Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 2

message: I am restoring :Image:Essjay.jpg, as it was uploaded under GFDL and illustrates the subject of an article. I do not intend to take part in the discussion for or against deletion of this article; but unless/until the article is deleted, I see no reason to delete the image. -- Infrogmation 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe including this image in this article at this time makes us a more valuable encyclopedia? Newyorkbrad 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill? Gwen Gale 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Essjay uploaded the image himself so cannot be regarded as OR. There could however still be a question of if it really is himself. Munta 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Essjay was only here till recently and could still return I dont see any justification for deleting this image right now, SqueakBox 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely agree 100% with what YechielMan says. ElinorD (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, it's true, that pic could be as MUDdy as his CV. Would altering the caption help this? Gwen Gale 11:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the caption change. He claimed it was himself and therefore it warrants being in the article - Munta 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: we have to consider that, in view of the veracity of the other information on Essjay's user page, that this image could not be him and therefore should be removed until it is proven to be him. On the other hand... who cares about seeing his image anyway  AlfPhotoman 11:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is at the very bottom of the article with a caption which clearly says there is no evidence as to whom it truly depicts. Gwen Gale 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The picture is in the article, at the bottom. Gwen Gale 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. The picture is in the article. A picture of the person of interest adds to the article. --QuackGuru 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Does this work? —  MichaelLinnear 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: In case no one noticed, I added a link to a New York Times article. We've hit the big time. Uh-oh...--Jayzel 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hmm... this is the point where I should be saying: Without malicious glee ....  AlfPhotoman 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times

message: It's not working!  Milto LOL pia 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless a pattern of disruption develops there's really no need to protect at this point.  16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more concerned that it was protected and not unprotected, but the protection isn't working.  Milto LOL pia 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logs show that it was deleted and then restored after it was protected. Perhaps a deletion undoes a protection? ElinorD (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. I have re-protected on the basis it was probably an oversight. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection

message: It appears some admin took it upon themselves to send an entire section and its history down the memory hole. --Jayzel 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear that the article's early history is gone. Gwen Gale 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that too, but I was referring to a section here on the talk page. --Jayzel 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: El C has said he doesn't care if someone relists it, let's just do it and unprotect.  Milto LOL pia 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, let's move on 

message: As there is an increasing amount of coverage pointing in this direction, it would be a good idea to clean up any article that this one links to.  For example, 24 Hours, Radar (magazine), The Chronicle of Higher Education, and The Register all need either infoboxes or general improvement; The Independent and Andrew Orlowski also have some red links that could be hunted down or we could put a stub behind them. Ideally, dont tag the articles as the tags are monstrosities only fit for editors to see; instead, make these article stunning! John Vandenberg 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah~, some good spirits in a bad situation, thanks  AlfPhotoman 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  put on a good face 

message: New media outlets publishing articles on the topic; The Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal has possibly new information. Also GOOGLE news search result sorted by date. Anchoress 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This provides some support for the notion that Essjay may have still been fudging a bit about his background in his apologies. However, it does provide support that he has given his true name. Gwen Gale 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just popped back in to see if anyone had brought up the BBCi article.  I'm very glad the article title has been changed to refer to the incident, not the person. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently on the front page of the BBC news website. (http://news.bbc.co.uk) Neil (not Proto ►) 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and in the top three most read stories. – Chacor 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Popularity by Area
** Australasia - 1st
** Africa - 7th
** South America - 1st
** Asia - 2nd
** Europe - 2nd
** UK - 2nd
** North America - 1st
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm Munta 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The place to mention these numbers is the AfD. JoshuaZ 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - just thought it relivant to add to the last comment. I'll place it in the Afd. Anyone - feel free to delete if you see fit Munta 16:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking news 

message: Is there an actual source for "birthplace=United States" or is this an assumption based on his apparent location and background? Gwen Gale 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably an assumption.  But as it is decidedly non-controversial, it can be left in. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non controversial but wholly unsupported. With all due respect, it's sloppy. Why risk getting it wrong? He could have been born in Germany or wherever to a military family, for example. Gwen Gale 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there should be a single word that is unsourced in this. I would remove it now, but this account is to new to edit this page. HowIBecameCivil 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll second that, if there is something to learn from this it is to delete everything (everywhere) that is not properly sourced and referenced  AlfPhotoman 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, 'tis the only way to wikihappiness :) Gwen Gale 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And continuing in this vein, can we be sure that he was actually born? Maybe he just appeared one day in Lexington, Kentucky, strolled into one of their social security offices & got a SSN, then went to a DMV office & got a driver's license, and later that day signed up for some classes at a local college. Can we not be too suspicious of any fact or inference? -- llywrch 04:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: birthplace

message: This is terrible. Can somepone fix this and remove the clean-up tag please, SqueakBox 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I have a great idea for a new article which parts of this article may be applied. Please start a new article titled Criticism of Wikipedians and I will meet you at the stub. --QuackGuru 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of Wikipedians]] 

message: This page is locked, so I can't edit it. Please could someone correct the heading "New Yorker Interview" to "New Yorker interview"? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.186.50 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Smee 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit needed 

message: The name at the start of this section is given as Jordan: while accepting that there's evidence that's his name, to me it reads better to have Essjay at the start as the name the interview was given under, followed by the revelation of Jordan's name in the later correction to the article. Fits better with the name of this article, too. Any comment? .. dave souza, talk 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His true name does seem to have been confirmed in some news reports. Several reporters have called his former schools (as in community college) and gotten confirmations he attended. Gwen Gale 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dave. The intro should be a reference to the subject matter. We are not discussing Ryan as the article is about his online persona. His name is secondary to the fact that he misled the New Yorker and the wiki community. Lets keep his name out of the intro and in the body, at least out of repect of Ryan and those who would rather this article didn't exist - regards - Munta 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree fully with Munta, SqueakBox 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. Gwen Gale 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that looks much better and completely overcomes the problems I had with this when it was a biographical article under the title of Essjay's real name. .. dave souza, talk 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Yorker interview section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AEssjay
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AEssjay
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011752/http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/02/never_trust_an.php to http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/02/never_trust_an.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083310/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/02/new-yorker-butchered-facts-in-wikipedia-ode.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/02/new-yorker-butchered-facts-in-wikipedia-ode.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AEssjay/Letter
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930193953/http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/03/03/essjays-third-transgression/ to http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/03/03/essjays-third-transgression/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fportal%2F2007%2F03%2F08%2Fnosplit%2Fftwiki108.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not that Wikipedia — as in the site AND the admin levels AND every volunteer editor — doesn't benefit from an occasional kick in the nads for arrogance. I've been an editor (as in "paying the mortgage with the paychecks") and have seen firsthand where fact-checking fails. But seeing as the Essjay thing is a decade past, shouldn't this article be more than "Wikipedia sucks" and "here's another source saying that Wikipedia sucks"? WP is a great example of the strengths and the weaknesses of the crowdsourcing of supposed common sense and it'd be great if that were laid out AT ALL here.Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: if you have reliable sources to add, it sure would be of interest IMO, since now crowdsourcing has evolved a lot and is way better defined :-) --Signimu (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  followup questions