BoingBoing points to a case where Wikipedia fact checkers, responding to a “help desk” question, help find an error in a NY Times piece about soy milk. Wikipedians notified the NY Times. Problem is, NY Times, makes the change to the article without acknowledging the error or putting in an explicit notice.

There are major problems with this approach to correction, which is quite unusual. From the comment by the Wikipedian:

Is it common journalistic practice to change old articles like that? Is it considered ethically appropriate for a major newspaper to just pretend that they were right all along, and give neither credit nor acknowledgement for their error? Seems a bit slimy to me, given the severity of the error, and the potential impact on everything from soy milk sales to public support for vegan parenting. You have to wonder if the process would have been the same for an error made regarding a less “countercultural” product. Link to Wikipedia reference desk discussion and fact-finding, including a copy of the letter I wrote to the NYT, Link to now-changed NYT article

The answer to the two questions: no and no.

UPDATE: It seems the NY Times has in fact acknowledged the change now with the following:

Correction: March 31, 2007

The Personal Health column in Science Times on Tuesday about healthful beverages included incorrect information from the Beverage Guidance Panel about soy milk. It can indeed be legally fortified with vitamin D.

I did a long discussion about Wikipedia with Jason Calacanis (cofounder of Weblogs Inc, and former Netscape General Manager) on his podcast.

Some of the things we discussed included:

• Wikipedia culture
• Community spirit/policy - “Assume good faith” and “Ignore all rules”
• Advertising and revenue
• Essjay/New Yorker crisis
• Relationship of Wikipedia to Wikia
• Wikimania conference in Taiwan

My favorite quote: he described his discovering Wikipedia, “like a stockbroker running into church.”

Historical footnote: For those who may remember, I was the one accused of “cutting off” Calacanis at Wikimania 2006 when I moderated a session with Yochai Benkler. As you can see, there are no grudges.

Some interesting analysis of stats concerning Wikipedia’s ranking across different Internet communities, from The Signpost:

Alexa ranks remain steady

Wikipedia’s 3-month Alexa rank remains at 11th; however, daily ranks over the last week have fluctuated, ranking anywhere from 9th to 11th. Should growth remain steady, it appears that Wikipedia will break the Top 10 in the next month. By-country rankings show that in Germany, the site ranks 6th. Not including search engines, the site is the second-most popular site in Germany, behind eBay. Wikipedia ranks 7th in Colombia and the Philippines, 8th in the United States, 9th in Canada, Mexico, Spain, Singapore and the Netherlands, 10th in the United Kingdom and Australia, and 14th in France.

It gives me no pleasure to relate this, but the saga has come to a conclusion for now: user Essjay has left Wikipedia and his recent position at Wikia.com.

It appears the immediate community crisis has ended, but there are still aftershocks. The New York Times published an article Monday that gives a good summary of the affair. But most importantly, an official response from The New Yorker is surprisingly inadequate at first glance, given its stellar reputation for fact checking. From the article:

In an e-mail message on Friday, The New Yorker’s deputy editor, Pamela Maffei McCarthy, said: “We were comfortable with the material we got from Essjay because of Wikipedia’s confirmation of his work and their endorsement of him. In retrospect, we should have let our readers know that we had been unable to corroborate Essjay’s identity beyond what he told us.”

It is not clear what “Wikipedia’s confirmation” refers to. Since Wikipedia is a community of indvidual editors and not a monolithic top-down organization, it may be referring to looking up information contained in the web site’s pages. But personal information is entirely voluntary, and does not go through the “wiki” method of checking and editing.

Alternatively, this “Wikipedia’s confirmation” may refer to the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation offices in Florida, but the organization in itself does not have any confirmation of the real identity of its online users, and has been consistent in stressing it only recommended users to talk to. (Full comment below)

In the end, it is the responsibility of the respected magazine to vouch for their story and sources, in this case an individual editor of Wikipedia.

“What he told us”

The ultimate question then: did the New Yorker ever ask Essjay for his real-life name for verification of the facts? Given their vaunted reputation for meticulous fact checking, this is an important question.

• If he did provide a name, did they look up the information? What did they find?

• If he did not provide a name, how could they run with the story with unverified basic facts about a main character, given they were fact checking meticulously about items like the number of “hits per second” to the Web site, the start date of the three revert rule and the male/female percentages in the community?

I’m troubled they put the onus on “Wikipedia’s confirmation of his work and their endorsement of him.” This appears to be a questionable characterization of the fact checking procedure in this case.

Danny Wool of the Wikimedia Foundation, point person handling interactions with the magazine, indicated the nonprofit organization could not have been part of such an “endorsement”:

I suggested several names for interviews, along with the known background stories of these editors and a brief summary of their work. In suggesting Essjay to Stacy [Schiff] as one of these possible interview candidates… I stated that one of the appealing things about his story was the extreme anonymity. I also stated that he had turned down requests for interviews in the past, and that I was not sure he would agree. I was not asked about Essjay at all by the fact checker (name omitted) who contacted me and discussed the other points of the article at length.

So it seems we still have an unresolved issue of what The New Yorker meant by their statement. I look forward to hearing a more detailed explanation.

Note: A request for clarification has been sent to The New Yorker deputy editor Ms. McCarthy. Any followups to this will be posted here.

Full disclosure: Andrew Lih has been an assistant professor of journalism for three years and has worked in the field of journalism for over a decade. He has also been a Wikipedian as User:Fuzheado for four years. He is currently writing a book about Wikipedia.

My 60 Second saga of Wikipedia introduced Essjay and the false story he told The New Yorker. He was accused, at best, of being deceitful and, at worst, a liar. A new third revelation sadly points to the latter. And it gives me no joy to report on the latest and most serious issue.

Essjay makes an outrageous claim against the reporter in this controversy that cannot go unaddressed. (This claim is talked about extensively in special episode 12 of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast talking about the Essjay incident, but is detailed below.)

As March started, the crisis broke and the community was buzzing. After a few days of silence, Essjay responded with a single brief message. Many felt it was not contrite, sounding more like a classic conditional “political apology”:

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. [...]

I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win. [ref]

But what instantly struck me, and only a few others it seems, was his second paragraph. It is an alarming charge. Essjay bemoaned Stacy Schiff, the reporter who interviewed and wrote about him:

That she chose to focus on two rather trivial reverts to Justin Timberlake and what my userpage said came as a complete surprise to me; it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it.

I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn’t even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead. (Emphasis mine)

Read that last sentence again. This is an accusation of the highest degree to make about a journalist. Paying a source for a story is an absolute no-no in the normal practice of print journalism. And it struck me immediately how incredible it was he would accuse Stacy Schiff, a Pulitzer Prize winning author writing for The New Yorker, of this crime. We either have a serious breach of ethics with Ms. Schiff or another dubious statement claim from Essjay (nee Ryan Jordan).

When I contacted Ms. Schiff about this, she went on the record, succinct and emphatic:

This is complete nonsense.

All best,
Stacy

There is a disturbing pattern by Essjay that has been escalated to not just embarrassing a reporter by snowing her in an interview, but by directly implying the reporter operated unethically. This is yet another, third outrageous claim by Essjay. We now know:

One, Essjay has used his false credentials to gain the upper hand internally in Wikipedia proceedings. Remember: Essjay’s explanation of record for using the false persona was to avoid “vandals, trolls, and stalkers.” But his fourth ever edit was in 2005, already using the false credentials as a “tenured professor” to end debate.

This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. [ref]

Two, Essjay has misled about his identity to a mainstream media reporter and fact checker on the phone, by voice. It takes a certain pathology to lie by voice on the phone to another human being, knowing it will show up in print. His defensive online persona argument no longer holds water. This is an external credibility problem — does the Wikipedia community’s accept such behavior from one of their own as representation to the outside world. Additionally, there is now evidence he contacted academics representing Wikipedia with his false credentials.

Before a print magazine made it public, academics were the victim too. Essjay described how he addressed “fellow” professors with a form letter stating his credentials on behalf of Wikipedia:

I’ve contacted a few professors after other Wikipedians have pointed out that the instructor made the “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” argument to students who were, in fact, Wikipeidans. I have a copy of my form response at User:Essjay/Letter. When I was head of my department, I certainly would have taken knowledge of such conduct into consideration, and I think similarly minded department heads/deans would as well. [ref]

The letter, which may or may not have ever been sent, stated:

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. [ref]

This is now an internal crisis of confidence. What company does the community keep? What happens when after assuming good faith, we discover the depths of betrayal go this deep? The Wikipedia community is notoriously full of touchy-feely assume good faith WikiLove and quick to forgive.

But this latest third episode adds a whole new dimension.

He has now accused Schiff of unethical conduct, entering into the dangerous domain of defamation and libel and directly affecting the reputation of a working journalist. Is he ready to stand up and be accountable for his story, or will he leave a reckless statement sitting on the Talk page?

(While Essjay did reply to previous questions from me, he did not respond to requests for comment on this issue.)

Who do we believe — a respected reporter or proven prevaricator Essjay/Ryan Jordan?

There are few plausible explanations other than this — in an attempt to portray himself as a sympathetic character (”See, I didn’t even want the money Stacy Schiff was offering to me. I directed it to the Foundation”) he inadvertantly stumbled into accusing a reporter of things a reporter should never do.

It’s a serious charge against Essjay, and it saddens me to make it.

Full disclosure: Andrew Lih has been an assistant professor of journalism for three years and has worked in the field of journalism for over a decade. He has also been a Wikipedian as User:Fuzheado for four years.

After considering the new facts that have come to light, Jimmy Wales has changed his stance in the Essjay Affair. Before, Wales had said in his Talk page:

“EssJay has always been, and still is, a fantastic editor and trusted member of the community…He has been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter, and I consider it settled.”

He has since posted this to his Talk page:

I have been for several days in a remote part of India with little or no Internet access. I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people’s trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc.

I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community. In terms of the full parameters of what happens next, I advise (as usual) that we take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach. From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic. People who characterize him as being “proud” of it or “bragging” are badly mistaken.

I will post shortly about how there is still a “third” transgression that is perhaps the most serious of all.

How do you sum up the calamity that has gripped English-language Wikipedian the last few days. In the spirit of 60 Second Shakespeare, I give you The Question of Essjay:

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Stacy Schiff, writes a detailed feature story in The New Yorker (July 2006) about Wikipedia, describing how its online denizens are “devoted…to a higher good.” In “The Know it All”, respected Wikipedian User:Essjay is profiled, where Schiff relates (with information from his user bio page and from phone interviews) that he is a “tenured professor of religion at a private university” and holds a “Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”

Problem is, it’s all false. In early 2007, Essjay accepted a job with Wikia, the for-profit spinoff by Jimmy Wales and Wikipedian Angela Beesley. Facing the reality of having to work in-person with colleagues, he comes clean claiming to be Ryan Jordan, a 24 year old from Louisville, Kentucky, with a background as a paralegal and perhaps no college degree at all. He posts a new “real” biography with still seemingly too much to fit into two dozen years of existence.

Wikipedia’s spiritual founder Jimmy Wales, travelling in India at the time and likely working off imperfect information, defends Essjay in public and to the press, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.” Shortly after, Essjay is elevated by Jimmy to the ranks of serving on the Arbitration Committee, the highest level of service for deciding on community matters. Wales stated later on his Talk page, “EssJay has always been, and still is, a fantastic editor and trusted member of the community…He has been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter, and I consider it settled.”

Meanwhile Wikipedians erupt in debate on mailing lists, User talk pages of Essjay/Jimbo and the Community noticeboard. Blogs are raging, with original Wikipedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger, best-selling authors of Freakonomics and tech pundit Nick Carr outright questioning if Wikipedia supports and endorses identity fraud. Wikipedians, usually quick to circle the wagons to protect their own from media distortion and unwanted identity exposure, don’t come to rescue Essjay this time around. Meanwhile, Essjay has remained coy, refusing to make statements of clarification, until pressed to do so a few days later. Ultimately, he claims it was a defensive persona to evade online stalkers and trolls, not an uncommon problem in Wikipedia.

But his “My Response” post is hardly contrite, and only raises more ire of folks who feel he feels no remorse in deceiving a reporter and fellow Wikipedians. “I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself…I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.”

Essjay has his supporters. Even his skeptics appreciate his widely recognized good work in the community. But the trust has been violated. Scores of fellow users don’t buy the cover story, and many start using Wikipedia’s years-deep database to comb his edit history and past behavior. They dig up numerous accounts of Essjay using the “professor persona” and false credentials to gain the upper hand in articles and policy debates. It was no longer an external crisis, it was an internal crisis of confidence. And still, he has access to the most powerful tools concerning privacy and trust — checkuser and oversight.

The community seethes. Debate rages. Straw polls are taken as to what to do. Jimmy Wales’s early support is crucial and keeps Essjay’s standing intact, for now. But the god-king is in India, without good access to the news in the kingdom.

So it’s come to this.

It started by Essjay deceiving a respected print reporter and legendary fact-checking publication. Many shrugged. The reporter should have demanded more verifiability. But as the facts started to come out about Essjay’s behavior, it clearly was not a simple identity cover story. It was a whole new level of deception. And suddenly many Wikipedians are questioning the integrity of the human being behind the persona, the one now employed by Wikia.

It’s said three points define a pattern. In this case, a pattern of bad behavior. Will there be a third point? Dear reader, there is a third. And it’s perhaps the most serious of them all.

UPDATE: Thanks to Larry Sanger for pointing out the comment from Wales was from the New Yorker, and I’ve added an updated quote from Jimmy Wales’s Talk page. A few hours after this blog entry was posted, Jimmy Wales posted another message saying he had changed his mind given new facts that came to light and, “I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community.”