Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia'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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Yeah, that's fine. Anchoress 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinformation and misrepresentation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: An editor who calls other editors "assholes" has no good standing IMO. Good day, --Jayzel 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Whatever, a*****e. ;) --Jayzel 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: He has now kindly agreed to preserve the re-direct. Gwen Gale 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fairness, he wanted the redirect deleted so the article could be moved back to it. JoshuaZ 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep. Gwen Gale 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: meanwhile, down the memory hole

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

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

text: A pity we didn't act sooner then. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we ditch the photo?

message: 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)
thread_title: Opinion needed

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Are you wearing asbestos coveralls or what. Gwen Gale 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could have at least got the facts right in their summary - Munta 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated for DYK

message: 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)
thread_title: Please semi protect [[Essjay]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Isn't that the same article that was published earlier by the NYT? --tjstrf talk 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, or a version of it, with the added screenshot. Gwen Gale 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gwen, what was the template that was for articles that themselves were cited in major news stories...? - Denny 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find it here, Gwen Gale 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: screenshot published

message: The current lead as edited into the article by  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.  00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Gwen Gale 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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." -- Kendrick7talk 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: which is a bit sensationalist and makes errors.Geni 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but are you now copyediting a cited source???  — M (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Kendrick7]]'s lead is wrong

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

message: OK, Netscott, here:
:Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia 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. -- Kendrick7talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just posted to your talk page... I retract my statement. Kindly accept my apologies.  01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No lo problemo. -- Kendrick7talk 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay originally confirmed his credentials to the New Yorker

message: 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 Wikipedia, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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\talk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The famous picture was used by the media. One of the most notable pictures on Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image