Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 8

message: Initially Jimmy Wales, the co-founder Hammersley, Ben. Wikipedia is the web's encyclopaedia. You should be editing it yourself, says Ben Hammersley  of Wikipedia, 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." 
Soon after Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, responded to Wales on his Citizendium blog by writing in part:
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 Wikipedia than the Seigenthaler situation, since it reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Wikipedia?
* 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 free encyclopedia where anyone can edit. Give it a try. QuackGuru TALK 06:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Sanger's opinion has absolutely no place in this article. None. Glen 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?  14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: The Sanger's response is notable criticism. It colors the picture quite well. Who is a more notable critc than the grandfather of Wikipedia 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 TALK 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: QuackGuru has suggested in calling Mr. Larry Sanger the grandfather of Wikipedia. QuackGuru TALK 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: You were saying? ... see next subsection ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanger's response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, found it. The Chronicle of Higher Education report added. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleshing out the "Reaction" section 

message: Folks, this is such a no-brainer it amazes me that gigs of words have been wasted on it. 
*"Sanger, who says he is Wikipedia's co-founder which Wales disputes saying he his sole founder...."  
*"Wales, who says he is Wikipedia's sole founder which Sanger disputes saying he is co-founder...." 
Simple, plain, and completely NPOV.  CyberAnth 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia's early, innovative manager though, spot on. Gwen Gale 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Wikipedia". Alternatively I was thinking of, "who played key roles in the founding of Wikipedia" ← this makes him a bit more authoritative. I think either one would be acceptable, no?  14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having proposed the text read. "who claims to be a co-founder of Wikipedia" 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)
replies: text: Co-founder, whatever.  More relevant is his role on Citizendium, which I have added. Risker 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think it is, but could be changed to "position of trust." Gwen Gale 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I didn't change it. Good luck finding a stronger reference though :) Gwen Gale 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with Sanger's criticisms in the article, so long as they're supported with reliable cites. Sanger is notable as Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: If a reliable source uses the information then their interpretation may be included, otherwise it is not relevant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales v. Sanger co-founder dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it is, but could be changed to "position of trust." Gwen Gale 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I didn't change it. Good luck finding a stronger reference though :) Gwen Gale 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Put 'em in then (as refs)? Gwen Gale 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Arbcom stuff generally significant?

message: It is my humble opinion that the level of Sanger's involvement with Wikipedia is irrelevant in the context of this article, thus I have boldly removed it before an edit war starts over this. "Former Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with Sanger's criticisms in the article, so long as they're supported with reliable cites. Sanger is notable as Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: If a reliable source uses the information then their interpretation may be included, otherwise it is not relevant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: #REDIRECT [[Talk:Larry Sanger]]

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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)
thread_title:  For tom, Lincoln and Wales and NPoV 

message: *sigh* I wish all Wikipedia articles had such rich, wonderful, diverse and reliable sources and references...</sarcasm> Миша13 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hi2u, constructive comment :) --Dookama 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: Here is my proposal to organize the article.
*1 New Yorker interview
*1.1 Essjay's advocacy letter
*2 Reaction
*2.1 Wales
*2.2 Essjay
*2.3 Wikipedia community
*2.4 Media Please restore "media" heading and properly place it in the corrent position to organize the article.
*2.5 Critics
*2.6 Academics
*3 See also
*4 References
*5 Gallery
*Support QuackGuru TALK 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually this page describes how "polling isn't a substitute for discussion". Therefore in that sense Tjstrf is right in that what you're proposing hasn't even been disussed at all.  18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They changed the shortcut again? Well, at least the WP:!VOTE shortcut doesn't have the same "interesting" phonetic reading that WP:PNSD did. --tjstrf talk 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VIE is m:Voting is evil and "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" is WP:!VOTE now. They are two separate but related concepts.  18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
"Quick Survey Vote"
 

message: Here is my proposal to organize the article.
*1 New Yorker interview
*1.1 Essjay's advocacy letter
*2 Reaction
*2.1 Wales
*2.2 Essjay
*2.3 Wikipedia community
*2.4 Media Please restore "media" heading and properly place it in the corrent position to organize the article. (This one is easy.)
*2.5 Critics
*2.6 Academics
*3 See also
*4 References
*5 Gallery
*Any suggestions? QuackGuru TALK 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, just rereading the article again, the Louisville reference is (I think) quite important, but doesn't exactly fit under the heading "Reaction." I think the lead is missing a sentence that ties things together to, will go work on that now. Risker 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Louisville ref is helpful but got orphaned by all the over-factoring. Which reminds me, why the whole section for Essjay's letter? Gwen Gale 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *The lead to the "Reaction's" section is poorly organized. The "media info" is poorly placed. It will never stand. A little organizing will greatly improve the article. Organizing the article supercedes undueweight when the article badly structured. QuackGuru TALK 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the gallery was still under debate. WP:SELF still doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7talk 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Agreed, he needs to be more specific. I would normally think an article was "badly structured" if it lacked sections, or was written as a flow-of-conciousness textdump or something. --tjstrf talk 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this bolded text helpful? Gwen Gale 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to collect "evidence." The screenshot of Essjay's user page is not the one that the journalist would have seen at the time she was reviewing his credentials, so it bears no actual relationship to the controversy.  The Wikia page didn't exist at the time of the original article, and even if the argument was that it was how the New Yorker found out there was a discrepancy - Essjay's actual credentials are not visible in the screenshot. As to the photograph, at one point this article was in the fraudsters category; though it has been removed from that category, a quick look at a half dozen articles in that category had no photographs of the reported fraudsters, despite their availability. Risker 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just to a look at the article. It is worse now than it was 25 minutes ago in terms of organizing the heading and structure. It is way too cluttered again. This is reaffirming a case for the peer review team to act upon. QuackGuru TALK 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think Gwen Gale has done a very good job of refactoring the content to organize it more logically.  Essjay and Jimbo were commenting in their roles within Wikipedia for the most part.  This has also taken care of the misplaced sections.  Risker 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less subheaders is more clear, not less. What clutters the page is excessive subdivision without substantial content in each section. Also, peer review teams do not "act upon" anything, they're not some sort of official grand jury of article wars, they just say what they think. --tjstrf talk 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is cluttered again and difficult to follow and read. The article is improperly structered. A beautiful disaster. QuackGuru TALK 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please type normally, your formatting abuse is cluttering the talk page the same way your attempted header spam is cluttering the article. Article formatting should be as simple as possible. --tjstrf talk 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proposal To Organize The Article"