. Not a good way of attracting contributors; not honest ones, at least. Couldn't be much worse, really. Well, no, it
Re: (Score:2)
There should have been no attempt to ask him to step down as this is a waste of time and just shows that the people in charge of wikipedia do not have what is needed to manage
Re: (Score:2)
We need more info from Jimmy (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough with the Cheap Shots, Larry (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:Relevance, Your Honor? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Credentials Really Are Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not irrelevant. He only did the right thing after much fanfare. Better late than never, but it would have been much better if he dumped this guy as soon as he learned of his false credentials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He does believe it. He posted his resume because other pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Yes, and a good portion of the time, people will know what you mean when you say 'this'. There are cases when it is totally unclear, though.
On Tuesday, you ask you friend 'When did Ms. Wright say the paper is due?' and your friend says 'This Monday.' Is that yesterday, or 6 days later? 'Monday next week' or 'Yesterday' would have been clear. Due to the odd use of 'this' and 'next', neither of them can be used to specify the day with any
Re: (Score:2)
The meaning of "next" and "last" is the point of frequent confusion. To some people, they refer to soonest or most recent event mentioned: This is usually what someone means when they say "turn left at the next lights".
But in reference to time, people often use the construction "next x" or "last x" to refer to the x of the preceding or following time period. So "next Tuesday" would mean "Tuesday o
Re: (Score:2)
well at least we have it on Slashdot! (Score:2)
How is this not sour grapes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. (Score:2)
He didn't reverse his decision (Score:5, Funny)
Tortured prose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. When asked by Brian Lamb in his appearance on C-SPAN's Q&A about Rand, Wales cited "the virtue of independence" as important to him personally. When asked if he could trace "the Ayn Rand connection" to having a political philosophy at the time of the interview, Wales reluctantly labeled himself a libertarian, qualifying his remark by referring to the Libertarian Party as "lunatics" and citing "freedom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Nathaniel! Bring me another
Re: (Score:2)
If nothing else, Objectivism got a lot of traction towards the eternal problems in epistemology. The other areas of philosophy, like ethics and politics, are,
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that describe just about every philosopher in mankind's history?
O RLY? (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Following In the Master's Footsteps (Score:2)
A serious blow for Wikipedia (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally disagree. This kind of event is a logical result of the ideals of wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It doesn't say,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod the parent up.
This is very serious for Wikipedia in the real world. You can pretty much assume all the hagiographies written in the media recently will end. Essjay lied to the New Yorker and a pulitzer prize winning reporter; and Jimbo Wales backed him up. This will taint every serious article written by a journalist from this point forward.
As for Wikipedia and academia, this is the death-knell. The ultimate authority at Wikipedia -- Wales -- stated plainly that faked credentials don't matter.
then isn't this a serious blow for The New Yorker? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
that doesn't address the issue, though (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia is not built on credentials. That Essjay occasionally pointed to his hoax bio when editing articles may have influenced other editors, but did not gain him special privileges. The privileges he does (to this day) have are janitorial, not editorial, and were based on the fact that he made thousands and thousands of edits, most of them administrative in nature (of the 19891 edits he made, only 1372 were in the article namespace -- see edit count tool [wikimedia.de]). There is no process by which a person with an a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Thank you. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For research Wikipedia can be somewhat of a starting point, but real sources of information still need to be discovered. Try starting with the See More links at the bottom o
Re:A serious blow for Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this changes anything (Score:2)
In any case, I'm in academia myself, and plenty of people here use it. You just have to, like any other source, use it appropriately. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source for scientific facts, but then I wouldn't cite Britannica as an authoritative source for scientific facts, either. What I (and most people I know
Re: (Score:2)
Oh rubbish. Hardly anybody will remember it in a month - although I'm sure Larry Sanger will. Hey Larry, you say this will determine how much you personally will support Wikipedia in the future, so in what ways do you support Wikipedia now? Apart from critising it, that is, a necessary job which you do fairly well, but not as well (or as fervently) as Andrew Orlowski, among others.
And I don't give a FRA about whether college profs accept Wikip
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. Indeed, the need for 'provability' is far larger than wikipedia. There are a million venues in which it would be beneficial for par
Innevitable (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's what happens when you get all your info from Wikipedia.
You guys are taking too hard on this subject (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Back to the issue at hand though.. In this case its not something like code that either
Re: (Score:2)
Code is a field where I feel a degree doesn't mean much (it's easy to tell good code from bad code and degree is irrelevant; code is objective, either it works
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing him to be involved/hired/whatever would not be a wrong decision. Allowing him to use his falsified credentials (or elevated status resulting from falsified credentials) as leverage in a discussion would be irresponsible and detrimental.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Hiring is all about trust; just because someone's doing something good now, doesn't mean he'll do it well forever.
The current flavour of Ubuntu, no. But given that Canonical seemed so easily misled, I will have concerns about Ubuntu's long-term viability and the processes that support.
If the guy is caught lying to a news-collation exercis
This is all a terrible misunderstanding (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not news! (Score:3, Funny)
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:
As everyone knows, Conservapedia editors are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that Wikipedia administrators will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Apologies to DNA
Re: (Score:2)
How are credentials important for WP? (Score:2)
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 sho
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He was using his
Re: (Score:2)
also in many cases the actual authoritive sources are difficult or expensive to access (is anyone really going to bother buying a book or making an inter-library loan just to check out a wikipedia reference?) this means you can make up references and the chances of anyone checking them are m
Re: (Score:2)
Tbe problem is not with his editing Wikipedia, but with:
Jimbo shows it again... (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia Drama (Score:2, Funny)
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!
Jimbo Wales is in denial (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not an overreaction (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Jimbo on the job (Score:2)
Grateful thanks for Wickipaedia, and its creators (Score:2)
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 mu
Ignorance is not an excuse. (Score:2)
In other words, he thinks WikiPedia is great because he does not know (or is in denial) about the problems within it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't punish the wicked, you are simply encouraging them to keep on doing.
Re:Essjay still has my support (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a massive difference between writing a letter to your brother's newspaper and writing for an encyclopedia. Few would take a letter in a newspaper as more than a single example or an opinion, if they believed it at all. An encyclopedia is supposed to consist of a higher grade of i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. Ben Franklin used a pseudonym to present himself as a free man, when in fact he was a runaway apprentice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Admins like Essjay are the reason Wikipedia can't attract any more contributors. Any potential new editors get disgusted and leave.
editors get disgusted and leave. (Score:2)
So evil people can have a lot of fun filling up these articles with loopy claptrap. Try it!!!!
An example, please. (Score:2)
I don't think that says what you think it says. (Score:2)
I was able to find some examples on one of those enormously long "Requests for comment" pages, especially this one [wikipedia.org], detailing a series of instances wherein Essjay did indeed use his fake credentials to win arguments with people who accepted that kind of thing. ("I'm right because I'm a ThD!" Or whatever it was.) However,
Re:Essjay still has my support (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us put "lying" and "misleading" on roughly the same footing.
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:
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.
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?
Essjay screwed you over.
but people don't really defer to credentials much (Score:2)
So now apparently Wikipedia is unreliable because it: 1) defers too much to experts; and also 2) doesn't defer enough to experts.
Re: (Score:2)
But everyone else seems to; that's the Slashdotter's constant lament. And Wikipedia isn't just "Wikipedians", but lots of regular people who have something to add to an article or two. A jaded editor isn't likely to be bullied around, but that's not the kind of person this hurts most.
but on Wikipedia, he had no 'arbitrary authority' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I vote to keep essjay deleted on grounds of non notability.
Sucks to be on the receiving end of WikiBureaucracy doesn't it essjay