Does The Mistaken Identity Of A Wikipedia Editor Reflect Worse On Wikipedia... Or The New Yorker?
from the just-wondering dept
Stephen Dubner, over at the Freakonomics blog, is pointing out that The New Yorker has issued a correction to an article about Wikipedia from last summer. The article talked to one of Wikipedia's site administrators and contributors, who goes by the name Essjay. The article claimed that Essjay was a tenured professor of religion at a private university, who had a Ph.D. in theology. However, the correction notes that Essjay is really a 24-year-old who has no advanced degrees and has never taught. This is getting some attention from the usual Wikipedia haters, suggesting that this is somehow proof of the problems with Wikipedia. However, that seems incredibly backwards. It actually highlights the reverse. It shows the fallibility of The New Yorker -- a publication known as one of the few media outlets that still does serious fact checking, but apparently was not able to verify the identity of this individual. If anything, this highlights the fact that the so-called "professionals" often make mistakes too. Also, while mistakes in Wikipedia are a lot more easily correctable, it's a bit of a process to correct this kind of mistake in The New Yorker -- which is why it's now getting attention.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Punish the thief not the victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punish the thief not the victim
What Essjay did was commit fraud.
Oh, please. You're completely overstating the case. I'm not an Ork, either, but I've played one online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Punish the thief not the victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punish the thief not the victim
you’re probably like 13 or 14 years old
Not by a measure of 2 decades. And it's probably been half that since I've bothered with online gaming, but rest assured the statement was true at one point. 'Twas only to make a point, though.
Playing a video game [...] is different than an intentional false representation of credentials.
Not in this case, not really. I can run about online claiming to be a world-class physician. There's no harm in this, and no legal foul, as long as I'm not doing so in an attempt to practice medicine or dispensing medical advice. But in this guise I am still at liberty to opine about politics, sociology, religion, the pros and cons of pseudonyms online (Hey, check that, I'm using one now, and I'm skeptical that your last name is "2face").
So he claimed he was a professor. He wasn't actually teaching classes. What difference does it make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punish the thief not the victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaming The Victim - Fraud shouldn't be excused
Yes, the NY should have been more vigilant, they should have kept in mind that someone who comes with high recommendation from Wikipedia managers can sill be an outright scammer.
But to focus exclusively on this, to soften the fact that it was a blatant lie, to only attack the New Yorker while excusing all that Wikipedia did and has done to con them - that's the very worst sort of playing to the Web 2.0 cultists for the rewards of hype.
"Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia's management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. ... He was recently hired by Wikia--a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia--as a "community manager"; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay's invented persona, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blaming The Victim - Fraud shouldn't be excuse
I'm not sure what the problem here is. Who was defrauded? Who is worse off because of this? Was Essjay's edits fraudulent? No one seems to be making that claim. I'm not sure why this is a big deal at all, other than from folks such as yourself claiming this means something it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whilst I have never heard anything bad about essjay's editing, this does highlight how easy it is to manipulate the editing community to ensure your version remains. I should not need to say that perhaps we were lucky with essjay, as just imagine what could happen if someone with a real and dangerous angenda used such a method.
Of course, this does reflect worse on the New Yorker, who really should have followed the first rule of using wikipedia - verify everything you read before you take it as absolute truth. More and more, however, people are just using wikipedia without this critical review of it's content, and the hype around wikipedia generally encourages people to do this.
People on all sides really need to stop seeing this in terms of black and white, in terms of "wikipedia believers" and "wikipedia haters". It's an amazing resource and one of the best websites of all time. However it does have many flaws that are made all the more dangerous given it's status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia the place to believe in disbelief
If you can't remember how to differintiate or integrate there's a quick low-down on how to do it. If you want a quick intro into Freemasnry there's just enough information to be dangerous, but you immediately see that the information is disputed among editors. Then you can try to find out info about Eli Lilly and find a single paragraph entry.
Wikipedia requires the user to make judgement calls - something I can say I don't like allowing the majority of people to do because people are stupid.
Wikipedia is on the internet, so rule #1 of the internet applies: Everyone is your neighbor's dog on the internet and he wants to hump your leg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistaken identity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it boils down to is that people somehow see wikipedia as the first poster does and it clouds their reason. People don't like the idea of wikipedia because they say it is "easy". I hate to tell you, but research is not intended to be hard. Gathering, reviewing, and interpreting information should be the simplest part of any project; it’s just a matter of verifying data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another problem at Wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikihaters
I've done enough research to know that I don't know pure fact on any subject. The truth is there is no truth anywhere to be found. You have to find our for yourself what you believe and I'll be damned if someone says that I'm too "stupid" to do it on my own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blaming The Victim - Fraud shouldn't be excuse
Elsewhere, a professor critical of Wikipedia was also subjected to misrepresentation.
The basis of the fraud was the use of phony credentials, and the accompanying attached prestige, to endorse Wikipedia.
These were lies, plain and simple.
With full knowledge of this fraud, Essjay was then *appointed* to Wikipedia's internal committee ("ArbCom") which judges proper behavior!
The scandal here is Wikipedia's management tolerance, and arguably rewarding with office, of deception in promoting Wikipedia. The scandal's implications then cast a cloud over Wikipedia's process, since it calls into question other endorsements - what else was fabricated? This is particularly pertinant since a very strong message has been sent that if you fake positive things about Wikipedia to the media or academics, it's acceptable and maybe even a help to advancing within its ranks.
By the way, my post was more about the delusional ambitions that Wikipedia fosters in order to function, to get people to work for free, than the quality control issue _per se_.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
psudonyms
If he was introduced as tyhe Wikipedian Essjay, then maybe that was fair since that was his name in the community the New Yorker was interested in. OTOH, lying on Wikipedia is bad for a Mod, and is liable to get him taken up for it, not least by anyone he has banned.
I thought the ArbCom was meant to be not a judge of correct behaviour, but rather a small committe to resolve disputes which were out of hand. THey are as I understand it supposed to be stopping fights, not judges, since that is waht the admin hierarchy is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Jimbo
is that Essjay “used his false credentials in content disputes”, pointing to his concern to further “check diffs” of Essjay.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard&diff=112278999&old id=112274795
Jimbo claims he did not understand this matter to be one “of violation of people’s trust” and that his “past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on”.
Oh c’mon.
And this seems to point to something indicate otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=112282076&oldid=1122818 64
And when Jimbo claims he did not understand this matter to be one “of violation of people’s trust”, which “people” is he talking about? Only Wikipedians who may have been bluffed by a pull of false credentials? Apparently so, which only confirms the insularity of the system.
Does Jimbo feel Essjay violated the trust of The New Yorker reporters to whom Essjay lied? On this he is silent and it speaks loudly. How about to The New Yorker’s many, many readers? Again, on this he is silent and it speaks loudly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia Slides Like ODP
However, with all things that have SOME users taking control, the power goes to their heads and becomes something where the agendas slowly (but surely) change and they dont serve the use they once did (at least not for the rest of the general population).
ODP is almost crippled now, how long before Wikipedia gets there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares if it rises to legally actionable fraud? Essjay's actions were clearly fraudulent given the common use of that term.
The revelation reflects poorly on both the New Yorker and Wikipedia. Sheesh -- how hard is it to check a claim that someone is a tenured professor at university?
The debate over the usefulness of Wikipedia is also a bit silly. Wikipedia is a great place to *start* research. If there's something I've never heard of I often go to Wikipedia to get that perspective and use that as a launching pad for further research (which is what I'd use a traditional encyclopedia as well).
The problem is not Wikipedia but people who see Wikipedia as the end of their quest for information on a topic rather than the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
The fact is that Wikipedia is already the world's leading reference source and it is superior for most purposes to any other single reference source. It is accessible to more people, cheaper to use, more comprehensive, generally very well written, and usually more up-to-date than other resources available to my students. It is also barely seven years old.
The battle is over - we have an on-line user created encyclopedia that no private or commercial source will dominate. We should be celebrating.
Wikipedia is enormously better than what I grew up with - a small town library with a three-book limit, and a set of encyclopedia Britannica my father bought me that no-one in the family could read. I am a professor of economics (please check) now with a university's (increasingly on-line) resources, and I use Wikipedia regularly. I also find errors in the $2000 set of Britannica I bough my own kids.
Possibly more important than the increased accessibility is the ability that Wikipedia gives us to tap far more of the growing expertise in our population. Wikipedia makes us as a community more able to use our collective knowledge. that means smarter, for those of you who are distracted by the superficial questions.
Democratizing expertise AGAIN may threaten some of my colleagues, but we will have to learn to live with it as we did when movable typefaces were invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]