Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 11

message: Apparently there's an edit war over whether or not to mention Essjay's use of Catholicism for Dummies. Why should we mention it? Why shouldn't we? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Okay, this was a bit of a 'wow' moment for me, and it's an article that I think we should all take a look at. I honestly wasn't on a 'fishing' trip for the Dummies article. I thought I'd meander over and see if I could find any solid academic mentions to flesh out that section a bit more, when I ran across this article:
InfoTech & Public Policy - WWS 528F Course Blog, Spring 2007
http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring07/wws528f/?p=57
I did take the time to verify it really was from Princeton U. (It's actually offered there, and from and from one of their schools, the 'Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs'). Here is a link listing the course and its description:
*WWS 528F: Information Technology & Public Policy http://www.wws.princeton.edu/courses/crss07.html
If you scroll down the article, they have a number of quotes showing how Essjay used his credentials and the book, as weight in his remarks:
:Examples:
:*If you’d like to start an RfC on the matter, I’d be happy to offer the community my evidence; I am, after all, one of Wikipedia’s foremost experts on Catholicism.– Essjay (Jun 23, 2005)5
:*I’ve been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn’t tell you know how many times I’ve heard this myth, in and outside class. — Essjay (Jun 19, 2005)6
:*I cannot speak to the popularity of the notion in the Church; I’m not Catholic, I just study Catholicism. (I know, all this Catholicism stuffed in my head, and I’m not even one of ‘em!) Essjay (Jun 11, 2005)7
:*I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text “Catholicism for Dummies” by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. –Essjay (April 11, 2005)8
*It also mentions the letter to the prof, 
: "Even more troubling is Essjay’s letter he “sent to a professor on behalf of a Wikipedian" 
I tried to find out more about Bill Zellers the student that wrote the blog, he may or may not be the same Bill Zellers that created myTunes (Bill Zellers that is a first year grad student, and the article is in the Princetonian, more importantly, the professor that runs the class that has the blog, figure prominantly in the article [Computer science professor Ed Felten]). http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/14/news/17721.shtml
I figured that this being mentioned in a course blog for a class in Information Technology and Public Policy at Princeton, by student who might be the the creator of myTunes, was probably worth mentioning. -- Kavri 07:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Kavri, that is either a student's personal class notes or his homework assignment.  I don't think it will meet the requirements of WP:ATT.  And QG, the issue of the use of the book is being discussed above, let's try to keep it in one place.  There is no way we will be able to win an argument on the use of diffs in this article.  Risker 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Risker okay, I see what you mean now about the blog being similar to using 'homework'. And, I was trying to make things more wieldly, but I hate when conversations fork out, and here I am doing it myself, my bad. -- Kavri 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: - Relevant to the academic section, possibly

message: :*If you’d like to start an RfC on the matter, I’d be happy to offer the community my evidence; I am, after all, one of Wikipedia’s foremost experts on Catholicism.– Essjay (Jun 23, 2005)5
-- Link.
:*I’ve been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn’t tell you know how many times I’ve heard this myth, in and outside class. — Essjay (Jun 19, 2005)6
-- Link.
:*I cannot speak to the popularity of the notion in the Church; I’m not Catholic, I just study Catholicism. (I know, all this Catholicism stuffed in my head, and I’m not even one of ‘em!) Essjay (Jun 11, 2005)7
-- Link.
:*I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text “Catholicism for Dummies” by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. –Essjay (April 11, 2005)8
-- Link.
Now... I don't like self-referencing... but as this is Essjay at the same time speaking as a primary source, with his faked credentials... how does that work with policy in that case? I.e., if Jimmy says something official as a primary source of the WMF on his Wikipedia talk page, or an article talk page... is that OK? If so, that would mean these Essjay quotes are OK to flesh out and illustrate in the article how he gamed us all/the system. unless I'm misunderstanding. - Denny 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to this point we have managed to find a RS quoting Jimmy for all of the inclusions of his words in this article.  The fact that Wikipedians may think this is notable doesn't make it so.  Using sources that are questionable under WP:ATT is just not on in an article with this level of controversy.  That sort of stuff is what got this article on AfD the first time.  Risker 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it's too granular, with not enough (if any) citations available from independent, reliable sources to support its notability. Meanwhile, Wales implied that Essjay's use of credentials in edits was the reason he asked Jordan to resign but truth be told, Wales has not specifically confirmed this as the reason so I'd have to say that the conclusion drawn by the article on this is WP:OR. Gwen Gale 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just so we're on the same page... we'd be OR, or the article about Essjay is OR you're saying...? Because wouldn't any article from outside inherently be? :) - Denny 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. –Essjay (April 11, 2005)
Because while true/existing, we have no verifiable outside source referring to it? Correct?
-- (hoping maybe I got it right this time) Kavri 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are getting there.  The FAQ associated with WP:ATT identifies self-published works as likely unreliable; that would include sources such as blogs and personal posts to websites.  Risker 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantiation of Essjay quotes, if needed

message: "However, upon realizing that Essjay had relied upon them in the context of discussing article content, Wales asked for Essjay's resignation"
Nor is it written in a proper manner. Who knows what Wales was thinking? All we can say is that Wales later changed his mind, or quote Wales if he said some such thing. e.g.:
"Wales later reversed his decision and asked for Essjay's resignation."
or 
"Wales later reversed his decision, and in a statement he said "blah blah" [1], and asked for Essjay's resignation."
Similarly one cannot say, "Facing a whirlwind of anxiety over problems with Eva Braun, Hitler decided to invade Poland." One can only say, "Hitler invaded Poland." It is still possible to draw a causal connection between two statements (if appropriate), e.g. "Eva Braun broke off the relationship with Hitler. Hitler then invaded Poland." (silly example but makes my point). - Abscissa 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Jimmy Wales reversing his decision as him changing his mind, but rather getting the story straight. When news broke, he was in rural India and so he only got half the story. That's why he endorsed Essjay to begin with, albeit ignorantly. It makes sense that once he got back to a stable internet connection, he was able to find out the whole story. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How we "see" anything is entirely beside the point. To what do the sources attribute Jimbo's change of heart? I think Abscissa's construction is a better way to go, unless there is a published article that specifically says something different. A Train take the 12:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Abscissa's proposed changes... better to be conservative with the details than get it wrong. Still I think such a change should correlate with what the sources are saying.  23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a fact: 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy/sandbox
I put this up with the picture, and with the Timeline (which begins with the New Yorker article) down in the... well, New Yorker section. I think it works much, much better, from physical layouts, is better looking, and adds much. Lets see if we can get concensus on this. This is what I support, for layout/timeline/image. Take a look. - Denny 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus whatsoever about the use of the photograph.  Please do not assume that this issue is in any way resolved.  I have yet to hear a good argument about why we should have this photograph in the article. Risker 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, no, sorry--I know that, I wanted to make seperate section to settle the in/out debate is all... I am neutral on the image largely, leaning towards 'in', but won't object if it ends up 'out' in the end. I'd prefer it in for completeness but if concensus is otherwise, I'll live with it. :) - Denny 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus part 1: Sandbox page/image/timeline 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy/sandbox#The_New_Yorker_interview
Dropped down to this section. Keep it there, one line, triple sourced, good spot after it tooks about his degrees. Yay/nay? - Denny 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence after the Catholics for Dummies sentence belongs back in the lead. Otherwise I am fine with this placement of the sentence. Risker 13:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's important to note that it wasn't just reported, but Essjay admitted it. --Dookama 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a good example of truth versus verifiability.  Do any of the sources that mention this use that kind of terminology? Risker 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I've misunderstood this thread but his citation (use) of CfD was widely reported and is wholly supported for mention in the article. Gwen Gale 14:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec)The use, yes.  The "Essjay admitted" wording doesn't go along with the sources that have been unearthed to this part. I think what Denny was doing here was suggesting alternate placement of the current sentence, which pretty well matches the wording of the various RS's.  Risker 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops I get it. Yes, I'm sorry, I think he's spot on, the word "admitted" is not supported at all by the sources. Gwen Gale 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been redirected to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essjay_controversy/sandbox Risker 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus part 2: Sandbox page/Catholics for dummies 

message: Feel free to edit the sandbox as well--thats what it's for, to hash this out. don't take it as "Denny's Version" or anything like that... - Denny 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox changes