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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
A new user just AfD'd it. - Denny 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:FORTHEPEOPLE. - Denny 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AEssjay_controversy&diff=114666596&oldid=114666344 Are we allowed to remove comments that are constructive criticism? The anon who is probably new here, is granted an AGF and welcome with open arms. Criticism is the best way to learn IMO. Learn from our mistakes. I welcome you, the newcomer, to contribute to our community. Quack Guru TALK 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, please think long and hard about what you're doing here. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, a former Wikipedia manager... Please correct this bias one-sided statement in the critics section. Quack Guru TALK 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The role of writing a piece about criticism is to paint where the criticism came from. When addressing critics it is important and normal to mention who the critic is to color the picture. Such as... Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said... which is in the article. If you read a real encyclopedia you will see detailed information and background. Mr. Larry Sanger is a noteworthy critic because he is one of the most vocal critics of Wikipedia and he will always be the co-founder of Wikipedia in the real world. Mentioning a little bit about his background as the co-founder of Wikipedia and his current position is necessary to show the reader who is doing the criticism. After all, he is the co-founder and its a normal concept of writing an encyclopedia. Leaving that bit of info out would make the article poorly written. Further, Larry's criticism has been reported in the media. [10] as well as his official status as the co-founder which is well noted regardless. Forget not, I supplies the fully sourced references that do in fact show that Larry is the co-foundr of this place. When you mention Mr. Sanger, especially when talking within the parameter of Wikipedia it is more than fair to mention his background and scope as connected with Wikipedia. What is more notable as far as critics go than a critic who is the widley repoted as the co-founder of Wikipedia. He is a very notable and prominent critic. A talkative critic about Wiki. It colors where and who the criticism is orginating from. Otherwise, it would be a revision of history. Otherwise, the factual accuracy of the article will remain disputed. The article is not neutral because some folks do not want to let people know where the criticism is coming from. I do not understand the reason people do not want reader to find out about Larry. The factual accuracy is disputed because the article does not accurately portray who Mr. Larry Sanger is as written in the history books about Wikipedia. Please do not write a revision of history and hide his co-foundedness of Wiki.
Read this sentence beneath about the description of the person. Notice the detail of the description.
As the controversy unfolded the Wikipedia community began a review of Essjay's previous edits and discovered evidence he had relied upon his fictional professorship to influence editorial consideration of edits he made. "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper, The Wikipedia Signpost. "Those will get looked at again."[10]
Here is an example of how sentences are written above. Note: These sentence above are in the article at this time.
It mentions: said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper.
This is a very detailed description as you can see and read above.
Here is another detailed sentence (presently in the article) in which it demonstrates who the critic is. However, lecturer Nicola Pratt of the University of East Anglia stated...
Then, I ask the reason for the denial of the facts about the co-founder Mr. Larry Sanger. Thus, the factual accuracy will continue to remain disputed in any case as long as many editors do not face the music. This article can never be neutral when the revised history of the facts or revoking of the facts are presented. Nevertheless, a description of who the critic is especially when that person is the co-founder of Wikpedia as widely reported is relevent due to his notability as a vocal Wikipedia critic and connectiveness as a co-founder of this project. Any replies. Quack Guru TALK 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice the title is "Essjay controversy." I might be stating the obvious, but isn't this really about the "Wikipedia-Essay controversy"? It's really about Wikipedia as it is about Essjay. I know the article is on Wikipedia and thus that may be slipping people's minds, but why no mention of "Wikipedia" in the title when it is so central to the article. Maybe "Essjay credentials controversy on Wikipedia" or something else similar? -- 64.230.121.147 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Theses references above state Mr. Larry Sanger is the co-founder.
I have provided many references that show Mr. Larry Sanger is the co-founder. In turn, Wales could never be the sole founder of Wikipedia. The article has original research in the lead. The article proclaims Wales is the founder. This is too far overeaching. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Quack Guru TALK 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6102279.html
http://news.com.com/Wikipedias+Wales+touts+free+culture+movement/2100-1038_3-6102279.html
Here are some more references to color everything properly. Nonetheless, we must remove original research. Quack Guru TALK 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, this is the wrong article to wage war over this on. Why aren't you pushing for it on Larry Sanger, Wikipedia, or Jimmy Wales? - Denny 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The usage of the term "founder" does not meet the threshold for a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4 Here is the reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=114860986&oldid=114860564 This is a unjustified to remove a reference.
The facts about co-founder is all over Wikipedia in a number of articles and is widely reported in the media that both are the co-founders. These are that documented facts for the Peer Review to evaluate. Thanx. Quack Guru TALK 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
would anyone object for purposes of this article to use the following wording to refer to Wales in that one passage?
The actual usage would be without the italics. We have RS that say Jimmy is the founder. We have RS that say co-founder. We have RS that say Larry is co-founder. We have Larry saying co-, we have Jimmy saying the. We have Jimmy saying/implying that Larry is co- in documented sources. In other words, a quagmire. Referring to each as a founder is a NPOV middle ground. We are not here to decide this detail on this article, and we can't anyway without a time machine. Any objections to using that wording going forward on this article? my goal is for us to spend time here building the Essjay article, not apparent rehash #453 of the Jimmy/Larry thing. - Denny 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Being BOLD and putting this compromise version in. - Denny 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can whomever set that up change it to not be 48 hours? Things have calmed a fair bit, I'd say 5 or 7 days. - Denny 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Article was just moved/renamed by a 'new' user: Goingplant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I reverted it for being out of the blue/no concensus. - Denny 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Jordan later bragged on his Wikipedia user page about having fooled Schiff by "doing a good job playing the part."[7] Essjay also claimed to have used his persona's credentials to vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy in a letter he sent to a college professor.[7] According to the Vancouver daily paper 24 Hours, activist and Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt had discovered the Essjay/Ryan Jordan connection and reported this to The New Yorker.[8]
The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, reported that Jordan had attended but never graduated from Centre College and Bluegrass Community and Technical College (formerly known as Lexington Community College). The paper also stated that despite his claim to have had a three-month special position with a United States bankruptcy trustee, the office had no record that Jordan ever worked there.[1]
This information above does not belong in the New York interview section. I suggest to move it in to its own and unique section. Any comments. Quack Guru TALK 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
People who refuse to compromise wind up being banned from either Wikipedia or articles their refusal to compromize on has been disruptive on. If the community gets fed up it can and will impose a community ban on such disruptive editors. A variety of points of view and strong opinions can make an article better, but only if all sides are willing to compromise in the end rather than try to win through never giving up. WAS 4.250 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have mostly been a spectator to this page, but it seems to me that most of the "discussion" is being generated by the endless disruptive posts by Quackguru, whose opinions on the article as it stands are outspoken, strident, and in agreement with absolutely no-one else. Is this a fair summary of Quackguru's actions, or am I misjudging him? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Posted to WP:ANI by me. This is just disruption at this point... please weigh in there. - Denny 21:51, 13 March 2007 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
A new user just AfD'd it. - Denny 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:FORTHEPEOPLE. - Denny 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AEssjay_controversy&diff=114666596&oldid=114666344 Are we allowed to remove comments that are constructive criticism? The anon who is probably new here, is granted an AGF and welcome with open arms. Criticism is the best way to learn IMO. Learn from our mistakes. I welcome you, the newcomer, to contribute to our community. Quack Guru TALK 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, please think long and hard about what you're doing here. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, a former Wikipedia manager... Please correct this bias one-sided statement in the critics section. Quack Guru TALK 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The role of writing a piece about criticism is to paint where the criticism came from. When addressing critics it is important and normal to mention who the critic is to color the picture. Such as... Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said... which is in the article. If you read a real encyclopedia you will see detailed information and background. Mr. Larry Sanger is a noteworthy critic because he is one of the most vocal critics of Wikipedia and he will always be the co-founder of Wikipedia in the real world. Mentioning a little bit about his background as the co-founder of Wikipedia and his current position is necessary to show the reader who is doing the criticism. After all, he is the co-founder and its a normal concept of writing an encyclopedia. Leaving that bit of info out would make the article poorly written. Further, Larry's criticism has been reported in the media. [10] as well as his official status as the co-founder which is well noted regardless. Forget not, I supplies the fully sourced references that do in fact show that Larry is the co-foundr of this place. When you mention Mr. Sanger, especially when talking within the parameter of Wikipedia it is more than fair to mention his background and scope as connected with Wikipedia. What is more notable as far as critics go than a critic who is the widley repoted as the co-founder of Wikipedia. He is a very notable and prominent critic. A talkative critic about Wiki. It colors where and who the criticism is orginating from. Otherwise, it would be a revision of history. Otherwise, the factual accuracy of the article will remain disputed. The article is not neutral because some folks do not want to let people know where the criticism is coming from. I do not understand the reason people do not want reader to find out about Larry. The factual accuracy is disputed because the article does not accurately portray who Mr. Larry Sanger is as written in the history books about Wikipedia. Please do not write a revision of history and hide his co-foundedness of Wiki.
Read this sentence beneath about the description of the person. Notice the detail of the description.
As the controversy unfolded the Wikipedia community began a review of Essjay's previous edits and discovered evidence he had relied upon his fictional professorship to influence editorial consideration of edits he made. "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper, The Wikipedia Signpost. "Those will get looked at again."[10]
Here is an example of how sentences are written above. Note: These sentence above are in the article at this time.
It mentions: said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper.
This is a very detailed description as you can see and read above.
Here is another detailed sentence (presently in the article) in which it demonstrates who the critic is. However, lecturer Nicola Pratt of the University of East Anglia stated...
Then, I ask the reason for the denial of the facts about the co-founder Mr. Larry Sanger. Thus, the factual accuracy will continue to remain disputed in any case as long as many editors do not face the music. This article can never be neutral when the revised history of the facts or revoking of the facts are presented. Nevertheless, a description of who the critic is especially when that person is the co-founder of Wikpedia as widely reported is relevent due to his notability as a vocal Wikipedia critic and connectiveness as a co-founder of this project. Any replies. Quack Guru TALK 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice the title is "Essjay controversy." I might be stating the obvious, but isn't this really about the "Wikipedia-Essay controversy"? It's really about Wikipedia as it is about Essjay. I know the article is on Wikipedia and thus that may be slipping people's minds, but why no mention of "Wikipedia" in the title when it is so central to the article. Maybe "Essjay credentials controversy on Wikipedia" or something else similar? -- 64.230.121.147 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Theses references above state Mr. Larry Sanger is the co-founder.
I have provided many references that show Mr. Larry Sanger is the co-founder. In turn, Wales could never be the sole founder of Wikipedia. The article has original research in the lead. The article proclaims Wales is the founder. This is too far overeaching. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Quack Guru TALK 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6102279.html
http://news.com.com/Wikipedias+Wales+touts+free+culture+movement/2100-1038_3-6102279.html
Here are some more references to color everything properly. Nonetheless, we must remove original research. Quack Guru TALK 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, this is the wrong article to wage war over this on. Why aren't you pushing for it on Larry Sanger, Wikipedia, or Jimmy Wales? - Denny 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The usage of the term "founder" does not meet the threshold for a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4 Here is the reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=114860986&oldid=114860564 This is a unjustified to remove a reference.
The facts about co-founder is all over Wikipedia in a number of articles and is widely reported in the media that both are the co-founders. These are that documented facts for the Peer Review to evaluate. Thanx. Quack Guru TALK 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
would anyone object for purposes of this article to use the following wording to refer to Wales in that one passage?
The actual usage would be without the italics. We have RS that say Jimmy is the founder. We have RS that say co-founder. We have RS that say Larry is co-founder. We have Larry saying co-, we have Jimmy saying the. We have Jimmy saying/implying that Larry is co- in documented sources. In other words, a quagmire. Referring to each as a founder is a NPOV middle ground. We are not here to decide this detail on this article, and we can't anyway without a time machine. Any objections to using that wording going forward on this article? my goal is for us to spend time here building the Essjay article, not apparent rehash #453 of the Jimmy/Larry thing. - Denny 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Being BOLD and putting this compromise version in. - Denny 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can whomever set that up change it to not be 48 hours? Things have calmed a fair bit, I'd say 5 or 7 days. - Denny 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Article was just moved/renamed by a 'new' user: Goingplant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I reverted it for being out of the blue/no concensus. - Denny 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Jordan later bragged on his Wikipedia user page about having fooled Schiff by "doing a good job playing the part."[7] Essjay also claimed to have used his persona's credentials to vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy in a letter he sent to a college professor.[7] According to the Vancouver daily paper 24 Hours, activist and Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt had discovered the Essjay/Ryan Jordan connection and reported this to The New Yorker.[8]
The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, reported that Jordan had attended but never graduated from Centre College and Bluegrass Community and Technical College (formerly known as Lexington Community College). The paper also stated that despite his claim to have had a three-month special position with a United States bankruptcy trustee, the office had no record that Jordan ever worked there.[1]
This information above does not belong in the New York interview section. I suggest to move it in to its own and unique section. Any comments. Quack Guru TALK 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
People who refuse to compromise wind up being banned from either Wikipedia or articles their refusal to compromize on has been disruptive on. If the community gets fed up it can and will impose a community ban on such disruptive editors. A variety of points of view and strong opinions can make an article better, but only if all sides are willing to compromise in the end rather than try to win through never giving up. WAS 4.250 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have mostly been a spectator to this page, but it seems to me that most of the "discussion" is being generated by the endless disruptive posts by Quackguru, whose opinions on the article as it stands are outspoken, strident, and in agreement with absolutely no-one else. Is this a fair summary of Quackguru's actions, or am I misjudging him? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Posted to WP:ANI by me. This is just disruption at this point... please weigh in there. - Denny 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)