Thread: Wikipedia ....

[i]Tuesday, 6 March 2007, 14:39 GMT [i]
Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
Volunteers write and edit the site's thousands of articles

Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.
The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.

But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies. He has now retired from the site.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia open to all, written by volunteers worldwide.

'Trust and tolerance'

Under the name Essjay, Mr Jordan edited articles and also had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors and remove site vandalism.

In his user profile, he said he taught both undergraduate and graduate theology, and in an interview with the New Yorker in July 2006, was described as a "tenured professor of religion".

His real identity came to light last week when the magazine added an editorial note to the piece highlighting the deception. "At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," the note said.

Essjay told them he hid his identity because "he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online", the magazine's note said.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, writing on the site on 3 March, said that Mr Jordan was apologetic, but that Wikipedia was "based on twin pillars of trust and tolerance".

"Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now," he wrote.

And in a post the next day, Mr Jordan announced his retirement from the site. "I hope others will refocus the energy they have spent the past few days in defending and denouncing me to make something here at Wikipedia better," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm


hhmmmmm, something to think about

Wikipedia to seek proof of credentials
By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Technology Writer
Wed Mar 7, 7:41 PM ET

Following revelations that a high-ranking member of Wikipedia's bureaucracy used his cloak of anonymity to lie about being a professor of religion, the free Internet encyclopedia plans to ask contributors who claim such credentials to identify themselves.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said in interviews by phone and instant message Wednesday from Japan that contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified. "We always prefer to give a positive incentive rather than absolute prohibition, so that people can contribute without a lot of hassle," Wales wrote.

Wales suggested such a plan two years ago, but the idea suddenly gained currency after the recent discovery that a prolific Wikipedia contributor who wrote under the pen name "Essjay" and claimed to be a professor of theology turned out to be a 24-year-old college dropout, Ryan Jordan.

Jordan's fraud came to light last week when The New Yorker published an editor's note stating that a 2006 Wikipedia profile in the magazine had erroneously described Essjay's purported academic resume. The New Yorker said a Wikipedia higher-up had vouched for Essjay to the author of the piece, Stacy Schiff, but that neither knew Essjay's real identity.

In addition to contributing thousands of articles to the sprawling Web encyclopedia, Jordan had recently been promoted to arbitrator, a position for trusted members of the community. Arbitrators can overrule an edit made by another volunteer or block people who abuse the site.

Jordan also was hired in January by Wikia Inc., a for-profit venture run by Wales. He has since been dismissed.

Jordan has not returned an e-mail seeking comment from The Associated Press. But in a note on his Wikipedia "user page" before it was officially "retired," he apologized for any harm he caused Wikipedia. "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 (sic) publication would print it," he wrote.

Wikipedia is full of anonymous contributors like Essjay, whose user page also once proclaimed: "My Wikipedia motto is `Lux et Veritas' (Light and Truth) and I believe more individuals should contribute with an intention to bring light to the community and truth to the encyclopedia."

The anonymity of the site is a frequent cause of mischief — from juvenile vandalism of entries to the infamous case involving journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., who was incorrectly described as a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations. And that has raised concerns about the credibility of the site.

But anonymity is also considered one of the main forces behind Wikipedia's astonishing growth, to nearly 1.7 million articles in English and millions more in dozens of other languages. Wales has said he is an "anti-credentialist" — because anonymity puts a reader's attention on the substance of what people have written rather than who they are.

Wales said Wednesday that belief is unchanged. But, he said, if people want to claim expertise on Wikipedia, they ought to be prompted to prove it. If they don't want to give their real names, they shouldn't be allowed to tout credentials. Had that policy been in place, Wales said, Jordan probably would not have gotten away with claiming a Ph.D. in religion. "It's always inappropriate to try to win an argument by flashing your credentials," Wales said, "and even more so if those credentials are inaccurate."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/...K_cl0enYys0NUE

Wikipedia's sticky wicket
The Monitor's View
Fri Mar 9, 3:00 AM ET

Students in history classes at Middlebury College this spring may have to change the way they do research for papers or tests. Although they can consult the online encyclopedia Wikipedia for background, they are not allowed to cite it as a source.

Professors who drafted the new policy at the Vermont college praise the free website as a "wonderful innovation." They note the more than 1.6 million entries, the up-to-date bibliographies, and the links to relevant, often more reliable sites. But they caution that its open-editing system, which allows anyone to write or edit entries anonymously, carries a risk of error.

Just this month a dark cloud fell over Wikipedia's credibility after it was revealed that a trusted contributor who claimed to be a tenured professor of religion was actually a 24-year-old college dropout. He was also one of the appointed "arbiters" who settled disputes between contributors.

For the many "wiki"-type sites – ones that compile knowledge with volunteers – such an ethical misstep would be a test of their ability for internal correction. But it also reinforces educators' warnings to students to be "informationally literate" in how to use the six-year-old Wikipedia and to rely more on the thousands of more-scholarly databases online.

Wikipedia not only challenges the concept of what an encyclopedia is; it also raises an intriguing question: What qualifies as intellectual authority in an age of information overload, when society relies increasingly on the Internet?

Some critics are troubled by what they regard as a tendency on the Web to value anonymous, collective thought over individual intellect. Some claim Wikipedia devalues traditional scholarship. Supporters counter that the online encyclopedia's constant and easy revision of articles only strengthens their credibility. Fans also praise Wikipedia for "democratizing" knowledge, pitting pedigreed academics against amateur scholars.

Globalization and technology are creating other sociocultural changes that challenge old notions of expertise. When people can now more easily, say, sell a house, write a will, or file a complex tax return, they defer less to authorities, among them lawyers, clergy, teachers, and other professionals.

The Internet's ability to empower individuals with an illusion of infinite knowledge challenges even notions of reality. Like Pontius Pilate's question – What is truth? – supporters of Wikipedia are asking "Whose truth?"

Is information on the site absolute fact or simply a matter of group consensus? Is any information accurate only by agreement of those with extensive credentials using peer review, or do the masses have a voice?

If other schools follow Middlebury's lead, the collective effect could encourage Wikipedia to raise its standards. Scholars, too, might benefit from using "wiki" practices, such as open access and wider input.

Middlebury's policy serves as a reminder about the need to carefully sift any information on the Internet. Over time, users will force sites like Wikipedia to build up the same trust and reputations now granted to established institutions such as universities or old-style encyclopedias. Truth, like truthfulness, must be demonstrated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070309...PxiNxolAn8B2YD