Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:07, 6 March 2007

This article was deleted, but its history has been restored pending review of this decision. You can read the last discussion that was conducted regarding its deletion here, but please do not add to that page as the discussion has been closed. This article is under deletion review.

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. ] (] · ])

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Essjay (talk · contribs) / Jordan, Ryan Jordan, Ryan

This needs a move NOW. Nothing in citations supports the name, and it's stupid. I'm feeling "Ryan Jordan (Misplaced Pages)". Or maybe even Ryan Jordan (internet personality). Milto LOL pia 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is moved, make sure to fix the double-redirects, given it has already been moved once. Daniel Bryant 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did. Milto LOL pia 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources/References/News

• News - For more information, here is the relevant Google Search: "ryan jordan" wikipedia Smee 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Find something for the Wikia involvement, and find some relevance for it, or it's all speculation! Milto LOL pia 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The link itself is self-explanatory and simple perusal shows relevancy. And no need to use exclamation points please. Smee 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Self-explanatory to you, but have any third-party sources called it relevant, or are you just asserting that yourself? Milto LOL pia 05:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• More info - Now here is some interesting stuff, in addition to the News Coverage, there is some significant (I know, not a reputable source), Blog Coverage - and that's not all, here is an interesting post from Larry Sanger, "Misplaced Pages firmly supports your right to identity fraud" Smee 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikia

Why is the Wikia business being mentioned? It's not sourced and not mentioned in the article, therefore there is no third part asserting its relevance. Why include his ties to Wikia? How are they relevant to this one incident? As in, how have third-party sources said they are relevant? Asking for input here. Milto LOL pia 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is an article on Ryan, it is relevant to include his current employment (source of income, job, actual credentials) at Wikia. WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but who can verify it? Any of these sources? And why is the infobox showing his Wikia userpage as the relevant website when clearly the Misplaced Pages one is more relevant to the actual reason for the article? Milto LOL pia 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is his occupation. Smee 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This isn't a profile website, it's supposed to show the info that makes him notable, not unverified vanity info. Where he works is irrelevant unless it's covered by a news source; if that's the case, it should be included in the main body and cited. Milto LOL pia 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see footnote in infobox. Smee 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but where's the relevance? It just mentions in passing. On the other hand, his antics on Misplaced Pages are what the article is actually about, so why would it not make more sense to include that link in the infobox instead of one with no asserted relevance? Milto LOL pia 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. As per the article and other sources, both are relevant. Smee 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Important point. The new "credentials" listed on the Wikia biography page are likely false, since a 24-year-old cannot possibly have those credentials. The maths simply do not add up. That is probably a good enough reason not to rely on that information. Quatloo 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion they are likely to be false. I think they are likely to be true, but I don't have any sources backing me, nor do you. Milto LOL pia 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he claims to be 24 and have had 5 years experience as a paralegal. That would mean he started as a paralegal at age 19. Quoting from Paralegal's ABA definition "A legal assistant or paralegal is a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer." This would mean his training would have had to occur prior to the age of 19. However, this neglects the readily apparent fact that EssJay has been spending just about all of his waking hours editing Misplaced Pages since 2005, so it is necessary to trim 2005 and 2006 off from the available years. This isn't my opinion, I am just saying the maths do not add up. Oh plus he attended three separate universities, simultaneously to all that. Quatloo 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but is there a third party source saying that it isn't possible, or just your math? Original research that turns out to be correct is still original research. My disagreement is not in your conclusion (well, it is somewhat, but that disagreement is just a difference of two unqualified opinions and so is not relevant), but in whether or not that info is verifiable via third-party sources. Milto LOL pia 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the math is original research, I am not disputing that, and importantly, I was not trying to insert this into the main page of the article. The original question on the talk page was why the Wikia information was not included in the main article. My answer on the talk page is that biography of EssJay on the Wikia site does not add up and should probably not be considered accurate. Quatloo 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Milto LOL pia 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt says

• http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0 28th August 2006, 3:57pm "It's possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He's too busy on Misplaced Pages to be a full-time professor, maintain a relationship with Robbie, and eat and sleep too."
• http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=20 20th January 2007, 5:40pm "I might write to The New Yorker and complain about their fact-checking, and ask for a retraction and investigation." 20th January 2007, 11:54pm (copy of letter sent) WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the whole sequence you will see that Daniel Brandt is behind the recent publicity, which in turn was sparked by a change to Essjay's self description to create an appropriate new and different persona for his new Wikia job. There is no evidence for either description to be accurate. WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• This has actually been mentioned in more reliable sources:

King, Ian (March 2, 2007). "A Wiki web they've woven". Vancouver 24 Hours.

Essjay was no theology prof; instead, he's 24-year-old Ryan Jordan, who has neither an advanced degree nor a teaching job. When hired by Wikia - a for-profit company run by Misplaced Pages's core team to publish more wikis. Earlier this year as a community manager, Essjay replaced his old fake credentials with new, possibly real ones.

Veteran Wikipeida critic Daniel Brandt of wikipedia-watch.org first dug up details of Jordan's bamboozling of both Wikipedians and the New Yorker, leading to the magazine running a correction this week, admitting it had been had.

The reaction from Wiki devotees to this scandal is bizarre to outsiders. Jordan pointed the finger at the New Yorker for not being wise to his game. Others attacked Brandt - a popular Wiki pastime.

• And it seems like the amount of reputable sources reporting on this may increase. Smee 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

• • Are there any better sources? Vancouver 24 Hours is, with all due respect to Ian King, a tiny flyer that its publishers give away for free. Most people commuting by SkyTrain in rush hour meet someone offering them one. Kla'quot 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No advanced degree

I keep seeing this statement, but AFAIK, nobody, including Ryan in his Wikia bio, has asserted that he holds any degree or even a high school diploma. Any idea on why the articles are making a distinction on "advanced" degree? —Doug Bell  20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that's the distinction made in the sources. Milto LOL pia 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't ask very clearly. What I was asking was does anyone have an idea why the source articles are making the distinction? —Doug Bell  20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe they assume by his age he's got a diploma, since many more people get diplomas than PhDs, or maybe it's just because he never said anything about a diploma so they aren't worried about it. Milto LOL pia 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the level of assuming by at least the New Yorker would be minimal on this subject at this point. No? I mean, how do they know he doesn't have an advanced degree? It just seems that there is likely to be something behind such a specific statement. —Doug Bell  20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, probably just lazy reporting and jumping to conclusions, like the original failure to confirm his credentials. Milto LOL pia 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay's userpage (as of 2 January 2006) listing his false credentials. Notice also: "For various reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous on Misplaced Pages, but I also believe it is important for me to offer information about myself that is relevant to my work on Misplaced Pages." and "My motto on Misplaced Pages (and in life) is Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth)." ... Essjay's current Misplaced Pages userpage gives the name "Ryan Jordan", at the time I write this. Of course, I cannot be sure what it will say when you read this. -- Ben 15:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Tangential material has no place here

The comments by Jimmy Wales, and Sanger's response to them, do not, on the face of it, have anything to do with the subject of the article. Just more Sanger-Wales fun. If the article were renamed or merged, they might have a place, but not now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that stuff is hilarious to see edit warred over, but not really relevant. Just link to their articles, that's why wikilinks are great. Milto LOL pia 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I misunderstood. No, I think Wales' reaction is highly relevant, though I question the importance of Sanger's. Milto LOL pia 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Including either comment would be reasonable in an article on the controversy (if that article was on Wikinews; this here is an encyclopedia, not "the news magazine that anyone can edit"), but not in what purports to be a biography. Of course Essjay's pal is going to say good things; that's what friends do. No need to include it in the article. Now if the opposite were true, then that would be noteworthy, and merit inclusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Wales and Sanger material provides important context to the article. C.m.jones 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense? It adds nothing about Ryan Jordan, which would be my understanding of "important context". If the article were about the "controversy" I'd agree, but it purports to be biographical, making the Sanger and Wales remarks seem only loosely related to the subject. "Content...should be about the subject of the article specifically." I don't see that Sanger's remarks can be remotely described as "about the subject of the article specifically". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you have never noticed, Wales comment is completely central to this issue. Let me say it real plain. This article is about Essjay, a Wikipedian. Wales is the head of Misplaced Pages. Wales talked about this issue from his place as head. Wales comment should not be left alone. The long-standing context is that people predicted this scandal would happen by reason of WP's model. Sanger is the central figure in that. Therefore, both Wales and Sanger give the crucial context needed to help readers understand this did not crop up in a vacuum. Sanger's comments are about "Essjay’s lies", which in case you are having trouble seeing, is what this article is all about. Sanger discussed that while also discussing Wales' centrally important response. If this is hard to see, you might seek a parent's or teacher's advise to help you. Of course, you probably do not care one rip and actually see it plain as day. You just wish to bowdlerize the article for damage control. 72.153.142.146 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge strawpoll

Given the duplicate nature of the content here with Criticism_of_Wikipedia#New_Yorker_article, I propose that it be merged into that section. In the alternative, as this article deals primarily with an incident and not an individual biography, it might be renamed. This survey is a means to help provide some ideas on how best to handle this particular issue. --Leflyman 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, optionally with a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Merge

• As proposer. --Leflyman 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave as is

The proposal to merge is nonsensical. Essjay has met celebrity in his own right. C.m.jones 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename article

Discussion

Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryan Jordan (Misplaced Pages) lately? Milto LOL pia 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and I already commented there. The likelihood is there will be no consensus for deletion, so I invoked the snowball clause and got the ball rolling on decide what/where this material should actually be, as "Ryan Jordan" is not the actual biographical subject of this article. --Leflyman 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This comes off as forum-shopping. The AfD is still open, but is not likely to give the result advocated here, so the same question is re-opened in a different setting? This "straw-poll" gives a bad impression, of trying to do an end-run around process. Please re-consider, carefully. -- Ben 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree -- it's clear that there is already (and will inevitably continue to be, no matter how it may gall some Wikipedians) a non-consensus as to the deletion, meaning the article's content, in whatever form, will remain; but there is likewise an indication that the material from this article duplicates the Criticism of Misplaced Pages section (as pointed out by 20+ commenters). It's now been renamed; albeit, it is now even further confusing how "Essjay" can be considered a biographical article. On a semi-related note, is your username a recreated account? I find it rather perhaps a bit surprising that an account created six weeks ago has taken such an acute interest in this particular topic.--Leflyman 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Justin Stewart

Two questions.

1. Does any mention of Justin Stewart belong here? I'm thinking not, but Essjay claimed this was an alias at one time. I'm also thinking there's no point to putting it in, but thought it ought to be considered.
2. Maybe we should qualify any statement about Essjay's real name being Ryan Jordan...we can say that so-and-so reported this, but can we really know this or Ryan Jordan's credentials for that matter?

Sorry to sound so skeptical of basic facts, but that's the new reality with Essjay's personal claims now. —Doug Bell  09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not declare his name. It only reports that the New Yorker said Essjay said that was is name. C.m.jones 09:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Self references

I know some are really willing to add information, however remember about not using primary sources, about no self references, about looking for reliable secondary sources? I think we can wait a couple of days until a reliable source picks the information up. We are not Wikinews to ignore basic attribution policies. At least, that is what I think. -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are those "webcitations" gleaned from Misplaced Pages? This article can't (or shouldn't, if you like) self-reference back to WP. Gwen Gale 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• They are essentially saved versions of Misplaced Pages pages. They should all be removed. WarpstarRider 19:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, none of this stuff is allowable for something in the article space. Gwen Gale 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just hiding behind wiki policy with the very real danger of appearing to censor details? This is a new type of event where wikipedia has created a news item in its own right and therefore must reference itself in order to document what has happened. I feel the same way about references to blogs such as Larry Sangers. In this situation - shouldn't we be referring to WP:Bold. After all, wiki policy can never be set in stone and must adapt to situations as they occur. Munta 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Why are we using them? - Denny 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They should be gone. I think this article got itself muddled with being a blog somewhere along the way. Gwen Gale 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. This is more a gossip column than an encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize at first this was all so referenced to blogs and WP. If I was brave I'd start skiving text out of it. Gwen Gale 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I guess Rider and I have at least cut this down into an article, not a blog. Disclaimer: I'm not at all thrilled with Essjay but this article was not up to speed with either its narrative form or its sources. Gwen Gale 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, your RV got my removal of the blogs... was that intentional? I was wanting to clean them out as not meeting RS... - Denny 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, I saw you'd rm'd them but I thought the rv would take it back to a state where they'd also been previously rm'd. Gwen Gale 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. RMs within RVs within RMs... bleh. Is that web citation cite an ok source for citing on-wiki statements? Never seen it before. - Denny 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All those should be gone too, they're cheats, but anyway I don't see it now. Gwen Gale 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The blog stuff had already been removed previously, but they were then restored by User:68.215.30.127, which is what you saw. Gwen was reverting that anon's edits, so the blogs are still gone. WarpstarRider 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

I am restoring Image:Essjay.jpg, as it was uploaded under GFDL and illustrates the subject of an article. I do not intend to take part in the discussion for or against deletion of this article; but unless/until the article is deleted, I see no reason to delete the image. -- Infrogmation 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe including this image in this article at this time makes us a more valuable encyclopedia? Newyorkbrad 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill? Gwen Gale 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it original research to say that this image illustrates the subject of the article? --Random832 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Essjay uploaded the image himself so cannot be regarded as OR. There could however still be a question of if it really is himself. Munta 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As Essjay was only here till recently and could still return I dont see any justification for deleting this image right now, SqueakBox 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Source

Does this work? — MichaelLinnear 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Times

In case no one noticed, I added a link to a New York Times article. We've hit the big time. Uh-oh...--Jayzel 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

It's not working! Milto LOL pia 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless a pattern of disruption develops there's really no need to protect at this point. (→Netscott) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that it was protected and not unprotected, but the protection isn't working. Milto LOL pia 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The logs show that it was deleted and then restored after it was protected. Perhaps a deletion undoes a protection? ElinorD (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It does. I have re-protected on the basis it was probably an oversight. -- zzuuzz 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record

It appears some admin took it upon themselves to send an entire section and its history down the memory hole. --Jayzel 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that the article's early history is gone. Gwen Gale 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that too, but I was referring to a section here on the talk page. --Jayzel 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's move on

El C has said he doesn't care if someone relists it, let's just do it and unprotect. Milto LOL pia 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Do you think a non-discussed move in the middle of an already messy situation might not have been the best idea?--RWR8189 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While I still am inclined to think that this article should not exist if it is going to exist than this name is much better than the previous name. This article is not about "Essjay" but about the scandal. (→Netscott) 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of Essjay incident or Essjay scandal would be just as descriptive without being as long.--RWR8189 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur, but this is not exactly a well-known name. We should discuss a better replacement. The article isn't really about the editor or the person as much as the incident. Cool Hand Luke 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New Essjay Picture has Surfaced

• Essjay

Headphonos 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors