Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 4

message: I think the below noted links are informative and should be allowed in the article. Arcticdawg 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, people keep deleting them from the article ! Arcticdawg 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Informative does not mean approrpriate. Read WP:EL to gain an understanding about why they've been repeatedly removed.  02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed copyright violation

message: 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)
thread_title: Can we work some of those stories into the article?

message: This lead still isn't right:
The Essjay controversy arose after The New Yorker magazine disclosed that a prominent English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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?  04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. -- Kendrick7talk 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! -- Kendrick7talk 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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.  05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For those of us who didn't see it, what was said about Starwars and Timberlake? JoshuaZ 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia when it comes to combatting vandals and other nonsense. You can watch the video here.  06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as we don't editorialize and report what reliable sources say the controversy is, I'm open to anything. -- Kendrick7talk 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Agreed; while Wikipedia'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.”"--LeflymanTalk 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead again

message: 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! Talk • Work 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Internet_culture. ---LeflymanTalk 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let it go, nobody owns the article, if a project want to give attention to the article fine. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (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)

text: *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 Wikipedia:Wikiproject Kentucky since Jordan attended schools in Lexington and Danville? Or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism since that's what he claimed expertise in? It's just a tenuous connection that's being asserted. --LeflymanTalk 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Project coverage does not equal article categorization. Nobody I know of would misconstrue that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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"? .--LeflymanTalk 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! Talk • Work 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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".--LeflymanTalk 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! Talk • Work 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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! Talk • Work 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Where it is now it is only taking up whitespace. Good placement. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. I aim to accommodate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Louisville

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

text: 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? -- Kendrick7talk 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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. -- Kendrick7talk 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, editorially, they add nothing and hence could be taken as swaying the article into PoV. Gwen Gale 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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\talk 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have they ever heard of youtube then? :) Gwen Gale 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Under what WP:FU:Fair use criterion? JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GFDL/GPL is not only for wikis ya know. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I don't understand how they are POV. Who's POV is being represented by them? -- Kendrick7talk 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some may take it as a pileon as all, others won't. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image liscenses of the screenshots

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

message: 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 Wikipedia, such as, but not limited to, a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability Wikipedia:Administrators accountability and a proposal for credentials to be verified Wikipedia:Credentials. Arcticdawg 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallout section

message: * 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)
replies: text: I've not seen any but will keep my eyes peeled. Gwen Gale 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be very easy to verify but are we crossing over into cyberstalking in doing so?  16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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.--LeflymanTalk 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title: Unsourced info?