Comments on: Overview of the recent serious Wikipedia scandal

By: Les relations publiques à l’ère du wiki | Réflexions publiques

Les relations publiques à l’ère du wiki | Réflexions publiques — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:30:56 +0000

[...] de leur éditeurs et de leurs sources. Ces balises, même si elles ne mettent à pas à l’abri du scandale, permettent néanmoins une certaine [...]

By: Miguel Feitosa

Miguel Feitosa — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:27:26 +0000

Interesting…the only way to substantiate an expert opinion is from peer review, credentials (fake or real) are obviously not enough. How many experts do we see that really do not understand their subject matter? On the other hand many people with no credentials but that are passionate about a subject show profound expertise.
To be truly precise only peer review over time can establish someone’s authority…Einstein, Mendel and others were initially rejected by experts but later on rose to fame.
The question which I have not seen answered is What do other experts say on the material that Essjay produced? How has it been criticised.
That is really the point, was he any good.

By: Miscellanea Agnostica » Wikipedia Takes On Scientology

Miscellanea Agnostica » Wikipedia Takes On Scientology — Sat, 30 May 2009 16:19:19 +0000

[...] Wikipedia’s format is indeed open — sometimes too open (see e.g. this and this, and this parody too) — the site generally has tools that can be used to backtrack edits and [...]

By: abinubpariurl

abinubpariurl — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:50:39 +0000

Hello everybody,
So, let’s chat! What’s going on?

By: david hill

david hill — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:13:33 +0000

Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time – using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time – the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.

Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 – 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland

By: Wikipedia report: news, announcements and interesting stories about the project « ScienceRoll

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:23:40 +0000

[...] Verification? Jimbo Wales’ suggestion to avoid scandals like the recent one. I’m against the idea (if it’s totally voluntary, then I have no problems with that). [...]

By: Why I Don’t Heart Wikipedia Much « Everywhere and Here

Why I Don’t Heart Wikipedia Much « Everywhere and Here — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:05 +0000

[...] days, I wonder now where does one go for help with settling disputes. And with the recent Wikipedia scandal, I can’t help feel somewhat… uneasy, or wary, about Wikipedia period. A contributor [...]

By: Daniel Brandt, Confusapedia and the best essay on Wikipedia « ScienceRoll

Daniel Brandt, Confusapedia and the best essay on Wikipedia « ScienceRoll — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:16:47 +0000

[...] that the community will keep the article again. On his website, Wikipedia Watch, he features the Essjay story (just an update: Essjay [...]

By: ncurse

ncurse — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:19:04 +0000

Dan: it’s a great summary. Thank you!

The most important part of your opinion is:

I think truth and honesty and integrity should be our standard.

By: ncurse

ncurse — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:17:34 +0000

Update: here is the apology from Essjay.

By: Dan Bobinski

Dan Bobinski — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:45:58 +0000

Intelligence is a funny thing. Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences approach has saved many a child from being chided for not having a high "IQ" -- but for being intelligent (and possibly genius) in other areas. However intelligent Essjay might be, the bottom line is he lied. We impeached a president for that. We sent Enron's chief execs to prison for that. "But he's simply lying about his education" one might say. What about the guy who lied about his education at the Idaho National Laboratory a few years back, stating he had a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, when in fact, he had no such degree. Do we want people like this tinkering around with nuclear materials? Okay, Wikipedia is 'information.' But sometimes people make important decisions based on information they read. I certainly don't want to sound like a snob, but to pawn oneself as holding all those degrees is a slap in the face to those who study and sacrifice countless hours to EARN their degrees -- and play by the rules. I can equate it also to serving in the military (which I did) and seeing people wearing ribbons on their chest that they did not earn. It is tremendously offensive to those who actually earned them. Heck, I could go back and forth and argue both sides of this with equal fervor, but when it all boils down, I think truth and honesty and integrity should be our standard. Dan Bobinski President, Leadership Development, Inc. and The Center for Workplace Excellence (blog)

By: oceallaigh

oceallaigh — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:05:25 +0000

In NO form of non-fiction writing is misrepresentation welcome. And for good reason. But an isolated instance shouldn’t bring a respected institution/publication down. If the instances should cease to be isolated, that would be different.

I will continue to use Wikipedia on my blog as a pointer to information that I find reasonably accurate and that does not feed the commercial machines. It is NOT a “final word” tool. NO secondary source is. One can find dross in the Encyclopedia Brittanica just like in Wikipedia. You just have to pay more for it. EVERYTHING you find in the world of information should be checked.

By: totaltransformation

totaltransformation — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:00:08 +0000

The exact reason why you MUST double check wiki-citations.

By: speedlimit

speedlimit — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:59:17 +0000

Everyone agrees, it seems, that he caused damage to wikipedia, and for this reason alone (besides his stupidity) he should have been fired.

By: popwheel

popwheel — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:45:56 +0000

I agree totally with Steve. It’s a good place to begin research, though.

Also, if Essjay had been honest about his credentials and then gone on to do the same level of work, people would have been saying, “That is one intelligent guy for only 24.”

By: Crisis en la Wikipedia: El enemigo en casa « La Singularidad Desnuda

Crisis en la Wikipedia: El enemigo en casa « La Singularidad Desnuda — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:29:09 +0000

[...] sin tener otro título que el bachillerato, cosa común entre nuestra clase política, sino que se presentó a sí mismo como un catedrático de una universidad privada, con un grado medio en Estudios Religiosos, un [...]

By: Roger

Roger — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:38:52 +0000

Like you say there is a difference between intelligence and education.

Wikipedia is still surely a brillaint start to any kind of research and will survive this. imho.

By: Truly Equal

Truly Equal — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:23:09 +0000

Ooops, I meant to say:

“If you didn’t go to school and CLAIM YOU DID, then it is a disservice to the readers. ”

By the way, plenty of people don’t get the chance to go to school and are no the less intelligent, and contribute to society just the same. But if were not able to go to school, don’t lie about it, because you’ll get busted. This can be checked quite easily by anyone.

By: Truly Equal

Truly Equal — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:18:29 +0000

It’s nice that he was able to contribute to Wikipedia, or any other online community, but lying about your credentials is a BIG NO-NO. Lying about having 2 doctorate degrees reduces you to a lying scumbag.

I know some people, for various reasons (like money, marriage, personal problems) can’t go to school, but if you didn’t it is a disservice to the readers. Don’t claim things you are not and then claim to have the authority and expertise to write about something.

Wikipedia definitely has a future, but not this guy. Sorry, it is what it is.

By: ncurse

ncurse — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:55:25 +0000

If Essjay is editing wiki anonymously, we’ll never know about it.

Ok, an apology could have been nice, but I still don’t care about it. He has done an incredible job in Wikipedia, that’s why I’ll miss him.

Credibility: it’s my fault if I can’t decide whether a sentence is reliable or not. Why? If I find a statement, data, number in the article without a proper reference, I’ll not trust that sentence even if a professor wrote that…

Why will Wikipedia recover from this scandal? Because we always have problems, issues (stable version, anonym editors, article rating, featured articles, stubs…), and such a big community can’t avoid strikes like this one.

Why does Wikipedia still have a future? Have your read The Wisdom of Crowds from James Surowiecki? There is the answer…