Talk:Essjay controversy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:17, 1 April 2007 editErachima (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,650 edits →"a" Misplaced Pages founder: and that's about enough of that subject.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:30, 18 November 2024 edit undoZanahary (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,794 edits Reverted 1 edit by 147.236.231.255 (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo
(710 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
			{{ArticleHistory
			\| action1 = AFD
			\| action1date = 00:29, 7 March 2007
			\| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Essjay
			\| action1result = no consensus
			\| action1oldid = 113195816
			\|
			\| action2 = AFD
			\| action2date = 00:09, 8 March 2007
			\| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy
			\| action2result = speedily kept
			\| action2oldid = 113446705
			\|
			\| action3 = AFD
			\| action3date = 20:31, 12 March 2007
			\| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (3rd nomination)
			\| action3result = speedily kept
			\| action3oldid = 114618943
			\|
			\| action4 = PR
			\| action4date = 2007-04-11, 09:46:21
			\| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Essjay controversy
			\| action4oldid = 121889508
			\|
			\| action5 = AFD
			\| action5date = 07:51, 6 May 2007
			\| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (4th nomination)
			\| action5result = kept
			\| action5oldid = 128595880
			\|
			\| action6 = FAC
			\| action6date = 07:15, 4 September 2007
			\| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Essjay controversy/archive1
			\| action6result = not promoted
			\| action6oldid = 155553958
			\|
			\| action7 = GAN
			\| action7date = 1 October 2007
			\| action7link = Talk:Essjay controversy/GA1
			\| action7result = listed
			\| action7oldid = 161737228
			\|
			\| action8 = AFD
			\| action8date = 24 September 2008
			\| action8link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (5th nomination)
			\| action8result = speedily kept
			\| action8oldid = 240574435
			\|
			\| currentstatus = GA
			\| topic=Socsci
			\| dykdate = March 7, 2007
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=GA\|
			{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{Copied\|from=Essjay controversy\|from_oldid=547438676\|to=List of Misplaced Pages controversies\|to_diff=prev\|to_oldid=550500485}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 300K
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 6
	\|~~algo~~ = ~~old(5d)~~		\|counter = 2
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{Press\|year=2007\| section=\| author=Noam Cohen\| title=Misplaced Pages ire turns against ex-editor\| org=International Herald Tribune\| date=March 6, 2007\| url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/business/wiki.php\| small=yes}}
	{{Skiptotoctalk}}
	{{calm talk\|lightgreen}}
	{{peerreview}}
	{{Controversial3\|small=yes}}
	{{check talk}}
	{\| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small\|}}}\|yes\|small\|standard}}-talk" id="t_blp" style="background:#FFFAEF;"
	\|
	This article must adhere to the policy on ''']''' (biographical material on a living person). Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or ] '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially ]. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the ].
	\|}
	{{oldafdmulti
	\|date=2 March 2007
	\|page=Essjay
	\|result='''No consensus, Keep due to dramatic article changes'''
	\|date2=8 March 2007
	\|page2=Essjay controversy
	\|result2='''Speedy close'''
	\|date3=12 March 2007
	\|page3=Essjay controversy (3rd nomination)
	\|result3='''Speedy keep'''
	}}

	{\| class="messagebox small-talk"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|An entry from '''{{PAGENAME}}''' appeared on Misplaced Pages's ] in the ''']''' column on ], ].
	\|}
	{{authoronlinesource2007\| section=\| author=Noam Cohen\| title=Misplaced Pages ire turns against ex-editor\| org=International Herald Tribune\| date=March 6, 2007\| url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/business/wiki.php\| small=yes}}
	{{wikipedian-bio\|small=yes}}
	{{archives\|auto=long\|small=yes}}

	== Restarted peer review ==

	I restarted the peer review and added it to the Community Portal. People have made comments ], which you may wish to read. ] (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I've noticed some basic formatting issues that need correcting, but beyond that, can anyone consider any compelling reason why we should not nominate for FA? The edit wars have died down, every sentence is referenced, and there is little press coverage any more we need to keep an eye out for. ] (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Maybe start with GA? - ] 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::...Why? If it's good enough for GA, we may as well put the little effort in to reach FA, no? ] (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::If the peer review is favourable, then I agree with trying for FA. If it fails FA we can always fall back on GA. --] <small>]</small> 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Good points, nevermind me. :) - ] 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Um ... ] is '''''not''''' going to become a mainpage featured article, for obvious reasons that I truly hope I don't need to adumbrate here. It was considered inappropriate a couple of weeks ago even as a "Did You Know" item. ] 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Can it have FA status bestowed by the community while not being on the front page (hypothetically)? - ] 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Well, yeah, but there's no reason it can;t be featured, is there? I like to think that the lack of feedback on the peer review indicates there's not a lot to say. :) Shall we get someone from the League in to copyedit, I'll fix the formatting I referred to, and then go for it? I think everyone here has done a fantastic amount of work on it. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Articles can be Featured, but never be on the main page. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Raul says he keeps a list of FAs that he will never put on the front page, which seems justified. It would be incredibly narcissistic to put up ] for example, when it eventually passes again. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Even though it will never make front-page this will still be a rather momentous occasion seeing as it has not only been built at max-level citations from the ground up, but hammered out between a coalition of meta-editors and trolls. --] <small>]</small> 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Um ... remind me again why this is a good thing? ] 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	(unindent) Because most FAs are written by one or two people and this article has truly demonstrated the power of crowds that Misplaced Pages was created for? ] (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I was thinking it would help discount the opinions of the ]-type people who think Misplaced Pages space editors aren't capable of writing good content so they just sit around and argue all day instead. --] <small>]</small> 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

	== The Essjay Letter Confirmation ==

	Cbrown1023 deleted the ''letter'' on March 4, 2007, providing the following reason(s): "Essjay's Request"

	#http://www.webcitation.org/5N2MZaMWP < A genuine copy of the letter
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Cbrown1023/Archive_6#Deletion_of_User:Essjay.2FLetter
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANeutrality&diff=112600657&oldid=112598358
	#http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/03/head_wikipedian.php
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=113513642
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=113511998
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113510636
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=112282076&oldid=112281864
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard&diff=112278999&oldid=112274795
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=112279901
	#http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=Essjay+Letter+Misplaced Pages&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&vst=0&vs=en.wikipedia.org&u=en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay&w=essjay+letter+wikipedia&d=GTfD7RIeOeR2&icp=1&.intl=us
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Essjay/RFC
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_view_by_CyclePat
	#http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&p=Essjay+sent+a+letter+to+a+college+professor+credentials+Misplaced Pages%27s+accuracy.&u=en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_19&w=essjay+sent+letter+college+professor+professors+credentials+credential+wikipedia%27s+accuracy&d=VFEMfRIeOfqb&icp=1&.intl=us
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Essjay/Letter&oldid=112598051 User:Essjay/Letter - Misplaced Pages, the 💕
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=47360865&oldid=47360559

	===Identity revealed===

	At some point, Essjay sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials,<ref name="Blog Insights: Misplaced Pages's great fraud"/> vouching for Misplaced Pages's accuracy.<ref name="Guardian"/> In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Misplaced Pages."<ref name="Guardian"/>
	{{Reflist}}
	1) References #7 in the article > ^ a b c d e Finkelstein, Seth (March 8, 2007). Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

	2) Reference #27 in the article > ^ a b Blacharski, Dan (March 6, 2007). ITworld. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

	Foremost, I have provided evidence that the letter did exist. Further, many Wikipedians within the community have actually read the letter. Even Essjay said in his own words it was a Therefore, the references are verifiable. Cordially, :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	Are any of those references external to Misplaced Pages itself? By which I do not mean you rehosting it somewhere else either. If not, then it's not a notable occurrence. --] <small>]</small> 08:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html

	http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/nlsblog070306/

	Here are the external references. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	:The ITworld reference quotes the Guardian reference; that really tangles things up quite a bit. I am not convinced this needs to be there, particularly the selected quote. Given the large number of published sources that reported the controversy, and the fact only two referred to this particular issue (and one of them was quoting the other), I am hard pressed to see how adding this isn't giving the "letter" undue weight. ] 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::The letter was sent to a real world professor, vouching for Misplaced Pages accuracy using the false credentials. The usage of the false credentials is a major part of what this article is about. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please respond to the "undue weight" concern, Quack. Two sources out of hundreds of published sources - one quoting the other. More sources referred to any number of other things (number of edits, which articles were edited, etc) than this "letter." ] 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::Undue weight is a straw man here, I think. The letter is sourced and extremely relevant to the controvery at hand. What does counting of sources have to do with its relevance? —] <sup>]</sup> 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::There is no undue weight concern. The letter is part of the events of the online persona and the false credentials. The letter was sent to vouch for the accuracy of Misplaced Pages using false credentials. "A central issue." :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	(outdent) I do understand your perspective, Doug - clearly I am having difficulty expressing my concern. The article is about the external reaction to the discovery of the false credentials. We have to go with what our external sources think are the issues of concern. The letter is a much bigger deal internal to Misplaced Pages than it was externally - and justifiably so. But dozens of respected reliable sources didn't feel it was important enough to even mention in passing. In particular, none of the articles in which academics are interviewed mention this letter - the exact place where one would expect to find a reference to it. ] 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	:I disagree with one of your assertions. The article is about the controversy, not the external reaction to it. The external reaction may be what makes it notable, but the purpose of the article is to present a neutral description of the events. The letter is sourced and is centrally relevant. It deserves mention in the article. It does not deserve ''undue weight'' in the article, but it should be there. —] <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Very well then. I will add the letter tidbit. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::I gave extra time for commentary and suggestions. The letter is fully sourced and relevant. I will add the letter tidbit now. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	I've again removed Quack's insertion of unsubstantiated material -- the "source" for the was Seth Finklestein's own blog entry at http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001157.html . As a blog post, this is not a citeable source. Just as much of what EssJay has claimed about himself has been admitted to be false, no published account has demonstrated that he actually wrote any such letter to anyone, college professor or not. --<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I have provided documentation the letter did exist. Both references are solid and both references are already in the article. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	== New screenshot of ] available ==

	This one shows the entirety of the academic claims discussed in the article. The image is at ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	: ...I think that would be workable. - ] 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I concur. It is usable. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::No no no. It is from six months before the article was published, and we cannot tell how many times it was modified in between. We have no evidence that this is the user page the journalist referenced when writing the article. It also is a low quality image; nothing can be seen unless people click on the image and then know how to work through the wiki-world to actually view the image in a legible format. It is also a primary source, when we have already fully included the information from secondary sources. The image adds nothing to the article, and moves it back to being an article about Essjay rather than the controversy. Remember that the controversy we are reporting is how the world outside of Misplaced Pages reacted and observed things. When the controversy arose, this was not the user page on display, either. Incidentally, it is not a "new" screenshot, it was removed from the article three weeks ago for these very reasons. ] 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yes. It is the user page of Essjay. Enough said. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I don't doubt it is a screenshot of his user page on one particular day. You have not responded to my points, Quack. There are at least four different screenshots of his user page around that I have seen; each one is different. None of them are contemporaneous to the article. That still doesn't answer any of my points, which are:

	*No evidence this was seen by the journalist
	*Poor quality image that is very user-unfriendly
	*Primary source, when relevant information already covered in the article from reliable secondary sources
	*Changes focus of article from the controversy to Essjay personally

	As soon as this article reverts back to what it was in the days following the start of the controversy - that is, an article about the actions of one specific individual - we are back at AfD and quite rightly the article is no longer viable. Quack, please stop trying to insert personal information about Essjay into this article. ] 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	:The article as currently scoped says, in the first sentence, that the controversy is about the lies he told on his User page. These are them. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	Risker's claims are ridiculous. He is just trying to keep stuff out he does not like. Remember these:

	* - archive at ].
	* - archive at WebCite.
	*. - archive at WebCite.
	* - archive at ] cache. at WebCite. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2\|}}}\| {{{2}}}\|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

	:I've compromised the issue in the same way that ] handled Essjay's deleted user page. I have footnoted the Internet Archive version of the user page, to show the actual claim of the false credentials. I hate to add more footnotes to the article, but I'd like to settle this controversy. ] 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I've also added a link to Essjay's archived Wikia user page of 1-1-07, alongside the Martyn Williams footnote about how Essjay "came clean." Otherwise, the reference might be somewhat unclear. If we keep this stuff in footnotes, I think we can compromise the controversy about including the material while still informing the reader completely. ] 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	. Shouldn't we web citation it in case someone at Wikia inappropriately removes it? - ] 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	:As I said, I added the footnote to show how Essjay identified himself as Ryan Jordan. This Wikia user template been blocked from The Internet Archive but is available directly (go figure). I misspoke slightly above - Essjay's actual Wikia user page with the (supposedly) correct information on his background has been deep-sixed and protected from web crawlers. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. ] 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Well, there is a copy of it on Misplaced Pages Watch, but there's no way I'm going to footnote ''that''. ] 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Redirect for deletion ==

	Folks who've been editing on this article should be aware of ]. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	== "a" Misplaced Pages founder ==

	{\| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" \| The result of the debate was: '''Stop arguing.'''
	*The issue of Sanger's eligibility for founder status has nothing at all to do with the subject of this article, never has, and never will, so it really doesn't matter how many references are provided one way or the other or who is in possession of the ]. Quackguru, '''you are on the wrong page to be arguing about this. Period. So drop the subject.''' ] has his own article, and his own ]. Argue there and stop bothering us, ''we'' are trying to write about the Essjay credentials controversy here, not the Misplaced Pages foundership controversy. --] <small>]</small> 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	\|-
	\| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" \|

	It was already discussed at length on the talk page here. I was going with consensus.

	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 Here was the compromise discussed at length on the talk page.

	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=119150768&oldid=119148917 Here is a controversial edit along with the controversial edit summary. Any suggestions. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Quack... what the fuck is wrong with you? No, really, what the fuck is wrong with you? Pull your head out of your ass and stop making everything a damn problem. (and to everyone who wants to yell ] at me, shut up, it had to be said). I am surprised at how patient everyone has been with you, Quack, but don't you be surprised when other people start breaking down like I just did. -- ] 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	::]!! Seriously. If you've got a problem with him, take it to the proper channels. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Stop now, Ned, or this will go to ANI. Quack gets on my nerves sometimes (sorry, Quack) but this is beyond the pale. Stop now. - ] 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	No, . That is beyond hostile, sorry. - ] 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	Not to justify Ned's outburst, but I too find Quack's POV-pushing an annoyance. The correct appellative for Wales is "Misplaced Pages founder" -- not "a", or "one of" or "co-". This is how he is listed by the ] (which Wales also set-up) , and how news reports list him. This article isn't the place to argue to origination of Misplaced Pages.--<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:You are argueing this point at this article. Before 2004 Wales never disputed - he as the co-founder. I will add more refs in the future if needed. For now I will add the agreed upon compromise for this article and revert the misleading edit summary. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:*You again are incorrect. As I ], Wales has specifically stated, "''I have never agreed that Larry should be called co-founder and have contested it from the time when Larry awarded himself the title.''" Please stop deliberately re-introducing mis-information into the article. --<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:O.K. Lets overview:

	:First: Consensus was agreed upon which you are ignoring.

	:Second: It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is.

	:Third: What is th definition of founder. A person who established Misplaced Pages.

	:Fourth: Two people worked togther to establish and build Misplaced Pages from the beginning.

	:Fifth: When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they are both called co-founders.

	:Sixth: There was never a disputed when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.

	:Seventh: Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).

	:Eighth: At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.

	:Ninth: I have provided strong evidence (references) to color the picture.

	:Tenth: Here are some references for Wikipdians to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Misplaced Pages.

	:Eleventh: Articles must be written from a neatral point of view.

	#http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/technology/24online.ready.html?#ex=1293080400&en=431aff478b00239e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Early Media Coverage
	#http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html Links and more links
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&dir=prev&offset=20040119212409&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_Wikipedia&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Sanger&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&offset=20040909053247&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 Official Misplaced Pages Press Release of 2002
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2003 Official Misplaced Pages Press Release of 2003
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Press_releases/February_2004 Official Misplaced Pages Press Release of 2004
	#http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKIPEDIA_FOUNDERS?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
	#http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
	#http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95
	#http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4
	#http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+co-founder+plans+expert+rival/2100-1038_3-6126469
	#http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222922,00.html
	#http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/

	<blockquote>Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Misplaced Pages.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Misplaced Pages as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Misplaced Pages to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Misplaced Pages outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Misplaced Pages discussion list (Misplaced Pages-L) to facilitate discussion of the project. At the end of January, Misplaced Pages had seventeen “real” articles (entries with more than 200 characters). By the end of February, it had 150; March, 572; April, 835; May, 1,300; June, 1,700; July, 2,400; August, 3,700. At the end of the year, the site boasted approximately 15,000 articles and about 350 “Wikipedians.”</blockquote>

	:Yours Cordially, :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Ever still, this is not the place to dispute the petty and semantic "who founded Misplaced Pages" thing. There are two supportable PoVs on this although I must say, hired employees are almost never regarded as founders. This is not meant to diminish Sanger's widely documented sway and influence at the early Misplaced Pages but it was Wales who turned on the switch and made the ongoing decisions to keep the lights lit, so to speak. ] 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::FYI, We go by reliable references for open source publishing on Misplaced Pages and not your opinion. So your arguement is irrelevant. Thanx. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			== Instances of the name "Wikia" in the article ==
	:::::You have misunderstood my post. Please review ]. ] 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			<s>This can't be right, surely. The article repeatedly refers to "Wikia". Wikia is another entity entirely{{snd}}now called ]. I checked and the text which states "Wikia" has been there a long time. Was Misplaced Pages previously referred to as Misplaced Pages or is this just a mistake that hasn't been caught in years? Hoping someone else can advise on this matter. Thanks, ] (]) 16:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
	::::::Another policy to pay attention to would be ]. Why even bring it up? It would be like bringing up arguments about the ] in an article because it had a quote from the book of Psalms in it. --] <small>]</small> 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			Okay, I should do research before saying things :) Turns out that our Mr Wales co-founded the Wikia website. Maybe this article should provide more context on that, though, for those who are unaware? ] (]) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::Ah, thanks, ], I was just going to bring that up. As new editors have come to the article, consensus has changed, Quack. Remember to keep focus on what the article is about, not peripheral issues that are addressed in the article to which there is already a WP link. ] 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			:No need ... just click through the link at the first mention of ] in the article. ] (]) 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
	Both of your comments are excused to have your new version of reality which does not meet the threshold for NPOVing on Misplaced Pages.

			== Discussion about linking to userpage... ==
	Here are some editors who agreed to "a" founder. BTY, it is about verifiable and not your opinion.

			Can be found ] ] (]) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 The compromised version by Mr. Colt.

			== See also section ==
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=114872942 Risker agreed to this too (oh my).

			{{ping\|Crazynas\|p=}}, what is unclear? They're both clearly labeled as key early Internet moments of online communities figuring out how to grapple with misrepresented anonymous identity. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 15:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=114875941 "I say leave out the word founder altogether but I'm ok with Denny's way too."
			:{{ping\|Czar}} I do see, I just wasn't sure why a cartoon that came out 12 years before the controversy could be relevant. But I understand the connnection as far as the way Essjay presented himself, I'm going to reinstate it without your description (since we don't unusually put descriptions after ''See Also'' links do we? ]<sup> ]</sup> 19:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
			::Thanks and ]: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

			== wait he from ky? ==
	Note: Some editors who agreed to the compromise are now having a new perception (changing of opinion) of reality (revisionism).

			think hes from louisville ] (]) 15:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
	Any suggestions -- to the maintainance of a neutral point of view (upholding the standard for a good quality article.:) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			== Does his photo need to be here? ==
	:Well, Quack...my position was that if arguing about this didn't stop, we should take out the Sanger reference entirely. I am fine with that. Is that your preferred method of dealing with this issue as well? --] 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Note to Risker. I am refering to Jimmy Wales as "a" founder issue. You are trying to twist things up here now. You did not say take out Jimmy Wales from article. That speaks volumes. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Of course I didn't say take Jimmy Wales out of the article, Quack. Jimmy is still a part of Misplaced Pages, and was widely interviewed and quoted about this controversy. None of those points can be said about Sanger. Taking references to Wales out of the article would leave a hole the size of a Mack truck. Taking Sanger out would leave a hole the size of a skateboard. --] 06:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Second note to Risker. This discussion here is about adding an to Jimmy Wales. I do not follow your logic. In fact you previously to this. I have provided many references, statements, and arguements which most or if not all of you have intentionally ignored. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			This article is about nothing more than a super humiliating incident. No encyclopedic value is really lost with the removal of this tiny, poor-quality selfie from 2007. Does anyone object to its removal? ꧁]꧂ 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
	\|-
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| ''The above is an archived debate of a really tedious subject that had nothing to do with this page. Nothing to see here, move along. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	\|}

Latest revision as of 07:30, 18 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Essjay controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Essjay controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 7, 2007	Articles for deletion	No consensus
March 8, 2007	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
March 12, 2007	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
April 11, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 6, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 4, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
September 24, 2008	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 7, 2007.
Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Misplaced Pages Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Essjay controversy was copied or moved into List of Misplaced Pages controversies with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Noam Cohen (March 6, 2007). "Misplaced Pages ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune.

Instances of the name "Wikia" in the article

This can't be right, surely. The article repeatedly refers to "Wikia". Wikia is another entity entirely – now called Fandom. I checked and the text which states "Wikia" has been there a long time. Was Misplaced Pages previously referred to as Misplaced Pages or is this just a mistake that hasn't been caught in years? Hoping someone else can advise on this matter. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I should do research before saying things :) Turns out that our Mr Wales co-founded the Wikia website. Maybe this article should provide more context on that, though, for those who are unaware? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No need ... just click through the link at the first mention of Wikia in the article. Jibal (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about linking to userpage...

Can be found here Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

wait he from ky?

think hes from louisville BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Does his photo need to be here?

This article is about nothing more than a super humiliating incident. No encyclopedic value is really lost with the removal of this tiny, poor-quality selfie from 2007. Does anyone object to its removal? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories:

Latest revision as of 07:30, 18 November 2024

Instances of the name "Wikia" in the article

Discussion about linking to userpage...

See also section

wait he from ky?

Does his photo need to be here?