Talk:Essjay controversy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kendrick7 (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 20 March 2007 (→EssJay's archived user page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:58, 20 March 2007 by Kendrick7 (talk | contribs) (→EssJay's archived user page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

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.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

Footnote clutter

Upfront admission: I hate footnotes. As many have repeated, a footnote is like a knock on the door in the middle of your wedding night. Almost ridiculously, this article's first sentence is now bothered with seven knocks on the door. Even the most ardent footnote fetishizer might find this excessive. Once the article comes out of lockdown, can we prune the notes down a little? Few if any of the facts in the article are in serious dispute, though there are questions about placement and emphasis. The creepy crawly footnotes can be whittled down without any real threat of inaccuracy. Casey Abell 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they exploded into Ultra Mega Citation Mode because so many people were being obnoxious previously, fighting tooth and nail to get this deleted as non-notable, even going IAR on related Essjay stuff... everyone thus took a better safe than sorry bulletproof approach... - Denny 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and footnotes sitting upon strong citations are the only way to build a stable article where controversy (and worse) abounds. Gwen Gale 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Some can be removed, particularly for statements that are double- and triple-sourced. That is unnecessary. However, as there have been controversies about the strangest things in this article, great care must be taken to ensure that we have indeed got the right source attached to each statement. Risker 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If we do cut out some later, leaving 1 of 3, lets of course always leave the 'strongest' most mainstream/citeable... - Denny 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Accurate sourcing is fine. But footnote mania has gone ballistic, bonkers and bananas when seven citations are hung on a single sentence – especially when the sentence is not in serious factual dispute. Ultra Mega Citation Mode looks like (and is) a bad joke to Misplaced Pages newbies coming to the article after hearing about Essjay. We grizzled oldbies have gotten so used to the critters that we sometimes don't realize how silly they look in bunches. Casey Abell 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an artifact of edit warring and they can be skived down soon enough. Gwen Gale 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At least nobody is asking us to source the term "Essjay controversy" anymore. Risker 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Newbie question. If the footnotes get pruned, is there anything wrong with listing the pruned footnotes in the reference section? -- Kavri 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There can be footnotes after each sentence if need be, Misplaced Pages as a whole is going down this path and I agree with it. The worry has to do with hangin' 3 or 4 on the end of a sentence. Gwen Gale 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the 'problem' with multiple footnotes. However, some articles have both a Notes and a References section (for example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Logic). Can the article have the one or two strongest footnotes, but have the 'pruned' footnotes show up in a References section at the bottom rather than be deleted from the article? Or, possibly, with no References section, can one have a line at the end of the article saying, 'Other sources used in the article' and then just list all the 'pruned' links in that last footnote? I just dislike the idea of getting rid of the sources altogether. -- Kavri 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wontedly, one puts the most fitting and strongest footnotes in the text and the others can go into the references and external links sections as needed. Gwen Gale 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to spend one moment of time trying to whittle down the footnotes at this point. Footnotes are great things. They are not at all like "a knock on the bedroom door during your honeymoon". They are much more like openning the bedside drawer on your honeymoon and finding a new toy to play with or a new outfit to wear (or whatever floats your boat).

In an article such as this one, that calls the credibility of Misplaced Pages into question, footnotes are are incredibly important. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check which has the meritous objective of trying to back up every single fact in Misplaced Pages with multiple sources. That's every single fact in the whole project! Surely an article on a controversy should be among our best-sourced articles of all.

It will be a reasonable question at some point in the future to review our references and make sure that we have not gone over-board. Now is not the time, however. For the next few months, while we are having debates about changing our very culture with respect to credentialling, lets have this piece contain plenty of references. Having a few too many is vastly prefered to having too few. Johntex\ 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, Johntex; however, this might be a good point at which to review the footnotes in the lead to make sure that they are true references to the information in the article. When I cleaned up the sections referring to Larry Sanger, I found there were some errors in the sourcing/quoting. Risker 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, so long as we don't 'lose' the information, I'm okay with however it gets formatted, I just worried about the word 'pruning' meaning 'deleting entirely' which I wouldn't be okay with. I agree, the formatting of it, and possible deletion if absolutely necessary can be done later. I would suggest at that time we make both a 'Notes' section for the footnotes used, and a 'References' section for the rest. -- Kavri 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We'll leave aside the debate on whether footnotes are like new toys on your honeymoon (gawd, that sounds dirty). But seven of the critters hung on the same sentence look even goofier than my six-critter example. This article's first sentence doesn't look like careful sourcing. It just looks nuts. Or more exactly, it looks like WP has gotten so paranoid about fact-checking that we've gone over the edge. Is this the face we want to show to outsiders coming to an article on the biggest controversy since Siegenthaler? Some balance is needed. The first sentence needs at most two cites...to the New Yorker article itself (with the Editor's note) and maybe to an all-round, accurate outside story like the 3/5/07 New York Times article. All the other cites are absurd and unnecessary stuffing. Casey Abell 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your position Casey Abell. Are you saying that if they are pulled from the main article, that they shouldn't even be allowed to be cited in a Reference section, seperate from a Notes section that has the footnotes? Why? They would no longer be in the article text, just listed below as other sources in a Reference section seperate from the Notes section (presuming this idea were adopted, of course). I think the lack of seperate Footnote and Reference sections is part of the confusion. If it shows up in the text, the section should be called 'Notes' or 'Footnotes'. A 'Reference' section is for all sources you referred to in your research, whether or not you use the material in a footnoted way, or not. Then again, that was how I was taught, ymmv. -- Kavri 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Kavri, that nothing actually disappears. It is all there in the history, and can be pulled up again if required. Risker 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

lol. I must need more coffe, I don't seem to be as clear as I think I am. I do know it's kept in the history, I meant deleted from the final article as it stands. I think that all the footnote/reference material should be IN the article, but I do agree the number of citations inline gets a bit clunky, so wouldn't mind some of them removed, so long as they are still down at the bottom of the article somewhere (preferably in a 'References' section, with footnotes going in a 'Notes' section, but I'd not squawk if they were included in some sort of 'also see' section. I just believe that all reference/notes so far, should be in the article itself, somewhere. -- Kavri 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My position is simple: don't clutter sentences with redundant and unnecessary footnotes. Right now the first sentence could be completely and accurately sourced with the (at most) two cites I mentioned. So why stick in footnotes to the other five sources? All the clutter just makes the sentence look silly. I wouldn't mind a separate "External references" section for other articles not used in footnotes. We had such a section previously, and other editors scrapped it for reasons I don't understand. If kept to a reasonable length, such a section would be a valuable addition. Casey Abell 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to know that you were okay with them showing up somewhere. Personally, I think a lot of articles would look better sorting things out properly...the Logic article I referred to above is a good example. It has 'Footnotes', 'References', 'See Also', 'Further Reading' and 'External Links'. Obviously this article doesn't need the 'Further Reading', but I thnk the other four would work fine. (My two-cents that had babies and is up to $1.50 now ) -- Kavri 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, at one point we had another 30 or so sources tacked on to the bottom of the article. As things started to stabilize, we moved the list over here into the talk page (I think it might be in Archive 4 or 5), and if necessary we can go back to them and mine them for further information. Perhaps we can agree to include "deleted" footnotes into a heading on the talk page so they are more easily accessible? As the article gels further, some of those sources can be added back in as required. Risker 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I like footnotes, instead of just reading an article, I can see what reliable sources it is based off of. This is the standard way to cite our text. _InBC 17:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes

^ Doesn't
this
look
silly
to
you?

-- 10:56, 16 March 2007 Casey Abell (Talk | contribs) (→Footnote clutter - - helpful example)

No, if you are meaning quoting both those sources, it doesn't look silly to me. They are both from different papers, have different 'spin' on some of the details (the use of the word 'enraged' not within a quote, and included different information (Essjay's response to the courier's email, was to be left alone, obviously something not to be found in the other article).

If you are meaning something else besides both sources being used, could you please clarify yourself. With just a question of 'Doesn't this look silly?' you are not specifying the problem. -- Kavri 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make myself clearer. The footnote clutter, especially the seven critters crawling over the first sentence, looks goofy. My guess is that sooner or later – probably later, when the general hollering over the article dies down – somebody will come along and quietly trim the redundant and unnecesary footnotes. As I've said as clearly as I can, there's no need for more than one or two footnotes for the first sentence, and a number of duplicate footnotes to the same source can also be eliminated. Casey Abell 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Meanwhile so long as there's any hint of edit warring I think it's more helpful to leave them be. Gwen Gale 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in a BLP article the more citations to support the claims of the article the better. _InBC 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Casey , First off, you never signed your post, and I actually thought is was something Gwen posted, but it didn't make any sense as part of her bit about them being strung out on the end of a sentence. Second, I think saying 'I don't know how to make myself clearer' is disingenious when I specifically stated what the confusion was...and that you then edited the original post, again not signed, removing the links, which is retro-edit that makes my post seem strange. Third, you listed your example as 'Notes' followed by a handful of numbered entries. In and of itself, no, there is nothing wrong with this...notes go in the note section, in a numbered list. If you meant the overall number of footnotes to the article, that isn't what you stated. Finally, you actually articulate what you think is silly, " The footnote clutter, especially the seven critters crawling over the first sentence, looks goofy. " I agree, that the inline clutter isn't attractive, you have my full support on that. As I made clear in the posts above this, on the on-going discussion, that I merely want to make sure that the references stay in the article somewhere. I gave an example of an article that has both a 'Notes' and a 'References' section, and that is the usual standard in writing, to have a 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' section, and a 'References' section for other citings. I also agree with Risker, that once the article stabilizes, that the total number listed at the bottom could possibly be pared down, but also agree with Gwen and others, that while the article is controversial, it is probably best to leave them all in. Again, I have no problems with a few inline citations, listed below in a 'Notes/Footnotes' section, and then the citations that are removed from inline being listed in a seperate 'References' section. Until the article is more stable/less controversial, I'm not a fan of completely removing any citations from the article. -- Kavri 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the foggiest what you're talking about when you say that I didn't sign my posts to this talk page, or that I made "disingenious" changes to my posts or to any other posts on this page. I have made sixteen edits (seventeen, counting this one) to this talk page. The full list is here. I have reviewed every edit, and none of them support your comments. All my edits were signed and I made no misleading changes to them or to anybody else's edits. You and all other editors are welcome to review the diffs.

As for my substantive point about footnote clutter, you seem to agree with me. So I'm not sure what the disagreement is about, if there's any real disagreement at all. I agree that the number of footnotes could be whittled down and a separate "References" section for other articles not used in footnotes would be helpful. As you say, these changes probably won't occur until some time has passed and the significant content disputes about the article have been at least mostly resolved. Casey Abell 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC) <---This is my signature, attached to this post as well as to all my other posts on this page.

Okay, I have reread this entire section, and I think I now have some idea of what you're talking about. You may be referring to this edit, marked "helpful example." The edit clearly shows my signature: ] 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC). What I did in this edit was to place six footnote indicators directly before my signature. The intent was to provide a (I hope) helpful and humorous example of the kind of footnote clutter I saw in the main article. The fact that I placed the footnote indicators directly before my signature clearly indicates that I wasn't trying to hide my authorship or to mislead anybody in any way. If there had been the slightest confusion on your part, a quick glance at the diff would have resolved the problem. However, I realize that you are a somewhat inexperienced Misplaced Pages editor, so I appreciate that you may not be familiar with examining diffs to clear up possible misunderstandings. Casey Abell 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Casey, in looking over the situation, I realize I shouldn't have posted without indenting. I find that others at times go back to the original border rather than indenting indefinitely, and I thought it would catch your attention over being deeply indented, as it wasn't a current topic, per se. I was only meaning my comments in regard to your example of footnote citations, and thought that was clear from the content of my post. I apologize for not being clearer, as I understand how upsetting it is to feel that one is making some kind of blanket statement or accusation.
I thought my request for clarification was valid, and I thought pointing out saying 'Doesn't this look silly?' instead of stating what the problem was, was valid, especially as the original post had links for the first two examples, which no longer exist, and which I assumed you had removed. Yes, I know how to look at edits and diffs, though I sometimes have difficulties, but for the most part have the hang of it. That said, I can no longer reference specific diffs/edits, as I can no longer see the history. This may be an error I am making, but I've gone to archived pages before, and been able to see the history, and now I can't, so it may have something to do with the archiving process, I don't know.
Through your link to the history, I was able to go back, and though you may have thought you had put the tilda/signature to your post, the page shows posts of Gwen Gale's to either side of it, as shown HERE
When I posted, and asked for clarification, I made reference to the first two citations that had live links, and said I didn't think they were silly. I then asked if that wasn't what you were referring to, could you please make it clear what your question was. Your response, in the face of my asking politely and non-sarcastically or with any agenda, was in my opinion, somewhat rude, when you said you couldn't make it any clearer. I'm not always the sharpest crayon in the box, but I think my post was reasonable in asking for clarification, and was sound in pointing out that your post asking 'Doesn't this look silly?' wasn't terribly clear (especially given the two live links that are no longer there).
I was somewhat bothered for a number of reasons: Your example showed a 'Notes' title with a list of citations, which is NOT the in-line clutter that you had been talking of previously, and it included two live links, and a question looking for, I presume, people to agree with you, that it looked silly. I didn't think it looked silly, but I realized I may not understand exactly what your point was, so I asked. I was met with a less than polite answer, you could have just said you meant it to refer to in-line clutter, instead, as if 'being silly' for not agreeing with you, I know had the 'I don't know how I can make myself clearer.' as your opening remark of your clarifying post, when in fact, 'Doesn't this look silly' is hardly clear, and I was not asking for anything terribly difficult to provide. Finally, the two live links were removed, I presumed by you, in all honesty I dont' recall if I looked it up in the history or not, and I'm not going to now, but they were removed at the time that I responded with reply of 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As I showed above by linking to it, there was no indication that I could see to " The fact that I placed the footnote indicators directly before my signature ". IF it was referring to the post you made at Casey Abell 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC), then I would like to point out that there were 17 intervening posts between that post talking about in-line clutter, and my post of 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Possible misunderstandings on both sides may be caused by a number of factors, including examining diffs, but I do think I've made clear the areas I found un-clear or problematic, and my reasoning as to why.
This probably could have gone to a personal talk page, however the reason I replied at all was that I was uncertain about the original example, and when I asked for clarification I didn't even know who posted it (I could see no signature to the post on the talk page, and I hadn't gone to look at the history) but thought it might be Gwen's. I was uncomfortable with your response, and told you so, because by that time the links I had made mention to in my post asking for clarification had now disappeared, and because I disliked that a polite request for clarification about what I considered an ambiguous statement "Doesn't this seem silly?" and an answer that said it couldn't be made clearer, together seemed to have an implication to me, that I was either dense or difficult. Finally, though I see now that I should have indented, your post being upset that I was meaning all your posts weren't signed, or that I was somehow unaware of the history, etc. suprised me, given that I felt my posts made it clear that I was speaking about a very specific question about (what turned out to be your post, at the time I didn't know who wrote it), and about the deletion of the live links (that I had presumed you made, since I now knew it to be your post) and your less than polite response to me. Yes, this is tediously long and specific, but given the misunderstandings to date, I thought it best to word myself carefully, so as to acknowledge my viewpoint/assumptions, and possible unseen errors, as well as to try my best to make clear why it wasn't a trivial matter for me (neither is it the most important thing going either, but I am trying to be a good Wikipedian from the start, to strive for best practices in myself and others, and to weed out the worst bad habits in myself and others). Cordially. -- Kavri 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my reply much shorter. Frankly, I found your comments that I hadn't signed a post ("First off, you never signed your post") and that I was being disingenuous by "retro-editing" ("Second, I think saying 'I don't know how to make myself clearer' is disingenious when I specifically stated what the confusion was...and that you then edited the original post, again not signed, removing the links, which is retro-edit that makes my post seem strange") to be unfair and unfounded, as the complete list of my edits to this talk page makes clear. If you're going to make such comments about established editors, please back them up with specific diffs. You provided no diffs to support your comments, because no such diffs exist.

I don't understand how offense could be taken over my statement: "I don't know how I can make myself clearer." I have stated my position on what I see as the main article's footnote clutter, and I have offered specific examples of what I'm talking about. I'll say it again: I don't know how I can make myself clearer.

I am signing this post, as I have signed all my posts on this talk page. I am not engaging in any disingenuous "retro-editing", and I have never done so on this talk page. And this will be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Yorker interview

I created a separate section for the information that is not directly related to the interview. It was reverted without discussion.

The sentence starting with... When Ryan Jordan was hired by Wikia in January 2007, he reportedly made changes to his Wikia profile and "came clean on who he really was". ...is not part of The New Yorker interview. I recommend it have its own separate section. The entire paragraph could be titled something like Identitiy revealed which is reasonable. This is a no brainer (at least to me). If no Wikipedian objects with a valid reason other than saying "I don't like it" we can add the heading back in. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add the title Identitiy revealed back in since no objections have been made. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Having seen both versions come and go, I prefer the inclusion of the 'Identity Revealed' section and its title. If it became a dispute, I'm somewhat neutral, but would at least want to hear a supporting reason for taking it back out. -- Kavri 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about sub-factoring it? Gwen Gale 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear a valid reason for sub-factoring a section which is not related to the interview. They are different. One is The New Yorkor Interview and the other section is about the Identity revealed. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

They are wholly intertwined. None of this would be notable if not for the New Yorker interview and subsequent correction note from them. Gwen Gale 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained how they are intertwinded. Based on your logic everything is intertwined and we can have one large section. The interview is about the interview. My logic is to organize the article and keep each topic separate. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's like this: The New Yorker wasn't by any stretch of the imagination the first party to notice this information. In fact, they didn't know until someone told them. But it did not become a controversy widely discussed in the media all over the world until AFTER The New Yorker published its editor's note. That is why the "revealed" section is not any more than a subsection of The New Yorker section. Risker 07:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the interview is about the interview. The identitiy revealed is about the identitiy revealed. I have made a good faithed effort to organize the article. I really don't understand the point of clutter in the article as in the past. At first, a lot of editors disagreed with me but I have managed to keep it in good shape. A little organization is acceptable. I would like to hear specifically how each sentence in the identity revealed section is about the interview. My logic is when someone has an interview it is an interview. This is a no-brainer. The revealed part is a specific topic and was not an interview. Lets, hopefully, move along (please). :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack I did explain it and now Risker has helpfully done. You can't skive this from the New Yorker article. You can't skive this into a wider attack piece on Essjay or Misplaced Pages (which by the bye would sooner or later throw it straight back to AfD). Essjay might likely still be working for Wikia if he hadn't lied to Schiff. Gwen Gale 08:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus equals pictures must remain

There has been no consensus either way. Therefore, the pictures must be kept in the body of the article. Discussion has continued back and forth for a long time now. This demonstrates there is interest in the images. Further, when arguements for the removal of pictures are not quite remarkable -- this proves the pictures will be stay. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image has NOT reached Consensus...You are jumping the gun there a bit QuackGuru. The Consensus section has exactly three opinions so far: 1. exclude 2. include weak/neutral 3. exclude weak/neutra. With you added (and you didn't even put a post in the consensus section) that makes it an even tie so far. Also, it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. So, four opinions, only three in the consensus section (and who knows how many others spread here and there that hven't been put in the consensus section yet) does NOT make consensus. -- Kavri 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look through the archives you will see many editors have already expressed their interest in keeping the images. I have already posted my thoughts on this before. Look through the archives. How many times do people have to continue to express their interest in keeping the pictures. Several Wikipedians want the images to be in the article. A straw poll is not consensus. Over time, such as looking at the history of the talk you will find many editors want the images. Please take a look and count all the votes if you will. I took a look and was following the image discussion. There already has been many thoughts expressed over a period time. You have not counted all the votes. (Please. No repeats of Presedential Al Gore Florida Debocal. *grin*:) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you clearly do not understand consensus. It is not, repeat NOT a vote. Risker 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At least as many editors have expressed a lack of support for including these images. Gwen Gale 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No consensus, Quack, means that they cannot be added - they are not there now. On top of that, we now have a BLP tag on the article and MUST follow the related policy, particularly the section on non-public persons. Consensus is now not required to keep the photograph of Essjay out of the article. Risker 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The link you directed me to is about bios on living persons. If you believe this is about a living person then the categories for Wikipedians would fit quite well.

If all the people who expressed interest in the images were presented from the archives then we would see all the pictures in the article. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 03:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP overrides people's desires. Risker 03:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's MUD character (or public persona if you like) was known overwhelmingly through online text and even his contact with Schiff was a faceless telephone interview. For this reason, while the photo does have entertainment value its encyclopedic value seems low to me. I'm strongly against the screenshots since they support almost nothing related to the article. For me, the avatar pic is in itself neutral, but I see evidence it's being used in a wider attempt here to wedge the article with extreme PoV. Evidence for the existence of this extreme PoV directly amplifies the sway of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP. In other words, Quack, the more editors like you seem to rally for edits which could turn this article into an attack page, the more elements like this picture stop being inocuous and start being editorial tools of PoV and as such, they stray from WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP. Hence, in this context, I must say I'm against including Essjay's picture in the article. Gwen Gale 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I know consensus is not a 'vote'...but a section was set up, in part because I think its taken some time to even settle if the pic could be used, and then to hash out what people thought on it...I maybe didn't frame it well, and I did mention the other people that hadn't posted to that section yet...but the evidence suggested to me that it was far from the 'this proves the picture will stay' stance. Along with Misplaced Pages is not a NewsMagazine, it is also not the tabloid press...information is gathered, discussed, and weighed...to write the best NPOV article that is able to be written by a group of people...it doesn't HAVE to include everything gathered or brought to light to be a fair, balanced, and informative entry. Please try to work with the group...no one will always have a controversial article exactly the way they, as an individual, wants it ...either for content or format. -- Kavri 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo should remain. The fact that it was uploaded by Essjay is not in doubt. The fact that it was released under GFDL is not in doubt. The fact that he claimed it was a photo of him is not in doubt. The fact that it has been used by the mainstream media is not in doubt. Removing it only dilutes the usefullness/informativeness of this article. It should remain. Johntex\ 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that there was no consensus when the photo was inserted in the middle of a discussion on this page, and was removed because of that. There was no consensus then, and there is no consensus now. I am removing the photo because you are inserting it without consensus. The applicable section of the BLP policy is this: Non-public figures. You can take this to dispute resolution if you wish. Risker 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The first change to an article does not need consensus. If it did, then no article would ever develop. It is reverting the change that requires consensus. You don't own this article. In the absense of a verifiable consensus either way, then neither version is more correct than the other. You can't presume your version is better. Johntex\ 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP has sway here and there are a significant number of editors who see no need for the image. Gwen Gale 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a red herring. There is nothing in BLP that says we can't use the photo. The photo has been used by mainstream media sources already. Johntex\ 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how BLP should be used to keep out a photo that has already appeared in the mainstream media. Johntex\ 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Unless you post it HERE, the talk page, You should NOT be making major content/format changes

Please stop edit waring, put your arguements in the talk page, not in change summaries. Thanx. -- Kavri 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I noticed you did not say anything when another editor made the original change to the quotes.

2) There is a saying around here called be bold.

3) I would like to here what Risker thinks about my edit. Thanks. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru,

I of course didn't post after one or two times, because that isn't a problem necessary, but as it becomes clear from the number of times, and the comments in the summary, that there is disagreement, it should be taken to the talk page. So, your first point is meaningless.

As I mentioned in my reply to your comments on my user page, 'be bold' doesn't mean ignore the fact that something is being bandied about in edits and summaries, and not being talked about in the talk pages. So, your second point is irrelevant.

You are more than welcome to hear what anyone says about your edit, or to comment to others, I'm just trying to be part of a driving force to get more discussion on the talk page, where it belongs, than on edit wars/edit summaries/edit summary wars/etc. As you must have already noticed, another section was made below for discusson on the quote format...why you ignored that to put your comment about wanting Risker to see your edit above, I have no idea, but I've made the titles for the quote format section a bit more noticeable...please take the quote format discusson there. -- Kavri 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Put quotes back to quote block

I've changed the quoteboxes back to <quoteblock>. Unless someone has a format policy that they can quote me/refer me to, I'll change it back everytime I see it. From my understanding of style, the proper form is a quote block. __ Kavri 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE FORMATTING

...as it pertains mostly to quote format, then in the section about putting discussion in the talk section, not edit summaries...ie trying to reduce edit squabbles. -- Kavri 21:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tranfered two comments from two different editors from another section above.

I see you were actually doing this at the same time as I was writing, no problem in the great scheme of things. I don't have a problem with placement of the timeline, though I'm not too fussy on the boxes around the quotes, which have the effect of giving them undue weight. (On the other hand they make for a visual break that may be needed.) Any other perspectives? Risker 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not make myself clear. I believe the timeline box position is better placed at the top right hand side. It looked odd in the middle right hand side of the page. And it was hanging over a quote and moving all the sentences the "Misplaced Pages community" section over to the left. Another editor added the quotations to the article. I agree, it makes for a visual break that is needed. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like other editors to weigh in on this about the different style of quotes. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think proper format should be changed just for 'visual break' purposes, but if that has to be done, I'd much rather see this kind of quote:

“

example

”

Than to see grey boxes. -- Kavri 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS- What other suggestions/ideas are there for more visual content, than to resort to grey boxes? -- Kavri 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point. I would like to see your suggestion in the article.

“

The Visual Look

”

. Can someone put the different quote style in the article so we can all take a peak. Be bold. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the rush to keep changing things in the article is a bit tiring. The whole point of the talk article is to 'talk'...not to talk and then quickly scoot off to make changes. Okay, so you like the example, fine. I personally don't, I think regular blockquote is the appropriate and proper format. However, if it had to be done differently, I'd rather the large quotes than the boxes. There is no need to 'peek' at what it would look like at this time. You have the example of the quotes here.

The whole point of my earlier section was for people to discuss instead of things getting changed a kazillion times and/or edit squabbles/wars. It's not about being 'bold' to change something currently under discussion, especially when it has been stated, that unless you have a 'good' reason for change, then leave it alone. What praytell, is a reason to change to big quotes? Blockquotes are proper format for a larger quote. Please stop urging for things to be changed constantly, unless you have sound reasoning for it. -- Kavri 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic that the one point in this whole article where we have people popping in from out of the blue is to highlight/de-emphasize/rearrange quote sections - format issues versus the actual content. I'm inclined to leave them as they are right now, someone is bound to suddenly appear in the next few hours to do something completely different that none of us have even thought of. Risker 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

...at least its gone down to arguments over format than content *crosses fingers* -- Kavri 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My take: Quote arrangements can alter the PoV and spin of an article. Personally, I loathe those big docking graphical curlycue thingies, they truly bend narratives out of shape. I'm ok with wherever consensus leads on this but I do have strong thoughts about it. Gwen Gale 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've hoped to make clear, I see no need for anything other than a standard blockquote. Gwen if the consensus is for some sort of stand out, would you rather have the grey boxes then? I wasn't sure from your comment, and I was only suggesting the graphical quotes as at least they are still quote marks (as opposed to a big grey box, which I think is inappropriate for the quotes in this article). -- Kavri 02:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend towards hard core plain text with simple paragraphed block quotes if there are more than 3 lines or so. The grey boxes are kind of ok but they still look like Moses on the mount or whatever and can give some readers a misleading hint that the quote has more sway in the wider narrative. Graphics do play an interpretive role and I think words should speak for themselves in a neutral format readers are already familiar with. Gwen Gale 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the boxes aren't very popular. Those grey boxes were put in by a drive-by editor whose edit summary was "ridiculous" - and I didn't catch it until much later. As I say, the only thing to be said for them is that they add visual variation, but I am afraid that the boxes just add too much weight to what is said in those quotes. Risker 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Current guidelines on quotes are here: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Quotations. I personally would follow the Chicago Manual of Style where there is ambiguity. And, for what it's worth, I prefer boxes or nothing to those oversized quotation marks. -- Avi 07:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes, References, Related Links, oh my!

I've changed 'References' to 'Notes' as a title, as that is the proper title (along with 'Footnotes') for a section that has inline citations. Since it's on the interernet, 'Notes' is preferable to 'Footnotes' which refers to the 'Foot' of the page.

I haven't created a 'Reference' section, as there is nothing to put there yet, but it was my thought that some of the spots that have a number of inline citations all in a row for the same piece of information, that the best/strongest could stay, and the others put down into a created 'Reference' section.

I also realized, that there may be some articles in the 'Notes' section, that instead of going into a 'Reference' section, could actually be put in the 'Related Links' section. As it stands now, the only related links are internal ones.

Though this was slightly bold (changed without discussing), I've put my reasoning here, and am more than fine if someone feels it needs to be reverted. Cheers. -- Kavri 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of more related materials and links

Other editors are welcome to perhaps move this to a sub-page or whatever. I've rm'd the blogs, they're generally not citable. Gwen Gale 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been on the talk page before? This bit is getting rather crufty... I'd almost prefer that it was deleted all together. (→Netscott) 05:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok that's two. Anyone else? Gwen Gale 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with its removal, as QuackGuru has already said he has the information, and as well, one could always go back in the history, so it's not like it will be lost. My reply to QuackGuru got bumped by the two of you posting, but was basically to say for him not to get his hopes up that tons of material will suddenly be included. The changing the section name to 'Notes' and mentioning a possible future 'Reference' section and the possible expansion of the 'Related Links' was actually in preparation for paring down the in-line citations, and possibly moving some/all of the ones not used inline, to those two spots. The emphasis, in my intent, was to help in organizing the citations, and possibly in lessening where feasible. -- Kavri 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, pairing down in-line citations in the forseeable future would be a mistake. References are good. More references are better. Johntex\ 05:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Johntex. The only paring down that shoud be occuring is sources that are superceded by more accurate/reliable sources. (→Netscott) 06:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's far too soon to be shedding citations. Gwen Gale 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic options

Sometimes there are various stylistic options that one might wish to propose whether on quotes or other things. It is entirely appropriate to make those changes and then revert yourself and here on the talk page to link to that reverted version to offer an option to be considered. WAS 4.250 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning, that is a nifty idea. I would have never thought of doing that, but it does work well for a large change of text that might set off alarm bells, or for more visual/format edits that are more difficult to describe. Great idea! -- Kavri 06:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just be careful that if a consensus is reached for the older version, that changes are made to the current one, instead of reverting back to the old one, as this article is still extremely fluid and any number of changes could have been made in the interim

. -- Avi 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Identity Revealed - keep but make to a sub header?

I'm fine with 'Identity Revealed' being its own header, but there are others that want it removed completely. Gwen Gale suggested a compromise of making it a sub header. I've made an edit with it this way, and then reverted, so that without changing the current article, people can still take a look at what it would like here. -- Kavri 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, as a reasonable compromise. Risker 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done it then (but if I was too rash pls do as you like). Gwen Gale 08:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference duplication

The Cite.php template allows for multiple in-line citations to link to the same entry using named references. I am seeing a whole bunch of duplicates here. I am paring them down, but it may be a good idea for people who wish to add a reference, to check the Reference list at the bottom of the article to see if the citation already exists, and use THAT reference, instead of duplicating the same entry twice in the list. -- Avi 07:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi for cleaning up behind all of us. I suspect much of that duplication was caused when sentences and paragraphs were being rearranged. Risker 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem; it's a particular part of wikignoming I enjoy--checking, editing, and streamlining the citations, but its even better when the article is editied with that in mind :D. Thanks -- Avi 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Th'art a helper to the lazy! :) Gwen Gale 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

controversy? what controversy?

Is "controversy" really the right name for this article? What is so controversial about this? It should be moved to Essjay scandal, in my humble opinion. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, neutrality was a factor in coming up with the name and Essjay's MUD CV has stirred up all kinds of controversy. Gwen Gale 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. But doesn't the representation of the "affair" as it appeared in published media outlets justify the idenifier "scandal" rather than what we think it may be? Controversial sounds so much like systemic bias. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scandal" sounds like systemic bias to other editors (I'm neutral). What's in a name? A MUD CV by any other name is as mucky :) Gwen Gale 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, it seems the media has also latched on to this description Misplaced Pages founder speaks on the Essjay controversy and ITWire article Risker 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder which order that came in? Is the media using the name due to this article, or the other way around? --tjstrf talk 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's likely. Lots of folks mope about WP but keep using it endlessly. Gwen Gale 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember something similar coming up on the village pump once, where a neologism some columnist made up was written about in Misplaced Pages, and subsequently gained enough notability to survive under policy based on later mentions derived from the Misplaced Pages article. In other words, a case where an article existed whose factual lead would have to read, "X is a term coined by RandomMagazineGuy and popularized by the Misplaced Pages page you are presently reading." A good reminder of why we aren't a publisher of original thought: compellingly written original thought on a high profile website such as this can become attributable through mere circular referencing, then come back and bite us later when it turns out to have been ludicrously wrong and someone traces it back to us. Which is why we need to be so anal about sourcing everything on this page rather than simply citing the primary sources and using our own eyewitness perspective of the events, writing history in the process. --tjstrf talk 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, nevermind. I just had to get it off of my mind. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we *can* use Misplaced Pages to write articles about the *history of Misplaced Pages*, of which this article is an example. Articles about events within Misplaced Pages can be sourced to historical pages within Misplaced Pages, but not to main articles, since these can change. That's my position on the matter. The New York Times, can use it's own archives on itself, to write about itself, and so can we. Wjhonson 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation and Honesty" per the Arbitration Committee

So doing my own research on the Essjay thing I found this interesting tidbit from 2005 -- it seems Essjay started an arbcom proceeding against someone named User:Rainbowwarrior1977 and had him banned from wikipedia, one of the charges being that he claimed he had a law degree. Check out the opinion here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977, esp. the "Misrepresentation/honesty" subsection. So is that binding precedent for everyone else? If so, then the arbcom or Mr. Wales erred when initially overlooking Essjay's misrepresentations. Hallibrah 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom does not make policy. WAS 4.250 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Arbcom deals with behaviour. Gwen Gale 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean their decisions in one case are not binding to others in similar circumstances? Hallibrah 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no ArbComm case against Essjay, who is now a retired Wikipedian and has no special privileges. None of that has anything to do with this article, which is about the controversy that arose when a specific editor/admin (etc) was found to have claimed credentials he did not hold. I suggest if you wish to pursue this further, you go to WP:CN or another forum. Risker 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Given I agree with Risker's take above...) Mind, I can't speak for arbcom but yeah, they do say they're not a court and I've never heard of an arbcom decision being cited as a precedent in any reliable sense. Think of it this way, the community (with Jimmy Wales' ultimate permission, guidance or whatever) makes policy. Arbcom scolds editors who have taken WP:BOLD way too far too many times. Lastly, Wales in his management and public roles simply isn't under the same rules (observation, not criticism). Whatever he said about Essjay, whatever mistakes he made, whatever helpful things he may have done, have aught to do with editing the wiki under WP policy. Gwen Gale 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See also: ex cathedra. Regarding the Arbitration Committee, it could be said that they are effectively the constructors of policy within very specific areas such as de-adminship and formal banning. Arbcom doesn't write policy, but it is the sole body of enactment for certain rules so its actions (or trends therein) are those policies. (This is aside from the fact that since our arbitrators are all highly respected members in their own rights they can exert quite a bit of personal influence as normal policy page editors.) --tjstrf talk 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But don't they decide or at least more specifically define what the rules are? Like when they said "misrepresentation of qualifications is unacceptable" back in 2005, there was NO policy regarding that at all. If they didn't mean their statement to be binding, why even bother specifically ruling on it? Hallibrah 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

- You have good questions, Hallibrah, but this probably isn't the best place to get them answered; as far as I know, none of the people regularly editing this article are members of ArbComm. You might want to try the talk page for the Arbitration policy, where members of ArbComm are more likely to see your questions and respond with more accuracy than any of us could. I hope this is helpful. Risker 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll move this thread to WP:ANI for now, thanks, Risker! Hallibrah 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Detailing, Organizing, And Moving Forward"

1) I noticed the wikinews boxes are in need of serious repair.

2) The Essjay's letter to the professor is gone because of the continuous rearrangment of sentences.

3) The Justin Timberlake tidbit is worth mentioning in the article which was identified in a previous discussion on this talk page.

4) The New York Times link does not link to the article. I will use a link to the direct article piece.

5) I believe the Notes title should be changed back to the References title because they are references. I do not understand the title change.

6) I will update the related links section and add an article and put the wiki boxes there.

7) The response by Stacy to the interview is not mentioned. It may be worth mentioning.

8) The lead sentence is missing the "L" word which is backed up by three solid references.

9) The See also section was modified and shortened which is below par at the present time.

10) I do believe more detail is needed in a few areas of the article for completeness, accuracy, and above all else neutrality.

11) At the top of the Reaction's section I still believe an introduction sentence is a good idea.

12) I would like fresh eyes to view the Identitiy revealed section to determine if a separate section is better or the bolder sub-factored section is better.

13) There is still ongoing discussion about a particular image for the article.

Let the talks begin. Regards, :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not arguments- they are statements. You need to persuade other editors that these changes are necessary. WjBscribe 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's review, Quack.

Those Wikinews boxes were modified by a very experienced editor who does a lot of those sorts of modifications. I understand that is something done when possible, and there is probably a complicated technical reason that I don't know about. They did not change the quality or content of the article, and improved the use of space in that area of the article.
Not sure where the "letter" stuff went, but it is unclear to me right now exactly where it would fit in the article. I am neutral on adding it, but it would have to be carefully placed so that it is in the proper context.
Yes, Essjay edited the Timberlake article. They were vandalism reverts. Do you really want to raise the ire of the entire RC Patrol by adding that?
I see what you mean about the NYT article(s). It is not a "free" website. We may need to re-source those statements, which is better than a WebCite.
I understand that the thinking of using the term "notes" was to permit inclusion of other news stories that weren't being used directly as references. I am neutral on the idea, either way.
What were you planning to put in "Related links" - and why move the Wikinews boxes?
Andrew Lih's blog is, well... a blog. Blogs are generally not considered WP:RS. Stacy Schiff has never publicly come out and said that to any other source that anyone has brought here, including The New Yorker, where one would expect it to appear.
The sentence where you want to include the words "and lied" currently says "made false claims." Exactly what difference to you see in those two expressions? They mean the same thing, and there are sources for the current expression too. We cannot have both in the sentence; that is grammatically unsound.
The "See Also" section was not shortened, it looked smaller because of the combination of the two Wikinews boxes.
Yes, the article may continue to need tweaking for some time to come, particularly if and when a new "credentials" policy is approved and reported in the media. But given the level of interest and the degree of contentiousness of this article, each addition should be talked through now. The article is not a stub, and there is no essential information missing.
Why don't you write an introduction to the "Reaction" section and propose it here on the talk page? I think you might have a point here, but again careful wordcrafting is important.
Several different editors have been through this article in the last two days, including some who haven't done significant edits for at least the last several days. None of them have felt the need to change the "Identity revealed" (note spelling of "identity") to the level of a full header.
There are serious BLP issues in adding the photo. The other images that have been bandied about, the user page screenshots, clearly are not of benefit to the article as they do not reflect the information discussed in the article.

I suggest that we just take any changes very slowly and with thought and discussion beforehand. The article will never be "finished," but right now it is relatively stable. One step at a time. Risker 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I've checked out that different NYT link that you picked up on, which is for A Contributor to Misplaced Pages Has His Fictional Side (reference #19), and this seems to be a live link. If you can get it into the cite.php format (I admit to being technologically challenged), I think it would be good to insert it in place of the link that is there now for this article; the current link takes one to a screen that requires registration to access. Perhaps you can also find a similar link for reference #6, the other NYT article used as a reference? That would be excellent. I don't foresee any controversy in providing live links to the actual articles in place of the existing restricted ones. Risker 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

13) The image clearly should be added back. There is no valid BLP-related reason not to use the photo. Most biographies here do have photos when a freely-licensed photo is available (as is the case here). The photo has already been used by mainstream media so there is no BLP issue at all. Johntex\ 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

13) The image adds nothing, especially not in the gallery formatting Quack has curiosly insisted upon (on his user talk page, among other places, he has adamantly stated that the image "MUST" go in a gallery section). This is not an article about Ryan Jordan, so why add a photo of some guy alleged to be Ryan Jordan? If Essjay had uploaded a photo of some scholarly looking middle aged tenurial type then an argument of relevance could indeed be made, but it's not. So no compelling argument for inclusion exists. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

13) I disagree. This article is about the Essjay controversy. That controversy began around the question of who Essjay is and claimed to be. Essjay has claimed to be the person in the photo. The question of where it should go should not interfere with our adding it to the article. I have always maintained it should be in the section related to Wikia since that is the time-frame when it was uploaded. Johntex\ 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, I think the challenge with the photographic image actually revolves around determining what this article - and ultimately the story - is about. There are those who feel that this story is about one person who rode roughshod over Misplaced Pages using false credentials. But what the media reports tell us is that the story is the perception that there are no checks and balances to ensure that people do not fabricate entire personas and essentially "role-play" when editing Misplaced Pages. Essjay did not break a single Misplaced Pages policy by pretending to be someone he wasn't. A few hours of hard digging would probably turn up several more people with questionable credentials (like the "loyer" whose userpage I looked at the other day) - Essjay's persona is not unique. So...if the perception of independent reliable sources is that the controversy centers on the lack of a Misplaced Pages credentialling verification process - that is what the controversy is about. While there are lots of other controversies within Misplaced Pages about this whole situation, including that information is nothing short of navel-gazing without reliable external sources. Essjay and his actions are simply the "hook" in the story, he isn't the subject of it. Misplaced Pages is. Sticking a picture of the one guy who's been publicly outed doesn't help the story; would we start adding any available images of other Wikipedians when their "fake" credentials are discovered? Now, if you were to suggest an image of one of the Misplaced Pages symbols, I wouldn't have any problem with it. Risker 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia history template

When did this get pulled out? - Denny 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack pulled it out with his little edit blitz, I am afraid. I would be happy to see it back in, if you are so inclined. Risker 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=116421910&oldid=116421377 I already put it back in way before both of you commented here. I was pasting and moving the links and see also section. As soon as I realized it was out I put it back in. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Simplification

I replaced "made false claims" with "lied". This is functionaly and morally equivalent yet it is a simpler sentence structure. We should chose the more straight-forward structure for ease of comprehension. Johntex\ 08:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, "lied" is a heavily loaded term and makes a strong moral judgment that "made false claims" does not. I would similarly disagree with saying he "posted inaccurate statements" for the same reason in the other direction as it would be white-washing him. Please see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. --tjstrf talk 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I stongly oppose this change. Simplification is not as important as remaining neutral. The word 'lied' is loaded and has connotations of disaproval. News sources can express themselves that strongly but Misplaced Pages needs to include balanced content. WjBscribe 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The word lied is not helpful. One must also remember the context of Essjay's misrepresentation: It began as a MUD avatar with a CV to go with it (not cool but rather wonted on Misplaced Pages back in the day, maybe still) and he got a bit trapped. WMF breezily gave Schiff his phone number and he made a so very weak judgement call in confirming the MUD CV but as these things go, since neither WMF nor Schiff did their own due diligence, almost egging him on, it's not fitting to use the verb "lie" with all the hints and baggage that word carries. Gwen Gale 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree... let's make absolutely sure everything has every impression of NPOV here. - Denny 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How that letter of his to a professor claiming wikipedia has credibility because Ph.D.s like him are involved can be seen as anything but an outrageous lie and contemptable fraud is quite beyond me. WAS 4.250 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion. Others disagree. That's why we have a policy requiring us stick to neutral writing in the first place... WjBscribe 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

outrageous lie and contemptable fraud? First, this is wanton editorialization of the supported facts, which is deprecated by WP policy. Second, aside from straying from WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it smacks of WP:OR. I'd like to see a single citation from an independent source using those strong, sweeping adjectives. Gwen Gale 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We should use the same label that the reliable sources uses, and nothing else. _InBC 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a dangerous approach to take. Imagine applying the same approach in biographies about celebrities who get a lot of media attention. Reliable sources often express themselves strongly- more strongly than Misplaced Pages can. We are not required to use the same phrasing as our sources and indeed that can be a bad idea where the source is making editorial comment as well as reporting fact. WjBscribe 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that, we should limit ourselves to labels that can be attributed to a reliable source. _InBC 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability helpfully explain the use and weighting of sources. Gwen Gale 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC: You'll notice that we do that in the article already, attributing the statements such as "plain and simple fraud" to be the opinions of specific critics. --tjstrf talk 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Integrity

Thank God I've been using my real name . . .

I've also tried carefully not to inflate my level of professional expertise or accomplishments, but I have occasionally called myself "highly skilled" or "one the best" at software development. But I hope I never claimed a higher title than I was given: I "led a project" once but my title then was "senior programmer/analysit", not "project manager".

And I'm a ten-time college dropout. I don't think I'll ever get that sheepskin. :-(

But let's not be too hard on EssJay. While his deception is not justified by his accomplishments, it still may be evaluated in light of them.

It's just a shame that people (not just him!) feel that the only way to get a voice in this world is to stake a claim. Would that we would all simply respect each other and listen to each other as human beings. --Uncle Ed 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My real name is not "Uncle Ed" of course but "Ed Poor". --User:Ed Poor 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

EssJay's archived user page

This link might be useful I got a better idea what this story was about by reading EssJay's self-description. I'm not sure it should be in the article or where it would fit. 194.125.86.152 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the one we've been looking for. If only I knew how to take a screen shot.... -- Kendrick7 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no it isn't. We would need to have the one that was on display when Stacy Schiff was researching for the article; we don't know the timeframe. This one is obviously much earlier, because it refers to the Arbcomm elections of January 2006. I cannot imagine Essjay leaving that on his user page for six months. Risker 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the focus of the article seems to have changed beyond just his lying in the interview since we last discussed this issue. The lead now introduces his lying on his user page itself as a main component of the scandal. This seems to be the best example we have of this so far, since it includes the complete credentials. -- Kendrick7 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)