Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 8 March 2007

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:TrollWarning

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. ] (] · ])

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (March 6, 2007). "Misplaced Pages ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Misinformation and misrepresentation

Some of the many media articles and blog entries are propagating misinformation and misleading info; I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Firstly, several outlets are mentioning that Essjay has had his 'editor privileges cancelled' - has he actually been blocked? I had thought not. And secondly, a recent article in the Telegraph has made Arbcom sound like an editorial board. Other news outlets have made the same implication. Anchoress 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there would have to be another reputable source that says something about "propagating misinformation and misleading info", with regards to the other sources... Smee 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that we have to wait for a publication to state that ArbCom isn't an editorial board before we can say that articles about EssJay have misrepresented ArbCom as an editorial board? Is that true? If an article stated that Misplaced Pages's servers were located at the bottom of the ocean, would we need to wait for another news site to refute it before we could identify the report as false? I admit that I'm not an expert on RS on WP, but wouldn't a link to the description of ArbCom suffice? And/or a link to EssJay's block log? Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding you, and if so, I apologise. Anchoress 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These are the wonted journo errors which creep into any news item. Technically incorrect and sloppy, they're close enough but nettling to people familiar with the details. It happens all the time and to bring it up in this article IMHO would be non-standard and sound defensive and nitpicky. Gwen Gale 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that without satisfying WP:RS, to comment about what some may see as mistakes in news articles would be a violation of WP:NOR... Smee 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Ignore those little technical errors, they're part of the news business. Every news story has them. Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Smee 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that's fine. Anchoress 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between quoting a news article and making an assertion. If you quote a news article, you should quote it verbatim and should not correct the text of the quote. However, it is reasonable to correct the mistake by stating the truth without a citation as long as no one challenges your assertions.

For example, I think it is reasonable to say "Although some media reports indicated that Essjay had his editor privileges cancelled, a more accurate characterization would be that he gave up various administrative and oversight privileges and indicated that he was leaving Misplaced Pages. He requested that his user pages be delted but he did not, however, take any steps to have his account deleted."

Now, the problem is... what if someone DOES challenge this with a {{citation needed}} tag? What I wrote is true as of this writing but the only proof I have is Misplaced Pages links and one can argue that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Well, Misplaced Pages is kind of a reliable source about itself but I don't want to go chasing down that rabbit hole.

So, I can imagine that you could put the assertion about Essjay's actions into the article but you would have to be willing for it to be deleted if anybody challenged the truth of the assertion.

--Richard 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told it's not reasonable. If you want to say something, find a citation to support it or don't say it. One can paraphrase a source but one cannot correct it, that's original research (no, I'm not talking about spelling errors and so on, those should only be untouched in directly attributed quotations). With breaking news stories it can take time to assemble enough citations from sundry news articles to get a complete and accurate encyclopedic narrative. Be patient, it'll happen. Gwen Gale 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

meanwhile, down the memory hole

Essjay, with its redirect to this article, has been deleted, which will thwart many readers from ever finding it. Gwen Gale 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Ned Scott is a puppet of Essjay. He even called me an "asshole" here. Regards, --Jayzel 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck getting that one through RfCU. Ned edits manga articles, not theology. I'd suggest you at least do a modicum of research before accusing an editor in good standing of being a sock. --tjstrf talk 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor who calls other editors "assholes" has no good standing IMO. Good day, --Jayzel 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can let their civility slip from time to time, and your abrasive sarcasm in that conversation was just as incivil as his cursing. "Good standing" refers to their overall behaviour and editing pattern. Regardless of your personal opinion of him, he is no sock. --tjstrf talk 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, a*****e. ;) --Jayzel 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm nope, calling someone asshole is more uncivil than calling someone who has represented himself as a professor for two years professor. Gwen Gale 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He has now kindly agreed to preserve the re-direct. Gwen Gale 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, he wanted the redirect deleted so the article could be moved back to it. JoshuaZ 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all in all Ned did the right thing. We now have a NPOV title, redirects from Essjay and Essjay Scandal and we can carry on editing the article to be a NPOV record of Essjays (the editor) actions rather than a contentious bio or POV witch hunt - Munta 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't care much about the name of the article as much as I wanted to avoid possible confusing during the AfD. The article had twice been moved back to Essjay (once by me, and once by another) for that reason alone. That and this discussion made me think that moving it back would be a good idea. I was no fan of the word "scandal" being thrown in, but that was more of a secondary concern. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we ditch the photo?

There is a sad irony, with even his (probably) local paper gathering information on him and his name in the news around the globe, that right now Essjay really does have a legitimate concern about harassment and violation of privacy in Real Life. The picture doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't add anything to the article. Please let's edit it out. Risker 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion on subsection "Image", above. The photo is free to use under GFDL, is at the bottom of the article, and we have no idea in actuality who is really depicted in the photo... Smee 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages is not censored. --Jayzel 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I feel bad for Essjay but for all anyone knows that pic is as MUDdy as his CV was. Gwen Gale 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm becoming more concerned about the photo as we go along. Initially, I though it fair use as it documented the person behind the article. However, as the article has changed, it has become much more of a record of Essjay and his persona rather than a record of Ryan himself. On the other hand, there is a risk that we are saying that a "virtual person" is an entity in their own right and that is clearly ridiculous. Weighing up the pros and the cons, I feel that the text in the article is right (Ryan being named in time context) and for the respect of Ryan (as a falable human being, not as a former wikipedian), the photo adds nothing to the article. This isn't censorship - its common sense. I would be happy if it was removed and replaced at a latter date if the situation changes. - Regards - Munta 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's GFDL, no licensing worries at all. The photo was uploaded by User:Essjay as his WP:MUD avatar, it's presented with screenshots of Essjay's userspace and the name of this article begins with Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. All very good reasons to Keep, as highly relevant and useful in this article. Smee 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I realise that there are no licencing issues. I just belive that the inclusion of the photo blurs the distinction between Essjay and Ryan. The article is not about Ryan - so why do we need the photo? I've thought long and hard on this and I was very strong in my views about Essjay resigning and these articles staying. Perhaps its just my humanist nature but I just feel uncomfortable about this one. - Munta 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Ryan Jordan article, or the Essjay article...it is the Essjay Controversy article. Nobody's whining abuot licensing. The screenshots make sense. But unless someone can show a reason that the article would be deficient without that photo, it should go. There are elements of WP:BLP here, even though it isn't strictly a biographical article. If ever there was an article that needs to meet the highest standards of ethics, this is the one. 216.95.209.50 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, computer logged out on me before submitting - this was by Risker)

• Remove The photo doesn't reflect any of the newsworthy aspects of the story (other than that Essjay is young), and publicizing it intrudes on the privacy of a guy who is, frankly, only borderline notable. Keep the article, if there is concensus that it's newsworthy, but let's have a heart. TheronJ 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of it. Weighing up the serious harm we could be doing to someone in real life and the possible slight improvement the photo might bring to the article, I can't see how we can even hesitate over it. This is a human being, no matter what we might think of the scandal he caused. ElinorD (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm swayed :) Sorry if I seemed like I was being mean to Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. ElinorD (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• If more than a few people want to remove it, that's fine, but I think leaving it as "commented out" is a good idea, it might be re-added at a later point in time... Smee 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
  • On the other hand, please see Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees, on Wikinews, where the photo is being used, along with the caption: Photo of Essjay, uploaded by himself. Smee 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Haha no worries! I've got a feeling we're gonna see a proposal to delete that image from the server anytime now. Gwen Gale 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries about Wikinews, they are a separate entity. And now that you mention it, Gwen Gale... Risker 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sooner the better. Those wikinewsfolks kept adding it back, though after a tactful suggestion it's been removed at the moment. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm only tryin to save everyone some time here :) Gwen Gale 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo was shown tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. C.m.jones 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A pity we didn't act sooner then. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion needed

There is currently some disagreement at Talk:Stacy Schiff about whether or not this controversy should be mentioned on her bio. Some additional opinions on the matter would be appreciated, to help determine consensus on the issue. --El on ka 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Very nice addition, to whoever added it. :-) C.m.jones 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was originally from Wikinews, but of course it can be expanded upon as things progress/are discovered in reputable secondary sources... Smee 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Nominated for DYK

See Template_talk:Did_you_know#March_1. Please feel free to improve my entry. Thanks. — M (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you wearing asbestos coveralls or what. Gwen Gale 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They could have at least got the facts right in their summary - Munta 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please semi protect Essjay

The current name is protected but that isn't. Given Essjay is now all over global broadcast news... - Denny 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

screenshot published

The International Herald Tribune in Paris, an influential English language newspaper in Western Europe, has published a screenshot of an early version of this article. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the same article that was published earlier by the NYT? --tjstrf talk 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, or a version of it, with the added screenshot. Gwen Gale 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, what was the template that was for articles that themselves were cited in major news stories...? - Denny 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't find it here, Gwen Gale 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Header added to top of talk page. Smee 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Kendrick7's lead is wrong

The current lead as edited into the article by Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) reads false. The controversy stems from The New Yorker having to print an editor's note regarding a previous article they had published that had to explain that Essjay did not have credentials the original article said he did. (→Netscott) 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the controversy stems from Essjay being exposed as a liar. — M (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following what is in the ABC news article : "This latest scandal, at one of the Web's most viewed sites, involves a prominent editor who forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate." -- Kendrick7 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

which is a bit sensationalist and makes errors.Geni 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you now copyediting a cited source??? — M (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC Nightly News

ABC News broadcast a story on Misplaced Pages's accuracy tonight, and the Essjay incident featured prominently therein. Rklawton 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dammit! Now what am I going to do with this huge hole I just dug?! Edeans 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Brilliant. Misplaced Pages prevented a fake-charity from taking advantage of millions after the 2004 Tsunami, but did ABC Nightly News report on that? Nooooooo. How about any other major news source? Not last time I checked. Typical. --*Kat* 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• (heh, again with the Justin Timberlake edit.. wtf?) I have to say, regardless of how you view Essjay now (like him or hate him) that report by ABC was pretty shitty. I'm still not convinced this makes the Essjay event notable. Remember, Misplaced Pages is a "hot topic" in many ways, and this seems less about this incident and more about using the incident to make some shocking statements (zomg, someone lied on the internet). They didn't even mention why Essjay was specifically significant, in that he held a position of community trust. This could have been anything, could have been anyone. They just treated it as if that was the first editor to ever lie. The news media can be very absurd at times, and the public's attention is short. I get the feeling that being on things like ABC Nightly News won't indicate notability, it will simply indicate how the ignorant public is entertained by stories of the mysterious "internet thing". -- Ned Scott 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essay originally confirmed his credentials to the New Yorker

OK, Netscott, here:

Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Misplaced Pages’s management team because of his respected position within the Misplaced Pages community. He was willing to describe his work as a Misplaced Pages administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.

From The New Yorker Article as cited. -- Kendrick7 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just posted to your talk page... I retract my statement. Kindly accept my apologies. (→Netscott) 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No lo problemo. -- Kendrick7 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis for saying that he forged any credentials or faked anything. He lied about his credentials, but that is completely different. The opening sentence currently gives totally the wrong impression. What he actually did may be just as bad (repeatedly lying on his userpage and elsewhere, including to Ms Schiff), but it is not the same as forging or faking documents. Also, the source cited is totally unreliable, even though it is a large news company: nomnetheless, it is just someone who was not involved and has the wrong end of the stick. It is always dangerous relying on journalistic sources for anything even slightly complicated. If we are going to keep this article, it needs to be accurate and sourced properly. Metamagician3000 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV

I removed the following from the article

This has no place in this article as it is POV and OR. Theres much more POV, OR and primary (self) reference. Can editors please help with keeping this NPOV that other editors have spent so much time working on.

Thanks - 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it as well... essentially as original research whose removal is covered by WP:BLP. (→Netscott) 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto that; and pointed out the inappropriateness to one of the authors of the nonsense. --Leflyman 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys are LYING, but the TRUTH speaks for itself. How can it be OR or libelous when it is cited to an edit that Essjay himself published, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gay&diff=prev&oldid=14917790 ???Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Among other issues, Essjay has never said that he was straight, so those edits could be completely honest. JoshuaZ 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out the cited material above due to very real BLP concerns. (→Netscott) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's completely inappropriate. "Gamed the system" is POV. "Posing as a homosexual" suggests that he isn't homosexual. He may or may not be. We don't know. The statement that Robbie's only contribution was to vote in Essjay's RfB is simply inaccurate. See Special:Contributions/Robbie31. Admittedly there are no actual contributions to articles, but the account was not created and used more than two months before the RfC. These edits are coming from a new account. I suggest that the user familiarise himself with policy, rather than revert warring. ElinorD (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you, the conclusion people are drawing everywhere is that wikipedia has been pretty much controlled by sexual minorities placed in positions of god-like power. Now would you like a source for that statement??

Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

User:Os Cangaceiros kindly familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:What is a troll and know that this last commentary is sooner in line with that. In that light kindly refrain from further such commentary. (→Netscott) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

QED Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

Give me a break. The only edit outside of userspace was in the RfB. It was an obvious meatpuppet single purpose account. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a sudden upswing in this user's contributions in the near future. The content and the evidence, sans the homosexual content, is highly relevant to expose Essjay's further duplicity. — M (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof, it has not been cited and it is libelous. What you believe to be true, by definition is POV. What do you not understand about why it shouldn't be included - Regards - Munta 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we will see any such upswring- if this is Essjay's actual partnet he will most likely not be in a mood to edit. Furthermore, Essjay easily had the technical skill to make a much more subtle sock, if he had wanted to sock he would have done that. JoshuaZ 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a gay person" is pretty straightforward (pardon the pun) to me. To say this is libelous is really offensive by the way. As a gay person. Consider that. Wjhonson 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point. The issue is that we have no reason to think that Essjay is not gay. So claiming that Robbie didn't exist or that Essjay being gay was part of the persona does not meet WP:BLP or WP:OR. JoshuaZ 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RFOL Youre in it deep now, man! Wish I could throw in a paddle, but... 172.135.71.121

IIRC, he claimed to have been living with Robbie for a number of years. -Mysekurity 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline improvments

I don't believe the current timeline is correct. I drew up a timeline a few days ago (see my email to WikiEN-l), and Essjay posted the relevant details to his Wikia userpage 7 January, not 15 January (although the Wikia staff have made this difficult to confirm, as past revisions have been deleted...). The timeline also omits Brandt's discovery of the Wikia userpage circa 21 January and Essjay's first message on the subject 1 February. These seem to be fairly important details. --Gwern (contribs) 02:06 7 March 2007 (GMT)

Well, add 'em in! :-) C.m.jones 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I hope no one dings my additions for OR or something equally silly - they were there when I was researching the email! --Gwern (contribs) 06:52 7 March 2007 (GMT)

On a side note, I'm unsure how much to include. Should we mention that Brandt did more than just be the first to notice and report it to the New Yorker? He flogged it pretty heavily on Slashdot and other places, and his website - note all the anonymous and other persons who seem to home in on Essjay rather quickly, from the Slashdot article itself, to the early anon edits to User talk:Essjay, and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 07:12 7 March 2007 (GMT)

Without a reliable source that would be original research. We need to be very careful with this article. JoshuaZ 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive timeline

I reverted to the previous version of the timeline from one adding excessive, extraneous detail. Content such as this should be attributed to outside sources, within the body of the article:

• January 21, 2007 — An SBC IP address self-identified as Daniel Brandt contacts Essjay on his talk page and asks him to "Please explain the tremendous disparity between the personal information you have volunteered on your user page on Misplaced Pages since you started in February 2005, and the new information you provide at wikia.com." He provides a screenshot dated 18 January 2007. Essjay never replies.
• February 1, 2007—A Misplaced Pages user contacts Essjay on the same subject as Brandt did; Essjay confirms that the Wikia profile is accurate, and that to avoid "trolls, stalkers, and psychopaths who wander around Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects looking for people to harass, stalk, and otherwise ruin the lives of", Essjay's "approach was different: I decided to be myself, to never hide my personality, to always be who I am, but to utilize disinformation with regard to what I consider unimportant details: age, location, occupation, etc."

--Leflyman 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ^
2. Relevant revision
3. Dev920's edit
4. Essjay's first discussion of the topic

I don't know, after having read some of this, I appreciate seeing Essjay's side of the story in the article somewhere. It's a shame we don't have a secondary source for all this. -- Kendrick7 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Leflyman, I don't think the first entry is excessive or extraneous. The first item is about the first ever recorded mention of the discrepancy, and the second records Essjay's first ever comment and defense of his actions. I think those are important. It'd be like an article on the American Revolution not mentioning the battle of Lexington and Concord. These are important things, more important to what actually happened than some news articles or mentions on TV. --Gwern (contribs) 23:51 7 March 2007 (GMT)

• And they are the very definition of Original Research.--Leflyman 06:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Essjay uploaded this picture of himself, I don't see any encyclopedic reason why it shouldn't be used. I suggest we put it up on the main article. The same thing was done with several fraudsters articles at Misplaced Pages, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Essjay_controversy#Can_we_ditch_the_photo.3F 2 - It has not been confirmed to be Essjay 3 - Whats the point - it adds nothing to the article Munta 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say a picture of Essjay he himself loaded adds to the article, it is the same one he used when he came out of the closet at Wikia. Arcticdawg 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The image adds to the article. A picture is worth a thousand words. Readers want to know what the person of interest looks like. --QuackGuru 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I have resored it to the article. It was shown on ABC World News tonight. It would not be right for us to leave it out of our own coverage. Johntex\ 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As the title says "no evidence if it is Essjay or not". Does wikipedia now include information where we have no evidence of what it represents? It does not add anything to the article. We do not know if it proves it is Essjay and we do not know if it proves if Essjay was duplicitious. - Munta 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We know he uploaded it. We know he claimed it was him. We know reputable media outlets have run it as part of their story. We don't need to know whether it is him or not so long as we don't claim it is him. Our caption is correctly stating the known facts about the image. Johntex\ 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The famous picture was used by the media. One of the most notable pictures on Misplaced Pages. --QuackGuru 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Essjay want this image to be on this site? Why don't we ask him? Maybe he is looking for fame or infamy. If that is his choice and other sources are using this image, then it is unfair for us not to use it, right? I believe that Wiki's respond should be based upon Essjay's motive and intention. If he shows no respond then shouldn't everyone assume he doesn't want his image on this site?

Louisville Courier-Journal

No love expressed in Essjay's hometown newspaper. "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Edeans 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That article also casts doubt on the credentials Essjay presented to Wikia:

On Wikia's site, Jordan said he lives outside Louisville and studied philosophy and religion at Centre, in Danville, as well as the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville.

He said that before coming to Wikia, "I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company, where I worked on a ten person team that managed roughly $500,000,000 in annual sales. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years," including "nearly a year with a firm in Louisville that represented doctors in medical licensure matter and a three month special position with a United States Bankruptcy Trustee."

A Centre spokesman confirmed Jordan attended from 2001 to 2003, and a UK spokesman said he was enrolled in the fall semester of 2003 at the former Lexington Community College, now Bluegrass Community and Technical College.

A spokeswoman for U of L said nobody by that name has attended the university since 1920, and a spokeswoman for the U.S. bankruptcy trustee said the office had no record Jordan had worked there.

J. Fox DeMoisey, a lawyer who represents doctors in licensure cases, said Jordan had worked in his office for about six months as a secretary and receptionist.

Looks like even his revised educational/employment history may contain inaccuracies. Johntex\ 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No surprise there, it was already known (5 days ago) that his Wikia CV could not possibly be true. . Quatloo 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He has another first name. It is possible that he used this other name in these other areas. (→Netscott) 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

I think the below noted links are informative and should be allowed in the article. Arcticdawg 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

• Ryan Jordan claiming false credentials
• Essjay's user talk archive reflecting his false statements
• Wikitruth - Essjay

Blogs

• Andrew Lih
• Blogma
• Blog World
• Chronicle of Higher Education
• Citizendium & Article 2
• Freakonomics
• Infothought
• LiveJournal
• Nonbovine Ruminations
• Rough Type
• Slashdot
• Web Pro News

Of course they are informative. --QuackGuru 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people keep deleting them from the article ! Arcticdawg 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Informative does not mean approrpriate. Read WP:EL to gain an understanding about why they've been repeatedly removed. (→Netscott) 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed copyright violation

Please note, copyright law only allows for short samples from articles. You cannot add extended paragraphs. Rewrite the graphs in your own words and add a citation. --Jayzel 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Add besides, the info I removed didn't belong as a footnote in the reference section, it should be included within the article itself. --Jayzel 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of copyright law is not accurate. In fact you can quote an entire work if your purpose is to then criticize it. Wjhonson 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we work some of those stories into the article?

I'm a bit concerned that all those links to external secondary sources are just dangling there without comment in the article itself. Some sort of reference within the article to the extensive coverage of the controversy would be appropriate. As it sits, the only sources are the New Yorker and Wikinews, which are hardly in the same calibre as the BBC, NYT, and American television networks (as botched as their articles might be). Comments? Risker 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead again

This lead still isn't right:

The Essjay controversy arose after The New Yorker magazine disclosed that a prominent English Misplaced Pages editor and administrator known by the name "Essjay", who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had "forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate."1

It makes it seem that the quote from ABC News came from The New Yorker which if one follows the sources we know isn't true. With the first ref. leading to ABC News this lead is a bit of a bait and switch. This earlier version:

The Essjay controversy occurred after The New Yorker magazine was obliged to add an editor's note to a prior article that a prominent English Misplaced Pages editor and administrator, and brief Wikia employee, known by the name "Essjay" did not have academic credentials he was originally reported as having.

makes more sense. This bait and switch bit makes the article lose credibility and needs to be corrected. Perhaps we can come up with a version somewhere in between these two that doesn't bait and switch? (→Netscott) 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur that the lead needs to be specific to what is said in The New Yorker, and actually the original lead is more correct. Perhaps using the description of the problem from The New Yorker article and breaking it down into two sentences? The ABC stuff doesn't belong in the lead, they came into the picture days after the controversy set in. Risker 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We could just remove the quotes around what ABC says, though "...did not have academic credentials he originally claimed to have" would be ok. Your version buries the lede. It's not the reporting that's the scandal, it's the erroneous claim. -- Kendrick7 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you're citing lede then know that Wikinews is over that way. This is an encyclopedia, let's write like it is one. (→Netscott) 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Today's Papers jargon which column I read daily, but article writing is article writing. No point in not cutting to the chase; please don't refer me to wikifilms! -- Kendrick7 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, sorry but your lead is crap and makes the article lose credibility. Let's come up with a better more encyclopedic one instead of revert warring. The points that need addressing in the lead sentence are:

1. Who are we talking about?
2. What did he do?
3. How did that come to be controversial?

Am I wrong? (→Netscott) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Journalistic (and encyclopaedic) standards are to make the lede a short 20-30 word sentence, giving the summation of factual contents as clearly as possible, without over-flourishment. Subsequent paragraphs move from the general to the specifics. --Leflyman 05:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well given ABC News' Justin Timberlake and Star Wars spin in their report I don't have much confidence in relying upon them as a source for this article and this is even moreso true in terms of citing them in the lead sentence. (→Netscott) 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For those of us who didn't see it, what was said about Starwars and Timberlake? JoshuaZ 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC News sensationalized the news by mentioning that Essjay had edited on those two articles. Regardless of the circumstances that type of thing is not all that uncommon for editors to do on Misplaced Pages when it comes to combatting vandals and other nonsense. You can watch the video here. (→Netscott) 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as we don't editorialize and report what reliable sources say the controversy is, I'm open to anything. -- Kendrick7 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead as it stands is false - he didn't forge or fake credentials; he lied about having them, which is bad but different. The note is not to the New York Times as it suggests. The source is ABC news, which is not a reliable source for such things - on trivial complicated things, journalists invariably make errors, and this is a good example. Metamagician3000 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed; while Misplaced Pages's newly consolidated Attribution policy (formerly "verifiability") is about verifiability, not truth, we should as a practice attempt to be accurate, and find sources that get the facts correct -- referencing those which properly explain events, rather than are just in the ball park and come from a more impressive media outlet. Journalists make mistakes, but our aim is to be a bit more precise; even Ms. Schiff's original article notes, "At the same time, the site embodies our newly casual relationship to truth. When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of “But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.”"--Leflyman 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

20,000 articles

Right now, mainstream "reliable" sources are reporting that Essjay wrote or edited 16,000 - 20,000 articles, and that he was one of the few editors authorized to deal with vandalism. All of this is utter nonsense, of course, but it poses a problem for the article - do we ignore what sources are reporting (and what makes them think that this is a larger scandal than it is), or do we quote them and use original research to deny those allegations.

This is the central problem with self-references: how to write a sourced article about something that we know more about than the sources? Zocky | picture popups 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By attributing them. Then attributing the other point of view as well, in this case it is fair to mention that a primary source disagrees with a secondary source. The reader can decide for themselves. Something like "While Blah news has claimed blah blah blah<citation>, Misplaced Pages policies are contrary to the postion<citation>."

It may seem odd to mention ourselves, but in a way we are a primary source for this article. Just my 2 cents. InBC 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the real numbers? I forget how to check. We could always leak them to the press, right? -- Kendrick7 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a tool that breaks down the information in Misplaced Pages's logs. He contributed to 5668 unique articles pages, and had to total of 16650 edits, there are only 3 articles he made more than 10 edits to. InBC 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like your suggestion. No need to pull the wool over our own eyes. -- Kendrick7 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Only 1396 edits were to articles (ie, in the main space) and if you browse through his edit summaries a huge percentage of it is reverting vandalism . I suppose there are perhaps 100 or 200 "proper" edits that he made to main space articles, which also explains why he wasn't caught making an error. Tintin 06:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, the number I quoted was unique pages, not articles, good catch. _InBC 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's so helpful for context but mind, it can't be used in the article unless an independent, verifiable source has published it. Gwen Gale 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So, let's write to the newspapers and ask for corrections. Not as "official representatives" of Wikimedia or "members of the Misplaced Pages community", but as readers who are tired of seeing bad news reporting, particularly in areas where it is so easy to do a much better job. Anville 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At least in his latter days and since I have been editing, Essjay frequently described himself as a "non-content" administrator who rarely contributed to mainspace. Newyorkbrad 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case Misplaced Pages is a primary source, as it is a topic of the article, and I think we can safely say "While X has reported Y, this is not supported by Misplaced Pages's public logs of Essjays actions", and be well within policy. A primary source can be used to give context to an outside source. _InBC 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESS, "IF THERE ARE ERRORS IN AN ARTICLE, please post the matter to the Wikimedia Communications Committee's talk page. This way, the Wikimedia Foundation can send an official letter to the editor, or request for a correction." RHB 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville

This should be obvious, but this is about a Louisville-area person and a controversy that is getting specially big coverage here in Louisville. If the banner is too "crufty" (this talk page isn't about style, it's about utility and communication), that's why I used the small parameter. If there's a problem with project banner cruft, don't take it out on my little project. Stevie is the man! 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but I'd say that while Ryan Jordan may physically be near Louisville -- as a Misplaced Pages-wide controversy, it's closer to being non-regional (ala Internet/Web 2.0) in scope. I'd recommend leaving it off any such local Wikiprojects. --Leflyman 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No offense taken, but I honestly disagree. All notable people from the Louisville area are in our project. Stevie is the man! 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except that this article isn't a bio; and even still, Jordan isn't notable for being a Louisvillian, but a Wikipedian. I find having this entirely unnecessary: "B-Class Louisville articles | Mid-importance Louisville articles | Louisville articles with comments". Again, it's not a topic specific enough to Louisville to warrant planting a Wikiproject flag on this article -- it just seems like as turf-grabbing. The only Wikiproject I've come across that it might fall into is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Internet_culture. ---Leflyman 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it go, nobody owns the article, if a project want to give attention to the article fine. _InBC 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with HighInBC) I don't see any "turf-grabbing" here. Multiple projects can claim an article and it is relevant to the Louisville Wikiproject as much as any random notable person from Louisville is who isn't something like a former mayor. Seems fine to me. JoshuaZ 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except that by placing it in such a category, it's being classified as a "Louisville article", which it is not. It has nothing to do with ownership, but with proper categtorisation. Why not Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Kentucky since Jordan attended schools in Lexington and Danville? Or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Religion or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Catholicism since that's what he claimed expertise in? It's just a tenuous connection that's being asserted. --Leflyman 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If any of those projects want to tag the article and help out, I see nothing wrong with that. JoshuaZ 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project coverage does not equal article categorization. Nobody I know of would misconstrue that. Stevie is the man! 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with any projects wanting to "help out" -- I do have a problem with individuals assigning their own undiscussed ratings systems (B-class?) and classifications. "Mid-Importance?" That doesn't even match the Project's description: "Topics that are reasonably notable on a local level within Louisville without necessarily being famous or very notable outside of Louisville." As for not equaling article categorisation-- how should one construe the categories at the bottom which state "Louisville article"? .--Leflyman 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing new in the article assessment approach of this project compared to other projects. I'm not sure what the big issue is with that. WikiProject Louisville assesses the article class and assigns importance according to its own processes, commensurate with the standards for doing such. There's nothing going on here that claims this article as merely a Louisville article. Stevie is the man! 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: what you mean is that you assessed and assigned the importance according to your own process, since there was no discussion on the Wikiproject page. So far as I can tell-- and more power to you-- it seems that you're doing all the work on what you refer above to as "my little project".--Leflyman 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what happens in every project. One person makes the initial assessments, then somebody else can come along and revise the assessments later. Are you new to wikiprojects and assessments? You seem to be descending into accusations over something that is very benign. Stevie is the man! 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, "my little project" was not to be taken literally, but rather as a project I am associated with. I started it yes, but as you will see, there are multiple members, some who do more work than others. Par for the course with wikiprojects. Stevie is the man! 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just edited the template to make the small version smaller. Stevie is the man! 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where it is now it is only taking up whitespace. Good placement. InBC 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I aim to accommodate. Stevie is the man! 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project over-tagging does a few bad things. It's needless, it won't realistically aid in the article's improvement, it sets a bad example of when to tag and when not to tag, too many talk page banners is a widespread problem on Misplaced Pages, there are efforts to reform both WikiProject banners and WikiProjects themselves, it de-emphasizes these banners when they are correctly used, and I could go on and on and on. And an internet culture WikiProject? you have to be fucking kidding me... quick, find someone on Misplaced Pages who knows about internet culture! oh wait.. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever encountered such a drastic position on the Misplaced Pages. I have come to think that whether an article is covered by a wikiproject is a decision of a member of said project, not a vote of one or two editors of the article. OK, I'll take this off my watch list, and inform other project members about it. The members of WikiProject Louisville are apparently not welcome to work on an article regarding an individual that naturally falls under our project coverage. Stevie is the man! 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, it's just that just because a person is from or living in Louisville doesn't make it particularly relevant / unique to Louisville. Let me put it this way, Essjay could have lived almost anywhere and this would likely have all still happened. Being in Louisville isn't a significant factor for this article.

Normally I don't take such strong positions on such minor issues, but lately the problem of overtagging is reaching critical mass. For example, see Template talk:WikiProjectBanners and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject reform. There is a misconception about projects as well as banners and when to use them, and although no one means any harm, there's still a problem. -- Ned Scott 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image liscenses of the screenshots

I'm not sure about this, but I have trouble seeing these as plausibly GFDLable since they are copies of GFDL content without the attached attribution they are essentially only justifiable under a fair use doctrine and can't (I think) be put under GFDL. Now, if to each image the history of the page was attached, then it would be a valid derivative work and thus GFDLable. Am I correct here? JoshuaZ 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, is no one else concerned about this? JoshuaZ 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That would probably best be an issue to take up on the individual pages themselves of those images. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sigh. I was hoping someone who had mroe knowledge of the image issues could just tell me I was wrong. I'll go deal with this tommorow. Need sleep now. JoshuaZ 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Was my licensing on the wikia image ok? If not, could someone correct it? Its just a screen shot of what it looked like back before Angela apprently nuked it (I just hadn't rermembered to upload)... - Denny 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem with the screenshots. WAS 4.250 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite but think of it this way, who created the content and what kind of licensing rights were granted for that content? These are derivative works under a GFDL license, attribute source and author(s) on the image pages. Gwen Gale 07:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The text in the images is GFDL'd; the images in the images isn't necessarily, but they aren't really important. It would be trivial to blank them with the right tool. Volunteers? -- Kendrick7 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the images are GFDL too and as for those which may not be the resolutions are so low they're but splotches. There's nothing here to worry about. Gwen Gale 07:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the splotch argument seems to be the most convincing issue, my real concern (maybe I didn't state it well) was that if these screenshots are considered to be derivatives of the pages from which they came then in order to comply with the GFDL they need have the histories of the pages attached. Does that make sense to anyone? JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, spot on. Meanwhile try arguing that the attempted erasing of content and histories for the Essjay RfC and article were vios of GFDL and one might easily get banned for making a legal threat. Gwen Gale 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting them wasn't a GFDL problem by itself since the content wasn't used elsewhere, the images however are still a problem, JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the GFDL only requires a history when the have been modifications. There aren't modifications here. This falls under section 2, not section 4. -- Kendrick7 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are derivative, but if we just link to the history of the page (as other sites do with our content), it should comply with the licsense. But you're right; with the histories deleted they're fair use. I think they should be removed for purely editorial reasons, however. At best they're redundant with the webcites. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, editorially, they add nothing and hence could be taken as swaying the article into PoV. Gwen Gale 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, editorially, they add a lot. People are visual creatures - they like to see images to help them understand. We should keep the images. Johntex\ 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have they ever heard of youtube then? :) Gwen Gale 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Under what WP:FU:Fair use criterion? JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL/GPL is not only for wikis ya know. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The image of the editor has been published and doesn't pose any serious problem, and I agree it might add some humanizing to the article. But can you honestly say that screenshots of a website are the sorts of images humans respond to? Like Glen Gale, I also suspect the images are a POV problem. I would favor cutting all of them, but at least the screenshots. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Gwen Gale :) Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how they are POV. Who's POV is being represented by them? -- Kendrick7 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some may take it as a pileon as all, others won't. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

License review

Please see this discussion and reply there. - Denny 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

The article used to contain four screenshots from the Google cache of the now-deleted page User:Essjay/History1. I have no strong opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to contain an image of a deleted Misplaced Pages user page, but I did think that it was a shame to have four images where one would do. So I used a little application called SnapWeb to take a single image of the Google cache page. If other folks feel that an image of the deleted page is appropriate for the article, here it is — it should, however, be noted that this cached version of the page was in fact a vandalized version (an anonymous editor changed Essjay's caption "Yes, I'm a professor" to "Yes, I'm not a professor").

Regarding this screenshot, some thought should be given to the balance between the right to vanish and the need to preserve an accurate account of Misplaced Pages's history (in which Essjay's misrepresentations are now, alas, an important element). If a strong consensus emerges that the inclusion of a screenshot of Essjay's user page is important and appropriate, and if a similar consensus emerges among administrators that this would not be a violation of Misplaced Pages rules, I would be willing to provide a screenshot of the version of Essjay's user page in which he first made the claims of academic credentials. (For the record, it was the version of 07:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC).) I think this might be a better alternative than a Google cache of a vandalised version — but I do recognize that the creation of a screenshot of a deleted page would be highly unusual and problematic. What do other folks think? — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat neutral but since you've asked, I'd rm it. The screenshots add very little additional information to the article and do seem rather like a "pileon." As for the Essjay photo I personally have no problem with its inclusion but others have asserted it's an assault on his life. Since Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons does apply here and like it or not there is a "community" aspect to this tale, I'll personally defer to any editor who rms that too. Meanwhile though I strongly stand by the retention of this article and its sourced content. Gwen Gale 08:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm resigned to keeping the article, and I always said that the problem with the original article was that the individual concerned was not notable even if the incident was. I have misgivings about whether we'll be able to get a good, accurate, neutral article on the incident or "controversy" but at least we can try. Given that that is what we're aiming for - not to cause harm to an individual - I don't think we should be using a photograph (allegedly) of him. It sheds no light on the subject matter of the article. A shot of the retraction in the New Yorker would make more sense, if it is the "controversy" that matters. Metamagician3000 09:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its worth saying that I think we may have opened a can of worms here. There are two issues.

1 - People do have a right to respect and I the inclusion of the photo, I felt added nothing to the story yet may have had a major impact on Ryan. However, since all the major media is using that photo then we can safely say that our inclusion of the photo does no more harm than has already occured.

2 - This is where I have the problem. The photo was sourced from Ryan, who as we all know, has a history of not being "entirely honest". No one has secondary verification that the photo was infact Ryan as people (wikipedia, wikinews etc) were keen on including as much info as possible. What if wikipedia has provided a photo of an "innocent" man?

Now, given the media attention we have all been deailing with, if it turned out that Ryan did infact fake the photo, then the current situation will pale into insignificance in comparison. As the media all sourced their photo from wikipedia, then we would be guilty of creating news and the media would have a field day. I'm sure the media will eventually identify the real Ryan and we all need to be aware of how this situation may turn quickly. Just be aware of that as we rush to document whats happened.

Regards - Munta 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC We are in a unique position to document this, I say take it. -- Kendrick7 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify — I didn't mean to question the inclusion of this article. The cat left the bag last weekend, and he's not getting back in. My question was about the inclusion of the screenshot, Image:User-Essjay-History1.png. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, it would seem to be better to have a screenshot of the actual page rather than one muddied with Google's headers. From an encyclopedic standpoint, I am leaning towards the notion that an image of Essjay's user page adds significant content to the article: it shows the context in which his false persona was first presented. From a privacy/right-to-vanish standpoint, it's arguable that since there's already a screenshot on the web at Misplaced Pages Watch, any attempt to keep Essjay's former user page hidden is futile.

On the other hand, I can see Gwen's argument that the inclusion of the screenshot may seem like a "pile-on". And here's another question: would inclusion of a screenshot from a now-deleted page be considered original research? It's not, strictly speaking, verifiable by people who aren't Misplaced Pages admins. A screenshot from the WebCite copy would be more verifiable, but it loses most of the page's formatting. (And one thing I think we can all agree on is that Essjay's pages were very attractively formatted.)

I don't really have an opinion about the photo from the Wikia page — I'm mainly asking about the Misplaced Pages user page screenshot, because I have the ability and willingness to provide a better image for that if there is a consensus that doing so would be appropriate. I think I'll ask at WP:AN for an opinion of whether it would be an appropriate use of admin tools or not. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reread WP:OR and I don't see how it applied here. -- Kendrick7 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a screenshot of his page would be a derivative work of GFDL copyrighted work, sans attribution (since we've deleted it), which would a violation of our own license on fairly weak fair use grounds. Especially because his pages are already archived in several other places. I don't care vanishing rights because Misplaced Pages:User pages suggest user pages are still for the community's benefit. If we really want a screenshot, we should just undelete and protect his pages so that attributions will be available.

We should proobably include links to places that show the page's content, but I think we ought not skirt our license in a such a high-profile location. Gwen Gale is moreover right to be suspicious of inclusion as a pile-on. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, you do not need to attach a history under the WP:GFDL unless you modify the contents. -- Kendrick7 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So the question becomes are images of content constitute modified content? JoshuaZ 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you could modify it any less. Every last serif is the same. -- Kendrick7 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect, even verbatim copies require attribution — t least that's the dominant understanding of the GFDL. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) It should furthermore be noted that any page edited more than once has already been modified and has accompanying history. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be taken either way IMHO, though I think it's derivative because it was assembled by a web browser on an end user's screen somewhere, captured and reduced. Gwen Gale 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the Misplaced Pages:Verbatim copying essay only suggests potentially attaching a history, and only because it would be easy to do electronically. The actual WP:GFDL is perfectly clear. I can cut and paste the text of this article, print a dozen copies, and pass them out at Boston Common scot free without the history. Gwen is misunderstanding the meaning of "derived." -- Kendrick7 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes me feel much better about this. JoshuaZ 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Images are involved, along with text, along with both GFDL and GPL licenses. However, when I said it could be taken either way I meant it: Copyright worries about these screenshots are trivial and I'd be surprised if anyone could claim anyone else has been damaged. Note, I am not a lawyer, I am speaking as a WP editor shooting her big mouth off. Gwen Gale 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, the GFDL is many things, but it is not perfectly clear. Not even close. To be perfectly clear, you would have to attach several pages of GDFL license text with your copies at Boston Common. This is, after all, one of the greatest criticisms of it.

Under your interpretation, one would actually never have to include history because one could always reproduce a version copied by another party sans history. That might be a legitimate interpretation of the license (see verbatim copying), but it means Misplaced Pages is "a collection of collaborative original (that is, non-derivative) works", which is difficult to believe. In any case, the project has never clarified this point, but because it's also trivially easy for us to link to an electronic version of the history, there's at least a strong argument that we'd have to restore Essjay's relevent user pages. Cool Hand Luke 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Doc glasgow decided they needed to be removed and now they're going back and forth... I really don't understand how they're against policy, though. --Dookama 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the screenshots would serve better as a text link, they are a link to text in image form and are meaningless in thumbnail size. _InBC 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed them as unverifiable. If you can verify the deleted wikia page, please do let me know how.--Doc 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're the first person I've ever heard claim that cached web pages are "unverifiable" or unreliable in any way. --Dookama 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to be the first - and willing to be convinced I'm wrong. Please verify.--Doc 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The person who uploaded them surely verified them. The imaged are tagged as wikipedia screenshots. WP:AGF. -- Kendrick7 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough. They must be verifiable.--Doc 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:V? "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Anyone could have looked up google's of this page at the time it was created, and verify that it was indeed the page. Do you want it relabeled as "google's cache of his page"? -- Kendrick7 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that a particular editor does not know *how* to verify, does not violate WP:ATT. We do not have to prove to anyone how to verify a link, in order to use the link. What a can of worms *that* would open. Wjhonson 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, the whole point is that the pictures have to be covered up and can't be used, they gotta go, simply because we just can't let any more irrelevant evidence be mentioned that he self-identified as queer, so - OH DAMN!!! I just said it again!!! Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

Fallout section

I think the following paragraph should be added but it got deleted, I put it back for now:

In addition, Jimmy Wales, has requested further discussion about increasing the standards for checking credentials of editors at Misplaced Pages, such as, but not limited to, a proposal for power at Misplaced Pages to be accompanied by accountability Misplaced Pages:Administrators accountability and a proposal for credentials to be verified Misplaced Pages:Credentials. Arcticdawg 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just slightly uncomfortable with linking to "internal documents" (the project namespace) from the mainspace article in this way. -- 131.111.8.99 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Pls be wary of self reference. Gwen Gale 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not acceptable, these documents will not work outside of Misplaced Pages, so will bugger up all the mirror sites. If you must link to them, link to them as you would an external link (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators_accountability) Neil (not Proto ►) 13:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are now external secondary reputable sources reporting on this. Smee 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced info?

• User:Dexterreneer had added this: He was actually Ryan Jordan (actually known as Steve Jordan when at Centre College), ... - DIFF, which was then removed as unsourced. Are there sources/citations for this information? Smee 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I've not seen any but will keep my eyes peeled. Gwen Gale 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be very easy to verify but are we crossing over into cyberstalking in doing so? (→Netscott) 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's' in public and RS records... I guess if the source itself is fine for inclusion, it's fine. No one can argue that the person is wholly private at this point given the amount of media coverage. - Denny 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• If an editor is doing the leg work to try to discover facts that can't be attributed to a published source otherwise, it would fall into Original research. Wikipedians are not journalists, nor should they attempt to be private investigators.--Leflyman 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• oh, I know. Thats why I said if it's already in RS, I don't see the harm in including it... - Denny 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What he said

I've rephrased "what he said" in the intro because he didn't *say* it as far as I know. If you can cite where he says he is a dropout, please post that citation into the lead. Thanks. Wjhonson 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again someone has changed it to *imply* that he said he was a dropout. Can we just stick to what the cited article actually states, and cite it to that author instead of Essjay? Thanks. Wjhonson 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retired or Resigned???

The timeline states Essjay retired, yet on Jimbo's talk page he said he asked him to resign. Did he "retire" or "regsign"?--167.80.244.204 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He was asked to resign by Jimmy Wales (i.e. he was fired). See: emailed notes to ZDnet. The "Retired" notice is standard for Wikipedians who (say they) are no longer a part of the project. --Leflyman 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Being asked to resign and being fired are not the same thing. The latter can follow the former if the person refuses but the two actions have legally distinct consequences. It is very unclear whether Jimbo could legally have dismissed Essjay given that he was aware of his true identity when he gave him the Wikia job. WjB scribe 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo distinctly said that he "fired" Essjay. Let's face it, how long would essjay have been able to retain his arbcom seat if he had refused to resign? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Jimbo is quoted directly in the email provided that he fired essjay. Having been interviewed by the media, I have lost all trust that the quotes provided by newspapers are actually what was said - they seem to be more paraphrases. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional source, The Times

From The Times, the leading UK newspaper, is some interesting sourceable content of Jimmy Wales's take on EssJay's disinformation persona and its repercussions:

Mr Wales said the site and its users will soon devise a scheme to adequately check credentials of those Misplaced Pages editors who claim to possess them....

"He got himself into this years ago, and kept it up because he saw no way out," the Misplaced Pages founder said. "He started his deception before we became friends, and I was not particularly aware of his alleged credentials. I know him as an excellent editor." Mr Wales admitted that Misplaced Pages users and editors alike operate using a much higher degree of trust than many in the real world find unusual, but that the Wiki model had weeded out a falsehood in the end.

"Mr Ryan was a friend, and still is a friend," the Misplaced Pages founder said. "He is a young man, and he has offered me a heartfelt personal apology, which I have accepted. I hope the world will let him go in peace to build an honourable life and reputation."

--Leflyman 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Essjay was fired

Can I point out to everyone that Essjay was fired, not because he lied about his job, but because he used those lies to win content disputes and to enhance his standing when writing to professors. Jimbo has been very clear on this point. Although the press believe it was because he simply lied, Jimbo statements are unambiguous on the subject and the article needs to reflect that. Please bear that in mind when you edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please direct us to a source on Jimbo's stated reasons in asking for his resignation. I've not seen an explicit one yet. Thx,--Leflyman 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Jimbo's statement on Essjay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjays accusation of unethical journalistic practices perpetrated by Stacy Schiff

I'm glad to see that the article is now more about the incident rather than the individual. In that respect, would some comment about Essjays accusation of 'Unethical Journalistic Practices' on the part of Stacy Schiff be mentioned in the article? Perhaps in the 'Essjay's response' section. Essjays accusations are really very serious and, in my opinion, quite noteable. They where made at the same time that the quote currently in 'Essjay's response' were made, and follow directly from the initial controversy. I'll gauge opinion here and maybe throw something together later and put that up. Source can be found here . Malbolge 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Above comment was posted by me (Malbolge)... forgot to sign. Malbolge 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Essjay has zero credibility as any kind of a witness in all this. He is documented as capable of lying repeatedly and consistently, both online and offline. Thus, his accusation that Schiff offered him compensation (which was likely made in utter cluelessness to begin with) is trivial. In other words, he can't hurt her reputation if no one believes what he says. Gwen Gale 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the accusation is founded or not, they where made by Essjay and denounced by Schiff - so the accusation was made and was denied. Unfortunately, the only sources for the accusation and denial are the one I provide above (from WikiNews) and from blogs... aswell as from Essjays TalkPages where the accusation was originally made. As I have said, I'm not 100% with protocol and procedure, but (going on what you, Gwen Gale, said to my discussion of WP:SELF as not being criteria for the deletion of the Essjay Incident article) it appears that these cannot be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? Is Wikinews an external and verifiable and therefore acceptable source?Malbolge 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we've developed a policy about WikiNews yet. In general, Wikis are considered not reliable, but plausibly WikiNews might be an exception for articles which have been looked over, published and protected. However, one issue with reliable sources is the problem of anonymity and Wikinews is in general anonymous. JoshuaZ 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy, if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end. Meanwhile one reason it's not being reported by reliable sources is because it's a trivial claim made by an individual who is already documented as, please forgive me, a liar and unreliable source as to anything having to do with himself. If nobody believes what he says, it's an unbelievable, negligable claim, a non-starter as news because it would besmirch her without a shred of evidence aside from his worthless word. Sorry to be so hard on Essjay here but that's the pith of why it's not showing up anywhere. Truth be told I could point you to a single independent source which has reported it but why bother? Gwen Gale 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I myself put no weight in Essjays accusation. I feel that it was made to make himself appear more tragic/sympathetic in light of the whole controversy (as in "oh look... I gave up money"). It does not appear that he was accusing Schiff vindictively, but rather trying to frame himself in a certain light (much as Lih says, he made the comment without realising that it was an accusation of seriously unethical journalistic practice). However, what I THINK of the accusation, and what any of us THINK of the accusation is irrelevant. The accusation is noteable (because of its severity) and it is directly linked to the controversy. So, if it is verifiable should it not be included? I apologise if I'm getting in beyond my depth on this one, but we've all got to take the plunge sometime huh? Malbolge 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced that for a lot of people that was the final straw that made them turn from "it was only an innocent mistake years ago" to "he has to go". But the important thing is to stick to published reliable sources and not blogs or independent research. It is our process and it works. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it can be found in or appears in a reliable publication then I'll go about putting it up. Thanks for the comments. I'll soon get a handle on all this protocol and policy and procedure. Malbolge 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is his block log relevant?

Quack Guru feels we should add in the fact that Essjay is not "indefinetly blocked", using his block log as the source. Is this relevant to the article? I do not think so, but I don't want to get into an edit war over this. I believe this is both a non-neutral statement and also original research. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Risker 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At this time, Essjay's account has not been indefinetly blocked.

This is a fact. The confirmed liar can come out of retirement and start editing at anytime. This is extremely relevant. --QuackGuru 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only relevant if a reliable third party source referred it it, then only their interpretations is relevant. _InBC 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Omit. Not only is it irrelevant and a self-reference, but Quack's being highly POV about it both in motive (as he just showed above) and in phrasing. --tjstrf talk 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as is, it's utter SR. Gwen Gale 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If and when he returns then it will become even more relevant. People are allowed to lie on Misplaced Pages and continue to edit here. There is no policy against confirmed liars. --QuackGuru 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Last I checked we also didn't have rules against edits by shoplifters, adulterers, drug dealers, or cannibalistic murderers. What's your point? --tjstrf talk 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Omit - not being indef blocked is the default state for an account. Should we mention other default states of his account, such as being able to edit semiprotected pages and so on? I don't think so. If he had been blocked or banned at all, it would be worth enumerating as another of the negative consequences attendant upon him. --Gwern (contribs) 20:25 7 March 2007 (GMT)

No need for further discussion. QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been keen to enter OR into this article and this is just another example of it. (→Netscott) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is independent research so it is useful to editors in making choices about the article but it can not be used in the article unless a reliable published source says it. WAS 4.250 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User "Essjay"'s account should be banned, and the IP(s) that can be verified that were used by that account should be placed on sockpuppet watch. This user had violated in a much more serious way that surely many others. Deception was used to "settle" edit disputes. As a new user of Misplaced Pages who has come here as a direct result of reading about this controversy, I am shocked that this user can resume editing at anytime, and can also create new accounts without them being held accountable by IP tracing to the Essjay account. I'm interested in biographies, and also am wonder how many "incidents" in one's life warrant a biography vs. a separate "controversy". Using this rationale, Patty Hearst and other one-hit wonders would be "controveries" and not qualify for a biographical entry. Piperdown 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

What about Reliability of Misplaced Pages as well in the 'See also's? Totnesmartin (who really is called Martin and really is from Totnes!) 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I added it. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wary of blundering in and doing it myself. Totnesmartin 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Misplaced Pages as a result

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators accountability - a proposal for power at Misplaced Pages to be accompanied by accountability
• Misplaced Pages:Credentials - a proposal for credentials to be verified
• Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons - a suggestion to extend the BLP policy of sourcing contested claims to user pages
• Misplaced Pages:Honesty
• User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification

The result of this scandal is the most important part. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As of March, 2007, Jordan is retired from Misplaced Pages.

What is the exact date he retired. Did he really retire or under pressure he resigned. Lets get the facts straightened out and the exact day of the month he quit put in the article. --QuackGuru 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's quote reliable published sources and not get into "truth" not only because that's policy but because that's what works or wikipedia. Otherwise we wind up arguing over the definition of "resign" vs. "retire" vs. "fired" and what evidence is allowed. Date he last edited? under which alias? Stick to reliable published sources . WAS 4.250 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking editors credentials

While it's true that ITWire reported it, it's false that it's occurring or will occur. It still may have a place in the article if only to demonstrate the wild rumours swirling around and the misinformation being published. Wjhonson 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

False? Sez who? -- Kendrick7 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Says me. The liklihood that every editors credentials are going to be validated is slim to none with the great majority of weight on none. Wjhonson 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know we deal with reliable sources. What were you born on the moon or something? -- Kendrick7 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC) omg, he was born on the moon!

Agreed with Wjhonson, but that's Original Research. It's certainly been proposed, not just now but endless times before, but the idea that they'd waste the money on it for anyone but maybe the ArbCom/Stewards crew is pretty much laughable. --tjstrf talk 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AP story on credential checking

This AP story is spreading like the wildest wildfire through the media. The Google news cache showed almost sixty appearances within an hour, last I checked. The story recounts the whole saga and emphasizes Jimbo's ideas about checking the creds of anybody who claims them. This mess has now really become the biggest thing since Siegenthaler. I've added the cite to the article. I expect the story will spawn other items from the media, and I'll try to pick up as many as I can. Casey Abell 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this article. This paragraph caught my eye:

In addition to contributing thousands of articles to the sprawling Web encyclopedia, Jordan had recently been promoted to arbitrator, a position for trusted members of the community. Arbitrators can overrule an edit made by another volunteer or block people who abuse the site.

Elsewhere on this page, people have already commented on the "thousands of articles" bit. (For convenience's sake, here are the results of Interiot's Tool1 and Tool3.) The AP also manages to confuse "arbitrator" with "administrator", and falsely state that only members of a privileged elite can "overrule an edit made by another volunteer". Why is reporting about WP so bad when it's so easy to do it much better? Anville 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not like the concept makes sense to begin with - Misplaced Pages only works in practice, it never works in theory - and as watching AfDs with off-site vote soliciting has taught me, our operating principles are rather opaque. --Kizor 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are unverifiable

Please show me how these are verifiable. I challenge that they are not. So, unless someone can show me differently, they MUST be removed. Happy to be proved wrong here, how do we verify screenshots from a deleted page on wikia.--Doc 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but in the meantime, remove and keep removed. ElinorD (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably we obtain an administrative role at Wikia and look at it ourselves. --tjstrf talk 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the restoration of this unverifiable material is getting a bit disruptive. (→Netscott) 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, instead of this edit war, we rely on consensus and you convince us they're unverifiable? --Dookama 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. The onus is on the introducers of unverifiable content to support it, not the other way around. (→Netscott) 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Burden of proof would be on you for that in the first place Dookama, and what more does it take to prove they are unverifiable than that they are inaccessible without getting an administrative job at Wikia? --tjstrf talk 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just really don't understand where you people are coming from with screenshots of a cached page being "unverifiable". I'll let people who know more about policy than me argue against it, though. --Dookama 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" (which no longer exists, incedentally) does not overcome verifiability nor any of the other issues surrounding articles about living people. These images do not belong on the article. Bastiq▼e 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's one the censors missed: Smee 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Okay, I'm getting a little sick of people just saying "this doesn't belong". You're talking to someone who knows virtually nothing about Misplaced Pages policy here. Explain things to me like I'm an idiot. Why do they not belong? --Dookama 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So if I cite a book (a WP:RS) for an article, but then a week later all copies of the book are burned, suddenly my citation fails WP:V? That's not how it works. Anyone could have read the book until it was destroyed, what matters is the cite was verifiable at the time it was created. Same with these screenshots. Sorry, folks, this isn't 1984. -- Kendrick7 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that - Munta 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that images are user-created, so they are always on shakey attributability grounds even in the best of times. (Is that Tom Cruise, or just a guy who looks a lot like him?) This is doubly true when pretty much everyone involved has at least a slight conflict of interest due to their Misplaced Pages involvement. Given both its absolutely non-essential nature to the article, its doctorability, and its current unverifiability, it is better left out. --tjstrf talk 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjays picture is aledgedly user created. Is it him, a guy who looks like him or some one completely different? He has proven him self to be untrustworthy - yet this picture is allowed to stay? - Munta 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As we explained above when this question was asked - we don't say it's a picture of Essjay. We say it is a picture Essjay uploaded and which he claimed was a picture of him. Why do you want so badly to remove the picture? Johntex\ 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I had already given my reason when we first discussed its inclusion - but to summarize.

• Respect to Ryan - this page is about Essjay the editor not Ryan the person
• Adds nothing to the article
• People will assume it is him regardless of any text
• If its not him (not verified by anyone) then an innocent person getting libeled - BIG TIME.

Munta 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Among the many flaws with this argument is the fact that libel requires you to say something truly scandalous about someone. The worst we say is that this person invented a pseudonym that included inflated credentials. Hardly a case for lible even if false. The arguement that the picture adds nothing to the arguement is false. Pictures add much to articles - that is why we work so hard to get them. The arguement that peopel will assume what they want regardless of text is not even wrong. If you believe that then you might choose to do something other than write an encyclopedia - what would be the point if people won't believe what is written. Johntex\ 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munta (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

• Bogus Misplaced Pages editor who posed as a professor resigns after real his real identity was revealed, includes a screenshot of the page in question. Probably more of these images will turn up in multiple other secondary sources sooner or later... Smee 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, no. All information must be currently verifiable. Personal experience isn't any good - a reader coming along later must be able to verify it.--Doc 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's external (not a blog or personal page) you can cite it, if you found it only on Misplaced Pages you can't. Gwen Gale 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shit - there goes the article on Jesus - 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got screenshots for his page?

Way. Gwen Gale 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there'll be a secondary source later. But that's not even the same screen.--Doc 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the Google cache is verifiable by anyone going to Google and typing "User:Essjay/History1". At least, until Google updates their cache. Or is someone asserting that Google is not a reliable source for what a given page somewhere on the Internet said at a given time? — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Kendrick7 has wisely attributed the images to Google's cache in the captions. Smee 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • And apparently wrong too. This is why these are unverifiable OR. We don't know where they came from.--Doc 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps User:DennyColt should comment here about the image source. Smee 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Caches and mirrors of Misplaced Pages are not independent sources, they are copies of Misplaced Pages, you cannot cite them. Gwen Gale 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is missing a basic precept of verifiability/attribution: it's not one's personal interpretation or experience of an event/image/individual that can be sourced; it's that a reputable and retrievable published work must contain the specific claim about the image that an editor wishes to make-- otherwise it would be construed as Original Research. Hypotheticals about source-burning aside, images are not "sources" insofar as a basis for article's assertions-- they're for illustration, decoration or to clarify a particular topic already discussed in the text. Claims based on images, that are not sourceable outside the image, are not allowed. See WP:ATT#Original_images.--Leflyman 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But there are no claims being based on those images. -- Kendrick7 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is that they are true, that they are Essjay's userpages. We cannot support that claim by referencing Misplaced Pages (self reference). Gwen Gale 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if his user pages were restored then we wouldn't have this problem. He may have a right to vanish - but the public have a right to know what caused these events - after all thats what an encyclopedias for. Be Bold - Munta 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Er. I think that's a really dumb reason to not allow these. How about a WP:IAR? Common sense says that it doesn't matter if they're technically verifiable or not -- they're from a google cache and anyone can find them, so why not keep screenshots here? --Dookama 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The first shot is verifiably google's cache of Essjay's userpage. This really has nothing to do with self reference. -- Kendrick7 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Google's cache is a copy of Misplaced Pages, not an independent source. Citing a copy of WP is self reference. Gwen Gale 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking that far too literally. Take the spirit of a guideline to heart -- don't twist the words to suit yourself. --Dookama 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:No personal attacks, thanks. Meanwhile, do you see me engaged in an edit war over this? Chill! The screenshots are self reference unless they have been published by a verifiable, independent source, not a blog or a personal website, not a cached copy of Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument is very strange to me. The Google cashe can also be verified through archived webcite. When quoting a source (and we're essentually quoting wikipeida) we don't require them to say it twice. Two independent sources confirming the page's former contents, and that's more than sufficient. Cool Hand Luke 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you claim is being referenced here which would make this a self reference? What policy or guideline are you citing anyway? -- Kendrick7 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is kinda technical, kinda trivial: By posting screenshots of Essjay's userpage, with a caption that says, "Here, looky, this is a screenshot of Essjay's userpage," the article is asserting that these are truly pictures of Essjay's userpage but the thing is, where does the supporting citation for this come from? You know it's his userpage. I know it's his userpage, but we are not acceptable sources for the article. Ok, the userpages were on Misplaced Pages, we can find them in the history. Cool. But we can't cite WP's history because that would be self reference. F**ked. 'k? The end. The only way to put these in the article is to provide outside verification that they came from Misplaced Pages. That's how Misplaced Pages no-self-reference policy works in this case. Gwen Gale 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Common sense says that it's perfectly fine to have the screenshots, and I'm pretty sure policy also says that common sense overrules policy. --Dookama 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but common sense says the earth is flat. An individual's "common sense" can not be used as a basis of encyclopaedic articles. This may seem silly to you, but it's a fine line between "common sense" and bias. Thus, when dealing with controversial topics such as this, the best bet is only use content which can be attributed to an outside, reliable source. That means neither your nor my interpretations or experiences of events/images/activities are acceptable -- even if you and I agree that our version of reality is the "truth." The mantra is "verifiability, not truth".--Leflyman 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But google and webcite provide outside and independent verification that this content was on Misplaced Pages. It sounds like maybe this is more of a notability issue? Cool Hand Luke 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

END OF DISCUSSION

The folks trying to get the screenshots removed are making some of the most asinine wikilawyering arguments I have ever heard.

The screenshots are referenced to DEAD LINKS. One is right now in Google cache HERE. Now, from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They will not be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

However, The other is not in Google cache. Now again from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

End of discussion!

C.m.jones 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is easy to verify the screenshots. Just get an e-mail from someone at the Foundation who will verify them. Then we file this e-mail appropriately for others to view for all time to come. We do this with other agencies, we can do it with Wikimedia. Johntex\ 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, we have long-standing precedent that images have much less in the way of verifiability that is required. Otherwise we could never have users upload images of locations where they personally took the photographs (for example). Let's not wikilawyer about this. JoshuaZ 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically on the Essjay Wikia page

Hey guys... that pic was a screen I snagged when this mess all began, as I was figuring on adding some but never got around to it. It's a cropped pic of his wikia page before Angela erased it, not google cache. Please see this discussion and reply there. Basically...

(someone with historical access to the Essjay page archives on Wikia.com will need to demonstrate what license the page was under)

• Copyrighted by Wikia?
• GFDL by Essjay?
• Covered by the Misplaced Pages/WMF license tag?

If it's GFDL or #3, it's free to use as I understand, or it's fair use if it's Wikia's. Right? - Denny 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wikia.com/Wikia_copyrights, it's free to use. - Denny 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions/afd

Can we knock it off? Its just disruptive... I posted a suggestion here to the blocking policy. too much of this going on, it should be blockable. That was done just to cause trouble... - Denny 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to AGF. The article is under a different title and the previous AfD notice was very small at the time of the nom- Cool Cat may not have known about the previous discussion. In any event assuming the nom acted "just to cause trouble" is totally uncalled for... WjBscribe 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind. Given how much disruption the past week, that was uncalled of by me. Cool Cat, would you mind commenting? My apologies... - Denny 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to adress the two issues that the nominator put forward for the AfD ('notability' and 'avoid self reference'). Firstly, I think its widely established, due to the amount of media attention that the article has received, that the incident and the article is notable. Secondly, WP:SELF does not concern writing articles about Misplaced Pages, it is a style policy guideline, rather than a subject policy guideline. Infact, WP:SELF states that an "article may well discuss Misplaced Pages as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Misplaced Pages.". I've seen alot of people state WP:SELF as an argument for deletion. To me, it would be a criteria for a rewrite of an article, but not its deletion. So, if/when the AfD does get resurrected can we try to limit the number of WP:SELF as a criteria for deletion. Malbolge 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... but I should have said "the amount of media attention that the incident that the article deals with". Malbolge 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasty archiving

Archiving comments less than 2 hours old is not acceptable, comments should be left for a number of days to ensure that the section topic is closed, SqueakBox 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most well-cited stub in all Misplaced Pages

I was just thinking this is prbably the most-well cited stub in all of Misplaced Pages. Quick, someone call Guiness Book of World Records! LOL Regards, --Jayzel 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Yorker quote

Am I the only one thinking that the actual quote, "Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught." as found in The New Yorker article that User:Jayzel68 keeps removing should stay in the article? Given the circumstances of this story I think the article'd have more credibility repeating the quote rather than interpreting it. (→Netscott) 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, listen carefully. The lead of an article is to give a brief rundown of what the article is. It is not to be used to give detailed explanations or nitty-gritty information. That is the job of the main body of the article. The main body explains the lead in a more detailed fashion. Regards, --Jayzel 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, User:QuackGuru made a decent attempt at moving away from a partial interpretation of that quote. (→Netscott) 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I readded Jordan's name because I noticed that it didn't make sense without it. --Jayzel 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured on main page

Well it was sucessfully in DYK…for a whole nine minutes. —M (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I was thinking of nominating Essjay controversy as a Featured article! --Jayzel 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is certainly heavily cited... Smee 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it wouldn't pass due to stability concerns and it being listed as a current event. --Jayzel 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And what about upgrading its article quality assessment to something like "A" or "Good Article"  ? Smee 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Circular reliable sources

Gwen writes a lot of opinion. Here is one:

"It's easy, if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end."

The irony of course is that by RS we are quoting news reports which for the most part are opinion pieces rather than accurate and in depth news reports. I think I read one which ended with a note that acknowledged "at least his edits are not at issue."(pp) A number of articles have used Misplaced Pages talk pages as "reliable sources" - are we quoting them quoting us?

"Meanwhile one reason it's not being reported by reliable sources is because it's a trivial claim made by an individual who is already documented as, please forgive me, a liar and unreliable source as to anything having to do with himself."

This is an example of an opinion. Interestingly, its an opinion which says "we can ignore anything the actual subject of the article says."

"If nobody believes what he says, it's an unbelievable, negligable claim, a non-starter as news because it would besmirch her without a shred of evidence aside from his worthless word."

Its not ours to judge, we just report. Why should we quote Essjay in one aspect and not in another? To do so asserts some external value judgement - in this case that the statement is a "trivial claim" by a "liar and unreliable source." Note that this was not the view of Essjay just a week ago. (Where were you then?) I suggest you familiarise yourself with NPOV. -Ste|vertigo 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cover Up

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Essjay/Letter&oldid=112644578 User:Essjay/Letter - Misplaced Pages, the 💕

Google Archieve of Essjay/Letter page: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:t9xVi2aqwoEJ:en.wikipedia.org/User:Essjay/Letter+Essjay/Letter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a Here are some fun quotes from that page: "I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Misplaced Pages userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials." "I expect my students to check their facts, regardless of where they originate." "Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Misplaced Pages a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public." Irony--"it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity." TheChosenWon 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A letter that Essjay wrote is being hidden from us. Can we comment on this in the article now or do we have to wait until we find this story in the New York Times for example. Damaging information may be in the letter. I'm sure the press will pick this up sooner or later. --QuackGuru 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article. It was a letter to a professor where he posed as a professor proclaiming the greatness of Misplaced Pages. There is no cover-up. Regards, --Jayzel 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Possibly, it could be more than just a letter. There may be additional information. I want to read the whole letter. Transparency by Misplaced Pages is important. I do not understand the reason I can't read the original letter. A quote from or a link to the letter may indeed improve the article. --QuackGuru 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny how there's actually a link from the "Primary sources" section of the article to what appears to be the letter. (→Netscott) 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just double checking. The article is up to par now. But wait. We will never know if that is the whole letter if Misplaced Pages does not let us take a peak at the User:Essjay/Letter page. --QuackGuru 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter. Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are precise. This is a copy of what Essjay wrote. --QuackGuru 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the letter

I understand that people may wish to add references to Essjay's letter to the article. However, it needs to be in the right place. The letter is NOT referenced in either the New Yorker article or the Editor's Note. Please do not reinsert it into the section about the New Yorker article. If you must have it, put it somewhere else. Risker 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A few sentences about the letter is fine there. Where do suggest I put it. A new section for a few sentences does not make much sense to me. I could be wrong. Any suggestions.

In the letter he wrote in part: "I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Misplaced Pages. I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Misplaced Pages userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials. It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Misplaced Pages."

--QuackGuru 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, before the reference to the letter is added, we need that proverbial reliable (not WP) source again. So, hunt out a secondary source where the letter specifically is discussed, then add it into the new section I created to include reaction by other media. That keeps the New Yorker stuff together, and then separates out the response by other media. Risker 07:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter. Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC) So in fact you do believe it is an accurate reference. I quoted you as well as Essjay -- as I walk on water. --QuackGuru 08:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I said this was a copy of what he posted. Given there is reason to question at least some of the things Essjay posted, I have absolutely no idea whether this is even a real letter sent to a real professor, or if it is made up out of whole cloth. I am most certainly NOT a reliable source. You have found one secondary reference for the letter. Given all of the other coverage, let's not give this thing undue weight. Risker 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you have made entirely different comments now. You wrote >

Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter. Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So in fact you do believe it is an accurate reference. --QuackGuru 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

QG, read carefully. We know it is a copy of something Essjay posted. We don't know if this is the letter sent to the professor, or if there actually ever was a letter sent to a professor. We know he posted fabrications in other places. But, and this is the most important part....this is an article about the controversy, not about Essjay. Or the letter. The controversy is the subject. I do sympathise with the strong feelings many editors have on this subject, and that has led to some clear lack of focus in this article, which I feel needs considerable work to get back up to B-class at this particular time. Risker 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why oh why...

Does this article have such an enormous section on Misplaced Pages at the start? Its not necessary - if people want to learn about Misplaced Pages they can click on Misplaced Pages (duh) Glen 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called CONTEXT. C.m.jones 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to prior version, the one written by C.m.jones was very POV and sensationalistic. Although nicely written. Risker 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job - much much much better Glen 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Major problems with article rewrite

With all respect to the effort c.m. obviously put into his rewrite of the article, it has numerous flaws that make it an unacceptable alternative to the current article. It bears no in-line citations, which is my key concern. These are absolutely vital in this article to prevent creeping Original Research and under no circumstances should be moved away from on such a volatile page. A harsh demand for citations on every substantial claim is all that stands between this page and the people who wish to turn it into an attack piece. And speaking of WP:NOR, it's full of it. The very first sentence makes the unsupported claim that this is Misplaced Pages's most reported scandal, and it only gets worse from there. Even the stuff that is cited is impossible to tell from the uncited content due to the non-inline system chosen. I require sleep at this point, so I won't be able to work on or discuss this any more tonight, but please c.m., at the very least go back to the inline citation system and clean the possibly true but unattributable statements out of the intro. --tjstrf talk 09:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not averse to reincorporating inlines, although they are NOT required in any policy. C.m.jones 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar point here - the current version (linked above) is much preferable IMO Glen 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But please cease, whoever, with claims of OR. I have no other way to know info about this than any one else! C.m.jones 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No one was accusing you or OR, rather, making the point that without the citations inline it is very hard to determine what is verified and what is OR. Glen 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To reply to your edit summary, I'm not waiting half a day. For the reasons outlined above, I don't want anyone to read that version. If this article is being viewed as much as I'd guess, in that half a day we would have given a couple thousand people the wrong idea about what happened (your writing was highly sensationalist in tone) and opened ourselves to hundreds of potentially destructive attack edits that could not be easily disproven due to the referencing style you chose. --tjstrf talk 09:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that I must agree with tjstrf. This version is very sensationalistic, and it reads like a newspaper article, not an encyclopedia article. The language is flowery and unencyclopedic. There is also undue weight given to many sections, particularly the lengthy history of Misplaced Pages and the attention given to Larry Sanger. This article is intended to be about a very specific episode, and should focus entirely on that episode. I think we need to revert to the factual version with inline cites that, yes, definitely still needs work. Risker 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

We now have 5 editors (at least) edit warring on this article. Discuss it here please. I started warning you individually but it seems more and more of you are jumping in. As such, I've fully protected the article (no doubt, on m:The Wrong Version). Again, sort this out here Glen 10:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of The Wrong Version, Quack just gave a faulty edit summary and reinserted that out of context POV letter quote again... Nothing we can do about that right now until it's unprotected, of course, but I find it ironic given the "Do not act like Essjay" summary he wrote earlier when someone removed the quote and how adamant he's been about condemning the unethical practice of lying on Misplaced Pages. --tjstrf talk 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving along to the subject of this thread....

This version of the article is an exceeding improvement over the version currently locked.

Strengths:

• A compelling Introduction. The prior version, the one now showing, did not even have a real one!
• Excellent background information. The info is essential to understand for the reader not already long-acquainted with Misplaced Pages. For those of us already acquainted, it may seem superfluous, but it is nothing of the sort. Journalistic articles often take up a story in the middle somewhere. Encyclopedias should not.
• It reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a loose collection of snippets of the news.
• It provides a superior article structure. See comment just above.
• It clearly makes this article one about Misplaced Pages. Because this controversy is! It never was (or should have been) a biography. With the article about Misplaced Pages, it makes available sources required to craft this into a full, compelling narrative without gaps.
• It does the above without going beyond the references cited. It contains no original research, something impossible for me to even do since I am limited to gaining knowledge of this from the very same sources everyone else is.

Weakness:

• It could stand having inline citations re-incorporated. Once the version is restored, it may be quickly done collaboratively. If you cannot cite something from your knowledge of the sources, place the cite tag since someone else probably can.

C.m.jones

Please unprotect, I want to add some information... Arcticdawg 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that version is better. It seems to hostile to Essjay and really, we do not need that much information about wikipedia at the beginning. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused about why Larry Sanger is so extensively quoted and referred to in the proposed version. Yes, I know the history. That doesn't mean his personal opinion, with extensive quotes from a blog (!) are any more significant than that of any other former Wikipedian's. As well, the language is really excessive. The opening paragraph:

The Essjay controversy is among the most publicized controversies about Misplaced Pages to date. It began in early 2007 when it became known that a prominent English Misplaced Pages editor, administrator and short-lived Wikia employee going by "Essjay" had lied about his age, background, and academic and professional credentials to Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Stacy Schiff during an interview she conducted for The New Yorker magazine for an article about Misplaced Pages. The public revelation of Essjay's deception, along with the flurry and breadth of media coverage that soon followed, spurred public debate about Misplaced Pages like none prior. Critics decried the incident as evidence of their concerns about Misplaced Pages's accuracy, article-creation system, non-vetting of its contributors and administrative personnel, and even the legitimacy of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. Misplaced Pages itself went into a shocked phase of introspection over numerous of the very same issues, which as yet remain without closure.

What I would edit to:

The Essjay controversy is among the most publicized controversies about Misplaced Pages to date. It began in early 2007 when it became known that a prominent English Misplaced Pages editor, administrator and short-lived Wikia employee going by "Essjay" had lied about his age, background, and academic and professional credentials to Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Stacy Schiff during an interview she conducted for The New Yorker magazine for an article about Misplaced Pages. The public revelation of Essjay's deception, along with the flurry and breadth of media coverage that soon followed, spurred public debate about Misplaced Pages like none prior. Critics decried pointed to the incident as evidence of their concerns about Misplaced Pages's accuracy, article-creation system, non-vetting of its contributors and administrative personnel, and even the legitimacy of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. The Misplaced Pages community itself went into a shocked phase of introspection over numerous many of the very same issues, which as yet remain without closure.

I agree that the prior version requires work, please do not misunderstand me, and the opening paragraph gave me quite some concern. Can people live with this re-edited version of the opening paragraph? Risker 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start he was not, at the time, "a short-lived Wikia employee". He was a recently-appointed Wikia employee, no doubt. There are other problems with it. E.g. there is just too much interpretation and resort to cliched phrases when we talk about a period of introspection, issues remaining without closure, etc. It is true that many of us are discussing it, but there are literally millions of users who are not obviously introspecting at all, and it is not even clear what issues need to be "closed" at this stage. Let's just state the undisputed or well-sourced facts in objective, neutral language, rather than adopting journalistic cliches. Metamagician3000 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with User:C.m.jones's version. Too much editorializing and original research not to mention the fact that if removes so many inline cites. Essentially User:C.m.jones's version undoes the work of numerous editors and is a massive change that is perfectly normal to see other editors reverting. We're supposed to be bold but not reckless, User:C.m.jones' edits are the latter. If that version comes back I'll be one of the editors reverting it out. (→Netscott) 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. User:C.m.jones' edits have been wantonly PoV, have not been sourced under WP policy and have contained bits of original research and blatant editorializing. User:C.m.jones might want to take his version to a blog? Gwen Gale 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Guardian coverage

The Guardian has been slow to give this coverage, but today has Read me first | New media| MediaGuardian.co.uk Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive, Seth Finkelstein, Thursday March 8, 2007. This gives some thought to the social dynamic of Misplaced Pages, commenting that "The lifeblood of Misplaced Pages is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic.... And "Essjay" - Ryan Jordan - was that dream's poster child." and that "One of Misplaced Pages's major public relations successes has been in misdirecting observers into a narrative of technological miracles, diverting attention from analysing its old-fashioned cult appeal. While I don't mean to imply that everyone involved in Misplaced Pages is wrapped up in delusion, that process is a key factor." These seem to me to encapsulate the MUD analogy that has been raised in various discussions here. Lest we get too gloomy, the issue was mentioned in passing in Students marked on writing in Misplaced Pages, Donald MacLeod, Wednesday March 7, 2007, which reports that "Misplaced Pages... has been made compulsory reading (and writing) for a new course at the University of East Anglia... Nicola Pratt, a lecturer in international relations, ... is now convinced it can be a great opportunity for students to see at first hand how knowledge is produced.", and "is undeterred by the revelation this week". On the same day Something wiki this way comes discussed the :Middlebury College ban" without mentioning Essjay, and pre-controversy, Misplaced Pages: Jimmy Wales of Nov 2006 quotes Wales as an 'anti-credentialist'. In my opinion the first two articles should be linked here, and given a brief mention which I'll try to add asap. ... dave souza, talk 11:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dave souza, the Guardian article was being used as a reference already (Reference #8). I don't see anything from the second one; perhaps we can change headline currently titled "Reaction from other media sources" to "Reaction from outside of Misplaced Pages" or something to that effect. Nice find, btw. Risker 11:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

News Articles

At the time of writing this entry the article is protected and I am now leaving my computer, would an editor please copy and paste the following news articles, when the protection comes off. thank you Arcticdawg 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Morphy, Erika (March 7 2007). "Phony Prof Triggers Misplaced Pages Uproar". Tech News World. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Staff (March 8 2007). "Fount of all wisdom - and foolery". Telegraph.co.uk. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Vallis, Mary (March 8 2007). "Editor scandal rocks Misplaced Pages". National Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Essjays response

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that all references used have to be from external and reliable sources (see discussion above - "Essjays accusation of unethical journalistic practices perpetrated by Stacy Schiff"). The quote used in the Essjays response section is taken from Essjays User Talk page history (which is not an external source) which is referenced at the bottom of the article. My question therefore is, should this be kept? And, if the answer to this is Yes, then should something about Essjays accusations towards Schiff also be mentioned, as those accusations were made in the same source. That is, if we include the verifiable quote from Essjay apologising for the incident, should we not also include the verifiable quote by Essjay accusing Schiff of unethical journalistic practices in relation to the article? Malbolge 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the justification is that quoting Essjay's apology is a proper use of primary sourcing since it is verifiable that he said that, it is significant and has earned news coverage, and the quote can be given without editorializing. The allegations towards Schiff have not been covered in the media to my knowledge. So including them would be undue weight because the media weight for Schiff allegations is 0. --tjstrf talk 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The compensation allegation has been discussed at length on this page. Here's what I said about it yesterday. Gwen Gale 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

first discovery

Daniel Brandt himself has said that he didn't discover it; the discovery was first made by a poster on Misplaced Pages Review. Brandt was just the one to confront Essjay about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

please add this

zh:埃斯傑事件,thank you.--Iflwlou 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this, I assume this is not controversial, so I added it despite the protection. If it was controversial, you can revert(or ask me to revert if you are not an admin). _InBC 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Essjay also wrote a letter to a real world professor"

Does evidence exist that Essjay actually sent the letter to an actual professor? I do not trust Essjay's statements at face value, so "Essjay claimed he sent..." may be appropriate pending verification. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjays talk page history

I would appriciate any comments about the removal of the links to history on Essjay talk page Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Essjay Talk page History - Regards - Munta 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Block log of Essjay - Misplaced Pages, the 💕. User:Essjay - Log Status

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press