Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-03-05/Essjay

Can I suggest we add a similar disclaimer that the 'Post did to the Fuzzy article last week, to avoid the media taking this as an official press release from WMF? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the concern, I think I will hold off on that unless there are actual signs of confusion. The New York Times was able to understand pretty clearly what the Signpost was and give an appropriate description in its story. --Michael Snow 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I guess Ral315 has already gone ahead with it. --Michael Snow 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I won't unless there's a legal threat involved, but it's not a bad idea to play it safe while big news organizations are covering this story. Ral315 » 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling cards

Since the paragraph about this aspect has raised some questions, I will attempt to explain them. From several sources, I have it that Jordan talked about using calling cards to speak with Schiff (presumably in order not to reveal his telephone number, so as to remain anonymous), and further that he talked about the expense this put him to. From this follows the interpretation that he may be claiming Schiff offered to reimburse this expense. The awkwardness is partly because the use of calling cards is not confirmed, nor is it confirmed that Schiff even made this offer, let alone the ethically more damaging offer of payment.

However, the story needs to provide the information that will allow either of two interpretations - that Jordan misspoke in impugning Schiff's ethics, or that the language of his statement is what he literally meant, with the full ethical implications of such a charge. The correct interpretation of his intent is left for the reader to decide, as is the question of whether to believe Jordan's or Schiff's position regardless of which interpretation is chosen. --Michael Snow 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ryan Jordan" ???

Why does this article refer to Essjay as "Ryan Jordan", as if that is really who the individual is, when we are not certain that this is Essjay's actual identity? Smee 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's explained in the article: "we refer to him as Jordan primarily for convenience". It's also for consistency with the other individuals mentioned. And for what it's worth, the New York Times also refers to him extensively as "Mr. Jordan". I can't say to what extent they confirmed that was a real name, you'd have to ask them, but I'm content to follow their lead. --Michael Snow 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Perhaps we will never know what the "Essjay" really was, for it was probably not his initials as previously claimed... Smee 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Headline

I take issue with the headline "New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure". The word "dogs" implies that the New Yorker somehow harassed Essjay into leaving, which is not the case. Essjay's mistakes, and his decisions, are his own. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the headline with the proper subject-verb relationship. The subject that is performing the "action" of the word "dogs" is the correction, not The New Yorker. That correction has been dogging him for weeks, is dogging him still, and will probably dog any "Essjay" or "Ryan Jordan" on the internet for a long time to come. You also seem to have missed the allusion that is the key to the headline. --Michael Snow 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant--that the correction itself did not lead to Essjay's departure. He decided that himself. I don't argue that this situation will "dog" him for some time, but there is no direct relationship between the correction itself, and Essjay's decisions. The allusion to the cartoon "..knows you're a dog", while somehow cute or ironic, takes the focus away from the actual news, which is Essjay's actions and the community's response to them. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "He decided that himself." Sure he did, it's not like the correction could have decided that for him. But to claim that the correction didn't lead to his decision is being willfully blind to the events. Ask yourself whether Essjay would have left at all if the correction had never been made. We are not working in some kind of hermetically sealed environment where the only things that exist or matter are those that happen on the wiki. Wikipedia can have consequences in the world outside, and the world outside can have consequences on Wikipedia. This is one of those cases, and the way that gets bridged is news as much as the purely internal stuff. --Michael Snow 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But to claim that the correction didn't lead to his decision is being willfully blind to the events. - Heh, that is why I changed the title to "New Yorker correction leads to retirement of arbitrator". It is simply more accurate and less biased. But since I don't wish to argue this up and down, for my part I'll let the issue lie. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The headline was surely also a pun on the cartoon [1]--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the tip of a 500-ton gorilla/iceberg

Another liar on Wikipedia, huh? At least vandals are honest. Too bad they won't let us vet our credentials, maybe a third party service can allow us to prove those of us who actually do hold advance degrees and find ourselves facing self-righteous but completely undereducated fakesters (this final generalization has nothing to do with the subject of the article). --Bobak 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals are honest? So User:Willy on Wheels is just a hard-working bicyclist? I don't think so. Superm401 - Talk 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty "un-wiki" to disregard one person's opinion just because they don't have an advanced degree. Educated or not, you should be able to support your position with reason and evidence rather than simply appealing to your education. – Þ 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have no real credentials, but that doesn't mean that I can't research a topic and write as good an article as a certified expert could. Ral315 » 07:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Superm401, Vandals are honest because they vandalize without pretending to do otherwise, maybe I should've been more specific and said "blatant vandal" since there are a few notable exceptions among the more surreptitious vandals. In response to Anþony and Ral315, on Wikipedia we have people pretending to know areas, like law and medicine, where self-research and authority is actually quite dangerous to the public --hence those are areas where public policy recognizes the danger and offers remedy/punishment. It's one thing to be something like history or philosophy, but there is a much higher level of problems offered in other areas of professional (vs. academic) expertise. I don't pretend to write with authority on quick-learning engineering, medicine or other similar areas. --Bobak 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

paying sources

It is surely not usual for reputable journalists to pay sources. But when a person talks about eight hours with a reporter a compensation is not unethical. This seems like a failed attempt to blame the New Yorker. --194.8.195.38 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you if you're just going to believe your own assumptions about journalistic ethics without any information to back it up. But Jason Scott, who was also quoted in the New Yorker article, says that he was interviewed in a similar fashion as Ryan Jordan ("something like 8 hours across multiple phone calls over the course of a few weeks") and was never offered anything of the sort.

The claim made by Jordan in his apology would, if true, show an unethical journalistic practice. The article does not contend that it was true, or that The New Yorker should be blamed for the fact that Jordan made such a charge. But it's a serious charge, and merely the fact that it was made, especially considering the strong Wikipedia policy against defaming living persons, meant it needed to be addressed. You have their response, and information about Jordan's statements, and the facts should be sufficient to draw your own conclusions. --Michael Snow 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not probable that the New Yorker wanted to bribe Jordan in any way. Why should they? --81.173.131.162 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]