This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am restoring Image:Essjay.jpg, as it was uploaded under GFDL and illustrates the subject of an article. I do not intend to take part in the discussion for or against deletion of this article; but unless/until the article is deleted, I see no reason to delete the image. -- Infrogmation 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it original research to say that this image illustrates the subject of the article? -- Random832 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll offer a dissenting view. For some people, such as major political leaders, photographs in their articles are essential. For others, it's useful but not essential; and for marginal figures, a photograph is completely beside the point. I think the photograph of Essjay is problematic because (1) even though he uploaded it, we can't "verify" that it's really him; and (2) his role on Wikipedia, and the scandal that led to his departure, are completely unrelated to his real-life appearance. Since the photograph's positive usefulness is null, I think it should be deleted in deference to BLP (i.e., he shouldn't have to suffer real-life embarrassment for his Wikipedia miscues, and a photo might cause him some trouble). I make this lengthy argument because I'm afraid that the article won't be deleted (which is my preferred outcome). YechielMan 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't wanna be mean or anything, but has anyone else noticed that in the shadowy low contrast lighting, his T-shirt collar looks kinda like a clerical collar? Gwen Gale 11:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We continue to use the adjusted self-uploaded image Image:Alanmcilwraith.jpg despite doubts about other information from the individual concerned. -- Henrygb 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay's rationale for his bogus CV was to protect himself from stalking. But he uploads a picture that he claims is a self-portriat. Doesn't this raise any questions for anybody? If it does, then the picture is highly relevant and suitable for inclusion in this article. — M ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Does this work? — MichaelLinnear 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In case no one noticed, I added a link to a New York Times article. We've hit the big time. Uh-oh...-- Jayzel 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[1] It's not working! Milto LOL pia 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears some admin took it upon themselves to send an entire section and its history down the memory hole. -- Jayzel 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
El C has said he doesn't care if someone relists it, let's just do it and unprotect. Milto LOL pia 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think a non-discussed move in the middle of an already messy situation might not have been the best idea?-- RWR8189 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of us expected this and archived some things with webcitation.org:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.177.66 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 March 2007
Those were all part of Wikipedia's meta-content, and as such, at best, might be considered primary sources not secondary sources, as required of all articles. They would not be appropriate to base an article's contents on, even if they still "existed". -- Leflyman Talk 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The following should be included in the "further reading" section of this article:
It is completely normal in many articles I have read on Wikipedia to include links to primary material on the article.
72.153.177.66 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way, the whole article must be supported by statements and other material published by outside secondary sources, no self-reference. It's a pain when dealing with WP subjects but it also works as a kind of safety against excessive "naval gazing" or whatever on WP based topics. Gwen Gale 08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I see someone's tagged a "primary sources" section onto the bottom of the article space. I'm ok with that I guess, given all the out of process efforts made to erase it. Gwen Gale 08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway the images are not appropriate for the body of the article text but I've no wish to edit war about it. I suggest they at least be moved down to the primary sources section. Gwen Gale 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As there is an increasing amount of coverage pointing in this direction, it would be a good idea to clean up any article that this one links to. For example, 24 Hours, Radar (magazine), The Chronicle of Higher Education, and The Register all need either infoboxes or general improvement; The Independent and Andrew Orlowski also have some red links that could be hunted down or we could put a stub behind them. Ideally, dont tag the articles as the tags are monstrosities only fit for editors to see; instead, make these article stunning! John Vandenberg 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
New media outlets publishing articles on the topic; The Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal has possibly new information. Also GOOGLE news search result sorted by date. Anchoress 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC News article. – Chacor 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm Munta 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an actual source for "birthplace=United States" or is this an assumption based on his apparent location and background? Gwen Gale 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Continuing in this vein, his birthday is written as 1982/83. While reliable sources have said he is 24, the fact remains we don't know when he was born. Saying he was born in 1982/83, is essentially saying we don't know... should information we're unsure of be in the article? AniMate 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is terrible. Can somepone fix this and remove the clean-up tag please, SqueakBox 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a great idea for a new article which parts of this article may be applied. Please start a new article titled Criticism of Wikipedians and I will meet you at the stub. -- QuackGuru 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is locked, so I can't edit it. Please could someone correct the heading "New Yorker Interview" to "New Yorker interview"? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.186.50 ( talk) 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
The name at the start of this section is given as Jordan: while accepting that there's evidence that's his name, to me it reads better to have Essjay at the start as the name the interview was given under, followed by the revelation of Jordan's name in the later correction to the article. Fits better with the name of this article, too. Any comment? .. dave souza, talk 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not that Wikipedia — as in the site AND the admin levels AND every volunteer editor — doesn't benefit from an occasional kick in the nads for arrogance. I've been an editor (as in "paying the mortgage with the paychecks") and have seen firsthand where
fact-checking fails. But seeing as the Essjay thing is a decade past, shouldn't this article be more than "Wikipedia sucks" and "here's another source saying that Wikipedia sucks"? WP is a great example of the strengths and the weaknesses of the
crowdsourcing of supposed
common sense and it'd be great if that were laid out AT ALL here.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am restoring Image:Essjay.jpg, as it was uploaded under GFDL and illustrates the subject of an article. I do not intend to take part in the discussion for or against deletion of this article; but unless/until the article is deleted, I see no reason to delete the image. -- Infrogmation 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it original research to say that this image illustrates the subject of the article? -- Random832 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll offer a dissenting view. For some people, such as major political leaders, photographs in their articles are essential. For others, it's useful but not essential; and for marginal figures, a photograph is completely beside the point. I think the photograph of Essjay is problematic because (1) even though he uploaded it, we can't "verify" that it's really him; and (2) his role on Wikipedia, and the scandal that led to his departure, are completely unrelated to his real-life appearance. Since the photograph's positive usefulness is null, I think it should be deleted in deference to BLP (i.e., he shouldn't have to suffer real-life embarrassment for his Wikipedia miscues, and a photo might cause him some trouble). I make this lengthy argument because I'm afraid that the article won't be deleted (which is my preferred outcome). YechielMan 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't wanna be mean or anything, but has anyone else noticed that in the shadowy low contrast lighting, his T-shirt collar looks kinda like a clerical collar? Gwen Gale 11:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We continue to use the adjusted self-uploaded image Image:Alanmcilwraith.jpg despite doubts about other information from the individual concerned. -- Henrygb 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay's rationale for his bogus CV was to protect himself from stalking. But he uploads a picture that he claims is a self-portriat. Doesn't this raise any questions for anybody? If it does, then the picture is highly relevant and suitable for inclusion in this article. — M ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Does this work? — MichaelLinnear 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In case no one noticed, I added a link to a New York Times article. We've hit the big time. Uh-oh...-- Jayzel 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[1] It's not working! Milto LOL pia 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears some admin took it upon themselves to send an entire section and its history down the memory hole. -- Jayzel 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
El C has said he doesn't care if someone relists it, let's just do it and unprotect. Milto LOL pia 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think a non-discussed move in the middle of an already messy situation might not have been the best idea?-- RWR8189 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of us expected this and archived some things with webcitation.org:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.177.66 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 March 2007
Those were all part of Wikipedia's meta-content, and as such, at best, might be considered primary sources not secondary sources, as required of all articles. They would not be appropriate to base an article's contents on, even if they still "existed". -- Leflyman Talk 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The following should be included in the "further reading" section of this article:
It is completely normal in many articles I have read on Wikipedia to include links to primary material on the article.
72.153.177.66 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way, the whole article must be supported by statements and other material published by outside secondary sources, no self-reference. It's a pain when dealing with WP subjects but it also works as a kind of safety against excessive "naval gazing" or whatever on WP based topics. Gwen Gale 08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I see someone's tagged a "primary sources" section onto the bottom of the article space. I'm ok with that I guess, given all the out of process efforts made to erase it. Gwen Gale 08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway the images are not appropriate for the body of the article text but I've no wish to edit war about it. I suggest they at least be moved down to the primary sources section. Gwen Gale 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As there is an increasing amount of coverage pointing in this direction, it would be a good idea to clean up any article that this one links to. For example, 24 Hours, Radar (magazine), The Chronicle of Higher Education, and The Register all need either infoboxes or general improvement; The Independent and Andrew Orlowski also have some red links that could be hunted down or we could put a stub behind them. Ideally, dont tag the articles as the tags are monstrosities only fit for editors to see; instead, make these article stunning! John Vandenberg 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
New media outlets publishing articles on the topic; The Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal has possibly new information. Also GOOGLE news search result sorted by date. Anchoress 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC News article. – Chacor 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm Munta 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an actual source for "birthplace=United States" or is this an assumption based on his apparent location and background? Gwen Gale 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Continuing in this vein, his birthday is written as 1982/83. While reliable sources have said he is 24, the fact remains we don't know when he was born. Saying he was born in 1982/83, is essentially saying we don't know... should information we're unsure of be in the article? AniMate 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is terrible. Can somepone fix this and remove the clean-up tag please, SqueakBox 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a great idea for a new article which parts of this article may be applied. Please start a new article titled Criticism of Wikipedians and I will meet you at the stub. -- QuackGuru 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is locked, so I can't edit it. Please could someone correct the heading "New Yorker Interview" to "New Yorker interview"? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.186.50 ( talk) 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
The name at the start of this section is given as Jordan: while accepting that there's evidence that's his name, to me it reads better to have Essjay at the start as the name the interview was given under, followed by the revelation of Jordan's name in the later correction to the article. Fits better with the name of this article, too. Any comment? .. dave souza, talk 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not that Wikipedia — as in the site AND the admin levels AND every volunteer editor — doesn't benefit from an occasional kick in the nads for arrogance. I've been an editor (as in "paying the mortgage with the paychecks") and have seen firsthand where
fact-checking fails. But seeing as the Essjay thing is a decade past, shouldn't this article be more than "Wikipedia sucks" and "here's another source saying that Wikipedia sucks"? WP is a great example of the strengths and the weaknesses of the
crowdsourcing of supposed
common sense and it'd be great if that were laid out AT ALL here.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)