Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Note: This is the Talk page for the Wikipedia article on external criticisms of Wikipedia. Users interested in discussing their own problems with the project should go to the Village Pump where there are specific sections for dealing with various types of issue.

This page was previously nominated for deletion.

Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

No consensus, VFD December 23, 2004, see discussion
Keep, VFD March 13 2005 , see discussion
Speedy Keep, AFD October 18, 2005, see discussion
Keep, don't move and don't merge, AFD December 10, 2005, see discussion
Keep, AFD December 13, 2006, see discussion

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

[edit] Partial revert of Jimbo

It's not often that I revert an edit by Jimmy Wales. And it now seems to me that my edit summary was borderline incivil, for which I apologize. I also screwed up "screwed up" — which just shows that anybody can, well, screw up.

Truth to tell, I came this close (hold your thumb and forefinger a half-millimeter apart) to a complete revert of Jimbo's edit. In my opinion, "out of mediocrity, excellence" is a clever and completely unobjectionable summary of Wikipedia's fundamantal idea: average people, working together and often lacking conventional credentials, can produce superb encyclopedia articles.

Frankly, I'm not convinced by Jimmy's Google-based argument. Still, I can understand why some might be uncomfortable with the harshness of the term "mediocrity", which has acquired so many negative connotations. So I didn't revert entirely, though I was tempted. The first part of the edit, which (no doubt unintentionally) messed up most of the footnotes, had to be reverted, of course. I just wish I had been gentler, and a better typist, in my edit summary. Casey Abell 13:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please avoid editing this article if you are a wikipedian.

To aviod Conflict of interest, all wikipedian should avoid editing this article. Thank You. 220.255.58.47 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting paradox. I assume this would include anons. Perhaps you should take it to AfD as it would make an interesting argument. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that Wikipedians can't also be critical of Wikipedia?

Atlant 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI does not forbid people editing about their organisation or interests (unless they are paid or involved in the running of it, etc). This is the same as the way I can edit about the University I go to, despite being a part of it. Even if that were not true, in this case WP:IAR would probably override any problems normal Wikipedians will have editing this article. However, WP:COI does require editors to be extra careful when editing the page. --h2g2bob 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How is that possible? People who edit wikipedia technically are wikipedian. Also, If this article was only edited by those who oppose wikipedia, it will likely not get cleaned, updated, or rewritten for a while. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed text

From "censorship", I removed "it took less time to delete this page than the time it takes to read it" as it's badly worded and not really in the right place. It has an interesting point at it's center, but I can't think how to rephrase it correctly. If anyone can think how to edit that in properly, feel free to do so. --h2g2bob 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By what conceivable criteria...

...is this article encyclopedic? I'm not sure it belongs on Wikipedia at all -- after all, there's no "Criticism of Britannica" article in the Encyclopedia Britannica -- but it absolutely does not belong in mainspace. It is an essay and should be treated as such. --Tkynerd 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked my 2005 print version of the Britannica, and the "Encyclopedia" article contains a long section titled "Problems of encyclopedias" (volume 18, pp. 264-5). This section reads remarkably like the Criticism of Wikipedia article, including a number of specific criticisms directed at past and present editions of Britannica. For instance, this passage discusses bias in the Britannica:

"Various editions of Encyclopedia Britannica, almost from the beginning, were accused of bias as well. The practice of relying on outside specialists for articles, a practice now followed by most serious encyclopedias, has increased the likelihood that bias will be worked into an article."

While Britannica doesn't split off a separate article for such criticism - the print encyclopedia only has so much space, after all - the encyclopedia certainly doesn't regard this criticism as unencyclopedic or unworthy of notice in their main article space. Similarly, we shouldn't regard criticism of Wikipedia as unworthy of an article in our main space. Casey Abell 15:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

None of that answers my question. What makes this article encyclopedic? I wouldn't object to Problems of encyclopedias on Wikipedia, but I do not find that Criticism of Wikipedia is encyclopedic. To begin with, as someone else pointed out during one of the AfDs on this article, it violates WP:SELF. --Tkynerd 16:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clearer. I was only trying to answer your question by discussing how Britannica regards criticism of itself as an encyclopedic topic and worthy of discussion in its main article space. Of course, the judgment of what is "encyclopedic" will always be somewhat subjective, and I doubt that either of us will persuade the other on this issue. I'm afraid the issue may be undecidable in a rigorously objective way. But Britannica has made a judgment similar to Wikipedia's: criticism of the project is encyclopedic and can and should be treated at length in the main article space.

It seems that you would prefer a general "Problems of encyclopedias" article similar to Britannica's. If we followed Britannica's example, that article would include extensive discussion of criticism of Wikipedia, just as Britannica's article extensively discusses criticism of itself. So it appears that the material of this article would remain, but only as part of a larger article. That would be fine with me, but some editors think we have too many articles that are already too long. So a separate, shorter article may be the least controversial way to go. Casey Abell 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To keep a Problems of encyclopedias article at a reasonable size, much of the detail in the current article would have to go, which is the right course of action. As it stands, the article is still navel-gazing, arguably POV, and unencyclopedic. Further, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the material in this article is duplicative of material that can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, where it belongs. --Tkynerd 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I'm not at all sure that criticism of Wikipedia's specific model belongs in a Problems of encyclopedias article. Such an article should be an account of problems that are common to encyclopedias in general, as the name indicates. The Wikipedia-specific criticism does not, IMO, belong in mainspace. Still waiting for counterarguments that aren't just hand-waving. --Tkynerd 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When opposing comments are dismissed as "hand-waving", it's clear that persuasion is not possible, and there's no need to continue the discussion. You could try another AfD, though the article has already survived five of them. Casey Abell 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really seen anything beyond "it's encyclopedic because it's encyclopedic," which of course is circular reasoning and qualifies as hand-waving if anything does. Not everything that gets written about in the media is therefore encyclopedic, and I've seen no other real arguments for this article being encyclopedic. I'll reiterate that Britannica does not have a Criticism of Britannica article. If there are other arguments, I'm ready to hear them -- and contrary to your unwarranted assumption and attack, I can be persuaded; I've just seen nothing persuasive yet. --Tkynerd 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't have an article on Criticisms of Internet Explorer, although it might mention some of them in an article on Internet Explorer. That we have split what would be an enormous article (wikipedia + its criticism) into two so as to be more comprehensive is of no great consequence: Brittanica doesn't do it because they don't have the space (and maybe because they're there for the profit...). How can your entire argumentation be built on the fact that Britannica doesn't have a certain article? It doesn't have an article on Xenu either. Does that mean we should delete it too? yandman 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My entire argumentation is not built on that fact. Reread the question that formed the initial portion of my first post on this topic. I'm still waiting for an answer. What are the criteria by which this article is encyclopedic? --Tkynerd 12:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question. User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #6 seems to rule this article out:

The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at the Wikipedia itself.

--Shtove 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lack of grammar or logic

"Additionally, the issue of vandalism detection is an important one. Most vandalism is detected via "Recent changes", a listing of all recent edits. As such, even obvious vandalism that slips by those who watch for vandalism may remain undetected for several weeks, or even months"

This certainly is wrong or vandalized itself, it implies that recent changes feature makes obvious vandalism to remain undected for several weeks. "As such" is not the right wording. My last "vandalism"/"test", was to make that point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.62.130.226 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I reworded it. Is it better now? – Qxz 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So much for free speech

Should also add a section that details how this site deletes pages about sites critical of Wikipedia, what's the matter Jimbo, you don't like it when you don't get the fawning admiration you think you deserve?

Main page should read "Welcome to Wikipedia, the nasty new face of internet censorship"--80.43.33.207 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to add a section stating that this is one criticism of the project, if you can back it up with reliable, independent sources. The second part of your comment, though, I think is best ignored – Qxz 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm welcome to add a section? Why thank-you your highness. I find it amusing that you mention "back up with reliable sources" when this site has a known history of deleting entries on websites that clearly criticise/parody Wikipedia, Encyclopediadramatica.com is one example. Rather than acknowledge such sites you force your own agenda by trying to deny their exsistance, but then of course the internet is serious business --80.43.40.131 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, arguably the Internet is serious business; it has — at least in developed nations — revolutionized the way business is done, changed the way we handle information, and impacted many aspects of society. Returning to your point, however, the article about the website you mention was deleted because no independent reliable sources could be found for its content (such sources as did exist came entirely from the website itself); the nature of the website is unrelated. This article, too, should contain only sourced material. In what way is my request "amusing"? This requirement is clearly outlined in Wikipedia's content policies, which also state that unsourced material may be removed – Qxz 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

^^On A lighter note, This is what we call a lulz-killer. The internet cannot simply be just serious business, but It should be a well-balanced diet between seriousness and play. Wikipedia is absorbing all the worst parts of the internet. Biggotry, over-professionalism, and most importantly, arrogance.--User:Gravy

Your request is amusing because you ask me to back up my claims that Wikipedia actively pursues a policy of censorship regarding websites that parody it. The evidence for this is on wikipedia, by the very fact that the entry for Encyclopediadramatica has been deleted and even the talk page deleted. And to say that it was deleted because no independent sources could be found for its content, well, clearly demonstrates that this sites admin do not understand satire. The day that the ED article is restored (and others like it) is when you can then say that wikipedia is not the nasty new face of internet censorship, but then that isn't going to happen, Uncle Jimbo isn't going to allow anything to ruin the lucarative gravy train he's on now. --80.47.152.170 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Being satirical does not exclude a website from the sourcing policies; they apply to all articles. Nor does removing material because it is unsourced constitute censorship — any more than removing nonsense and gibberish constitutes censorship. Again, the nature of that particular article was not the deciding factor in its deletion, it was the lack of sources. Thousands of other articles have been deleted for the same reason, on all kinds of subjects — people, bands, organizations, websites. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia actively pursues a policy of censorship regarding each of these subjects too? Clearly this is not the case – Qxz 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Being satirical does not exclude a website from the sourcing policies"....Great cop out,please keep this up, you're doing a fanatstic job of proving me right. Must drive you people mad that can control what people see but not what they think. Lack of sources may be your cited reason but everyone knows it was deleted because wikipedia do not want people to see this site beacause it parodies and satirises your great leader Jimbo. I'm not suggesting that wikipedia that Wikipedia actively pursues a policy of censorship....I'm saying it. This site is far too important to Jim Wales et al for anyone to threaten it or even dare criticise...such is the nature of the Jim Wales personality cult--80.43.37.90 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The way that ED fappers react over the TOW ED article deletion gives me much lulz in light of their view about teh internets being serious business. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 April 2007

Not an ED fapper (and can you provide a source to back that up?...you know, in the spirit of the great wikipedia policy that is always being touted) just using it as an example of Wikipedia's policy of deleting articles about sites that criticise it. Then to say it was deleted because it doesn't cite sources for satire........oh dear

He doesn't need a source; this is a talk page, not an article. It really helps if you READ and think critically about what other people say. Think about WHY it was deleted before you start crying. When you can answer that question (not from a biased viewpoint without any standing or basis, but on Wikipedia's own admission), you can cry about the unfairness.Robinson0120 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments regarding the deletion of the encyclopediadrmatica article. Unfortunately for you, your comments only serve to prove me right. Your doing a grand job of proving that editors on here show a fanatical devotion to Jimbo Wales and try to shout down all who criticise him. It really must drive you crazy knowing you can't silence us all. If you have a problem with people satirising Wikipedia or expressing criticism of your great leader, why don't you move to North Korea? It is really sad when a project like wikipedia that had so much potential is hijacked by people who will stop at nothing to enforce their point of view.

Anyone considering these arguments may wish to consider the existence of the article about Wikitruth, a site which is more consistently critical of Wikipedia than ED, and which has now survived a good while… funnily enough, thanks to its being extensively referenced in outside sources… $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truthiness as a commodity

How about this for a section? —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. And given that everyone else who has used the words "commodity" and "truthiness" in the same sentence today has been reverted, neither does anyone else – Qxz 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you've taken my wikiality a bit too seriously. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It was either that or revert you – Qxz 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar edits & queries

Just did some edits for grammar and readability.

The Suitability as an encyclopaedia section has this: "Critics such as Robert McHenry have said that Wikipedia errs in billing itself as an encyclopedia, because that word implies a level of authority and accountability that they believe cannot be possessed by an openly editable reference." This is the editor of Britannica, the online version of which defines Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia - contradiction there, so is this sentence an inaccurate paraphrase or a direct quote?

The Exposure to vandalism section has this: "Most undetected vandalizing edits are done by registered users, which are often reviewed less often than those by anonymous users." I don't know what this means.--Shtove 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer your second question, "anonymous" users are those who do not log in under a user name, but simply edit without logging in; they show up as just IP addresses in the edit logs. But I have a feeling you already knew that. What the sentence is saying is that anonymous users' edits tend to be viewed with more suspicion than the edits of registered users, so vandalism committed by registered users is more likely to go undetected. --Tkynerd 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your way of putting it is much better. The point about registered users' vandalism is plausible, but is it surmise or assertion - this is more likely to happen, or does actually happen? And I wonder what source will back it up?--Shtove 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to remove it, unless someone does find a source somewhere. I very much doubt there's a reliable, independent source saying vandalism from registered users is noticed less; I'm not sure there's even a Wikipedia project page that says it — in any case, it's really just speculation based on our intuition as contributors, which unfortunately is original research – Qxz 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] search engine

Is anyone else sick of seeing "There was a problem with your search. This is probably temporary; try again in a few moments, or you can search Wikipedia through an external search service:?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.150.200.99 (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Unfortunately it seems we can't afford better hardware to run the search function on, and it keeps getting overloaded with requests. – Qxz 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert McHenry quote

The quote is as follows: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." The Page History sort of throws the quote out the window, doesn't it? I know who used the facilities, it was 127.0.0.1 and RandomUser13, and I can see they did this yesterday and that an hour ago. thoughts? --MulletManDan 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But do you know who that really was? Anonymous knows. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from 24.144.137.244

uh,y would wiki put this here?24.144.137.244 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? – Qxz 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Quote:

Likewise, Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica said in November 2004: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."[10]

What Mr. McHenry describes sounds awfully familiar... perhaps like the history tab? This quote has been bothering me for some time, because everybody knows exactly who used the facilities before them. I would like to see a sentence or so pointing out this fact, just a thought. Comments? --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see the history, but you still don't know who the editors are - I think the point is that the edits are made by people whose bona fides you can't check or have confidence in. BTW - online Brittannica defines WP as an encyclopedia, contradicting McHenry's quoted comments in the suitability section of this article.--Shtove 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, most articles in the "Micropedia" part of the print Britannica aren't signed, so you really have no idea who wrote or edited them. The encyclopedia only gives a general list of people who worked on the Micropedia. Also, a number of signed articles in both sections of the encyclopedia have an "Ed." attached to the signature, indicating that non-specified editor(s) contributed significantly to the article. So many times a reader can't be sure exactly who wrote or contributed to a Britannica article. This hasn't prompted McHenry to compare the Britannica to a public restroom. Casey Abell 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

However, Britanica purports to have editorial oversight, so it doesn't matter which junior editor wrote an article in Britanica because you're supposed to be able to trust that fact checking was done on it. There is no editorial oversight at WP which is why so much importance is heavily placed on verifiability through reliable, third-party, non-trivial sources that do have fact checking editorial processes. Now, whether or not you trust Britanica's editorial process as much as you trust those signs in restrooms that say, "Employees are required to wash hands before returning to work," is up to you. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can "purport to have" anything, and anybody can be "supposed to trust" anything. Many errors have been found in Britannica, which indicates that its editorial oversight is hardly infallible. I agree that a decision to trust Britannica's oversight is completely subjective. What is objectively true is that many (actually, most) articles in the print Britannica are unsigned and thus not attributable to specific individuals. Casey Abell 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] complete re-write

There are a number of issues being raised about the article as stated above, but nothing to convincingly justify the necessity of a complete re-write. Even if this step were taken, the page would undoubtedly be amended and edited so as to re-address the exact same issues, thus accomplishing nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.240.76.159 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2007.

Many of the criticisms currently in the article shouldn't be there. Some of them are internal problems that are unknown to anyone not actively participating in Wikipedia because they have not been mentioned by independent reliable sources. These need (and have) discussion on appropriate project pages but do not belong in this article. Others have been added by disgruntled former or banned contributors and it's debatable whether they are valid criticisms at all; there certainly aren't verifiable sources for them. The article should stick to what has been covered in the media, who largely stick to the issues of accuracy and reliability – Qxz 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Sanger

Is there any reason he was identified as "former Nupedia editor-in-chief" instead of "Wikipedia co-founder"? I think his criticism is better noted on the basis of him having a connection to Wikipedia instead of simply him having a connection to just the Wiki process. To leave out his involvement in Wikipedia lessens the impact of his criticism.Dookama 12:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with this: [1], [2]. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are.... interesting and slightly disturbing logs. --Dookama 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Link

Just so it's known, the Daniel Brandt article was deleted without review by Yanksox and it's currently being disputed. I'd reccommend leaving the link in until the issue is resolved. --Dookama 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nauseating American viewpoints

I cant find it mentioned anywhere, that there is so much US biased content on wikipedia. It was mentions that English speaking nations had more contributers but this does not cover the nauseating viewpoints of Americans for example the article on WW2 has the war in the pacific at the top of it despite the fact that the war in Europe was more important and interesting and this is one of the most popular articles in wikipedea. The article railroad car should be called a proper correct English term as railways were invented in the UK, this would match wikipedias own rules, but Americans must have their egos pandered to. As for the article Empire State express I deleted ridicules claims by Americans out only to be accused of being anti American. I can bet you there will be a yank who will remove this information as he will be unable to accept the truth.Oxyman42 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick perusal of Talk:Empire State Express shows that you engaged in personal attacks and unwarranted, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry there. As for the name of Railroad car, that name follows WP:NAMING and WP:ENGVAR, so there's no reason to change it. --Tkynerd 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right there with you buddy. I find the censorship by members of the American public ridiculous and highly damaging. Wikipedia is, in places, liable to become another American propaganda machine. I propose leaving the American Wikipedia to the Americans and establshing an English Wikipedia, with English version articles. It might be an idea to prevent all but proven Englishmen and Englishwomen editing it. Sadly, I fear it is an uphill struggle. There's just too damn many of them. Spite & Malice 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A fantastic idea, an English wikipedia. That way the rest of the world doesn't get american spellings of english words rammed down their throats. I will suggest this to some webwise friends of mine, watch this space! ;)

I would personally enjoy a Wikipedia free of British (mis)spellings, even though I happily make reverts like this one in order to follow Wikipedia policy. --Tkynerd 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Phenomenon of Improvement

Notice how pointing out in this entry problems can cause them to be solved? There is a portion that talks about how the entry of 'feminist science fiction' was deleted, but now links to that entry, alive and of seemingly good quality, for instance. Maybe we should state the existence of the phenomenon explicitly in the entry, as well as putting mentions of resolved problems properly in past tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.178.229 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Conservapedia

Should we add info from this link? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Only if it's considered to be a reliable source, and if those criticisms appear in another, independently published work. —Psychonaut 04:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Grauniad has A fact of one's own as an opinion piece which mentions this list. ... dave souza, talk 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay Issue

Please do not remove sections of this article without providing a valid reason for doing so. Especially if you are a Wikipedian. This section is meant for criticisms of Wikipedia and should not be subject to censure.

That would be... you, as well as everyone else who will edit this page. Perhaps you shouldn't add unsourced information without a valid reason? --Hojimachong^talk 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article had proper citations. If there was a problem with the citations, that should have been noted in the discussion for fixing, instead of complete removal of the article. Completely removing an article critical of Wikipedia without providing valid reasons is akin to censure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.15.169 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

As I am one of the editors who removed the section, let me explain. The last sentence of 128.195.15.169's edit gave his/her personal interpretation for for why no disciplinary action was taken. That's POV and original research, and would be removed even if the article were not about Wikipedia, its founder, and its administrators. (That's not to say that the rest of the edit was okay, just explaining that that was what I particularly objected to.) ElinorD (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If the problem was only with the last sentence, why remove the entire section instead of just the offending sentence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.15.169 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I didn't say it was only with the last sentence. In fact, I said that I was not saying that the rest was fine, but was explaining that that was what I particularly objected to. ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. If there are no citations (by the type of sources described on WP:N and WP:RS), it's probable that the event is not notable enough for inclusion in the article. Censorship is in the motive, not the action in itself. Motive: an interesting and applicable word here. In addition, there are no reliable sources on who Essjay is (of which I am aware), so WP:BLP might apply. Gracenotes^T § 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but Gracenotes put it better than I could have, which is why I just explained my objection to the last sentence! ElinorD (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Included in the references in the Essjay subsection was the article in The New Yorker in question, which also contains an editors note that they discovered after the article was written that Essjay was actually a 24 year old with no advanced degrees or teaching experience. Also included in the references was a copy of a letter written by Essjay where he used his credentials and experience as leverage in an argument. The New Yorker is a very reputable magazine and should be more than enough of a reference. Additionally, Essjays own page has been edited to show that he is indeed a 24 year old with no advanced degrees or teaching experience. How much more evidence and how many references do you need? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.15.169 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

← The New Yorker didn't say that Essjay's real name is Ryan Jordan. It only said that Essjay said that his real name is Ryan Jordan. How does the New Yorker article use this incident as a criticism of Wikipedia? Obviously people disagree on whether Essjay should be criticized for this or not, and if you're mentioning in an article, it should have a bit of sourcing. Gracenotes^T § 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A favorite adage, by the way: "the plural of anecdote is not data". Gracenotes^T § 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to not let my systemic bias get in the way, and refer to policies and guidelines, but it's clear that we both have bias, 128.195.15.169. Gracenotes^T § 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a major edit change to the article in question, moved it under the existing New Yorker article subsection, removed any POV problems, and added a lot more references. Please let me know if it is up to standards. 128.195.15.169 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have problems with the statement "Many other examples where Essjay used his purported credentials as support exist as well." The citations after it do not indicate that Essjay referred to his credentials, but rather to his knowledge of the subject. Gracenotes^T § 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some quotes by Essjay from the references you are questioning to show why they are relevant:

I am a scholar of Roman Catholicism.
I'm not Catholic, I just study Catholicism.
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.

All of these statements imply that he has credentials.

(Butting my head in) I strongly disagree that these statements imply he has credentials. I have read the diffs in question, and nothing he said in them indicates to me that he has an advanced degree in anything. He merely says he is a 'scholar' of Catholicism. Furthermore, his knowledge seems to back that up. I encourage you to look up the word scholar. --Otheus 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If he claims to have degrees on his User Page, it backs the word up with implied years upon years of formal study. And I think the last one in particular implies credentials. "in and outside class" paired up with "years" implies that the issue has come up over and over and over again -- and how many issues come up in several different classes over a course of years? Probably just a handful and probably not something that's untrue (you would hope as much, anyway...). So the statement has an undercurrent that suggests that Essjay teaches some classes on Catholicism on top of the suggestion of his credentials. --Dookama 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, those statements themselves do not strictly imply degrees or official credentials. Essjay could be an erudite who went to Catholic school. But, yes, in that context of his user page, etc, it would. Unfortunately, all those pages were deleted, and as I understand, they had been "corrected" a little while ago, and I have been unable to find any cached page, etc, that has this. I'm not justifying Essjay here, merely playing devil's advocate, addressing a specific, minor point.

Also, you removed this quote from the article which I believe to be very important:

I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. My Academic Degrees:

Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)

Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)

Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)

Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

I admit that I did forget to reference it. The correct reference is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/History1&oldid=21137993128.195.15.169 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to do this when it can be accurately summarized. While Essjay (according to posts on his talk page) is not a tenured professor, there's no indication that he doesn't actually study Roman Catholicism. Gracenotes^T § 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good form to provide a direct quote when it's as relevant and important as Essjay's admission in that User History. I don't think you can sum up things any better than he did himself.

But... if he claimed to have a doctorate of philosophy in theology, then wouldn't he be backing up his claims with false credentials -- so it wouldn't really matter if he studies Roman Catholicism. The point of the criticism is that people can back up their edits with false credentials, so removing the credentials that Essjay claimed to have needlessly dulls the criticism. I haven't looked into it thoroughly, though -- this is just an initial impression. I'll either edit this comment or add another if I change my mind after looking into it more. --Dookama 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of the article is not to criticize Essjay, it's to describe and summarize criticism about the situation. Dulling criticism is perfectly fine. Dulling representation of the criticism is not, and the inclusion of the direct text does not affect this. Gracenotes^T § 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking things over a bit more, I'd argue that the wording should mention his claims to a doctorate in canon law. The rest are superfluous. It should really just mention the Ph.D. in Canon Law and his arguments on Catholicism, since those are the only arguments he's sourced as having used his purported credentials in. The other lower degrees don't really need mention (possession of a doctorate implies a bachelor's and master's), though the fact that two doctorates were claimed to be held merits mention. Something like, "Two doctorates, one of which was in Canon Law..." would work. --Dookama 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To pontificate, "with four academic degrees" explains the situation well enough, in my opinion.

Also, I think it's important that I explain why I find this important enough to write an article about and then defend it. I think that this whole situation is really bad for Wikipedia. Not only was a Wikipedia Admin caught lying to a reputable magazine about his credentials, that same admin was never punished for his actions. In my eyes, this really sets a precedent that it's OK to lie on Wikipedia, since even if you get caught, nothing is going to happen to you. This whole thing is preposterous, and I think it's flat out ridiculous that he can get away with this. You can't have people like Essjay running your site and expect people to take it seriously. Essjay's continued existence as a Wikipedia Admin is a major criticism for Wikipedia - that's also why I included the fact that he hasn't been punished for his actions and continues to be a Wikipedia Admin at the bottom of the article.

That's a valid point of view (one which I don't exactly hold), and my sole problem with the inclusion of the "Essjay's adminship has not been revoked" indicates that it should have been, which does not adhere to a neutral point of view. And looking through blogs and stories about this, I do not see many people clamoring for Essjay's status as an admin removed. Gracenotes^T § 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How about something like "Essjay's adminship has not been revoked, in large part due to an unspoken consensus among the community that he still deserves his adminship"? Not that exactly, I'm horrible at wording things like that, but something along those lines would be a good compromise. It would preserve NPOV and put in the fact that someone feels needs to be included. --Dookama 02:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some people who have the view that Essjay's status as admin should be removed:

And in case you're curious how this all started: here a link to the thread where he was accidentally found out:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0 128.195.15.169 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dookama: if you can find a citation for that (since analyzing a community must have a source), go ahead and add it. Personally, it's not worth mentioning that nothing happened because nobody talked about it. 128.195.15.169, I'm sort of in an awkward position here, because on one hand your comment about Essjay not being de-sysopped is very POV, but on the other hand I don't want to seem like I'm censoring your beliefs. Gracenotes^T § 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it's 'unspoken' would merit it not being citable . . . and considering that there are citations of people calling for him to be desysopped, would it be okay to add in, "Essjay has not been de-sysopped, though external sites have provided outlets for those who think he should be"? I think blogs and all that are considered non-notable sources (which I don't agree with, but that's neither here nor there), though... and that's where most analysis of a community comes from. --Dookama 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, communities are notoriously difficult to source information about. Gracenotes^T § 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes:I made some more changes to the article to try and remove the POV problem, please let me know what you think of it now. I really do appreciate your help in this matter and I want to let you know that. 128.195.15.169 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since so many have feared a surge of criticism in the press, I'd a look at Google news and found... not very much interest. It hardly seems to have escaped the blogosphere. However, the Inquirer includes the exciting revelation that "Essjay is a member of the Wikipedia management team and makes daily decisions about what information is accurate or not." Wow! And here was me thinking that we all did that! ... dave souza, talk 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Try wording things a bit better -- and just because there's not a firestorm of news stories doesn't mean that it's not a relative surge. --Dookama 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No incivility intended, don't really see where you've found it. Just my ironicish way of pointing out that the Inquirer has ideas of what Essjay's duties entailed which I found surprising. No doubt a culture clash, for which I apologise. The relative surge is indeed there, what's surprised me is the absence of stories in sources I'd have expected to run it. Is Slashdot losing its grip? ... dave souza, talk 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility? My arse. DS worded things just right. On the lack of interest, maybe it's the fact that the Essjay part of the New Yorker article is the dullest part of a good piece of writing. Or maybe nobody cares about WP anymore. Boo hoo. Anyway, Dookama is "unimportant".--Shtove 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedians

I have a great idea for a new article which parts of this article may be applied. Please start a new article titled Criticism of Wikipedians and I will meet you at the stub. --QuackGuru 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the navel-gazing on this article bad enough? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This new article proposal is a wonderful idea. It will keep us honest, improve policy, and avoid scandals in the future. --QuackGuru 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At present only two Wikipedians have notable criticisms as Wikipedians- Jimbo and Essjay. That isn't enough for an article. JoshuaZ 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Make that three - Alan Mcilwraith However, I have my doubts whether there should be an article specifically to critise other editors unless we are happy to have it soley as a troll magnet - Munta 18:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowing internal policy considerations to drive mainspace article content seems a bad idea because the purpose of articles should be to inform the reader. Efforts such as you are talking about more appropriately belong in project space. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So... we shouldn't... inform the reader about criticism of Wikipedians just because it would be written by Wikipedians and (probably) looked at the most by Wikipedians? I think what you're implying with "the purpose of articles should be to inform the reader" is that people don't care about Wikipedians -- just Wikipedia. I disagree with that and think that at some time, it would be appropriate to make a Criticism of Wikipedians article. As it is, there are enough people to make the article, but I think it should wait until there's more substance to make the article. --Dookama 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was simply analyzing QuackGuru's reasons for proposing such an article, which were that the article would serve as useful self-criticism. If there is outside interest (i.e., reliable sources have written about it) in such criticism, WP should do an article on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ObiterDicta (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay, the way you worded that it just sounded like you were saying that there is not and should never be an article about criticism of Wikipedians -- and while I don't think there's enough out there to merit an article now, I think there probably will be in the future. --Dookama 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article Criticism of Wikipedia is detailed enough as it stands.--Ianmacm 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for something to keep us honest, QuackGuru (nice username, by the way), try to implement it in project namespace: pages beginning with "Wikipedia:". It would be infinitely more effective. Gracenotes^T § 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullying and attempted control of outside mediums

I was browsing through the junk heap that is Wikipedia looking for some scrap that I might be able to use in a Usenet post or two when I came across these remarks on someone's user page. Can you honestly read that and tell me that the person isn't completely crazy? Since when is Wikipedia trying to push itself on the entire Internet? This is ludicrous, and if it's true I really, REALLY feel like going out onto random websites and saying obscene and nasty things about Wikipedia contributors. --The Bede 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article namespace --h2g2bob 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Rodham Clinton's biography

I removed the section on Hillary Clinton's biography but it was put back. Space was the main reason for removing it, as the article is already becoming too long. The error mentioned in Hillary Clinton's biography was an inaccuracy rather than a glaring mistake, and even professional journalists do this sort of thing from time to time. It is not in the same league as the Seigenthaler affair and is probably not worth a whole section.--Ianmacm 07:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to remove it as it makes a valid point against the theory that articles can be expected to continuously improve and that errors can be expected to be caught and removed quickly. I did move it and the section immediately above it into the first section ("Criticism of the concept") because they don't belong in "Criticism of the contributors." I also removed the first sentence of the Clinton material because it made the whole thing sound like a debate rebuttal. --Tkynerd 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like removing things but am becoming concerned at the article's ballooning length. The claim about Hillary Clinton's valedictory speech seems to have been made in good faith and is a fairly minor mistake by Wikipedia standards. There are probably far worse errors out there right now.--Ianmacm 16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing part of the point: Yes, the Clinton edit was probably made in good faith. That's the point! We have other examples of vandalism or obviously wrong or libelous information persisting on Wikipedia. Clinton's non-status as valedictorian is an example of positive information -- the sort of minor detail that wouldn't jump out at most readers, unless they had read any one of the many books on Clinton, as an error. That's why this is a valuable example: minor error in a prominent article, made in good faith, which will then be repeated at Answers.com and in a thousand student papers. And it survived thousands of edits by Wikipedians. KillerAsteroids 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This single example doesn't deserve an entire section, but it's a helpful reminder of the difficulty of fact-checking. So I moved it to, you guessed it, the "Difficulty of fact-checking" section. I also cleaned up the footnotes and squeezed the material into a single paragraph. The article is getting awfully long, but it's hard to decide what to axe. Maybe we can cut down the Essjay stuff after the main article on the controversy finally stabilizes. Casey Abell 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I never intended to excuse the mistake, only to put it in context. All Wikipedia articles need to be checked by knowledgeable people, and most Wikipedians are not experts on the finer points of Hillary Clinton's career. The biggest problems facing Wikipedia are huge errors, vandalism and lack of neutral point of view. The Hillary Clinton error does not fall into these categories, but I am happy for it to be used as an example of the need for fact checking.--Ianmacm 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much more improvement until this article receives featured status?

Would anyone be interested in doing such a thing? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I think that quite a bit of work would be needed before FA status was granted. Parts of the article are still overlong and wordy, although it does make many useful points.--Ianmacm 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to try to get Wikipedia itself up to featured status, before doing such a thing with the related articles. It's a good article already, but there are/were problems (see recent peer review). This article needs improvement to get it up to even "good article"-ish level, though I'm not sure it would actually be approved as one even then – Qxz 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECriticism_of_Wikipedia_c963.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics