Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Jakes — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:05:25 -0000

essjay and wales are everything that is wrong with wikipedia. I just use a real encyclopedia for info.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Zelda Goodman — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:20:08 -0000

Essjay's Response Soon After The Controversy Broke Out!

I would like to clear up an oversight on my part. I was, until this morning, under the impression that in my initial post on this subject (in response to a question from Dev920 made some weeks ago) I had made an apology for anyone who felt they were hurt by my decision to use misinformation. In speaking to various different people, including Jimbo, I did make it known that I was sorry that anyone felt hurt by my actions, and I believed I had done so in my initial statement. On re-reading that, I find I did not; it was a rather lengthy statement I had been thinking about for some time, and I seem to have left out a rather critical element of it. So, I rectify that now, with further apologies that it was not included originally, as I pointed people back to that statement in the belief it was complete.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I'm not sorry that I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times. I have spoken to all of my close friends here about this, and have heard resoundingly that they understand my position, and they support me. Jimbo and many others in Wikipedia's hierarchy have made thier support known as well. I'm also sorry the New Yorker chose to print what they did about me; there seems to be a belief that I knew they were going to print it, and that is not the case. I spoke with Stacy Shiff for over eight hours; in that time, she asked me about a variety of subjects related to Wikipedia and I have her much to write on. (Those who know me will know I am rarely ever brief in my comments.) That she chose to focus on two rather trivial reverts to [[Justin Timberlake]] and what my userpage said came as a complete surprise to me; it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it. I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn't even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead.

For two years, I have poured my life into making this site a better place. That many people feel hurt by my decision pains me greatly, and to them I am genuinely sorry. To the stalkers, the trolls, and the vandals, I am not sorry; they are abusive, hateful people, and they have done far worse things than those whole of the Wikipeida Community, myself included, have ever thought about doing. Now, I am going back to what I have always done: Making Wikipedia a better place. (In the immediate present, I'm going to bed, as I've been up for quite a long time.) Tonight, I will be back to my normal routine: Blocking vandals, closing RFAs, tending to the mailing lists, etc. I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.

I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you'll probably find me there. [[User:Essjay|'''Essjay''']] [[User talk:Essjay|(Talk)]] 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the website address below to verify the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_...

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

C.M. Jones — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 06:48:47 -0000

Jimbo’s (predictable) real concern in his recent response on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_...

is that Essjay “used his false credentials in content disputes”, pointing to his concern to further “check diffs” of Essjay.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip...

Jimbo claims he did not understand this matter to be one “of violation of people’s trust” and that his “past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on”.

Oh c’mon.

And this seems to point to something indicate otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_...

And when Jimbo claims he did not understand this matter to be one “of violation of people’s trust”, which “people” is he talking about? Only Wikipedians who may have been bluffed by a pull of false credentials? Apparently so, which only confirms the insularity of the system.

Does Jimbo feel Essjay violated the trust of The New Yorker reporters to whom Essjay lied? On this he is silent and it speaks loudly. How about to The New Yorker’s many, many readers? Again, on this he is silent and it speaks loudly.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Ian King — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:52:33 -0000

What's as remarkable as Wales's glib dismissal of Ryan Jordan's flim-flam has been the community's reaction. They've been concoting every sort of excuse under the sun, from trying to avoid stalkers (for which one doesn't need to create a fake life), claiming that his theology claims aren't relevant (as exhibited by David above), that he doesn't represent the project, or just plain "Jimbo trusts him. There is no evidence that he isn't a competent arbcom member. " Instead, they're pinning the blame on the New Yorker -- anything to ensure that The 'Pedia and Its Processes remian unblemished in their minds. The Wikipedians who do see a problem are (at least on the talk pages) a minority.

David,

Wales is by far the most influential/trusted person in Wikipedia, and as far as I've been able to tell, what Jimbo says, goes. That he's not the board chair is a distinction without a difference. For all practical purposes, he's the Benevolent Dictator For Life.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

David Monniaux — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:29:37 -0000

Again, incorrect. Jimmy Wales is no longer the chair of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Anon — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:05:50 -0000

Want another one? Gary Weiss is misrepresenting himself as "mantanmoreland" on wikipedia in order to anonymously attack Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, and the "Naked Short Selling" scandal.

And Jimbo Wales lied about that user not being Gary Weiss.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Mathew — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:45:16 -0000

I agree, Rogers. It does kind of make you wonder what was going through his head.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Rogers Cadenhead — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:20:15 -0000

Wales appointed Jordan to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee -- the group that has final say on contentious matters -- *after* he knew that he concocted fake academic credentials and lied to the New Yorker. The hubris is staggering.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Mathew — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:18:25 -0000

David, I'm familiar with the difference between Wikia and Wikipedia. But I disagree that "whether Wikia fires this person has absolutely no relationship with Wikipedia." Both are run by Jimmy Wales, and one is very much dependent on the goodwill and reputation of the other. But I would agree that at the very least, Essjay should not have been appointed to the arbitration committee.

Esquire and Daniel, thanks for pointing out that Essjay did in fact suggest that his profile details were correct.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Daniel Brandt — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:10:35 -0000

The New Yorker's correction says, "He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page."

I see in Essjay's statement where he was surprised that Ms. Schiff focused on things that weren't discussed much at all, but I don't see him claiming that that he wasn't asked to confirm his biographical details to Ms. Schiff and/or the fact checker, Jessica Rosenberg. I'm convinced that he did confirm them.

The part about how he thought that everyone already assumed that his biography was false is another misconception. This suspicion developed slowly when I and a couple of others started compiling information on Essjay, and that was more than a year after he started promoting his fake credentials, and after The New Yorker article was published. In the dozens of comments today you don't see anyone saying, "I thought so!" Everyone is treating this as news, because it is. I got nowhere with my research, obviously, since nothing checked out. Now I know why.

I guess that makes me a "stalker" because I tried to match up Essjay's information with lists of faculty in religion departments at Eastern private universities.

I don't call that stalking, I call it "due diligence." Unfortunately, Jimmy Wales seems to be unfamiliar with the concept.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Internet Esquire — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:58:23 -0000

In re the update, Essay's previous statements on this matter indicate that he did, in fact, aver to the truthfulness of his bogus Wikipedia profile. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archiv... -.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Logan — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:47:22 -0000

Essjay isn't the only unprincipled member of Wikipedia's elite. Check out Mr Bauders user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder

"Retired lawyer" he says. To see the real story Google for "fred bauder caselaw"

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

David Monniaux — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:21:04 -0000

"If Wikipedia wants to have any claim to credibility at all, Essjay should be fired."

Essjay is not an employee of Wikipedia (or, more precisely, of Wikimedia Foundation), but of Wikia. Wikia is a for-profit company independent of Wikipedia.

Whether Wikia fires this person has absolutely no relationship with Wikipedia.

A more relevant question is whether Essjay should resign from the arbitration committee. (I do not think that "fired" is appropriate here, since this is entirely a volunteer position.)

This is not so obvious. The purpose of the arbitration committee is not to judge the content of articles, but to rule on behavioral abuses (people insulting others, or repeatedly pushing propaganda, etc.).

It is therefore unclear how credentials in theology or their absence would interfere.

One may, though, consider that a person who invents himself credentials may have integrity issues incompatible with such a position of confidence.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Mathew — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:08:36 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Esquire. I agree. If anything, Essjay's comments since the facts came out make it obvious that he sees nothing wrong with what happened -- which is part of the problem.

And Jimmy Wales appointing him to the arbitration committee compounds the problem.

Re: Jimmy Wales is wrong about Essjay

Internet Esquire — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:46:14 -0000

While I take no pleasure in the ruin of a man, it's pretty clear that Essjay should not remain in the positions of trust that he holds at Wikia and Wikipedia. (See - http://blog.xodp.org/2007/02/respected-wikipedi... -.) If Essjay was truly thoughtful and contrite, he would apologize to everyone who trusted him and resign.