![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
Some of the many media articles and blog entries are propagating misinformation and misleading info; I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Firstly, several outlets are mentioning that Essjay has had his 'editor privileges cancelled' - has he actually been blocked? I had thought not. And secondly, a recent article in the Telegraph has made Arbcom sound like an editorial board. Other news outlets have made the same implication. Anchoress 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ignore those little technical errors, they're part of the news business. Every news story has them. Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between quoting a news article and making an assertion. If you quote a news article, you should quote it verbatim and should not correct the text of the quote. However, it is reasonable to correct the mistake by stating the truth without a citation as long as no one challenges your assertions.
For example, I think it is reasonable to say "Although some media reports indicated that Essjay had his editor privileges cancelled, a more accurate characterization would be that he gave up various administrative and oversight privileges and indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia. He requested that his user pages be delted but he did not, however, take any steps to have his account deleted."
Now, the problem is... what if someone DOES challenge this with a {{citation needed}} tag? What I wrote is true as of this writing but the only proof I have is Wikipedia links and one can argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Well, Wikipedia is kind of a reliable source about itself but I don't want to go chasing down that rabbit hole.
So, I can imagine that you could put the assertion about Essjay's actions into the article but you would have to be willing for it to be deleted if anybody challenged the truth of the assertion.
-- Richard 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told it's not reasonable. If you want to say something, find a citation to support it or don't say it. One can paraphrase a source but one cannot correct it, that's original research (no, I'm not talking about spelling errors and so on, those should only be untouched in directly attributed quotations). With breaking news stories it can take time to assemble enough citations from sundry news articles to get a complete and accurate encyclopedic narrative. Be patient, it'll happen. Gwen Gale 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay, with its redirect to this article, has been deleted, which will thwart many readers from ever finding it. Gwen Gale 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't care much about the name of the article as much as I wanted to avoid possible confusing during the AfD. The article had twice been moved back to Essjay (once by me, and once by another) for that reason alone. That and this discussion made me think that moving it back would be a good idea. I was no fan of the word "scandal" being thrown in, but that was more of a secondary concern. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a sad irony, with even his (probably) local paper gathering information on him and his name in the news around the globe, that right now Essjay really does have a legitimate concern about harassment and violation of privacy in Real Life. The picture doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't add anything to the article. Please let's edit it out. Risker 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm swayed :) Sorry if I seemed like I was being mean to Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo was shown tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. C.m.jones 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is currently some disagreement at Talk:Stacy Schiff about whether or not this controversy should be mentioned on her bio. Some additional opinions on the matter would be appreciated, to help determine consensus on the issue. -- El on ka 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Very nice addition, to whoever added it. :-) C.m.jones 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Did_you_know#March_1. Please feel free to improve my entry. Thanks. — M ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The current name is protected but that isn't. Given Essjay is now all over global broadcast news... - Denny 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The International Herald Tribune in Paris, an influential English language newspaper in Western Europe, has published a screenshot of an early version of this article. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The current lead as edited into the article by Kendrick7 ( talk · contribs) reads false. The controversy stems from The New Yorker having to print an editor's note regarding a previous article they had published that had to explain that Essjay did not have credentials the original article said he did. ( → Netscott) 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
ABC News broadcast a story on Wikipedia's accuracy tonight, and the Essjay incident featured prominently therein. Rklawton 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, Netscott, here:
From The New Yorker Article as cited. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no basis for saying that he forged any credentials or faked anything. He lied about his credentials, but that is completely different. The opening sentence currently gives totally the wrong impression. What he actually did may be just as bad (repeatedly lying on his userpage and elsewhere, including to Ms Schiff), but it is not the same as forging or faking documents. Also, the source cited is totally unreliable, even though it is a large news company: nomnetheless, it is just someone who was not involved and has the wrong end of the stick. It is always dangerous relying on journalistic sources for anything even slightly complicated. If we are going to keep this article, it needs to be accurate and sourced properly. Metamagician3000 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article
This has no place in this article as it is POV and OR. Theres much more POV, OR and primary (self) reference. Can editors please help with keeping this NPOV that other editors have spent so much time working on.
Thanks - [[User:Munta Munta] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Gay&diff=prev&oldid=14917790 ??? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's completely inappropriate. "Gamed the system" is POV. "Posing as a homosexual" suggests that he isn't homosexual. He may or may not be. We don't know. The statement that Robbie's only contribution was to vote in Essjay's RfB is simply inaccurate. See Special:Contributions/Robbie31. Admittedly there are no actual contributions to articles, but the account was not created and used more than two months before the RfC. These edits are coming from a new account. I suggest that the user familiarise himself with policy, rather than revert warring. ElinorD (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Os Cangaceiros kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll and know that this last commentary is sooner in line with that. In that light kindly refrain from further such commentary. ( → Netscott) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"As a gay person" is pretty straightforward (pardon the pun) to me. To say this is libelous is really offensive by the way. As a gay person. Consider that. Wjhonson 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
RFOL Youre in it deep now, man! Wish I could throw in a paddle, but... 172.135.71.121
I don't believe the current timeline is correct. I drew up a timeline a few days ago (see my email to WikiEN-l), and Essjay posted the relevant details to his Wikia userpage 7 January, not 15 January (although the Wikia staff have made this difficult to confirm, as past revisions have been deleted...). The timeline also omits Brandt's discovery of the Wikia userpage circa 21 January and Essjay's first message on the subject 1 February. These seem to be fairly important details. -- Gwern (contribs) 02:06 7 March 2007 (GMT)
I reverted to the previous version of the timeline from one adding excessive, extraneous detail. Content such as this should be attributed to outside sources, within the body of the article:
-- Leflyman Talk 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay uploaded this picture of himself, I don't see any encyclopedic reason why it shouldn't be used. I suggest we put it up on the main article. The same thing was done with several fraudsters articles at Wikipedia, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essjay_controversy#Can_we_ditch_the_photo.3F 2 - It has not been confirmed to be Essjay 3 - Whats the point - it adds nothing to the article Munta 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No love expressed in Essjay's hometown newspaper. [2] "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Edeans 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On Wikia's site, Jordan said he lives outside Louisville and studied philosophy and religion at Centre, in Danville, as well as the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville.
He said that before coming to Wikia, "I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company, where I worked on a ten person team that managed roughly $500,000,000 in annual sales. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years," including "nearly a year with a firm in Louisville that represented doctors in medical licensure matter and a three month special position with a United States Bankruptcy Trustee."
A Centre spokesman confirmed Jordan attended from 2001 to 2003, and a UK spokesman said he was enrolled in the fall semester of 2003 at the former Lexington Community College, now Bluegrass Community and Technical College.
A spokeswoman for U of L said nobody by that name has attended the university since 1920, and a spokeswoman for the U.S. bankruptcy trustee said the office had no record Jordan had worked there.
![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
Some of the many media articles and blog entries are propagating misinformation and misleading info; I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Firstly, several outlets are mentioning that Essjay has had his 'editor privileges cancelled' - has he actually been blocked? I had thought not. And secondly, a recent article in the Telegraph has made Arbcom sound like an editorial board. Other news outlets have made the same implication. Anchoress 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ignore those little technical errors, they're part of the news business. Every news story has them. Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between quoting a news article and making an assertion. If you quote a news article, you should quote it verbatim and should not correct the text of the quote. However, it is reasonable to correct the mistake by stating the truth without a citation as long as no one challenges your assertions.
For example, I think it is reasonable to say "Although some media reports indicated that Essjay had his editor privileges cancelled, a more accurate characterization would be that he gave up various administrative and oversight privileges and indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia. He requested that his user pages be delted but he did not, however, take any steps to have his account deleted."
Now, the problem is... what if someone DOES challenge this with a {{citation needed}} tag? What I wrote is true as of this writing but the only proof I have is Wikipedia links and one can argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Well, Wikipedia is kind of a reliable source about itself but I don't want to go chasing down that rabbit hole.
So, I can imagine that you could put the assertion about Essjay's actions into the article but you would have to be willing for it to be deleted if anybody challenged the truth of the assertion.
-- Richard 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told it's not reasonable. If you want to say something, find a citation to support it or don't say it. One can paraphrase a source but one cannot correct it, that's original research (no, I'm not talking about spelling errors and so on, those should only be untouched in directly attributed quotations). With breaking news stories it can take time to assemble enough citations from sundry news articles to get a complete and accurate encyclopedic narrative. Be patient, it'll happen. Gwen Gale 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay, with its redirect to this article, has been deleted, which will thwart many readers from ever finding it. Gwen Gale 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't care much about the name of the article as much as I wanted to avoid possible confusing during the AfD. The article had twice been moved back to Essjay (once by me, and once by another) for that reason alone. That and this discussion made me think that moving it back would be a good idea. I was no fan of the word "scandal" being thrown in, but that was more of a secondary concern. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a sad irony, with even his (probably) local paper gathering information on him and his name in the news around the globe, that right now Essjay really does have a legitimate concern about harassment and violation of privacy in Real Life. The picture doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't add anything to the article. Please let's edit it out. Risker 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm swayed :) Sorry if I seemed like I was being mean to Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo was shown tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. C.m.jones 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is currently some disagreement at Talk:Stacy Schiff about whether or not this controversy should be mentioned on her bio. Some additional opinions on the matter would be appreciated, to help determine consensus on the issue. -- El on ka 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Very nice addition, to whoever added it. :-) C.m.jones 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Did_you_know#March_1. Please feel free to improve my entry. Thanks. — M ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The current name is protected but that isn't. Given Essjay is now all over global broadcast news... - Denny 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The International Herald Tribune in Paris, an influential English language newspaper in Western Europe, has published a screenshot of an early version of this article. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The current lead as edited into the article by Kendrick7 ( talk · contribs) reads false. The controversy stems from The New Yorker having to print an editor's note regarding a previous article they had published that had to explain that Essjay did not have credentials the original article said he did. ( → Netscott) 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
ABC News broadcast a story on Wikipedia's accuracy tonight, and the Essjay incident featured prominently therein. Rklawton 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, Netscott, here:
From The New Yorker Article as cited. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no basis for saying that he forged any credentials or faked anything. He lied about his credentials, but that is completely different. The opening sentence currently gives totally the wrong impression. What he actually did may be just as bad (repeatedly lying on his userpage and elsewhere, including to Ms Schiff), but it is not the same as forging or faking documents. Also, the source cited is totally unreliable, even though it is a large news company: nomnetheless, it is just someone who was not involved and has the wrong end of the stick. It is always dangerous relying on journalistic sources for anything even slightly complicated. If we are going to keep this article, it needs to be accurate and sourced properly. Metamagician3000 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article
This has no place in this article as it is POV and OR. Theres much more POV, OR and primary (self) reference. Can editors please help with keeping this NPOV that other editors have spent so much time working on.
Thanks - [[User:Munta Munta] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Gay&diff=prev&oldid=14917790 ??? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's completely inappropriate. "Gamed the system" is POV. "Posing as a homosexual" suggests that he isn't homosexual. He may or may not be. We don't know. The statement that Robbie's only contribution was to vote in Essjay's RfB is simply inaccurate. See Special:Contributions/Robbie31. Admittedly there are no actual contributions to articles, but the account was not created and used more than two months before the RfC. These edits are coming from a new account. I suggest that the user familiarise himself with policy, rather than revert warring. ElinorD (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Os Cangaceiros kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll and know that this last commentary is sooner in line with that. In that light kindly refrain from further such commentary. ( → Netscott) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"As a gay person" is pretty straightforward (pardon the pun) to me. To say this is libelous is really offensive by the way. As a gay person. Consider that. Wjhonson 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
RFOL Youre in it deep now, man! Wish I could throw in a paddle, but... 172.135.71.121
I don't believe the current timeline is correct. I drew up a timeline a few days ago (see my email to WikiEN-l), and Essjay posted the relevant details to his Wikia userpage 7 January, not 15 January (although the Wikia staff have made this difficult to confirm, as past revisions have been deleted...). The timeline also omits Brandt's discovery of the Wikia userpage circa 21 January and Essjay's first message on the subject 1 February. These seem to be fairly important details. -- Gwern (contribs) 02:06 7 March 2007 (GMT)
I reverted to the previous version of the timeline from one adding excessive, extraneous detail. Content such as this should be attributed to outside sources, within the body of the article:
-- Leflyman Talk 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay uploaded this picture of himself, I don't see any encyclopedic reason why it shouldn't be used. I suggest we put it up on the main article. The same thing was done with several fraudsters articles at Wikipedia, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essjay_controversy#Can_we_ditch_the_photo.3F 2 - It has not been confirmed to be Essjay 3 - Whats the point - it adds nothing to the article Munta 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No love expressed in Essjay's hometown newspaper. [2] "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Edeans 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On Wikia's site, Jordan said he lives outside Louisville and studied philosophy and religion at Centre, in Danville, as well as the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville.
He said that before coming to Wikia, "I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company, where I worked on a ten person team that managed roughly $500,000,000 in annual sales. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years," including "nearly a year with a firm in Louisville that represented doctors in medical licensure matter and a three month special position with a United States Bankruptcy Trustee."
A Centre spokesman confirmed Jordan attended from 2001 to 2003, and a UK spokesman said he was enrolled in the fall semester of 2003 at the former Lexington Community College, now Bluegrass Community and Technical College.
A spokeswoman for U of L said nobody by that name has attended the university since 1920, and a spokeswoman for the U.S. bankruptcy trustee said the office had no record Jordan had worked there.