Talk:Essjay controversy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 30 March 2007 (→"a" Misplaced Pages founder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:53, 30 March 2007 by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) (→"a" Misplaced Pages founder)(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 policy on biographies of living persons (biographical material on a living person). Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Speedy keep, 12 March 2007, see discussion.
Speedy close, 8 March 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, Keep due to dramatic article changes, 2 March 2007, see discussion.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Reverted "Effect on donations" section

I agree entirely with the reversion of the "Effect on donations" section. The section and its accompanying graph were misleading in the extreme, because the first part of 2007 prior to the Essjay controversy was purposely omitted. The complete graph of daily contributions for the first 81 days of 2007 through March 22 clearly indicates that the Essjay controversy had little if any effect on donations. The overwhelming trend is downward for the entire year, as the last fundraiser ended and the usual pattern of small daily donations (with occasional random upturns) took over. The Essjay controversy, which erupted about day 60, didn't alter the trend at all. Casey Abell 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too concur. Not only was the information incomplete - it should also have had comparative values for the prior year, as was pointed out when that graph was discussed on another website - it is a definitive example of WP:SYN. Risker 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is another version which may better demonstrate the diminishing donations effects prior to the Essjay incident.

-- Avi 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the original image for deletion. (→Netscott) 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This stuff is OR and looks useless. For it to have any value even on a talk page there has to be some hypothesis testing, not just pretty graphs. It just doesn't belong here. 64.160.39.153 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It's not eligible for the article, it just shows graphically that the Essjay incident really had no effect and that the drop-off in donations was a trend that was in existence since at least 1/1/07. -- Avi 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't show anything about anything. The linear fit, for example, suggests that donations will cross zero soon and Misplaced Pages will start sending money out to donors instead of the other way around. 64.160.39.153 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I show a log fit, since linear does not make sense when there exists a pre-determined asymptote, namely 0

People like to see straight lines, and understand the concept of linear trend better. Also, it still shows the net downward trend beginning way back. Perhpas I'll try and aggregate some 2006 data and see if the pattern extended further back. -- Avi 11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that it "shows nothing" is significant in that it shows there was no effect. A blank photograph when you were looking to find something does have significance. --tjstrf talk 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, what caused the small increase in donations around day 40? Does that coincide with the time that Board person announced Misplaced Pages would shut down in four months if it didn't get more donations? – Qxz 10:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I was wondering about that small uptick myself. It does seem to coincide with Florence's doom-and-gloom in early February, which would have been right around day 40. The reverted section tried to link the small uptick to Essjay's appointment to ArbCom, which I thought was ridiculous. A reaction by donors to Florence's comments looks like a much more likely explanation. At any rate, the Essjay hullabaloo doesn't appear to have affected the overall trend in donations in any way. Casey Abell 12:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And to make any claim that it does or doesn't is original research unless one of us gets this published in a reliable source; I'm not holding my breath

. -- Avi 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting, but unless such information is presented by a reliable source we cannot use it, even then we should only use their interpretation of the information. What we have here is known as a novel synthesis of information from multiple sources to put forth a new idea(one source says controversy happened on X days, another source shows donations over that time, new idea: The effect on donations from this scandal was Y). _InBC 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As Avi already noted, nobody's suggesting we use the information in the article. These comments and graphs are only presented to justify the reversion of the unreliable and misleading "Effects on donations" section, which attempted to show a link between the Essjay rumpus and contributions to Misplaced Pages. Casey Abell 12:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, "My OR refutes your OR"? I wonder what policy says about using that as a removal reason? --tjstrf talk 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, more like "OR is OR and does not belong. But while we're on the topic of OR, let's use a little common sense here in talk pages" or something like that :) The initial reversion is justified as OR, and needs no further support. -- Avi 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

missing threads / archiving time

It might be time for turning off the archive bot as things have slowed down. Also, a number of threads from the last few days have disappeared . -- Kendrick7 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for saying that Kendrick - I remembered this thread clearly but could not find it earlier. I understand there may be some sort of server problem? I also could not get the history for the article for any edits after March 11th earlier today; it seems fine now. Risker 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two issues here. Page histories can be a little eratic at the moment- seems to be a fault with the mediawiki servers. Also, at the moment all threads older than 48 hours are archived. If there is a concensus here for a different timeframe a request can be made at User talk:Misza13. WjBscribe 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've extended the archival delay to 5 days given comments. Lets see how that works.... WjBscribe 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Another article discussing Essjay, out today. - Denny 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an article discussing Misplaced Pages vandalism and its control. There is one sentence about Essjay in it. There is also one sentence about Steve Irwin. About half of the story consists of an interview with admin Theresa Knott, discussing how she and other Wikipedians fight vandalism. It is an interesting article, however. Risker 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Restarted peer review

I restarted the peer review and added it to the Community Portal. People have made comments here, which you may wish to read. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed some basic formatting issues that need correcting, but beyond that, can anyone consider any compelling reason why we should not nominate for FA? The edit wars have died down, every sentence is referenced, and there is little press coverage any more we need to keep an eye out for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe start with GA? - Denny 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

...Why? If it's good enough for GA, we may as well put the little effort in to reach FA, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the peer review is favourable, then I agree with trying for FA. If it fails FA we can always fall back on GA. --tjstrf talk 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points, nevermind me. :) - Denny 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... Essjay controversy is not going to become a mainpage featured article, for obvious reasons that I truly hope I don't need to adumbrate here. It was considered inappropriate a couple of weeks ago even as a "Did You Know" item. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can it have FA status bestowed by the community while not being on the front page (hypothetically)? - Denny 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but there's no reason it can;t be featured, is there? I like to think that the lack of feedback on the peer review indicates there's not a lot to say. :) Shall we get someone from the League in to copyedit, I'll fix the formatting I referred to, and then go for it? I think everyone here has done a fantastic amount of work on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles can be Featured, but never be on the main page. Prodego 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul says he keeps a list of FAs that he will never put on the front page, which seems justified. It would be incredibly narcissistic to put up Misplaced Pages for example, when it eventually passes again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though it will never make front-page this will still be a rather momentous occasion seeing as it has not only been built at max-level citations from the ground up, but hammered out between a coalition of meta-editors and trolls. --tjstrf talk 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... remind me again why this is a good thing? Newyorkbrad 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Because most FAs are written by one or two people and this article has truly demonstrated the power of crowds that Misplaced Pages was created for? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would help discount the opinions of the WP:1FA-type people who think Misplaced Pages space editors aren't capable of writing good content so they just sit around and argue all day instead. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Essjay Letter Confirmation

Cbrown1023 deleted the letter on March 4, 2007, providing the following reason(s): "Essjay's Request"

Identity revealed

At some point, Essjay sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials, vouching for Misplaced Pages's accuracy. In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Misplaced Pages."

Cite error: The named reference Blog Insights: Misplaced Pages's great fraud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

1) References #7 in the article > ^ a b c d e Finkelstein, Seth (March 8, 2007). Read me first. Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

2) Reference #27 in the article > ^ a b Blacharski, Dan (March 6, 2007). Blog Insights: Misplaced Pages's great fraud. ITworld. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

Foremost, I have provided evidence that the letter did exist. Further, many Wikipedians within the community have actually read the letter. Even Essjay said in his own words it was a letter. Therefore, the references are verifiable. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are any of those references external to Misplaced Pages itself? By which I do not mean you rehosting it somewhere else either. If not, then it's not a notable occurrence. --tjstrf talk 08:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html

http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/nlsblog070306/

Here are the external references. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The ITworld reference quotes the Guardian reference; that really tangles things up quite a bit. I am not convinced this needs to be there, particularly the selected quote. Given the large number of published sources that reported the controversy, and the fact only two referred to this particular issue (and one of them was quoting the other), I am hard pressed to see how adding this isn't giving the "letter" undue weight. Risker 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The letter was sent to a real world professor, vouching for Misplaced Pages accuracy using the false credentials. The usage of the false credentials is a major part of what this article is about. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to the "undue weight" concern, Quack. Two sources out of hundreds of published sources - one quoting the other. More sources referred to any number of other things (number of edits, which articles were edited, etc) than this "letter." Risker 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is a straw man here, I think. The letter is sourced and extremely relevant to the controvery at hand. What does counting of sources have to do with its relevance? —Doug Bell 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no undue weight concern. The letter is part of the events of the online persona and the false credentials. The letter was sent to vouch for the accuracy of Misplaced Pages using false credentials. "A central issue." :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I do understand your perspective, Doug - clearly I am having difficulty expressing my concern. The article is about the external reaction to the discovery of the false credentials. We have to go with what our external sources think are the issues of concern. The letter is a much bigger deal internal to Misplaced Pages than it was externally - and justifiably so. But dozens of respected reliable sources didn't feel it was important enough to even mention in passing. In particular, none of the articles in which academics are interviewed mention this letter - the exact place where one would expect to find a reference to it. Risker 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with one of your assertions. The article is about the controversy, not the external reaction to it. The external reaction may be what makes it notable, but the purpose of the article is to present a neutral description of the events. The letter is sourced and is centrally relevant. It deserves mention in the article. It does not deserve undue weight in the article, but it should be there. —Doug Bell 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. I will add the letter tidbit. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New screenshot of User:Essjay available

This one shows the entirety of the academic claims discussed in the article. The image is at Image:User-Essjay.png. -- Kendrick7 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...I think that would be workable. - Denny 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It is usable. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No no no. It is from six months before the article was published, and we cannot tell how many times it was modified in between. We have no evidence that this is the user page the journalist referenced when writing the article. It also is a low quality image; nothing can be seen unless people click on the image and then know how to work through the wiki-world to actually view the image in a legible format. It is also a primary source, when we have already fully included the information from secondary sources. The image adds nothing to the article, and moves it back to being an article about Essjay rather than the controversy. Remember that the controversy we are reporting is how the world outside of Misplaced Pages reacted and observed things. When the controversy arose, this was not the user page on display, either. Incidentally, it is not a "new" screenshot, it was removed from the article three weeks ago for these very reasons. Risker 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is the user page of Essjay. Enough said. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt it is a screenshot of his user page on one particular day. You have not responded to my points, Quack. There are at least four different screenshots of his user page around that I have seen; each one is different. None of them are contemporaneous to the article. That still doesn't answer any of my points, which are:

No evidence this was seen by the journalist
Poor quality image that is very user-unfriendly
Primary source, when relevant information already covered in the article from reliable secondary sources
Changes focus of article from the controversy to Essjay personally

As soon as this article reverts back to what it was in the days following the start of the controversy - that is, an article about the actions of one specific individual - we are back at AfD and quite rightly the article is no longer viable. Quack, please stop trying to insert personal information about Essjay into this article. Risker 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as currently scoped says, in the first sentence, that the controversy is about the lies he told on his User page. These are them. -- Kendrick7 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker's claims are ridiculous. He is just trying to keep stuff out he does not like. Remember these:

Edit in which Essjay claims to a user that he had a PhD and students under his charge - archive at WebCite.
Essjay's apology - archive at WebCite.
Letter by Essjay to an academic in which he falsely claims academic credentials and accomplishments. - archive at WebCite.
User:Essjay/History1 - archive at Google cache. Additional archive at WebCite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C.m.jones (talk • contribs).

I've compromised the issue in the same way that Criticism of Misplaced Pages handled Essjay's deleted user page. I have footnoted the Internet Archive version of the user page, to show the actual claim of the false credentials. I hate to add more footnotes to the article, but I'd like to settle this controversy. Casey Abell 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also added a link to Essjay's archived Wikia user page of 1-1-07, alongside the Martyn Williams footnote about how Essjay "came clean." Otherwise, the reference might be somewhat unclear. If we keep this stuff in footnotes, I think we can compromise the controversy about including the material while still informing the reader completely. Casey Abell 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

this footnote was just added. Shouldn't we web citation it in case someone at Wikia inappropriately removes it? - Denny 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I added the footnote to show how Essjay identified himself as Ryan Jordan. This Wikia user template been blocked from The Internet Archive but is available directly (go figure). I misspoke slightly above - Essjay's actual Wikia user page with the (supposedly) correct information on his background has been deep-sixed and protected from web crawlers. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Casey Abell 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a copy of it on Misplaced Pages Watch, but there's no way I'm going to footnote that. Casey Abell 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect for deletion

Folks who've been editing on this article should be aware of this redirects for deletion discussion. (→Netscott) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"a" Misplaced Pages founder

It was already discussed at length on the talk page here. I was going with consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 Here was the compromise discussed at length on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=119150768&oldid=119148917 Here is a controversial edit along with the controversial edit summary. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack... what the fuck is wrong with you? No, really, what the fuck is wrong with you? Pull your head out of your ass and stop making everything a damn problem. (and to everyone who wants to yell WP:CIVIL at me, shut up, it had to be said). I am surprised at how patient everyone has been with you, Quack, but don't you be surprised when other people start breaking down like I just did. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: