QUOTE
Jimmy Wales... initially showed support for Essjay's use of false credentials in creating a persona by stating, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."[4] Later, however, when it became clear that the false credentials were used in "content disputes,"[7] Wales withdrew his support...
Is Jimbo naive, stupid, or just a liar? I don't understand how he could support Essjay's claim to have a PhD, as if Wikipedia were a roleplaying game where such things don't matter, and then belatedly realize that such claims affect content disputes. Seriously, did it not occur to him that claiming to have a PhD was a means of asserting power over "trollerists"? Why is Jimbo such a sleaze-bag, who needs everything spelled out for him before he realizes the flaws in his administration? Shouldn't all of Essjay's arbitration committee votes be overruled now?
This whole affair is a microcosm of Wikipedia: corrupt politics, incompetent authoritarians, and outright inaccuracy.
QUOTE
According to Essjay, these credentials were part of an online persona he had created, in part, to avoid cyberstalking. "I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times."
Bullshit! He basically said, "I didn't want to be stalked, so I pretended to be a successful person." wtfe! But according to Jimbo that was a "heartfelt apology".
QUOTE
Florence Devouard, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, "I think what matters is the quality of the content, which we can improve by enforcing policies such as 'cite your source,' not the quality of credentials showed by an editor."
On another topic here... When I edited I was asked to "cite my source" all the goddamn time -- I realized that the cabal was using it as harrassment, to force me to fight their redtape just to add anything. People on Wikipedia ask you to cite the book you read, but they never go check the book out, as they only do internet 'fact-checking'. Anyways, the point is that cabalists get a free pass and never have to cite sources, and meanwhile people they don't like are forced to fight on every trivial issue. Oh, and for the longest time I was the only one on Wikipedia citing my sources, by putting a list at the bottom indicating where the information was coming from -- that, they said, was too spammy.
Anyways, I eventually started making bets with repeat cabal-stalkers; I told them that if I could cite a reliable source, then they should leave Wikipedia forever -- if I couldn't, then I would. One of them actually took me up on that and left for quite a while; but yah, this was used against me as a reason to ban me, because I was too 'hostile' to innocent admins.
QUOTE
Larry Sanger, currently Editor-in-Chief of online encyclopedia Citizendium,[26] and co-founder of Wikipedia[27] who left the project in 2002,[28] called Essjay's response "a defiant non-apology"[29] and elsewhere characterized Essjay's actions as "identity fraud."[30] Writer for The Register and Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski criticized Jimmy Wales for hiring Essjay at Wikia and appointing him to the Wikipedia arbitration committee after Essjay had apparently admitted his previously claimed academic and professional credentials were false.[30] Orlowski wrote that Essjay's actions betrayed a dangerous community mindset within Wikipedia, quoting Sanger as saying, "Wikipedians have plainly become a very insular group: they have their own mores and requirements, which are completely independent of the real world. Indeed, that's what this story is about, after all: real-world identities and credentials are rejected as unnecessary by Wikipedia."[30]
Dan Blacharski of ITworld wrote, "Legitimate writers, scholars and industry experts have very little motivation to contribute to Wikipedia—leaving the project with wannabes and posers like Essjay with too much time on their hands to churn out content."[31] Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said that Wikipedia "fundamentally runs by an extremely deceptive sort of social promise," of which he says Essjay is a product.[32] Finkelstein later wrote in The Guardian, "Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic…But all that'll happen is they will work for free, while elsewhere the Wikia investors will reap the rewards." He described Essjay as "that dream’s poster child," who had been encouraged by Wikipedia to play out a detailed fantasy role along with "a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation’s projects."[6]
Dan Blacharski of ITworld wrote, "Legitimate writers, scholars and industry experts have very little motivation to contribute to Wikipedia—leaving the project with wannabes and posers like Essjay with too much time on their hands to churn out content."[31] Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said that Wikipedia "fundamentally runs by an extremely deceptive sort of social promise," of which he says Essjay is a product.[32] Finkelstein later wrote in The Guardian, "Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic…But all that'll happen is they will work for free, while elsewhere the Wikia investors will reap the rewards." He described Essjay as "that dream’s poster child," who had been encouraged by Wikipedia to play out a detailed fantasy role along with "a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation’s projects."[6]