Wikipedia manager lied about background

Author: Brett Thomas
Published: 2nd March 2007
Comments (15) Stumble
"Nobody worry, I'm a doctor. Or, at least I play one on Wikipedia."

"Nobody worry, I'm a doctor. Or, at least I play one on Wikipedia."

As wonderful as Wikipedia can be as a source of information, it doesn't always have the greatest track record for credibility. Articles can be written from all sorts of points of view, and there's not always an easy way to authenticate the information. To help keep this in check, Wikipedia employs a few "experts" to help determine the fact from the fiction - and sent one down to talk to the press recently.

This Wik-elite, who goes by the handle of Essjay, has quite a comprehensive bio on the encyclopaedia. According to the article, he has a Ph.D. in theology and is a tenured professor at a private university. Though a theology degree doesn't make one an expert in every field, any doctoral candidate can tell you that graduate work is a definite trainer for one thing - hard-core research.

Of course, that would be assuming that Essjay had that degree. After the article with the New Yorker was published, the mystery man came clean - apparently Essjay is not a Doctor of theology, nor does he hold any advanced degree. In fact, he's actually a 24 year old with an undergrad degree in religion from a Kentucky university.

The New Yorker published an official retraction regarding the article as soon as the information was found out. After the retraction hit the store shelves, Essjay's bio finally got an edit. The creators of Wikipedia were far from upset by the incident, saying that the bios of its managers are for their online pseudonyms and can be as fictitious as they please - Essjay doesn't really exist.

All of the controversy has to make people wonder exactly how much credibility can be given to Wikipedia. Whether it was a practical joke, fictitious entry, or just a bad idea, should those editing the Wiki for fact really be posting lies themselves?

Tell us your thoughts in our forums.
Quote bilbothebaggins 2nd March 2007, 11:08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
(...) All of the controversy has to make people wonder exactly how much credibility can be given to Wikipedia.

For me this incident doesn't have any impact on Wikipedia's credibility. They have some stupid editors ... so what. Wikip's a mostly well structured source of information taken to be with a slightly larger pinch of salt that the average printed encyclopedia :)
Quote RedBuddies 2nd March 2007, 14:08
Plus, there had been a study already on the credibility of Wikipedia's articles. There was like an average 4 errors for Wikipedia and 3 for the Britannica, if memory serves. From what I can remember, it was quite close.
Quote Lowsidex2 2nd March 2007, 14:50
Quote:
should those editing the Wiki for fact really be posting lies themselves?
Sure, why the hell not. Since when does the truth have anything to do with facts?
Quote randosome 2nd March 2007, 18:04
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBuddies
Plus, there had been a study already on the credibility of Wikipedia's articles. There was like an average 4 errors for Wikipedia and 3 for the Britannica, if memory serves. From what I can remember, it was quite close.
i guess it depends where you look

I wouldn't take all of wikipedia as fact, but most of what I've looked at seems pretty much correct from my understanding

Of course, doesn't it depend where you get YOUR knowledge from as well, maybe your teacher lied, who knows - there isn't a central database of all the facts in the world that is complete and 100% accurate :p
Quote Flemshaw 2nd March 2007, 20:37
There's more of this sort of thing going on every day at Wikipedia than an outsider could ever likely imagine. And Jimbo Wales, the supposed adult left in charge of all the kids, not only allows it, but enables it.

Here's a story that's been circulating around since Essjay blew up.

It shows how Wales tried to cover up for an actual journalist who got busted writing his own article and trashing his RL adversaries' articles. The evidence was overwhelming, and some admins even provided confirmation, but Jimbo did all he could to make it go away. It's sort of an amazing story.
Quote MonkeyCircus 2nd March 2007, 20:56
Everything written or spoken has to have been 'made up' by someone at somepoint, so technically wikipedia would be posting lies no matter what it does.

Fact is never fact, it's only common opinion.

I think wikipedia is a great resource for just that - common opinion.
Quote Bluephoenix 2nd March 2007, 21:37
I use it as more of springboard to related material on a topic, rather than as a source of fact. when used in that way, it becomes a useful tool.

the best source of information is not one source, but many sources. I know this seems to be a bit of a 'duh' response but it renders moot the point of wiki as a source of truth or lie, anyone who seriously needs the information will look in more than one place.
Quote Redbeaver 2nd March 2007, 21:41
i agree wit the post above. one should not rely on only 1 source of information. ever.
Quote Aankhen 2nd March 2007, 22:16
Oooh… you can feel the burn from that Inquirer article. :p
Quote Tyinsar 2nd March 2007, 23:06
I like Wikipedia BUT them encouraging the staff to make up bios really does decrease my opinion of the site


[Off Topic]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
Everything written or spoken has to have been 'made up' by someone at somepoint, so technically wikipedia would be posting lies no matter what it does.

Fact is never fact, it's only common opinion.

I think wikipedia is a great resource for just that - common opinion.
What are you smoking? 2+2=4 is not an opinion. Is your birthday an opinion? And by the way, If you jump out of an airplane gravity WILL pull you towards the ground - it doesn't care what your opinions are.
[/Off Topic]
Quote cpemma 3rd March 2007, 00:24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilter Diaries
Journalist Gerd Heidemann claimed to have discovered them, and submitted them to be reviewed by a number of experts in World War II history, notably the historians Hugh Trevor-Roper, Eberhard Jäckel and Gerhard Weinberg. At a press conference on April 25, 1983, the diaries were declared by these experts to be authentic.

However within two weeks the Hitler Diaries were revealed as being "grotesquely superficial fakes" made on modern paper using modern ink and full of historical inaccuracies.
Even genuine historians can go off the rails at times. And then there's Fox...

All historical information is subject to change in its interpretation as society changes, Wikipedia is far more fluid, so more up-to-date, than most reference sources. And I'd trust its accuracy over any newspaper's, including The Inquirer.
Quote MonkeyCircus 3rd March 2007, 12:41
Tyinsar, fact is alwasy common opinion, as any good scientist would tell you. Simply, because you can never prove anything to be 100% certain. How do you know that when you jump out of a plane gravity will pull you to the ground? Although it seems absurd to suggest that it wouldn't, you only know that to be true because you have been told that it is true from a number of people, deduced that it must be true because other objects fall under gravity or seen it happen in a film - common opinion. To be honest though, I don't know anybody whose tried it and lived to tell me for certain. I've heard storys of people dieing from it, I've never met one or seen it happen, though.

EDIT: Thought this was quite interesting - How do you know that gravity isn't pulling the earth towards you?

That's a bit of an extreme example, but it's true on some level for everything, how are you sure your not imagining this whole conversation? Is this even a conversation? Is the internet a 'real' place... as for 2+2=4, you know there exists a mathmatical proof to prove that 1+1=3?

The people of tommorow will laugth at what we hold as fact today because you have to accept that all of our sciences, no matter how refined, are flawed. That's quite comforting though, I'd be no fun if there was nothing left to improve.
Quote cpemma 3rd March 2007, 15:21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
Tyinsar, fact is alwasy common opinion, as any good scientist would tell you.
I'm a good scientist. ;)

Some facts are very probably true (like your birthday - but mistakes can happen!), some facts are probably true, and other facts may only be true in certain circumstances (Newton's Laws don't hold true at light speed). Yet other 'facts' are no more than opinion.

Facts are essentially opinions that there is evidence for and that have never (yet) been proved wrong.
Quote Techno-Dann 3rd March 2007, 16:11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
EDIT: Thought this was quite interesting - How do you know that gravity isn't pulling the earth towards you?

It does, actually. As the Earth's mass accelerates you towards it, your mass does accelerate it towards you, albeit by a trivial amount.

Scientific laws might just be a pile of oppinions, but they're consistent opinions, and they've been verified by experiment over and over.
Quote Tyinsar 4th March 2007, 09:07
Since this entire discussion is, in my opinion, pretty much off topic this will be my last post on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
Tyinsar, fact is alwasy common opinion, as any good scientist would tell you....
Until you go to discuss Evolution & / Creation - :D - then "science has hard facts" (on both sides)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
EDIT: Thought this was quite interesting - How do you know that gravity isn't pulling the earth towards you?

That's a bit of an extreme example, but it's true on some level for everything, how are you sure your not imagining this whole conversation? Is this even a conversation? Is the internet a 'real' place...
Well of course - how could I have missed that? - I'm the center of the universe , I'm also pretty sure the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is actually flat But then again, by your logic the Sun, Earth, and you and I may not even exist so why would the reader (assuming they exist) be imagining this discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
... you know there exists a mathmatical proof to prove that 1+1=3?
In which case all math would be invalid including the "proof" so it invalidates itself. - you have replicated male bovine droppings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyCircus
The people of tommorow will laugth at what we hold as fact today because you have to accept that all of our sciences, no matter how refined, are flawed. That's quite comforting though, I'd be no fun if there was nothing left to improve.
For some things that is true - many of us laugh at the old ideas of four or five "elements" (and I have my doubts about some of today's "science" too) - but no one laughs at Newtonian physics or Euclidean geometry - those were functional but incomplete.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.





Stats: 0.333 seconds