Misplaced Pages

I thought we'd been through this already. -- Kendrick7 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, see this → WP:CCC. (→Netscott) 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically: WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change. (→Netscott) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I agree with that. I just don't forsee any consensus forming here. -- Kendrick7 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

END OF DISCUSSION on IMAGE REMOVAL!

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 When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.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)

I'm going to ask this question again, broadly now: Is anyone saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering about these screenshots/images? Gwen Gale 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No jones, not the end of the discussion, we discuss forever and consensus can change. _InBC 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me, Gwen Gale. The removal of these images is an editorial decision. The presence of these images is not supported by the text of the article itself, therefore they should not be there. Essjay's image (whether his or not) has nothing to do with the subject of the article. An image of his user page that doesn't have the controversial credentials on it is probably worse than no image of the user page at all. Risker 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, truth be told I was mostly asking C.m.Jones and QuackGuru, who have both used the term, Gwen Gale 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry to much Gwen, I for one don't take those allegations seriously. _InBC 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, what are you all afraid of. You know, letting the images stay up and letting a discussion about it go on for a week or so??? What;s the big huge rush?? (No-brainer inferred answer already taken). C.m.jones 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't have any relevant information, it is an editorial decision. Consensus can change at whatever speed the editors manage to change it. _InBC 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My worry is self-reference along with pileon. If the article breaks WP policy it can be attacked by editors who want it erased. If it seems like it carries unsupported, negative PoV about Essjay, the article loses credibility and hence is less helpful to readers looking for a supported, verifiable take. Gwen Gale 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mob Attack

The next step might be to report this incident to the noticeboard. Again, many contribtors expressed to keep images. Their consensus has NOT changed. QuackGuru 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Save for the fact that it might waste folks' time I'd say by all means head on over to WP:AN or WP:ANI and make a report. (→Netscott) 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a input from uninvolved people will settle this, but I think they will tell you that consensus can change. _InBC 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey QuackGuru, to nick the words of a widely known arbcomm member, I would think long and hard before taking this to the admin noticeboard. Gwen Gale 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice.... back to protection. Come on folks... (→Netscott) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, this article has had a very rapid evolution. As it has progressed, and more and more reliable sources have been identified, the need for such stop-gap measures as those images, the primary sources, and the mountain of external links has decreased. They are no longer helpful to the article. Risker 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. _InBC 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, so too. Gwen Gale 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreeance as well over here. (→Netscott) 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And another Munta 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I reject the notion that repeating the mantra concensus can change is really going to cause it to happen. -- Kendrick7 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I don't wanna sound like an echo here or anything but I agree with that too. I based my rm'l of the screenshots on WP policy against self-reference along with concerns about NPoV. Gwen Gale 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Consensus has changed". That much is clear from recent discussions. _InBC 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

* it, echo that. Gwen Gale 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No consensus has been reached. Further, many editors have stated previously they want to maintain the images in the article. QuackGuru 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So then we are back to where we were before, WP:NPOV and WP:SELF. So: Who's POV these pictures represent? Answer: no ones that I can tell. What part of WP:SELF applies to these screenshots? It doesn't; we're allowed to have articles about wikipedia, so of course we can have articles containing screenshots of wikipedia. -- Kendrick7 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick image survey

The following content is under discussion:

• Screenshot of Google's cache of Essjay's Misplaced Pages user page, March 1 2007
• Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007 Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007
• Image posted by Essjay as himself

Here's where it looks like we stand of the folks voicing themselves in this image discussion:

• For images:User:DGG, User:Kendrick7, User:C.m.jones, User:QuackGuru
• Not for images:User:WJBscribe, User:ElinorD, User:HighInBC, User:Gwen Gale, User:Risker, User:Netscott, User:Munta
• For photo, against page images: User:Doug Bell

Is this right? (→Netscott) 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks right to me. _InBC 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forgot JoshuaZ, he takes Saturdays off I believe. -- Kendrick7 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about previous discussion (of which User:JoshuaZ was a part of), I'm talking about this one. (→Netscott) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having had a cup of tea, I keep coming back to the idea that these images are now superfluous to the article; they just aren't all that pertinent. The user page image, in particular, is a version that does not include the much-discussed credentials and thus fails to support the information in the article. I think we need to be absolutely clear why each of those images should be in the article - those of you who feel they should stay, please give your reasoning based on policy/guidelines so that we can reach a consensus. Risker 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. Therefore a keep. QuackGuru 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you cannot just say there is no consensus and expect that to change anything. The consensus is clear, deal with it. _InBC 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You really should refamiliarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kendrick7 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually does contain the crendentials; it doesn't mention the exact degrees he claimed to have. -- Kendrick7 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The false credentials are fully described and cited from independent sources in the article text. Why is a picture of text so helpful? (my question is sincere) Gwen Gale 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think the message we are being given by this block is that it is time for us to sit back as a group of interested editors and make some editing decisions based on the current, evolved status of the article. The last time we had a discussion about the images was two days ago, and there have been dramatic changes and a ton of new reliable sources since then. It's entirely reasonable that we look at the article as a whole and see what is missing and what no longer needs to be there. Risker 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My rational for keeping is still WP:ENC; these could be of interest in 100 years, maybe not. I'm pressed to a good reason to exclude them. -- Kendrick7 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) btw, can someone archive the talk page? my comp is giving up the ghost

I'd like to see more input here then. Meanwhile I'm asking protection be lifted, I'm indifferent as to whether the images are tucked onto the bottom of the article while we try to stabilize it and find out what the consensus truly is. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lifted protection, but if the edit warring continues it will have to go right back on. Please discuss before making any further changes. Thanks. Trebor 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha way to go QuackGuru, thanks for talking about it before leaping in to put the images back. :) So leave 'em in for now and let's see what others have to say. Gwen Gale 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I save remove them. Munta 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think they should be removed, what changed, why are they back? _InBC 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked for protection to be removed and QuackGuru leapt through the window of opportunity to restore the images and revert a bunch of other stuff too. Gwen Gale 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote KEEP the damn images. Say no to censorship. --Jayzel 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the images. The fact that Essjay claimed the false bio was to protect privacy and yet posted a free image is further evidence of his duplicity. —M (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • This is not a censorship issue, the fact is that self references are to avoided when independent reliable sources will do. _InBC 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify exactly what this article is about

I'm afraid we are all getting trapped in the minutiae again, which is to be expected when many of us have been working on this article for a few days running. So let's step back and reaffirm exactly which article we are writing here.

What it is not: An article about Essjay and his actions. I think the point is widely conceded that Essjay should not have claimed credentials that he did not have, and that he used those non-existent credentials inappropriately.

What it is: An article about the resultant reaction to the discovery that Essjay had claimed credentials he did not have and had used them inappropriately. The issue is not that Essjay did something wrong, it is that his error created a firestorm of reaction, both inside and outside Misplaced Pages. It is this reaction that we are trying to document in this article.

Have I missed something here? Risker 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, unless something has been reported by a reliable source, then we should not include it. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are not relevant unless a reliable source has featured the content. _InBC 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again User:Risker (along with User:Gwen Gale) bringing clarity to the editing/discussion here. Totally agree... which explains why the "reactions" section is the size it is (at least up to this point). (→Netscott) 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from some of the other editors who have also been working hard on this article. QuackGuru? DGG? It's important that we are heading in the same direction, or we will wind up with more edit warring and frustration. Your perspectives are important. Risker 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the nut graf here, is that he lied to the media about his credentials, claiming what was on his user page was true (gee, we should get a screenshot of that...) when in fact it wasn't. That was his cardinal sin, as a professor of theology might put it. So it is about that action, and what resulted from that action. -- Kendrick7 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the screen shot of the user page that is kicking around right now doesn't list any of the problematic credentials except the professorship. I could probably go for a screen shot of his user page on the day the article appeared, but that doesn't exist. And I have to tell you that I can't think of another page on Misplaced Pages where a screenshot like that would be considered acceptable - not for content reasons, but because it is barely identifiable, let alone legible, in the thumbnail size. Risker 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the nut graf, though. It should be reworked. Risker 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it is a good point that the shot doesn't exactly correspond with what the author of the article saw. Still thinking about that one.... -- Kendrick7 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was only about the reaction, then wouldn't the article be named Reaction to the Essjay controversy? --Dookama 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comma placement

In English, commas go inside quotes in spite of logic. It's not "Essjay", it's "Essjay," which follows the standard punctuation convention. Many literate readers will tend to shake their heads at a comma placed outside quotation marks. Gwen Gale 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And many won't Glen 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That project page says it's ok in UK English but in truth it's more "tolerated" than "ok." Anyway I wanted to bring it up is all, it's not like I think my nitpicky change'll stick or anything :) Gwen Gale 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that the whole time I've been editing up here. I always thought it was inside, but having seen in incorrect so often, I was having serious doubts. Thanks for the tip. -- Kendrick7 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For those wanting a reference, check CMS 6.8 :) -- Avi 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of us (or at least me) find common sense preferable to grammatical correctness as regards this particular rule. --tjstrf talk 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

merge with extreme prejudice

whatever happened to "no self-reference"? Misplaced Pages:Recentism? WP:UNDUE? This article is pure omphaloskepsis. Speedy merge into Criticism of Misplaced Pages. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism may be a problem, but this also is an international story. No merge required, or warranted. Also, please read WP:SELF - articles about Misplaced Pages are not bad "self-references." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do please cite any item of text in the article which is supported by a direct self-reference to Misplaced Pages's article space. I'll be happy to delete it myself. I thought they'd all been rm'd though. Thanks! Gwen Gale 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, anyway. The article is wholly sourced, has been widely documented in the media and stands on its own. Gwen Gale 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

sheesh, not self-reference then. Still a recentism, and way below Misplaced Pages:Notability requirements. Misplaced Pages does not, should not, and cannot cover every news headline, redirect and transwiki to wikinews then. 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge: Let this article mature and let the dust settle and then let's revisit the idea of deletion/merging. (→Netscott) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:N recently? This is getting to be silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge, clearly notable, don't see WP:UNDUE issues, we are fighting against self-references. That same issues would exist in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but it would be too large for it. This is fine, it just needs plenty of attention from people who uphold policy. _InBC 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this has made foreign-language international press, so clearly notable enough. – Chacor 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Charcor and HighIn, clearly notable enough to stand on its own, and much too long to be merged into the already overly long criticisms article. JoshuaZ 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article should be shaved down. Interesting to see though that the whole section about Larry Sanger and his blog - you remember, the one that didn't fly in this article - seems to be present in that article. Not sure why his comments are more important in that article than, say, the New Yorker's. Also interesting that someone managed to get a screenshot of Essjay's user page from an unknown date, but one that includes the disputed credentials on the front page, and that it was uploaded on March 3rd. Also interesting that several people have edited both articles. Striking my comment that failed to assume good faith. Risker 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Right now, I do think that this article is superior and considerably less "navel-gazing" than the entry in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article, so would not be bothered to merge it for the reasons noted by HighInBC and Chacor and others. Risker 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Press/Notability I think this ranks with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy in terms of coverage/public interest. (→Netscott) 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge. Notability/public interest trumps other interests, keep independent. - Denny 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

um, you cannot just claim it is notable. You'll have to show it is. Unless you do that, I would ask you not to remove the templates. It's not like I deleted the article: I placed these templates in good faith, and they should not be removed until the issue is resolved (as Netscott puts it, until the dust has settled). The article is categorized in "History of Misplaced Pages", "Scandals" and "Internet culture". I ask you, is it notable in the history of Misplaced Pages? Not yet at any rate, and "Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a crystal ball". Does it qualify as a notable scandal (think Dreyfus or Abu Ghraib)? Don't make me laugh. Is it a notable part of Internet culture? Notability is not popularity: popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable. I suggest we can branch the article off "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" once "Essjay" appears in hacker's jargon on similar. At this point, simply no case is being made as to why there should be an article on the topic except that it concerns Misplaced Pages (which is not a valid argument per "no self-references"). dab (𒁳) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

e/cDbachmann, with all respect due you've had two people revert you with a third gesturing to do so (User:JoshuaZ who apparently hadn't seen that the tags were already removed). This is becoming disruptive (in particular given the strong evidence of consensus right here). Kindly self-revert before someone has to revert you again. (→Netscott) 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just claim anything, I stated my opinion... which is backed by the AfDs and everyone's opinion. We have articles on Misplaced Pages also. This one is heavily sourced, and too big to merge I think, but no one person gets to make choices thankfully and have them stick (yours, mine). Everyone decides, but opinion seems to be to keep it seperate... - Denny 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is based on almost 300 articles now showing on a Google news search for Essjay, dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The plethora of mainstream sources brought in the article about the event and fallout should more than adequately suffice for a reasonable claim for notability. The {{notability}} tag is not warranted; further discussion of notability needs to be handled through AfD, which should be on hold for now as well. -- Avi 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More I think about this, I believe the notability tag is a tactic of disruption and I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at it, thanks. Gwen Gale 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Already gone... - Denny 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile the merge tag remains. Consensus is so far is overwhelmingly against a merge. The article already survived two AfD attempts with overwhelming consensus to keep. Why is this tag still on the article? Gwen Gale 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it stick for 24 hours, and then we'll remove it when the consensus is explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, we're in no rush; the article is solid as-is... - Denny 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But if people re-add it repeatedly/ongoing (the notability one too) after consensus shows it to be unsupported, remove it then as disruption. - Denny 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A 24 hr window sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to wait 24 hours... general consensus is clear on this. (→Netscott) 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is plenty of consensus already, this has been demonstrated to be notable 10 times over. _InBC 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be settled, but just so I'm on the record about this:

• Oppose merge: the dozens of independent media citations listed above, including many from international sources, show that this is a notable event in itself. Criticism of Misplaced Pages is already 69 kB, which is another argument against a merge into that article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and EXPERT tags

I completely agree with both tags. For the NPOV tag, a small group of abut 4 or 5 editors have apparently considered they WP:OWN this article and gone about bowdlerizing it. For the EXPERT tag, yes, an expert writer. Good gosh, this thing reads like it was written by a bunch of teenagers and like a hodge-podge of news stories rather than an encyclopedia article. See WP:FA?: (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. - C.m.jones 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, does the word civility mean anything to you, or was this worded that way on purpose? (→Netscott) 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My reply to C.m.jones: Codswallop. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. Gwen Gale 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Read the {{expert}} tag. "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" (emphasis added). If you believe the writing is poor, {{copyedit}} would be far more applicable, but I request some examples of where it can be improved before you add the tag. Trebor 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{copyedit}} connotes a few minor corrections and/or formatting. This article does not need minor but major re-writing work. C.m.jones 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not owning anything, we're discussing it. Concensus right now is just against these. 1. User:Gwen Gale, 2. User:HighInBC, 3. User:Avraham, 4. User talk:Trebor Rowntree, 5. User:DennyColt, 6. User:JoshuaZ, 7. User:Netscott, 8. User:Badlydrawnjeff, and 9. User:Risker all seem to be against the tags. Once consensus is achieved they can go in... if you are unhappy with something in the article, make suggestions here. Trying to edit war force tags onto the article against consensus is disruptive... - Denny 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

10 - User:Munta - Munta 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The expert tag is not warranted by any stretch of the imagination. As for the NPOV tags, do you have any specific concerns? _InBC 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, you previously made a complete revision of the article; that revision left us with the article protected because of disputes about its sudden and mass change. But during the protection, it seems you were unwilling to consider modification of the revision you had developed, despite the fact that several editors were providing you with commentary on it. If you are willing to incorporate that critique into the revision you developed, then we'd have something to talk about here. I don't think anyone is expecting this article to get anywhere near featured article level in just over a week, with all the new information that has come in since it was initiated. (and yes I would be against the tags if I could get a post in edgewise) Risker 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why, with some specific examples. At any rate, you can see the {{expert}} tag is inappropriate, as it suggests an expert on the subject, rather than in writing. Trebor 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article needs it (I haven't read it in a bit), but what about: {{cleanup-rewrite}}? Anchoress 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's supported. Anyone, pls provide specific examples which can't be swiftly fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup-rewrite}} along with {npov}} is better. C.m.jones 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific than "better," thanks. Gwen Gale 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be specific about the way in which this article fails NPOV? Issues cannot be resolved until they are identified. Risker 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, unless you take the time to explain on this article's talk page why you feel those tags are necessary, there is really nothing for other editors to "see and comment on" per your edit summary when you put the tags back on just now. Even I am finding this disruptive. Risker 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

jones, Risker is right, explain what you mean or stop adding the tag. You are in violation of 3RR right now, I gave you a warning instead of a block. _InBC 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of article

This is a good idea, I appreciate the idea. _InBC 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems the only way. Let's get this to GA status, then aim for FA. that is the only reason we're here, isn't it...? Link to the peer review. - Denny 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be satisfied of the article can be kept within policy. But hey, FA is a noble goal. _InBC 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review is a good idea. Thanks. Risker 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is still too new and fluid IMO, but I've already posted that on the peer review page . -- Avi 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible page move

As this has mostly to do with Misplaced Pages, should this article be moved to Essjay Wikimedia controversy, in the same vein as John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy? --w 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It does fall more in line with the pattern established by John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy. I don't know how many articles of this type there are, so I cannot tell if it is an exception or if it is the common naming convention. _InBC 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it if it said "Misplaced Pages" instead of "Wikimedia;" the notability derives from the controversy as it affected Misplaced Pages, not Wikimedia. Risker 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that title is a bit limiting myself. The Seigenthalere case revolved almost exclusively around what occured here on Misplaced Pages. The Essjay story involves The New Yorker, etc. I'm open to other titles though. (→Netscott) 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay credentials controversy or Essjay controversy or Essjay wiki controversy are all good, but I'd prefer them in the order listed. Lets not move it (again) yet though for at least a few weeks... - Denny 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the first one. Why not boldness? --w 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disruption. Gwen Gale 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has already gone through 3 or 4 moves.... let's not WP:BOLD this one again... let's come to consensus on a new title and go from there. (→Netscott) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Netscott. A little stability is needed, both in terms of the article, as well as media coverage. A few weeks will make a significant difference, IMO. -- Avi 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

4pagemoves? I thought it was 2. Oh well, just as the peer review says, lets get this out of CE status, so we can deal with naming and encyclopedic copyedits. --w 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Pardon me, but did anyone happen to notice THE TOTALLY FREAKIN’ HUGE ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM?? HELLO?? The greater part of the whole Essjay scandal is not about Essjay and what he did (although that was certainly bad enough). The really scandalous part is how Essjay was dealt with, and not dealt with, at the highest levels of Misplaced Pages. I shall explain, since it would appear (*sigh*) that explanation is actually required.

It is simply not credible that an elaborate false CV would be created for any legitimate purpose. The only possible exception that I could see would be for matters involving national security (Will this be the next Essjay whopper? Tune in tomorrow!). You do not fabricate a false CV to protect your anonymity. You fabricate a false CV to perpetrate a fraud–to gain material advantages you otherwise could not obtain, or would not obtain until significantly later. This is exactly, and unsurprisingly, what happened.

The truly scandalous thing here is that not only was Essjay given a paid position at Wikia after self-exposing his fraud (while incidently creating a few new misrepresentations along the way), but that he was also rewarded several weeks later with a promotion to ArbCom here at Misplaced Pages! It was not until it was obvious to even the most obtuse that this whole thing was going to blow up into a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media that “God-King” Jimbo finally gave Essjay/Ryan Jordan/Whatever-His-Name-Really-Is the ol’ heave ho. It would appear, accordingly, that either Jimmy Wales is one of the biggest pollyannas that ever lived, or he is just as morally oblivious as Essjay himself, if not more so.

If after reading this you cannot understand why I am so throughly disgusted, then I pity you. I truly do. Edeans 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the forum to discuss this and frankly I'm not sure where on Misplaced Pages would be the place. You might try User talk:Jimbo Wales of Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard. This talk space if for how we as editors can improve this article. Please read: Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I think it's ok to bring this up for context. Wales has said he made a mistake and has apologized, something a skilled leader might do when this kind of thing happens. That's helpful IMHO. Mind, Wales referred to Jordan as "Mr Ryan" even after he'd asked him to resign. Meanwhile if Edeans can find a verifiable citation from a reliable independent source supporting this take, by all means let's put it in the reaction section (or whatever it ends up being called). Gwen Gale 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a forum for people to express why they are " so throughly disgusted". (→Netscott) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree that's over the top but it's not like he's throwin' tags up on the article is it? Gwen Gale 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole notwithstanding, Edeans may well have a point that pro-and re-active responses to the controversy should be part of this article. If they can be sourced to the same level, and the same absolute care to prevent assumptions and conclusions and implicit points of view that we require for all biography-type articles. Much of the news coverage is about possible (or mistakenly assumed definite) reactions by Misplaced Pages (and Jimbo personally) to this event. -- Avi 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the hyperbole, but the substantive point is valid. A major part of this controversy concerns inportant positions that Essjay achieved after his false credentials were apparently known to Misplaced Pages higher-ups, including Jimmy Wales. I have added a very carefully worded sentence to the article which states that Larry Sanger criticized Wales on this issue. The sentence is referenced to Sanger's Citizendium blog, which is completely reliable as a source for the fact that Sanger made the criticism. Casey Abell 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's helpful. Gwen Gale 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs?

Reactions! We have co-founder Wales' response and we also need Larry Sanger's response to be fair. Thanks for the idea Edeans. Your comments has expanded the article because you gave me an idea. I will add Larry Sanger's response. QuackGuru 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really simple, if there is a reliable source that we can attribute to, we include it, otherwise we do not. _InBC 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Sanger from his blog, is that OK under WP:ATT? Blogs in general are not, but someones own blog as a source for their own reaction should be. -- Avi 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sourcing Sanger from his blog is not ok, I've rm'd it. Never mind there could be a question of whether or not Sanger's remarks are relevant at all in this article. However, I noticed Quack had restored the "I don't have a problem with it" quote, which I have retained and placed in chronological order earlier in the article. Gwen Gale 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs that fall under the editorial control of reliable sources can generally be considered reliable themselves but personal blogs generally are not considered reliable. (→Netscott) 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If links to Sanger's blog are to be included in this article then that should be based upon Sanger being mentioned in a reliable source relative to this article. I think in that case then there's a case for a link. (→Netscott) 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more clear? Do you think citing Sanger in his own blog qualifies as a reliable independent source or not? Gwen Gale 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well optimally a reliable source that quotes him would be the best. What I am saying is that as the article stands now there's no reason to be quoting Sanger. He's not mentioned anywhere in the article so it looks odd if suddenly there's this quote from him. If a reliable source mentioning him can be worked into the article and his relativity to the article in terms of this controversy can be established then I don't see why he couldn't be included so long as primary source policy is abided by. (→Netscott) 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. So someone might want to find a reference to this Sanger quote somewhere other than on his blog. By the bye, what does everyone think of the "co-founder" title given to Wales in the article (yes, it's supported by the citations but we all know what it's about don't we). Thoughts? Gwen Gale 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Being well aware that this statement is outside of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, isn't it a little dumb to be saying, "This notable person who nobody thinks had no effect in getting Misplaced Pages off the ground can't be quoted straight from his blog -- but if he was at a news conference and said the exact same thing, we'd allow it."?--Dookama 11:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with saying he claims to be co-founder. Gwen Gale 11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent + ec) It's my understanding that using a person's own blog as a source is acceptable if you are quoting them. However, why Sanger's comments have any relevance is beyond me. He hasn't been involved in Misplaced Pages in over 5 years, and he now runs a competing project (tangential comment removed). His involvement in the "creation" of Misplaced Pages is debatable depending on who you ask. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Netscott and BBatsell here; Sanger has no role in this episode. If anyone else thought he was important, they would have interviewed him or linked to his blog. Seems to me that was one of the problems we had with C.m.jones' version of things. We have dozens of news sources here that haven't been included in the article, and I would think they might take priority. In any case, the Sanger quotes are already in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article; having them here makes something redundant, and I am betting it would be considered this article. Risker 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say go with Netscott's suggestion that someone find a reliable independent source referring to the Sanger quote and putting it into context relative to this event before including it (or discussing it further, anyway). Gwen Gale 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales is "founder" not "co-founder"

To whomever keeps re-inserting "co-founder" as it applies to Jimmy Wales, this is inaccurate. While Larry Sanger had a core role in the establishment of Misplaced Pages, he is not considered a "co-founder" by the Misplaced Pages Foundation. Someone has taken to attributing the "co-founder" claim to a January 30, 2003 article from The Guardian, which states, "It's so successful that its founders, internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger, have started Wiktionary.org - a dictionary version." This is clearly incorrect -- as for one, Sanger had resigned a year earlier, on March 1, 2002!

Not to turn this into a "war of attribution", but here are some of the many articles which list Wales alone as "founder". Choose any that one wishes for citation:

• Misplaced Pages: Jimmy Wales , The Guardian, Saturday November 4, 2006: "Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages." (no mention of Sanger)
• No. 7 Jimmy Wales, founder and chair, Wikimedia Foundation, Silicon.com "Agenda Setters 2006"

• Jimmy Wales - Time magazine, Apr. 30, 2006:"That such a remarkably open-door policy has resulted in the biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world is a testament to the vision of one man, Jimmy Wales."

• How Misplaced Pages Breaks News, and Adjusts to It, All Things Considered, NPR, February 9, 2007: "Robert Siegel talks to Jimmy Wales, founder and chairman emeritus of Misplaced Pages."

• Jimmy Wales will destroy Google - RU Sirius interviews Wales, 29 January, 2007 (transcript on 10ZenMonkeys.com): "In fact, Jimmie Wales is the founder of Misplaced Pages and remains the man in charge of what is essentially an Open Source encyclopedia."

• Wales himself has clarified what he believes to be the "founding" role of Larry, even breaking etiquette to edit his own bio -- as noted at a December 2005 Wired news article, which wrote,

--Leflyman 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Larry Sanger can be considered a "co-founder" of Misplaced Pages, is one of the most contentious issues ever, akin to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the sake of general peace and everybody's sanity, let's stay clear of that can of worms. 131.111.8.104 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I've rm'd all three references to it from the article (three?! methinks someone had something to flog there) Gwen Gale 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed; while Sanger, as an employee of Boomis, was an important early organiser during the first year of the project, he hasn't been a part of Misplaced Pages for the last five years. He has an historical place in the foundation, just as the many, many editors who helped shape what Misplaced Pages is today. But ultimately, sources list that Jimbo, as the leader of the whole shebang, is considered the "founder". --Leflyman 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but comparing this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is taking Misplaced Pages's history a bit more seriously than is warranted. —Doug Bell  01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, I took it as a chatty, tongue-in-cheek but sincere simile, nothing more. Gwen Gale 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:-) 131.111.8.104 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales are both the Co-Founders of Misplaced Pages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Larry_Sanger/Origins_of_Wikipedia&oldid=39843351

According to Larry Singer he is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. Also, there was a reference removed from the article that proves this too. End of discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=114430680&oldid=114426380

The co-founder's "Sanger's response" is therefore highly relevant, notable, and part of the story of the Essjay controversy. The reference to a blog from the personal blog of Larry Singer meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. Have a nice day. QuackGuru 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His own statement doth not make it so. -- Avi 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that Larry Sanger (not Singer btw) has claimed to be the co-founder of Misplaced Pages does not make him the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. I think you'll need a stronger basis than that to assert such a claim... WjBscribe 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I recommend that folks read Larry Sanger it seems fairly neutral point of view about this. (→Netscott) 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a reference in the article that stated he is the co-founder. The reference met Misplaced Pages's standard. AGF towards Larry please. I said, end of discussion. QuackGuru 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean "end of discussion"? You're talking as though you own this page. You don't... kindly refrain from this and remain civil. (→Netscott) 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The brown nosing by editors in here is pretty sad. Do you score points by defending this revision of history? Do you think if Larry still worked for Misplaced Pages and if Jim and Larry were best friends, Sanger's co-founder status would even be on the radar? Oh course it wouldn't. He would still be called co-founder as he was way back when. I love Misplaced Pages because you can go back and see how articles err, "evovle" over time. This is one of the best examples of how material facts can "morph" over time. Its like whisper down the lane. Go back to any of the articles about Wales or Sanger or Misplaced Pages or its history and see how they have changed that co-funder fact. Larry who? Again, do you folks get points for defending this revisionist tale? I know, its like the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln article. In a few years time, more "material" will be fleshed out and ol' Abe will finally be outted of the closet and proven to be the homosexual that he was, right? Whatever, --Tom 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, not to put too blunt a point on it...this article already has all the controversial issues it can handle. This whole Wales/Sanger/co-founder stuff doesn't need to be here. There are more than enough sources for this article that it is not necessary to include Mr Sanger's personal thoughts. Risker 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Mr. Larry Sanger is the offical co-founder of the world's largest encyclopedia -- Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Larry Sanger's response is an essential part of the story. After all he is the co-founder no doubt. And yet, he directly responded to Mr. Jimmy Wales as the story unfolded. This belongs in the body of the article. QuackGuru 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, no matter what you or I may call him, Sanger is only the "official co-founder" by his own contention-- not by attributable sources, and not by Jimmy Wales, who actually began the company and original encyclopedia that became Misplaced Pages, and has lead this project since its start. Sanger's place in history as being instrumental in getting Misplaced Pages off the ground in 2001 is secure-- but that doesn't make him a co-founder, any more than EssJay, who held a bevvy of titles, over a period twice as long as Sanger was here. Here's specifically what Wales said on the matter, when it was brought up a few months back at Talk:Citizendium#Clarification:

I have never agreed that Larry should be called co-founder and have contested it from the time when Larry awarded himself the title. Has Misplaced Pages made this error in the past many times? Yes, and so have the press. Nonetheless, it remains very much in dispute, and therefore it is always wrong to call Larry co-founder without at a bare minimum noting the dispute. In most cases, it is sufficiently irrelevant to a given mention of Larry that his self-awarded title need not be mentioned at all, in order to avoid pointing out that it is in dispute.--Jimbo Wales 13:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

--Leflyman 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to source a controversial claim barely relevant to the article from a statement on Misplaced Pages by the subject of the controversial claim? Even if you can make a case that Sanger is an essential part of this story, you have to find a source that isn't his personal blog. And if you want to claim he is the co-founder you're going to have to convince the rest of Misplaced Pages to change the articles on Misplaced Pages, Larry Sanger, and Jimbo Wales so we don't have articles with conflicting statements. From what I've seen you haven't even made a case that Sanger's statement is "essential."AniMate 03:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mr. Larry Sanger was the original person who thought of the Wiki concept. He and only he brought the idea to Mr. Jimmy Wales. I could make an arguement that Jimmy Wales is not the co-founder because it was Larry's idea not Jimmy's idea in the very very beginning.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030618043804/www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,884666,00.html QuackGuru 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that having the idea is not the same thing as founding the reality. Founder would imply a financial backing or commitment, not simply being the person in the organization who first had the idea. Regardless, however, I don't see the relevance of this to this article. —Doug Bell  04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter-of-fact, Larry Sanger is the originator of the concept of Misplaced Pages and not Jimmy Wales. Next, he was there in the beginning and was an essential part in uplifting Misplaced Pages on its feet and off the ground along with Jimmy. "Mr. Larry Sanger is the grandfather of Misplaced Pages." QuackGuru 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if I take all of that at face value, "originator" does not necessarily equate to "founder"—which was the point of my previous post. —Doug Bell  06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, isn't there enough controversy on this article already? Just word it so it doesn't matter one way or the other and forget about it. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ned. Either find that one citation where Jimmy Wales said Sanger was cofounder once--I've seen it, can't find it--or leave it neutral. - Denny 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Give it a try and put it in the heart of the article. QuackGuru 05:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Quack...none of us is inclined to include it, and you know that any number of editors (not just the ones posting here) will edit out anything that isn't properly sourced. So...the ball is in your court. Frankly, I'm not sure why so much energy has been expended on something that is completely unrelated to this article, which is *about the controversy involving an editor who claimed credentials he did not hold*. Larry Sanger had nothing to do with this situation. At least I haven't seen a reliable source that indicates he had any involvement. Risker 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response

Initially Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Misplaced Pages, had said on the issue of Essjay's identity: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."

There’s something utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic, about Jimmy telling The New Yorker that he doesn’t have a problem with Essjay’s lies, and by essentially honoring Essjay after his lies were exposed.... Doesn’t Jimmy know that this has the potential to be even more damaging to Misplaced Pages than the Seigenthaler situation, since it reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Misplaced Pages?

• Message: Who has the heart to firmly put this in the body of the article? Lets get this done and wrap this up. Are you going to read this talk page or are you going to start to act and edit the wiki way. This is a 💕 where anyone can edit. Give it a try. QuackGuru 06:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru...nobody else is going to do it for you. If you proceed, you need to be fully prepared to accept that someone else is likely to delete anything that is not properly cited, simply for the sake of accuracy and full sourcing. As well, other editors (and not just the ones who are posting here) may come along and make an editorial decision to remove it. The ball is in your court. Either make the edit or move on to another subject. Risker 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Message: The ball is in everybody's court. Anyone at any time can put it in the center of the article. Lets see what happens. QuackGuru 06:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's opinion has absolutely no place in this article. None. Glen 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an impressive argument? Did you know that every time you type "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", etc., you are citing Sanger? CyberAnth 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, right down to the intial editorial comments, "move content - this whatcha want, LMS?" LMS = Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger, that does put things into perspective doesn't it? (→Netscott) 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless an external source has noted Sanger's response, then it shouldn't be included. Leaving behind founder/cofounder arguments, he left the project several years ago so there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for his response to be there (anymore than the dozens of blogs that included something on the matter). If the media haven't shown any interest in it, then neither should we. Trebor 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two sources have cited and linked to both blog posts QuackGuru wishes to add: http://www.webcitation.org/5NHN8wyHD and http://www.webcitation.org/5NHLsGxze CyberAnth 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sanger's response is notable criticism. It colors the picture quite well. Who is a more notable critc than the grandfather of Misplaced Pages itself? Sanger is also the co-founder of Wiki. If we include Wales response then we must give a quote from Sanger as well. QuackGuru 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The logic that we have to include his two cents every time Jimbo is quoted is retarded. Personally, I don't care. I think Sanger has a reasonable claim to such a title, but he's being a big baby by crying over Jimbo's rejection of the title (and Jimbo being immature for thinking that denying the title is significant as well). We don't have to bring in something that is it's own separate controversy into another article on controversy. Just find another word that works and move on. This is not the place to dispute the whole Sanger cofounder title thing. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru has suggested in calling Mr. Larry Sanger the grandfather of Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

tjstrf has suggested that QuackGuru stop being obnoxiously pretentious and talk like a normal individual. Calling him the "Grandfather" would be us making words up, not acceptable. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response is nothing but the "me-too"ing of what a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors had already said, important only so far as it provides a citeable example of that view. Doesn't need more than a couple sentences in the article, anything more is major undue weight. The more interesting criticism is Finkelstein's, since he actually uses it to say something about the Misplaced Pages community and interactive community system "hiveminds" as a whole rather than staying at the "that was morally reprehensible Essjay! Bad boy!" surface level. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You were saying? ... see next subsection ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fleshing out the "Reaction" section

Well, despite the sense that Larry Sanger's blog isn't really a great source, I think QuackGuru may have a point about adding more into the reaction section - after all, it seems that is the main point of the article. Thoughts about building another paragraph or two into the article about how the media picked up on this story? Also, I seem to recall a link from someone where some educators were interviewed about the continued value of WP despite this controversy. Risker 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to this plea, I've boldly added the East Anglia academic with a new subsection: there was an earlier more critical response from educators in the US, That could also be added. At the same time I picked out the MUD points from the Grauniad's opinion piece by Seth F., inadvertently meeting a request from tjstrf in the section above this. Hope all are happy, .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. The Chronicle of Higher Education report added. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales v. Sanger co-founder dispute

Folks, this is such a no-brainer it amazes me that gigs of words have been wasted on it.

• "Sanger, who says he is Misplaced Pages's co-founder which Wales disputes saying he his sole founder...."
• "Wales, who says he is Misplaced Pages's sole founder which Sanger disputes saying he is co-founder...."

Simple, plain, and completely NPOV. CyberAnth 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is far more complicated than that and thus it is unwise to deal with that issue here in this article at all. Avoid "founder" or "co-founder" in this article. Simply link the names to our articles about those persons where the issue can be dealt with properly. WAS 4.250 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to dispute this but Sanger was an early manager of Misplaced Pages, an employee of Wales who provided both the capital and thus the ultimate direction. Gwen Gale 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, almost every comment I've seen you provide in the pages linked to this, I find myself thinking "good, now I don't have to respond, that was just what I might have said". But you are mistaken about the contributions of Sanger. He was far more than you make him out to be. WAS 4.250 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree his contributions were big. Didn't he recommend the wiki as an input tool for Nupedia? Didn't he write lots of the original policies? Don't call him founder is all. He was Misplaced Pages's early, innovative manager though, spot on. Gwen Gale 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez people, if you wanna talk about this go to Talk:Jimmy Wales or Talk:Larry Sanger. I'm sure they'd love to hear it there. --Dookama 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally support keeping this debate out of the article and towards that end I've reworded the concerned line to be, "who helped in the founding of Misplaced Pages". Alternatively I was thinking of, "who played key roles in the founding of Misplaced Pages" ← this makes him a bit more authoritative. I think either one would be acceptable, no? (→Netscott) 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Having proposed the text read. "who claims to be a co-founder of Misplaced Pages" I will not participate any further in the co-founder thing, I think it's a distraction and a tool for PoV. Gwen Gale 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-founder, whatever. More relevant is his role on Citizendium, which I have added. Risker 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep and his early contributions to WP, which by all accounts (including Wales') were very significant. I was only saying that the "founder" thing is fraught with ways to waste time on meaningless wording. Gwen Gale 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Arbcom stuff generally significant?

I don't want to bowdlerize the work that many have put into the Sanger criticism without discussing, but I am not certain that I have seen a reference to the Arbcom issue anywhere but from Sanger's quotes. Adding it here does seem to be a little bit on the navel-gazing side, if it is apparently unimportant to anyone but Wikipedians. Risker 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, but could be changed to "position of trust." Gwen Gale 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...leaving the Arbcom appointment as it is would be better than the "position of trust" because that also included appointments Essjay held long before the credentials were known. However, when I checked that reference, it went straight to Larry's Citizendium blog; it isn't even from a secondary source. Will look around to see if it did indeed get quoted elsewhere. Risker 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't change it. Good luck finding a stronger reference though :) Gwen Gale 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty easy to find in the Google news cache. Just check "Essjay arbitration". The Daily Telegraph mentioned it here, the Register (our good friend Andrew Orlowski) mentioned it here, and WebProNews mentioned it here. Not all of the descriptions of ArbCom are completely accurate, but the appointment was definitely noted in third-party sources. Casey Abell 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Put 'em in then (as refs)? Gwen Gale 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

#REDIRECT Talk:Larry Sanger

It is my humble opinion that the level of Sanger's involvement with Misplaced Pages is irrelevant in the context of this article, thus I have boldly removed it before an edit war starts over this. "Former Misplaced Pages manager" is enough IMO (because it seems unquestioned), more can be found on the Larry Sanger article, to which we link for a reason. Let's not drown in digressions in the article. Cheers and sorry for the tyop in the edit summary. ;-) Миша13 14:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I see it's been re-added again. Please reconsider the importance of this statement in the context of this article. Миша13 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Misza completely- if the co-founder claim is in, someone will want to rebutt it. And the article is drawn down a tangent. If we have to include Sanger's views (and I remain unpersuaded on this point) can we describe him as what everyone agrees he is, rather than bringing up a dispute that has no place on this article? Those who want to know more about Sanger will visit Larry Sanger and find out all juicy details there. That is how Wikilinks work... WjBscribe 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding this debate on the article (if the Sanger bits are kept). Whether or not Sanger is included in this article should depend upon how much our sources are including him. We're not to be making an article that through original research becomes a source itself. (→Netscott) 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with Sanger's criticisms in the article, so long as they're supported with reliable cites. Sanger is notable as Misplaced Pages's early manager and as the founder of CZ, a widely noted WP fork with an approach to credentials which is at odds with Wales' views in ways which are relevant to this article. Gwen Gale 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not up for discussion whether Sanger's critique is to be included, but rather the seemingly controversial claim that he is or claims to be the co-founder of WP. In my opinon, noting that he managed WP and is the current CZ editor-in-chief are just about enough. Adding anything more is just spilling the flaming fuel from the Larry Sanger article. Take a look at the article title again - it's >Essjay< controversy, not >Larry Sanger< controversy, so let's avoid unrelated controversies (lol repetitions). ;-) Миша13 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wholly agreed! Meanwhile my edit of "claims to be co-founder" was only for one or two editors here who seem to want to make this article an attack piece on WP. I think if there is a consensus to leave the co-founder codswallop out altogether, editors here should show that consensus through their edits, which I would support. Gwen Gale 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source uses the information then their interpretation may be included, otherwise it is not relevant. _InBC 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For tom, Lincoln and Wales and NPoV

Look, Wales botched and has apologized. Next? Meanwhile Lincoln was indeed a psychotic mass murdering dictator who corrupted and chaveled the US and their civil war had little to do with slavery but Misplaced Pages only reflects the PoV of mainstream scholarship in blowing all that off for now. If scholarship one day sways into a take I can deal with, I might even edit there :) In my bloody dreams. Meanwhile who cares about AL's sexuality anyway (as if one could support any of the speculation)? This is a public wiki. Articles must be supported by independent and verifiable sources, weighted as to provenance and written by consensus. Worries about Misplaced Pages? Haha! Any of mine tend to have roots running straight back into the world we all live in. Cheers to all (Quack too!). Gwen Gale 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

References

*sigh* I wish all Misplaced Pages articles had such rich, wonderful, diverse and reliable sources and references...</sarcasm> Миша13 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

hi2u, constructive comment :) --Dookama 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I must agree, there are way over 1,000,000 WP articles without a shred of cited support and that's relevant to this discussion in many and sundry ways. Gwen Gale 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Quick Survey Vote"

Here is my proposal to organize the article.