What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
106 Comments
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72This has been troubling me for some time now. I must confess- I'm not really a sockpuppet.
Wow, it's like a huge weight has been lifted. Can I stay? - someotherdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+52As a respected MIT PHD, Harvard scholar and Cambridge graduate I resent Jimmy Wales' defence of EssJay.
Particularly as the bastard keeps re-editing my piece on the origin of 'all your bases are belong to us'. - quaeler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54Mr. Wales is off course if he believes that defending the behaviour of lying on Wikipedia (as well as rewarding the liar with employment) sends a positive message about the veracity of Wikipedia content.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43"Why yes, I am a brain surgeon."
It's just a pseudonym, it won't harm anyone! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Pseudonyms are one thing, outright fabrication of credentials and experience is another.
If this is acceptable to wiki, there is something very, very wrong. This really undermines wiki's credibility. How can it be trusted when it's edited by liars who apparently aren't even experts in what they claim? - isaac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35Okay - the description above is a little bombastic - but its pretty crazy that Jimmy Wales doesn't see any issue with one of the main administrators lying about being a tenured professor - when he's been using those claimed credentials to claim the quality of wikipedia's entries, for example in this letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25I'm a Caltech, Berkeley, and Oxford man myself. I also went to IIT for high school....
I condone the use of fake degrees. After all, without them, I wouldn't have a thriving back-alley medical practice today. - jamend, on 10/12/2007, -13/+37Yeah and 100% of theology professors are liars by definition, so at least he's aspiring.
- cculver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23His lying did hurt something: Wikipedia.
- orb_nsc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"As a respected MIT PHD, Harvard scholar and Cambridge graduate."
Me too! Is you going to the reunyun next weak? - mraustin1337, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20When I first read this I read it as, "Jimmy Wales defends a massive lair." I got a picture in my head of him as a dragon.
I thought this would add to the conversation.
In other news the African Elephant population has tripled since January. Who knew?! - Drood, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29I always laugh when someone says something is true "because it says so on Wikipedia".
- Tritis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Wikipedia is never an authority on anything but it has information everything.
It might not be right but it really doesn't matter. Anything where you need a source more reliable than wikipedia you shouldn't even be using the internet other than to access online journals.
In everyday life though wikipedia is fine for 99.99% of things. - ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Of course.. the difficult part is that MOST of wikipedia is in fact true, and even helpful. It's hard not to reference it.
- MisterCookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@drood
I was rather alarmed to find that in the 2006-07 US Academic Decathlon Resource Guide half of their citations come from wikipedia... - bonch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Wikipedia is an illustration of groupthink (much like Digg).
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Actually, no Wikipedia editor is trusted very much. Wikipedia's policies specifically say that NO editor is to be trusted based only on their credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research), and instead anything questionable or controversial in an article must rely on reliable third-party sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution
Another example... this account actually made edits that were described in a Stephen Colbert episode, but the edits were made before the show actually aired. Despite the circumstantial evidence, it's still obviously difficult to verify identity on the internet, so the account was blocked, and won't be unblocked until it can be shown that they're the real Stephen Colbert. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephencolbert&oldid=66989701 - atlacatl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This was funny and ironically delicious (someone provided the link above, but this is the summary): a real life university professor sent an email to his students stating the following:
Real professor objection: "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source: it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy."
And this is the response of a wikipedia professor: "I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter).
The punchline: because his credential are IN wikipedia, they are true :)
I don't care too much for titles, but this dude is a liar and will likely be fired from his current job for doing so. He already changed his profile, too, so he must know that what he did was deceitful and wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay). - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I done went to university and was learned some PhDs so you best call me doctor, see
- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wikipedia bashing is the new black.
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I can't wait until you graduate highschool and see the meet the real world.
- YellowTexan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Umm...you're giving Digg credit when it is not due. His page was edited several days ago with the "correct" background info about him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay&action=history
- Borfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wales' response is entirely disappointing. A high level administrator lying about credentials to this extent is a serious blow to Wikipedia. This guy wasn't merely passively claiming credentials he didn't have, either. He actively passed himself off as a tenured professor of theology in letters written on behalf of Wikipedia to a real professor who had expressed doubts about the reliability of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter
Man... That's appalling. I'm genuinely shocked that Wales would respond the way he did. A pseudonym is one thing. Actively claiming credentials you don't have is another thing entirely, especially considering that the reliability of Wikipedia is such an issue... They don't deserve to be seen as reliable if their founder/leader/whatever won't speak out against something like this.
Given Wales' response, I am very glad now that I never got around to donating money to them during their recent fundraising drive. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, despite its flaws, but the response to this is thoroughly disappointing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9buried as "don't ***** tell me what to digg"
it's 100% possible to post an opinion WITHOUT telling me to digg it - rebotfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Reality is a commodity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10if you spend enough time editing and contributing to wikipedia, you realise that it is a warzone of ideas with each user trying to propogate his/her ideas. it is an equilibrium of fact and wit that contributes to the propogation of an idea. i'd say that jimmy wales took a bold stance in defending Essjay for it is only natural human reaction that wit be the evil and fact the good. but unfortunately that is how the world works. if essjay, or for that matter any such war of fact and wit is banned from wikipedia, the natural consequence would be that the game would move to the real world. The demand for knowledge is being catered by wikipedia and as usual demand fuels supply thus the only way forward is for authoritative academics move on to the virtual world and take advantage of the medium. Maybe citizendum might fill in gaps however, wikipedia should always exist as a glorified sandbox. The bottom line is this is no big deal. Jimmy Wales did the right thing.. a 24 year old spent a major part of his life building up knowledge. i understand him.. i hope you too
forgive my english - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The biggest source of BS on WIkipedia are egotistical admins. Messing everything up.
- parax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In light of Mr. Wales stating that deception is copacetic, the internet as a community should vote with their wallets. No more donations to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
A lot of people have stated that it's only the validity of the articles that matter, not the reputability of the participants and senior staff. I beg to differ. Corruption has a trickle down effect. If the top of the chain are liars, they have a tendency to promote people as morally deficient as themselves. If liars are in charge of the whole project, moderating and locking articles, and banning users, it becomes very difficult for facts to make it through the filter. Every article becomes a collection of what a bunch of liars want it to say. - bernie724, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3723/idoggh4.gif
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Pseudonyms are for fiction writers, not editors of nonfiction. I love Wikipedia, because while it isn't a source of information that can be cited in research, it does contain massive amounts of good info in one easily searchable place. It is perfect for just learning for my own personal enjoyment.
- bernie724, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5newyorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&action=history
Letter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter
Owned - ekarpak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Byzantine shenanigans at Wikipedia run much deeper than just this one guy. See this conversation on Wikipedia Review titled "Who is EssJay?" to find out how things developed on this story:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778
There is much more about Wikipedia Administrators and policies on that site that may hit the front-page some day. Btw, I am not connected to W.R. other than as a reader. - minox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One of the ironies of the whole thing is he overlooked giving himself the most esteemed theological degree, which is the STL. Licentiate in Sacred Theology. You can only get that degree from a school with apostolic approval, ie, the Holy See has to approve the school officially. Very few schools in America can claim that title.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But that credibility rests not on the people who edit it (who are unknown people, with unknown agendas, and many of whom may be very young), but its credibility rests on the Sources cited at the bottom of the article, which are supposed to be as academic and reliable of sources as possible.
- DCstewieG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yep you got it. I noticed one of his defenses was that people knew he was lying and he wasn't actually claiming that was him. But with that letter to the professor, it shows it's all *****. He was using it to elevate his credibility to people who couldn't possibly know who he was. He should step down from administrator (he can still edit of course since that seems to be his life...his edits would be overseen as usual) and in no way should he be defended.
- netesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Never uderestimate the power of denial. See - http://blog.xodp.org/2007/03/never-underestimate-power-of-denial.html - While I take no pleasure in the ruin of a man, If Essjay were truly contrite, he would resign from his positions of trust at Wikia and Wikipedia and limit his contributions to those of a rank and file Wikipedia editor.
- yourabi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wikipedia's currency is essentially credibility -- it's a strange stance to take, since Wikipedia is becoming the webs encyclopedia.
- minox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wonder if Essjay was trying to pass himself off as a Jesuit considering his user name. Essjay = S.J. = Society of Jesus = jesuit
- masona3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wikipedia is chock FULL of *****. I wish people would stop defending it as a valid source of information.
- bernie724, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the edits page has gone nuts; some clips (before db to busy)
"::: "I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class." In conjunction with the profile as a professor of theology on his userpage, there can be no doubt that he used fraudulent credentials to bolster his argument. Other Wikipedians will often look upon anyone claiming any professional credentials with awe, since it is fairly uncommon. Essjay knew this, and used it to his advantage. See [http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/03/larry-sanger-proven-right-about.html Kelly's blog post] on the topic for other examples.-[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]]" - bernie724, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks like you are having trouble keeping it there.
- qbyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I never liked Wikipedia. It is as reliable as a blog as far as I'm concerned.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hadn't heard much about Daniel Brandt before. Interesting thread that pretty much covers the whole timeline.
I think Wikipedia has set itself up for a big fall with its incessant self-righteous arrogance that is always followed by haughty hypocrisy. - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2informative chat/Q&A session
Leo Laporte Amber Macarthur Jimmy Wales (and callers) feb13/07
http://digg.com/podcasts/net_nite/254709 - RDeckard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I added a subsection to the Criticism of Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia about Essjay. Please let me know what you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article_Essjay_issue - TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Unfortunately, my previous attempts to post various articles with rational, sensible arguments never got Dugg. This one, posted using the vernacular and an exhortation to Digg, *did* make it to the front page.
- ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2should read ... and not on the
- sirpsychosexy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3has anyone else accepted our lying wikipedia overlords yet?
- msoule, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What matters most is the quality of the information. The amount of information available today (good and bad) is staggering. Most people won't pay any attention to a witty, insightful, and factual commentary by Joe Blow from Wichita but if you tell them it was written by Mark Twain they are more likely to take time to read and mentally process the information. The Internet has fundamentally changed the requirement for exposure to a prestigious academic setting to precede an in-depth understanding of a subject. The need for false credentials in order to be heard highlights the undue power that the myth of old academia holds in our new information culture.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Look at the edit history on any MMA fighter, on pedophiles, on Elephants etc etc etc Wikipedia is just a cabal of people who mix fact and opinion under the guise of objectivity. I'm surprised that there are people who still consider it a legitimate source. Too bad no one has come up with a service resembling anything close to competition. Competition keeps monopolies honest.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 