So much for the hopes that it would get lost in the weekend news. Nope. They ran it in Monday's Technology section, where it will be read widely. All in all, it is a relatively softball story, at least.
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the major media react to this. I'm not making any bets.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Sunday, March 04, 2007
On Bureaucrats
In the aftermath of Essjay's resignation, a number of people have declared that "there is a need for bureaucrats", and three people -- RyanGerbil10, W.marsh, Durin -- have already jumped into the breach to close the purported "gaping hole" created by Essjay's departure. The first two have since withdrawn their candidacies, but Durin's continues. This situation raises several related issues.
First, is the thesis that Essjay's departure creates an immediate need for more bureaucrats. This claim is unsupportable. First, Essjay was never very consistently active; he would often disappear for days or weeks at a time. Second, there is nothing bureaucrats do that is time-critical. The main responsibility of bureaucrats is to determine consensus in requests for adminship. This is not in the least bit time-critical: if some admin has to wait 24 hours, or even a week, to be promoted, the encyclopedia will not be materially harmed. Frankly, any admin candidate who is so impatient to become an admin that he cannot wait a few days more for a bureaucrat to review his candidacy and come to a decision does not deserve adminship. The other two duties, user name changes and bot flagging, are equally non-time-critical. There is simply no urgency for the completion of bureaucrat duties, and no reason to believe that Essjay's absence from the ranks of the bureaucracy will materially affect the responsible and timely completion of these duties. Not enough time has passed to see if the other bureaucrats will rise to the occasion; and in any case the expectations of RFA candidates of instant promotion are quite unreasonable, and arguably even contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia.
Second, is Durin's qualifications as a bureaucrat, and more generally what I, at least, consider appropriate in a bureaucrat. I opposed Durin's candidacy on the grounds that Durin is an "inflexible process wonk". And I really do believe that. It's well-known that I have a history of a rather nasty past conflict with Durin. And I freely admit that that history influences my vote, but what influences me more is all the other people who have also had conflicts with Durin. Durin is rigidly inflexible on what he has decided is right -- whether or not his opinions are justified by meaningful facts or sound logic. Once his mind is made up, he is impervious to other opinions. Furthermore, he is paranoid and overly sensitive. This combination of characteristics is the reason why he has been in so many acrimonious conflicts, and why he will continue to be in them for as long as he remains at Wikipedia. Durin is a pleasure to get along with as long as he agrees with you; as soon as he disagrees with you, though, the gloves go off. He shows clear evidence of "binary thinking" (perhap's he's a Bynar?). Unfortunately, this sort of rigidity in thought is exactly what Wikipedia does not need, and especially not in bureaucrats. I have complete confidence that Durin will rigidly apply an exact percentage rule of some sort (his addiction to statistics suggests that he's already analyzed every RfA in recent memory and established what, in his mind, the proper cutoff should be).
However, none of the above is my real reason for opposing Durin. I believe that bureaucrats should not seek to "determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community" by counting votes and applying them against some arbitrary yardstick. Rather, I believe that a bureaucrat should evaluate the candidate, taking into consideration all the comments made by those commenting on the request for adminship, and determine whether or not promoting this candidate is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I realize that this is a revolutionary position on my part; it is directly contrary to the current declared practice. However, it is the practice I desire to see followed. I also firmly believe that Durin will oppose this to his dying day -- and if he ever becomes a bureaucrat, his ability to prevent that from becoming practice at Wikipedia will be that much stronger. Therefore, I oppose Durin's candidacy because I believe his elevation is not in the best long-term interests of the encyclopedia, and not because of his capability to perform the specific duties of the office.
First, is the thesis that Essjay's departure creates an immediate need for more bureaucrats. This claim is unsupportable. First, Essjay was never very consistently active; he would often disappear for days or weeks at a time. Second, there is nothing bureaucrats do that is time-critical. The main responsibility of bureaucrats is to determine consensus in requests for adminship. This is not in the least bit time-critical: if some admin has to wait 24 hours, or even a week, to be promoted, the encyclopedia will not be materially harmed. Frankly, any admin candidate who is so impatient to become an admin that he cannot wait a few days more for a bureaucrat to review his candidacy and come to a decision does not deserve adminship. The other two duties, user name changes and bot flagging, are equally non-time-critical. There is simply no urgency for the completion of bureaucrat duties, and no reason to believe that Essjay's absence from the ranks of the bureaucracy will materially affect the responsible and timely completion of these duties. Not enough time has passed to see if the other bureaucrats will rise to the occasion; and in any case the expectations of RFA candidates of instant promotion are quite unreasonable, and arguably even contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia.
Second, is Durin's qualifications as a bureaucrat, and more generally what I, at least, consider appropriate in a bureaucrat. I opposed Durin's candidacy on the grounds that Durin is an "inflexible process wonk". And I really do believe that. It's well-known that I have a history of a rather nasty past conflict with Durin. And I freely admit that that history influences my vote, but what influences me more is all the other people who have also had conflicts with Durin. Durin is rigidly inflexible on what he has decided is right -- whether or not his opinions are justified by meaningful facts or sound logic. Once his mind is made up, he is impervious to other opinions. Furthermore, he is paranoid and overly sensitive. This combination of characteristics is the reason why he has been in so many acrimonious conflicts, and why he will continue to be in them for as long as he remains at Wikipedia. Durin is a pleasure to get along with as long as he agrees with you; as soon as he disagrees with you, though, the gloves go off. He shows clear evidence of "binary thinking" (perhap's he's a Bynar?). Unfortunately, this sort of rigidity in thought is exactly what Wikipedia does not need, and especially not in bureaucrats. I have complete confidence that Durin will rigidly apply an exact percentage rule of some sort (his addiction to statistics suggests that he's already analyzed every RfA in recent memory and established what, in his mind, the proper cutoff should be).
However, none of the above is my real reason for opposing Durin. I believe that bureaucrats should not seek to "determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community" by counting votes and applying them against some arbitrary yardstick. Rather, I believe that a bureaucrat should evaluate the candidate, taking into consideration all the comments made by those commenting on the request for adminship, and determine whether or not promoting this candidate is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I realize that this is a revolutionary position on my part; it is directly contrary to the current declared practice. However, it is the practice I desire to see followed. I also firmly believe that Durin will oppose this to his dying day -- and if he ever becomes a bureaucrat, his ability to prevent that from becoming practice at Wikipedia will be that much stronger. Therefore, I oppose Durin's candidacy because I believe his elevation is not in the best long-term interests of the encyclopedia, and not because of his capability to perform the specific duties of the office.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Essjay quits
Well, Ryan Jordan, apparently realizing that his goose is quite thoroughly cooked, has withdrawn from participation in all Wikimedia projects, including resigning all special roles and privileges he held. (He is also no longer employed by Wikia, if this is any indication.)
I won't say I'm happy, because I'm not. However, I am at least relieved that the "crisis" phase of this episode is over. There remains some considerable risk of an edit war or wheel war breaking out over his user page, user talk page, or the Request for Comments that was in progress regarding his conduct. I am also concerned about the number of people running around declaring that there's now a shortage of bureaucrats, checkusers, and oversights (many of whom are clearly preparing runs for one or more of these positions).
Rather than jockeying for the vacancies created by Essjay's departure, I think it is far more important for the community to discuss the issues raised by his conduct. Specifically, the Wikipedia community very much needs to discuss:
Also, any person who, in the course of performing any special duties within Wikipedia or within Wikimedia, would have access to information which would be subject to the provisions of the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, must identify himself or herself to the Wikimedia Foundation before being given that access. The same should also apply to those who are authorized to speak for or on behalf the Wikimedia Foundation. (The Foundation should be required to treat such identity information consistent with the privacy policy, of course.) This would include, amongst other things, all checkusers, stewards, and OTRS volunteers. It would not include administrators or bureaucrats. It would also include Arbitrators unless the practice of sharing checkuser data freely with Arbitrators is discontinued.
In any case, the community needs to discuss these matters. It certainly cannot hope to sweep these issues under the rug if it hopes to get through this incident without permanent damage.
I won't say I'm happy, because I'm not. However, I am at least relieved that the "crisis" phase of this episode is over. There remains some considerable risk of an edit war or wheel war breaking out over his user page, user talk page, or the Request for Comments that was in progress regarding his conduct. I am also concerned about the number of people running around declaring that there's now a shortage of bureaucrats, checkusers, and oversights (many of whom are clearly preparing runs for one or more of these positions).
Rather than jockeying for the vacancies created by Essjay's departure, I think it is far more important for the community to discuss the issues raised by his conduct. Specifically, the Wikipedia community very much needs to discuss:
- the role of experts on Wikipedia
- how to deal with pseudonymous individuals who seek to claim expertise in a topic area
- whether or not to allow pseudonymous individuals to hold positions of authority, and if so under what conditions
Also, any person who, in the course of performing any special duties within Wikipedia or within Wikimedia, would have access to information which would be subject to the provisions of the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, must identify himself or herself to the Wikimedia Foundation before being given that access. The same should also apply to those who are authorized to speak for or on behalf the Wikimedia Foundation. (The Foundation should be required to treat such identity information consistent with the privacy policy, of course.) This would include, amongst other things, all checkusers, stewards, and OTRS volunteers. It would not include administrators or bureaucrats. It would also include Arbitrators unless the practice of sharing checkuser data freely with Arbitrators is discontinued.
In any case, the community needs to discuss these matters. It certainly cannot hope to sweep these issues under the rug if it hopes to get through this incident without permanent damage.
People who lie when apologizing for having lied...
Andrew Lih, in his recent blog post, exposes Ryan Jordan's worst lie of all. In his apology, Jordan, amongst other things, accused Stacy Schiff of breaching journalistic ethics by offering him compensation. I didn't notice it right away because I'm not a journalist and don't hang around with journalists. But Andrew (who is a journalist, or at least a professor of journalism) did. And he contacted Ms. Schiff, who categorically denies Jordan's allegations. This is actionable libel; by all rights Jordan's apology should be redacted to remove the libel, but he's a known liar anyway, so it's unlikely that anyone will believe it at this point.
That does it, though. At this point Jordan should be banned from all of Wikimedia, permanently. If he is going to lie in an apology for having lied, then there is no hope for him. Lying has apparently become so ingrained to him that he apparently cannot help but do it.
Sorry, Ryan. Get thee behind us all; go find help, you need it. And until you do, stay away. We've had enough of liars here.
That does it, though. At this point Jordan should be banned from all of Wikimedia, permanently. If he is going to lie in an apology for having lied, then there is no hope for him. Lying has apparently become so ingrained to him that he apparently cannot help but do it.
Sorry, Ryan. Get thee behind us all; go find help, you need it. And until you do, stay away. We've had enough of liars here.
Jimbo responds on Essjay
Jimmy Wales has made a lengthy statement regarding the Ryan Jordan (Essjay) situation. He has professed a lack of awareness of Jordan's misconduct, which given Wales is entirely to be expected. He has also called on Jordan to resign his positions of trust within the community. (No mention is made of his relationship with Wikia, but I don't care so much about that.)
This is certainly the right thing for Wales to do now, and for that I commend him. However, Wales really should have investigated whether Jordan's actions amounted to a breach of trust before appointing him to the Arbitration Committee. It was so widely known that Jordan had claimed to be a professor that surely Wales was aware of this. As Jordan's apparent supervisor at Wikia, one would presume that Wales was aware of the content of Jordan's work history and knew that he was, in fact, not a professor, and did not hold any advanced degrees. This alone should have caused Wales to at least wonder if he had misused his claim of academic credentials in some way. Surely Wales was aware that Jordan has misrepresented his credentials to the New Yorker; I cannot imagine that Wales failed to read that article.
In short, ignorance is not an excuse here, not when a reasonable person would have been suspicious. Wales, as a community manager himself, is obligated not to remain ignorant in the face of reasonable suspicion. He should have investigated; he apparently did not, and thus his actions led to this situation going from being merely embarrassing (the New Yorker thing would have broken eventually) to thoroughly damaging -- all because Wales appointed Jordan to the Arbitration Committee at a point where he (if acting prudently) would reasonably have known about Jordan's misconduct.
Lawyers have a catchphrase: "Trust, but verify". That is what Wales failed to do in this situation. His failure has harmed his own reputation, but even more so has harmed that of Wikipedia's. Hopefully, this will be a lesson for him, and for all Wikipedians.
This is certainly the right thing for Wales to do now, and for that I commend him. However, Wales really should have investigated whether Jordan's actions amounted to a breach of trust before appointing him to the Arbitration Committee. It was so widely known that Jordan had claimed to be a professor that surely Wales was aware of this. As Jordan's apparent supervisor at Wikia, one would presume that Wales was aware of the content of Jordan's work history and knew that he was, in fact, not a professor, and did not hold any advanced degrees. This alone should have caused Wales to at least wonder if he had misused his claim of academic credentials in some way. Surely Wales was aware that Jordan has misrepresented his credentials to the New Yorker; I cannot imagine that Wales failed to read that article.
In short, ignorance is not an excuse here, not when a reasonable person would have been suspicious. Wales, as a community manager himself, is obligated not to remain ignorant in the face of reasonable suspicion. He should have investigated; he apparently did not, and thus his actions led to this situation going from being merely embarrassing (the New Yorker thing would have broken eventually) to thoroughly damaging -- all because Wales appointed Jordan to the Arbitration Committee at a point where he (if acting prudently) would reasonably have known about Jordan's misconduct.
Lawyers have a catchphrase: "Trust, but verify". That is what Wales failed to do in this situation. His failure has harmed his own reputation, but even more so has harmed that of Wikipedia's. Hopefully, this will be a lesson for him, and for all Wikipedians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)