Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 14 March 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Multidel

An entry from Essjay controversy appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 07 March, 2007.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (March 6, 2007). "Misplaced Pages ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. ] (] · ])

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Peer review stuff

I don't know if anyone's actually reading that, so I wanted to make my peer review comments here:

• Can we please have some more background on Essjay? He had been on Misplaced Pages for over two years and climbed up our ranks, it would be nice to have some info on that.
• Some more stuff on academic reactions would be good, otherwise the paragraph is too short and needs to be merged.
• This controversy has made international news, some mention of the foreign language media's reaction would be nice (I am thinking of the links on the German article).
• Essjay's alleged partner presumably went along with this deception, especially this edit (everybody probably would have assumed writing projects referred to academia). If we can get this in that would be good.
• What happened to the stuff about credential verification?

I realised that most of this isn't mentioned in the press, but with some digging we might find something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think Essjay is notable at all. I think the Misplaced Pages MUD he slipped into is notable. Gwen Gale 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that would explain what I'm doing with all these rat pelts. -- Kendrick7 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that information could be relevant to show how he came to gain so much trust and power and was able to influence decisions with his false credentials. It wouldn't be about him, it would be about how the "controversy" happened. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article is about the essjay controversy not about Essjay. I think we should remove the BLP notice as well because this article is not about a living person nor is it a biography, SqueakBox 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, is it clear User:Robbie31 was a WP:SOCK? The should probably be checked. -- Kendrick7 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange his probably libellous if untrue user page (ie claiming a gay relationship with Essjay) has been protected rather than removed, SqueakBox 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How would it be libellous if Essjay is the one who wrote it about himself? (note: I am NOT saying that, I do think it is his partner who went along with the charade) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all unremarkable MUD. Gwen Gale 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If its his partner it isnt libellous but if it isnt then it would be, it would also be unacceptable, SqueakBox 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning (namely, I don't see any). There are 3 options: a) Robbie is a sock of Essjay, b) Robbie is Essjay's actual partner who backed up Essjay's story, c) Robbie is someone other than Essjay without Essjay's knowledge. C) can be eliminated because Essjay knew about and conversed with the Robbie account. So, it's either a or b, neither of which could amount to "libel". If you see things differently, please explain, otherwise, please stop throwing around legal terms that are irrelevant. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I get that the article is about the Essjay controversy and not Essjay, but if we have no background on Essjay, it's hard to understand why this made such a big impact. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Dev. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It made a big impact because it involved a correction published by the New Yorker about it's Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages and the New Yorker are notable, Essjay is not. Gwen Gale 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, the fact that Essjay was an administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser, arbitrator, and was referred to the magazine by the WMF had no effect on the size of the controversy? I'm sorry, I simply can't agree. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that makes it a big deal within Misplaced Pages. It had far less of an effect on the rest of the world; most articles don't even mention it. The foundation has recommended many others for interviews around the world, some of whom aren't even admins, and I think the impact may well have been just as big. Risker 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said :) Gwen Gale 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are over 300+ news articles (not including blogs) indexed by Google News and Lexis Nexis about what is now being described as the Essjay controversy and many of them do in fact make reference to the positions he held, both with Wikimedia and Wikia, prior to his dismissal. Burntsauce 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably true, for the ones written well after the fact. They are using this article as a reference. Prior to it hitting AP, it was mentioned in very few. Risker 23:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with you, Gwen. That is like saying that Dennis Rader is non-notable, only the murders he committed were. We could apply that false argument to any number of articles that Misplaced Pages has to offer. Burntsauce 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I cannot countenance faking a resume being compared to mass murder. Please reconsider that last statement. Risker 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Forgive me if I deftly skirt any comparison of Essjay's MUD play to BTK! Gwen Gale 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay did not commit mass murder, so I apologize if my point is lost upon you two. I believe I made myself pretty clear. Burntsauce

Erm, yeah, you did. Gwen Gale 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec about Brandt....

While it may be fair to say that Brandt reported it to the New Yorker, I have no doubt that many other people including many Wikipedians "discovered" the discrepancy in the personas back in January too. I'm not inclined to promote this fact, it would be original research of the worst kind but at the same time let's not give the man more credit than he is due. Risker 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I revised the sentence. Risker 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And I stuck in another sentence, sourced to the (actually very good) Martyn Williams article, which describes how things started to come unglued when Essjay posted his Wikia profile in January. There really wasn't much "discovery" by anyone. It was just a matter of noticing what Essjay posted himself. The timeline makes this clear, but the article itself was kind of fuzzy. Casey Abell 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference in header

I think that this:

The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Misplaced Pages editor and administrator Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had posted false information on his Misplaced Pages userpage about his age, background, and academic credentials; and the Misplaced Pages community noted he had cited these false credentials in the context of discussing article content and had used his persona's credentials to vouch for Misplaced Pages's accuracy in a letter he claimed to have sent to a college professor.

Is blatant self-reference and unsupported advocacy, never mind the semicolon in the first sentence of an article (never a hopeful sign). IMHO. Gwen Gale 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, especially as the reference source says no such thing. It says a lot, but not the part after the semi-colon. Risker 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the part after the semi colon that worries me. Gwen Gale 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems Kendrick7 agreed with this position and has deleted. Risker 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

F'k! Kendrick7 and I wholly agree on something! Yay! :) Gwen Gale 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Syntax : suggested for opening paragraph

 Done

For readability and more logical grouping of thought, I suggest the following:

The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Misplaced Pages editor and administrator Essjay, later identified as Ryan Jordan, had posted false information on his Misplaced Pages userpage about his age, background, and academic credentials. Although Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law as a tenured professor at a private university, he was in fact a community college dropout from the U.S. state of Kentucky and had relied on sources such as Catholicism for Dummies when editing articles.

I find it disconcerting not to have the identity of Mr. Jordan not revealed to much later, and also, I think that his employment at Misplaced Pages fits better with the claims about his credentials. As well, the opening sentence was a bit long. Also, the two sentences could stand as their own paragraphs if it was deemed better.

Given the general tensions, I am suggesting it here rather than making the change. -- Kavri 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a wish to downplay Essjay's true identity a bit. While I don't think this is needed, I've supported it nonetheless since I don't think Jordan is notable: The scandal stirred up by his MUD fantasy professor Essjay is notable. Gwen Gale 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point about not including the name earlier, though...it doesn't actually show up until the "Identity Unraveled" subsection halfway through the article. A little dramatic tension may be good, but...Risker 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that 'dramatic tension' is required (could add unneeded POV), and the article names him, so it seems like mentioning him at the beginning will makes things clearer. I don't see how being clear is 'playing up' his identity. It's not that 'he' is notable, but he is the person that triggered the controversy.

When he is unveiled in the "Identity Unravlled" section, the first reference to him is "... reported the Essjay/Ryan Jordan identity discrepancy ...". Not having any reference to the hame before this, in my opinion, is confusing. I think it falls under the same idea when journalists don't refer to a last name, until they've mentioned the whole name. In a smilar fashion, not being told explicity 'who' Ryan Jordan is, and then the first reference being 'the Essay/Ryan Jordan identity discrepancy' creates un-needed obtuseness. A 'slash' can be interpreted a number of ways, including two different people 'the Shakespeare/Bacon identity discrepancy' for example. -- 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the 'when to name him' disagreement, I still feel adding his work connection to Misplaced Pages belongs with his false credentials sentence, and that shortening the sentence by breaking it in two makes it read better. -- Kavri 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kavri, I think you are on to something here, and I don't have any problem with this change. I agree that the name "Ryan Jordan" should indeed show up sooner in the article (makes mental note to rein in absurdist sense of humour) and have no problem with the Wikia mention earlier. Risker 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I had left the suggestion here, hoping for some talk/consensus. Unfortunately QuackGuru thought I wasn't sure 'how' to make the edit and went ahead, which was then changed by Gwen Gale. I felt that my suggestion was proper syntax, and currently feel that inserting Mr. Jordan's name between 'dropout' and the institution he was at, is clunky. Also, it is counter to her own assertion of it being dealt with in the talk pages.

I would ask that discussion continue, and to leave my edit unless there is significant reason to change it. (my preference would have been to roll it back, but was unsure of my ability to do that, so went ahead and changed it to my suggestion).

Currently we have myself, QuackGuru, and Risker assenting to the suggestion. Once others weigh in, it can be decided whether there is significant reason to change it. Please can we keep the discussion here and not start an edit/revert squabble. -- Kavri 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was a great suggestion for the lead. A great improvement. QuackGuru 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What this article is about (again)

It wasn't the posting of false information on the user page that was the root cause of the controversy, it was that he claimed what was on his userpage was true to the media. The lead seems to get this wrong currently; I don't think it reflects what our RS's actually say. -- Kendrick7 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. More of our sources focus on the false credentials angle, rather than the "lying to the media" angle. Risker 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't know about that, then someone more familiar with that specific topic should clarify this. You did say, I don't know about that. Posting of info on a userpage is not what this is about. There is a lot more to it. All angles of the story can be presented in a detailed and accurate fashion. QuackGuru 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

QG, please don't be so literal-minded. I was politely saying that I disagreed with Kendrick7's assessment. Actually, having had a greater opportunity to read the various sources than Kendrick7, I was fairly certain of my assessment. Risker 06:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I looked back over some of the sources; I suppose I was mistaken. -- Kendrick7 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken another shot at the Introduction. The lead in is answering how it 'arose'. The main points are his not disclosing that he was using a pseudonym and that he later called the reporter herself into question. That one can use false details (name/age/location) for protection is valid, but false academic credentials are not needed, especially ones of high caliber (if he had said he got a BA from Simon Fraser U. when it was really from the University of Calgary, there would not be near the amount of concern amongst the public). I find too, that the two paragraphs seperate it into what triggered the incident, and the issue of credentials. Also, his use of the Dummies book is irrelevant, so I removed it. As anyone can use outside sources to help edit an article (the idea that he said it was a book he gave his students is a misuse of credentials, not a misuse of the book). NOTE: I ask in advance no one add it until people have some time to weigh in on it, if at that time it appears agreed on, it can be editted in. Soooo....here is my shot at it:

The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Misplaced Pages editor and administrator Essjay, later identified as Ryan Jordan, was found to have posted false information on his Misplaced Pages userpage which he did not disclose as pseudonymous to the New Yorker, as well as at a later point casting an unfounded allegation at the reporter who interviewed him.

Besides creating pseudonym with a false age and background, more problematic was his claim to fabricated false academic credentials. Although Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law as a tenured professor at a private university, he was in fact a community college dropout from the U.S. state of Kentucky. The discrepancy in credentials was brought to public attention in late February 2007 when the New Yorker attached an editorial note to a July 2006 article about Misplaced Pages, for which Essjay had been interviewed.

-- Kavri 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of the For Dummies book was widely reported and makes for an interesting contrast. I would keep it in. -- Kendrick7 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Refering to the title of this section, "What this article is about", I don't see how including that he used information from a book to edit entries is pertinent. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I don't see how 'contrast' needs to be introduced into an article that is in itself about a controversy. Personally I am not that attached to the matter, though it it was re-introduced into my proprosed Introduction, I'd rather it show that said book was used inapporpriately in terms of his credentials (ala the mention where he says he had his students read it). Other than the issue of the book it would be helpful if you mentioned whether you supported the proposed change, or not (with or without the book being mentioned). Thanks -- Kavri 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The unfounded allegation is not mentioned anywhere in any of the sources that I have read; it seems to be a Misplaced Pages-centric issue. I am afraid I find this quite editorial and not NPOV. Let's continue to try to work on this, though. Risker 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, it's not so much that he "did not disclose as pseudonymous" the info to the New Yorker, he actually said it was true. This makes it sound as if all he commited was a sin of omission. -- Kendrick7 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, The New Yorker did not "report" the information; an editor's note is not a report. And it is obvious the reporter was well aware she was dealing with someone using a pseudonym - after all, who goes by the single name "Essjay" in real life? Fabricated means the same thing as false - and it is editorializing to say that the credentials were more problematic. That would require WP:RS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Forgive me for seeming overly critical, Kavri. This article has already been through three AfDs and so any major edits to it have to be essentially bulletproof. Every statement needs to be backed up by a solid, reliable source. This makes for slightly stilted writing, I know. (At one point, someone actually had a {{fact}} tag on the term "Essjay controversy.") It is good to have fresh eyes on the article; I hope you understand the need for caution in making major changes. Risker 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it was only a shot at tackling the intro again, for comment *grin*. Obviously it didn't hit the mark. I do see how it becomes editorializing. Risker thanks for your comments, and I don't find you overly critical at all, as well, I've taken to heart your meaning that any changes have to be bullet-proof. *smile*. I don't have particular problems with it, however, there are some issues I've found confusing from all sources, and am still unsure as to what the 'facts' are:

A pseudonym to protect from stalking only needs basic false identification, not high level academic credentials. That the New Yorker knew he was un-named is one thing, but did they, or didn't they, know that his credentials and information on his userpage was false?

While it is editorializing to call the academic credentials issue 'problematic'...the general public reaction seems to be that there was a problem not with him cloaking his identity as it was with including academic credentials. Kendrick, is it actually sourced that he told them his credentials were true?

It's minor, but I still think the inclusion of the Dummies book in the intro is unecessary and adding confusion. The use of the book was not a problem, except in regards to his stating his use of it as a professor, other than that, his using it as a 'source' is not an issue, and there for I don't see its pertinence in the opening paragraphs. That said, it's not a crucial point, and I'm only stating an opinion. I'd support a change, but I'll not make it, or fight over it.

-- Kavri 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=114992698&oldid=114986879 I believe this edit should be reverted. A lot of well sourced information and references just happened to vanish. I believe this edit should be reverted. This edit was drastic. QuackGuru 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you had read above in the heading "Blogs?" you would have seen that I have gone back to the source material to ensure that this entire section is attributed to reliable third party sources rather than directly to Larry Sanger's blog. The actual quotes have remained the same, and only minor edits to the text itself were required. Sanger remains credited for what he said, just not directly from his blog. I made this change specifically to address a weak point, which is that blogs are not always considered a reliable source. Risker 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sanger's blog is a reliable source that was previuosly discussed. You made these changes that eliminated a lot of information. I going to revert now. QuackGuru 06:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I have not eliminated a single, solitary bit of information. In fact, additional editors had questioned the use of the Sanger blog today. The only thing that has been eliminated is a reference source that is shaky; instead of eliminating the information, I found the exact same information in reliable sources and ensured that the information was properly attributed as quotes from Sanger. Risker 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Refer to this discussion please: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I've looked over the changes and it appears no content was removed. QuackGuru, if there is something removed, could you cite it specifically? I see no changes other than citing better sources for the same information. -- Kavri 06:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tranfers this comment via toto from another editor's comment above: Sourcing Sanger from his blog, is that OK under WP:ATT? Blogs in general are not, but someones own blog as a source for their own reaction should be. -- Avi 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I totally agree. Sanger's blog is NPOV and reliable and a strong point. Yep. The reliable references were removed without validity. Suggest this should not continue. Removing reference that are acceptable according to guidelines of Misplaced Pages can be a bit unwarranted. QuackGuru 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you're not helping, knock if off. The crap you're putting us through is completely needless. This issue is over, move on. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, quoting your own opinion is not helpful here. My error, I misread your message; this was another editor's opinion. Risker 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I have reverted to the version that does not rely on blogs as sources based on the discussion in this thread. Please do not create an edit war over your personal interpretation of the use of blogs as reliable sources. Risker 06:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, what I meant by that statement was that I think the Sanger blog could be considered proper attribution for his direct quote, not that it should be reliable for the claim that he is the wiki founder. *I* could set up a blog in a few minutes claiming that I am the wiki founder (which I was, by the way, AND discoverer of the Internet in the jungles of Borneo, and a mean shortorder cook, to boot), it is NOT a valid source for that claim anywhere outside the Larry Sanger article. I hope that clears my quote up for you. Further, questions of attribution in no way shape or form answer questions of relevance. I can reliably source that Jimmy Wales has a beard, but is this necessary in the article? Sanger's quote may not be any more relevant than any oher blogger, now that it has been years since he parted ways with wikipedia. -- Avi 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps QuackGuru might have posted because of my asking him to cite specifics, though I meant that in the context of removal of content if he thought there was any. I think that the outside sources for Sanger's remarks make for stronger references. I think Sanger's remarks are relevant due to the fact that his new enterprise is directly focused on issues of accountability. If any other public information gathering online was happening, whether a dictionary or 'how to' or whatever, and their emphasis is on security/credentials, then if their PR person or CEO or whatever made comments regarding their perceptions of what is 'wrong' with Misplaced Pages, then I would think it relevant and should also be included. The fact that Sanger has a past with Misplaced Pages should not de facto preclude his comments from being included. -- Kavri 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it de facto grant him any more status than anyone else. It should be judged on its own merits, and should definitely NOT be used as a source for his being "co-founder" (in any wiki page OUTSIDE of Larry Sanger or pages that specifically discuss the dispute) any more than EssJay's user page should be used as a source for his doctorates in theology . -- Avi 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about undue weight or co-founder in this section here. We are talking about modifying quotes and removing references. And we are talking about removing information because Risker is stating the source is "shaky." Shaky is not a policy. The rewriting is poor and has eliminated some quotes. Here is a revert by an editor modied sentences and also removed verifiable references. This is important for the Peer Review Team to evaluate. Removal of references which meet Misplaced Pages policy without justication is a serious matter. QuackGuru 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Peer review team" is just any editor who decides to comment, you know :) -- Avi 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I went to a lot of trouble to make sure I did not remove any content; if anything, Sanger is credited more directly with his quotes than he was before. For any editor reviewing the changes made, here is the diff between the previous version and the one using only secondary sources instead of Sanger blogs as references. Risker 07:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I made my position clear. I would support 'anyone' that had similar business situation to be quoted, therefor, I support the Sanger quotes, not because he is Sanger, but because he matches the sort of criteria I mentioned above. I'm not sure why you inserted talk of co-founder here, as it wasn't the question at hand. What I said was that anyone in a position of their own company, speaking about the controversy, in the circumstances I mention above, would in my opinion, have merit (could be Joe Business with a secure 'how to fix it' wiki, his comments about credentials/security would still be relevant, imo)

As to my thoughts on 'co-founder', since it was mentioned, I think that a compromise is the only solution and best NPOV practice. I mention it above, and would hope any talk of it can go to the Village Pump or such. In fact, part of the work I was doing on Misplaced Pages tonight was reading to understand its procedures better, and to find which forums are used for various kinds of questions. I would hope that that particular unresolved issue can be argued in another location, as it encompasses more than this article. (Please other posters, don't argue it here just because it got brought up in passing by Avi and I... *looks around with a hopeful pleading look*)

I hope that I clarified both my support of Risker's reference changes, my support of keeping Sanger's comments included, and my view that the 'co-founder' issue needs a compromise solution (of course, I'm fond of the one I suggested, but any workable one would be good) but that that discussion is not suitable for this talk page. Cheers. -- Kavri 07:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kavri. Actually, I think we finally resolved the "co-founder" issue by calling both Wales and Sanger "a founder." Took three days to get there, it will be interesting to see if the same logic is applied in other articles. Risker 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker, just didn't want to see Avi's mention and my response cause it to re-ignite. I supported Denny's solution, and actually proposed it become policy here (scroll to bottom) -- Kavri 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bad compromise if one reads the talk page discussions, but the situation on the article page is still not optimal because the cited source doesn't back up this claim. I was confused when I clicked on the link to the cited article and the text is: Sanger, who at times calls himself the cofounder, and says he got the idea of using "wiki" technology... Wales's profile says he got the idea from someone else, and last week he said "it's preposterous" to call Sanger the cofounder. I now noticed this same source is used for Jimbo as well, so there is no doubt the intentions have been to be extremely NPOV here, and the compromise idea is good in general, the problem I see is that it doesn't match the cited source, which obviously doesn't use this "a founder" approach. I mean you can't expect me to read all the discussions on talk pages to understand why the sources are being interpreted in this way. --Merzul 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with wording in 'Misplaced Pages Critics'

An edit war over this sentence? who also says and is reported to be co-founder of Misplaced Pages which Wales says is inaccurate? Can't anyone see what's mangled about this one? Gwen Gale 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, I've started a new section for your comment, as it isn't part of the discussion about the edits that were done by Risker. While there was a side discussion about the co-founder issue, it was talk page discussion, brought in in passing as a side note, and in fact, with requests for it NOT to set off another round of talk/edits. However, since there is an edit made at some point in time that you have issue with, I've taken the liberty of starting it as a new section seperate from the current one which was primarily concerned changes to references. Also, it would be clearer if you either say what you changed, or, specified what the problem was and suggest a change, rather than an open call of "Can't anyone see what is mangled about this one"? It saves the problem of presumption over what one considers 'mangled'. Thanks. -- Kavri 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see the grammar issue in this sentence there's not much I can do to help you. Gwen Gale 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, I agree the sentence isn't worded well, however, it would make more sense to me that if you are going to comment, that it either you make a valid question asking for opinion, or make a statement about changing, or wanting to change, a section, then to rhetorically (my presumption on your response to my post is that you meant the question rhetorcially) ask "Can't anyone see...? Also, in my opinion, I find that your response of 'there's not much I can do to help you' unproductive in what was a call to make a question/concern clearer for everyone involved. If you want to make a post regarding your edit, than asking the general populace if they can't see what is mangled makes the onus on you to be clear. -- Kavri 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kavri thanks for your input on this. I stand by my comment that if an editor can't see a glaring, quantitative syntax botch there isn't much I can do. I think it was helpful for me to hint that an editor can ask for minimal standards of literacy (or basic heed) here. Moreover, the flawed sentence was being constantly replaced in an edit war. Ok, having said all that, I know you only want to see reduced conflict here, me too, so I think your comment is cool either way. Gwen Gale 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that sentence still in there? I thought we'd gotten rid of it about 18 hours ago.... Risker 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was replaced through edit warring, I fixed it. Gwen Gale 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am out, I really don't appreciate having my edit summaries labeled as misleading. Call Sanager whatever you want, but it seems that whatever his role in wikipedia was, it should be mentioned for context.--Tom 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ps, I was not edit warring either, if that was directed at me, I made one revision and I am now FINISHED!

Gwen, I find your edit disingenous. You quoted the line, "who also says and is reported to be co-founder of Misplaced Pages" which I do believe reads rather poorly, however, you reverted to a version pre the compromise of 14:59, 13 March 2007. In fact, I thought your language referring to an 'edit war' a bit strong, but didn't mention it. However it appears you are the one continuing the 'edit war' by reverting back not to the version before the section you quoted, but going all the way back to a version that preceded the compromise which had consensus. Not only was Denny's version an end to that round of reverts, but was even suggested by myself as a possible policy for all 'co-founder' controversy.

I have re-verted the wording back to the compromise version, suggestd by Denny - (cur) (last) 14:59, 13 March 2007 DennyColt (Talk | contribs) (compromise version, both Wales & Sanger listed as "a founder") - and hope that the compromise can stand, rather than opening up the 'co-founder' issue again at this time. For now, it is a workable solution until some sort of consensus/policy is reached. -- Kavri 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, truth be told I think I went back to the wrong version is all, thanks for fixing that. I'm ok with the compromise. I stand by my remarks about care and heed but any editor who doesn't agree can blow me off, this is a public wiki (as I'm wont to say), after all. Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies extended for presuming bad faith, re: "you are the one continuing the edit war". It was a somewhat reasonable assumption, but then again, assumptions are what get most of us into hot water to begin with. Thanks for letting the compromise stand. -- Kavri 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think Tom was unfairly singled out, as his revert was to the consensus form, and that his edit statement in no way was 'misleading'.

I have gone through the history, trying to glean where things went wrong:

• Glen re-vertd to take out 'a founder' despite previous consensus on the 'co-founder' issue.

• C.m jones re-verts Glen, but not back to the previous version, he is the one that entered the unwieldly phrase, "who also says and is reported to be co-founder of Misplaced Pages which Wales says is inaccurate" that Gwen pointed out

• Gwen re-verts to the previous, which was unfortunately Glen's re-vert on the consensus version reached earlier:

• Tom changes the re-vert squabble back to the agreed on consensus form.

While Tom's reaction seems strong to me, I do not know what previous circumstances led up to his frustration of the situation. I would hope if he reads this, he would understand that though Gwen's summary remark was unfortunate, that she herself seems to be acting from Glen's revision forward...and I would hope that his contribution isn't halted because of this incident alone. -- Kavri 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I should shoulder some of the blame for this confusion. When I revised and tightened the sources in this section, I failed to note that somewhere before I started working, the phrase describing Larry Sanger as "a founder" had disappeared already in an edit before the one I used as the baseline. After all the work of finding a compromise solution on this issue, the absence of that phrase should have been obvious to me. It wasn't an intentional disruption, simply an oversight. Risker 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, no big deal or offense taken. I probably over reacted above. I am just not use to being accused of edit warring since I really try to avoid that(except in Gwen;s case :) ) just kidding! Anyways, carry on and remain calm and civil! Cheers! --Tom 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Academics" section

The subsection of "Reactions" titled "Academics" sounds like it is presenting the opinions of academics on the controversy. Brock Read of the Chronicle, however, is not an academic; he is a journalist who writes for an academic audience. Given that opinions among academics onabout Misplaced Pages have always been very divided (and given that representing a non-academic as an academic is kind of the whole point here), it seems like a key distinction. Chick Bowen 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, didn't pick that up. However, the issue here is not whether Read is an academic, but whether his article in the Chronicle is a suitable source in terms of WP:A for the assertion of an effect on "Misplaced Pages's credibility – especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.". alternative views are put in the comments on that aricle, and here in the following sentence citing Dr Nicola Pratt – together the hopefully provide a WP:NPOV account of both viewpoints. Any clarifications in mind? .. dave souza, talk 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Block Quote Format (Proper Style and Structure of Article)

• Misplaced Pages community

Speaking personally about Jordan, Wales said,

“Mr. Ryan was a friend, and still is a friend. He is a young man, and he has offered me a heartfelt personal apology, which I have accepted. I hope the world will let him go in peace to build an honorable life and reputation.”

This is just mainly a style issue. Proper style and structure of this article is essential. Both quotes should be in block quote formats. One is in block quotes and the other is not. This is odd and abnormal to me. I suggest both be put in block quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=115132676&oldid=115131062 < I do not understand this edit. Any suggestions. QuackGuru 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote> is for long quotes that, stylistically, should be separated from introductory text. That quote is very short and short quotes should always be integrated into paragraphs rather than physically separated. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is that stated in policy. Or is this your humble opinion. Lets be clear. Also, this situation is different. There are two quotes. It looks abnormal one is in blockquotes and the other is not. It does look better in format with both being in block quotes. (Thinking.) I could find and add another quote from Mr. Wales and then it would be necessary to have block quotes thereafter. Thank you. QuackGuru 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all, I learned it in grammar school. Second of all, it's explained on the VERY front page of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style, so no, it's not "my humble opinion" (could you be any more smarmy, by the way?). Third of all, you are seriously suggesting finding a quote for the expressed purpose of being able to use a second <blockquote>? You're kidding with this, right? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Blockquotes are not meant for short quotations: Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and Block quote which says "Generally speaking, a block quote is used when cited text is four or more lines in length." Gwen Gale 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, if you have further questions, please review WP:Troll#Pestering first, thank you. Gwen Gale 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I already was thinking of adding more quotes to color the picture earlier. Afterall, I am the one who added the Essjay quotes and I believe quotes are a direct way for readers to understand the scope of this event. I will leave it up to the Misplaced Pages community to decide about the block quotes. QuackGuru 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind, editors may take excessive quotes in an article as nothing but a way to throw in slanted PoV by breaking up the encyclopedic narrative and WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which might in turn be taken as more disruption. Gwen Gale 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence says:

"The '''Essjay controversy''' arose in ] after '']'' magazine noted that prominent ] editor and administrator '''Essjay''', later identified as '''Ryan Jordan''', was found to have posted false information on his Misplaced Pages userpage about his age, background, and academic ].<ref name="Guardian">{{cite web | url = http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html | title = Read me first | accessdate = 2007-03-07 | last = Finkelstein | first = Seth | date = ] ] | work = Local News | publisher = ] | archiveurl = | archivedate = }}</ref>"

The New Yorker says:

EDITORS’ NOTE:

The July 31, 2006, piece on Misplaced Pages, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Misplaced Pages site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”

Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Misplaced Pages’s management team because of his respected position within the Misplaced Pages community. He was willing to describe his work as a Misplaced Pages administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Misplaced Pages knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Misplaced Pages life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Misplaced Pages admin-istrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia—a for-profit company affiliated with Misplaced Pages—as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Misplaced Pages positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Misplaced Pages, said of Essjay’s invented persona, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."

at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact?currentPage=6

WAS 4.250 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Finkelstein, Seth (March 7 2007). "Read me first". Local News. The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-03-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Doran, James (March 8 2007). "Misplaced Pages Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed". Fox News > Technology. Fox News. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Articles with connected contributors