One of the top administrators at Wikipedia has been exposed as a fraud. In an article for the New Yorker, Ryan Jordan (username Essjay) was described as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a…

To me it seems People at Wikipedia are just a bunch of liars.

I would like to clear up an oversight on my part. I was, until this morning, under the impression that in my initial post on this subject (in response to a question from Dev920 made some weeks ago) I had made an apology for anyone who felt they were hurt by my decision to use misinformation. In speaking to various different people, including Jimbo, I did make it known that I was sorry that anyone felt hurt by my actions, and I believed I had done so in my initial statement. On re-reading that, I find I did not; it was a rather lengthy statement I had been thinking about for some time, and I seem to have left out a rather critical element of it. So, I rectify that now, with further apologies that it was not included originally, as I pointed people back to that statement in the belief it was complete.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I’m not sorry that 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. I have spoken to all of my close friends here about this, and have heard resoundingly that they understand my position, and they support me. Jimbo and many others in Wikipedia’s hierarchy have made thier support known as well. I’m also sorry the New Yorker chose to print what they did about me; there seems to be a belief that I knew they were going to print it, and that is not the case. I spoke with Stacy Shiff for over eight hours; in that time, she asked me about a variety of subjects related to Wikipedia and I have her much to write on. (Those who know me will know I am rarely ever brief in my comments.) 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.

For two years, I have poured my life into making this site a better place. That many people feel hurt by my decision pains me greatly, and to them I am genuinely sorry. To the stalkers, the trolls, and the vandals, I am not sorry; they are abusive, hateful people, and they have done far worse things than those whole of the Wikipeida Community, myself included, have ever thought about doing. Now, I am going back to what I have always done: Making Wikipedia a better place. (In the immediate present, I’m going to bed, as I’ve been up for quite a long time.) Tonight, I will be back to my normal routine: Blocking vandals, closing RFAs, tending to the mailing lists, etc. I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.

I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you’ll probably find me there. [[User:Essjay|'''Essjay''']] [[User talk:Essjay|(Talk)]] 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the website address below to verify the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285

In fact, I have difficulty believing any offer was made which could be misunderstood. I instead lean toward the unpleasant assumption Mr. Jordan fabricated the issue.

Not because of “prior bad acts” but on the face value of the facts and some common experience with human behavior which is no greater than anyone elses.

It is not reasonable to believe a journalist who is employed by a fairly credible media outlet, who is working on a (initially) non-controversial piece, and who could easily obtain source material from an eager gallery of wikipedians at no charge, would sacrifice her reputation and career by paying for the interview.

If Mr. Jordan had the inside track on “yellow cake evidence planting” or similar and was the sole source of the information, I might put more credence in the accusation. Wikipedia is great, but as a journalism subject it is not “Watergate”.

As to the human experience comment, I will only ask how many of us have encountered the scenario of someone in hot water attempting to redirect scrutiny by claiming “Yeah, but he/she is sleeping with Terry from accounting!”

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ex-Wikipedian_accuses_Pulitzer_winner_of_bad_journalistic_practices

It is indeed a lesson the community has learned from. The community is already re-evaluating policies for folks with the most trusted tools.

I suppose a situation like this was inevitable given the openness and assumption of good faith. The community is strong enough to punch through the fallout. I’m sure of it.

The whole thing is pretty damn unfortunate, though what I hope will come of it is a serious discussion of what it means to be an expert, and how we really treat and evaluate reputations on Wikipedia — with implications of course for reputation in online communities generally. It was quite a social experiment essjay managed to pull off; it’s unfortunate that he was compelled to do it in the first place and for so long.

– phoebe/brassratgirl.