Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 8

Wales is "founder" not "co-founder"
To whomever keeps re-inserting "co-founder" as it applies to Jimmy Wales, this is inaccurate. While Larry Sanger had a core role in the establishment of Wikipedia, he is not considered a "co-founder" by the Wikipedia Foundation. Someone has taken to attributing the "co-founder" claim to a January 30, 2003 article from The Guardian, which states, "It's so successful that its founders, internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger, have started Wiktionary.org - a dictionary version." This is clearly incorrect -- as for one, Sanger had resigned a year earlier, on March 1, 2002! 

Not to turn this into a "war of attribution", but here are some of the many articles which list Wales alone as "founder". Choose any that one wishes for citation:
 * Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales, The Guardian, Saturday November 4, 2006: "Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia." (no mention of Sanger)
 * No. 7 Jimmy Wales, founder and chair, Wikimedia Foundation, Silicon.com "Agenda Setters 2006"


 * Jimmy Wales - Time magazine, Apr. 30, 2006:"That such a remarkably open-door policy has resulted in the biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world is a testament to the vision of one man, Jimmy Wales."


 * How Wikipedia Breaks News, and Adjusts to It, All Things Considered, NPR, February 9, 2007: "Robert Siegel talks to Jimmy Wales, founder and chairman emeritus of Wikipedia."


 * Jimmy Wales will destroy Google - RU Sirius interviews Wales, 29 January, 2007 (transcript on 10ZenMonkeys.com): "In fact, Jimmie Wales is the founder of Wikipedia and remains the man in charge of what is essentially an Open Source encyclopedia."

Wales admitted he made the changes, but argued the edits were meant merely to emphasize a technical point about the specific roles the two had at the time.
 * Wales himself has clarified what he believes to be the "founding" role of Larry, even breaking etiquette to edit his own bio -- as noted at a December 2005 Wired news article, which wrote,

"It's very neutral," he said. "The point wasn't to write Larry Sanger out of the story. I think Larry doesn't get enough credit." -- LeflymanTalk 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Larry Sanger can be considered a "co-founder" of Wikipedia, is one of the most contentious issues ever, akin to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the sake of general peace and everybody's sanity, let's stay clear of that can of worms. 131.111.8.104 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. I've rm'd all three references to it from the article (three?! methinks someone had something to flog there) Gwen Gale 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; while Sanger, as an employee of Boomis, was an important early organiser during the first year of the project, he hasn't been a part of Wikipedia for the last five years. He has an historical place in the foundation, just as the many, many editors who helped shape what Wikipedia is today. But ultimately, sources list that Jimbo, as the leader of the whole shebang, is considered the "founder". -- LeflymanTalk 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but comparing this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is taking Wikipedia's history a bit more seriously than is warranted. —Doug Bell talk 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I took it as a chatty, tongue-in-cheek but sincere simile, nothing more. Gwen Gale 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) 131.111.8.104 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales are both the Co-Founders of Wikipedia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Larry_Sanger/Origins_of_Wikipedia&oldid=39843351

According to Larry Singer he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. Also, there was a reference removed from the article that proves this too. End of discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=114430680&oldid=114426380

The co-founder's "Sanger's response" is therefore highly relevant, notable, and part of the story of the Essjay controversy. The reference to a blog from the personal blog of Larry Singer meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Have a nice day. Q uack    G uru    TALK 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * His own statement doth not make it so. -- Avi 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The fact that Larry Sanger (not Singer btw) has claimed to be the co-founder of Wikipedia does not make him the co-founder of Wikipedia. I think you'll need a stronger basis than that to assert such a claim... WjBscribe 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I recommend that folks read Larry Sanger it seems fairly neutral point of view about this. 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a reference in the article that stated he is the co-founder. The reference met Wikipedia's standard. AGF towards Larry please. I said, end of discussion. Q uack    G uru    TALK 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What does that mean "end of discussion"? You're talking as though you own this page. You don't... kindly refrain from this and remain civil. 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The brown nosing by editors in here is pretty sad. Do you score points by defending this revision of history? Do you think if Larry still worked for Wikipedia and if Jim and Larry were best friends, Sanger's co-founder status would even be on the radar? Oh course it wouldn't. He would still be called co-founder as he was way back when. I love Wikipedia because you can go back and see how articles err, "evovle" over time. This is one of the best examples of how material facts can "morph" over time. Its like whisper down the lane. Go back to any of the articles about Wales or Sanger or Wikipedia or its history and see how they have changed that co-funder fact. Larry who? Again, do you folks get points for defending this revisionist tale? I know, its like the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln article. In a few years time, more "material" will be fleshed out and ol' Abe will finally be outted of the closet and proven to be the homosexual that he was, right? Whatever, --Tom 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Threeafterthree, not to put too blunt a point on it...this article already has all the controversial issues it can handle. This whole Wales/Sanger/co-founder stuff doesn't need to be here. There are more than enough sources for this article that it is not necessary to include Mr Sanger's personal thoughts.  Risker 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Mr. Larry Sanger is the offical co-founder of the world's largest encyclopedia -- Wikipedia. Q uack    G uru    TALK 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Larry Sanger's response is an essential part of the story. After all he is the co-founder no doubt. And yet, he directly responded to Mr. Jimmy Wales as the story unfolded. This belongs in the body of the article. Q uack    G uru    TALK 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, no matter what you or I may call him, Sanger is only the "official co-founder" by his own contention-- not by attributable sources, and not by Jimmy Wales, who actually began the company and original encyclopedia that became Wikipedia, and has lead this project since its start. Sanger's place in history as being instrumental in getting Wikipedia off the ground in 2001 is secure-- but that doesn't make him a co-founder, any more than EssJay, who held a bevvy of titles, over a period twice as long as Sanger was here. Here's specifically what Wales said on the matter, when it was brought up a few months back at Talk:Citizendium:
 * "I have never agreed that Larry should be called co-founder and have contested it from the time when Larry awarded himself the title. Has Wikipedia made this error in the past many times? Yes, and so have the press. Nonetheless, it remains very much in dispute, and therefore it is always wrong to call Larry co-founder without at a bare minimum noting the dispute. In most cases, it is sufficiently irrelevant to a given mention of Larry that his self-awarded title need not be mentioned at all, in order to avoid pointing out that it is in dispute.--Jimbo Wales 13:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * -- LeflymanTalk 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to source a controversial claim barely relevant to the article from a statement on Wikipedia by the subject of the controversial claim? Even if you can make a case that Sanger is an essential part of this story, you have to find a source that isn't his personal blog. And if you want to claim he is the co-founder you're going to have to convince the rest of Wikipedia to change the articles on Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, and Jimbo Wales so we don't have articles with conflicting statements. From what I've seen you haven't even made a case that Sanger's statement is "essential."AniMate 03:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Mr. Larry Sanger was the original person who thought of the Wiki concept. He and only he brought the idea to Mr. Jimmy Wales. I could make an arguement that Jimmy Wales is not the co-founder because it was Larry's idea not Jimmy's idea in the very very beginning.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030618043804/www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,884666,00.html Q uack    G uru    TALK 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would point out that having the idea is not the same thing as founding the reality. Founder would imply a financial backing or commitment, not simply being the person in the organization who first had the idea.  Regardless, however, I don't see the relevance of this to this article. —Doug Bell talk 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter-of-fact, Larry Sanger is the originator of the concept of Wikipedia and not Jimmy Wales. Next, he was there in the beginning and was an essential part in uplifting Wikipedia on its feet and off the ground along with Jimmy. "Mr. Larry Sanger is the grandfather of Wikipedia." Q uack    G uru    TALK 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if I take all of that at face value, "originator" does not necessarily equate to "founder"—which was the point of my previous post. —Doug Bell talk 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, isn't there enough controversy on this article already? Just word it so it doesn't matter one way or the other and forget about it. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ned. Either find that one citation where Jimmy Wales said Sanger was cofounder once--I've seen it, can't find it--or leave it neutral. - Denny 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Give it a try and put it in the heart of the article. Q uack    G uru    TALK 05:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Quack...none of us is inclined to include it, and you know that any number of editors (not just the ones posting here) will edit out anything that isn't properly sourced. So...the ball is in your court. Frankly, I'm not sure why so much energy has been expended on something that is completely unrelated to this article, which is *about the controversy involving an editor who claimed credentials he did not hold*. Larry Sanger had nothing to do with this situation. At least I haven't seen a reliable source that indicates he had any involvement. Risker 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response
Initially Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, had said on the issue of Essjay's identity: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it." Soon after Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, responded to Wales on his Citizendium blog by writing in part: There’s something utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic, about Jimmy telling The New Yorker that he doesn’t have a problem with Essjay’s lies, and by essentially honoring Essjay after his lies were exposed.... Doesn’t Jimmy know that this has the potential to be even more damaging to Wikipedia than the Seigenthaler situation, since it reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Wikipedia?


 * Message: Who has the heart to firmly put this in the body of the article? Lets get this done and wrap this up. Are you going to read this talk page or are you going to start to act and edit the wiki way. This is a free encyclopedia where anyone can edit. Give it a try. Q uack    G uru    TALK 06:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru...nobody else is going to do it for you. If you proceed, you need to be fully prepared to accept that someone else is likely to delete anything that is not properly cited, simply for the sake of accuracy and full sourcing. As well, other editors (and not just the ones who are posting here) may come along and make an editorial decision to remove it.  The ball is in your court.  Either make the edit or move on to another subject.  Risker 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Message: The ball is in everybody's court. Anyone at any time can put it in the center of the article. Lets see what happens. Q uack    G uru    TALK 06:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sanger's opinion has absolutely no place in this article. None. Glen 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be an impressive argument? Did you know that every time you type "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", etc., you are citing Sanger? CyberAnth 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, right down to the intial editorial comments, "move content - this whatcha want, LMS?" LMS = Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger, that does put things into perspective doesn't it? 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless an external source has noted Sanger's response, then it shouldn't be included. Leaving behind founder/cofounder arguments, he left the project several years ago so there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for his response to be there (anymore than the dozens of blogs that included something on the matter). If the media haven't shown any interest in it, then neither should we. Trebor 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two sources have cited and linked to both blog posts QuackGuru wishes to add: http://www.webcitation.org/5NHN8wyHD and http://www.webcitation.org/5NHLsGxze CyberAnth 07:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sanger's response is notable criticism. It colors the picture quite well. Who is a more notable critc than the grandfather of Wikipedia itself? Sanger is also the co-founder of Wiki. If we include Wales response then we must give a quote from Sanger as well. Q uack    G uru    TALK 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The logic that we have to include his two cents every time Jimbo is quoted is retarded. Personally, I don't care. I think Sanger has a reasonable claim to such a title, but he's being a big baby by crying over Jimbo's rejection of the title (and Jimbo being immature for thinking that denying the title is significant as well). We don't have to bring in something that is it's own separate controversy into another article on controversy. Just find another word that works and move on. This is not the place to dispute the whole Sanger cofounder title thing. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru has suggested in calling Mr. Larry Sanger the grandfather of Wikipedia. Q uack    G uru    TALK 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * tjstrf has suggested that QuackGuru stop being obnoxiously pretentious and talk like a normal individual. Calling him the "Grandfather" would be us making words up, not acceptable. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response is nothing but the "me-too"ing of what a bunch of Wikipedia editors had already said, important only so far as it provides a citeable example of that view. Doesn't need more than a couple sentences in the article, anything more is major undue weight. The more interesting criticism is Finkelstein's, since he actually uses it to say something about the Wikipedia community and interactive community system "hiveminds" as a whole rather than staying at the "that was morally reprehensible Essjay! Bad boy!" surface level. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You were saying? ... see next subsection ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fleshing out the "Reaction" section
Well, despite the sense that Larry Sanger's blog isn't really a great source, I think QuackGuru may have a point about adding more into the reaction section - after all, it seems that is the main point of the article. Thoughts about building another paragraph or two into the article about how the media picked up on this story? Also, I seem to recall a link from someone where some educators were interviewed about the continued value of WP despite this controversy. Risker 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to this plea, I've boldly added the East Anglia academic with a new subsection: there was an earlier more critical response from educators in the US, That could also be added. At the same time I picked out the MUD points from the Grauniad's opinion piece by Seth F., inadvertently meeting a request from tjstrf in the section above this. Hope all are happy, .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, found it. The Chronicle of Higher Education report added. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales v. Sanger co-founder dispute
Folks, this is such a no-brainer it amazes me that gigs of words have been wasted on it.


 * "Sanger, who says he is Wikipedia's co-founder which Wales disputes saying he his sole founder...."
 * "Wales, who says he is Wikipedia's sole founder which Sanger disputes saying he is co-founder...."

Simple, plain, and completely NPOV. CyberAnth 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reality is far more complicated than that and thus it is unwise to deal with that issue here in this article at all. Avoid "founder" or "co-founder" in this article. Simply link the names to our articles about those persons where the issue can be dealt with properly. WAS 4.250 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to dispute this but Sanger was an early manager of Wikipedia, an employee of Wales who provided both the capital and thus the ultimate direction. Gwen Gale 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale, almost every comment I've seen you provide in the pages linked to this, I find myself thinking "good, now I don't have to respond, that was just what I might have said". But you are mistaken about the contributions of Sanger. He was far more than you make him out to be. WAS 4.250 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree his contributions were big. Didn't he recommend the wiki as an input tool for Nupedia? Didn't he write lots of the original policies? Don't call him founder is all. He was Wikipedia's early, innovative manager though, spot on. Gwen Gale 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez people, if you wanna talk about this go to Talk:Jimmy Wales or Talk:Larry Sanger. I'm sure they'd love to hear it there. --Dookama 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally support keeping this debate out of the article and towards that end I've reworded the concerned line to be, "who helped in the founding of Wikipedia". Alternatively I was thinking of, "who played key roles in the founding of Wikipedia" ← this makes him a bit more authoritative. I think either one would be acceptable, no? 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having proposed the text read. "who claims to be a co-founder of Wikipedia" I will not participate any further in the co-founder thing, I think it's a distraction and a tool for PoV. Gwen Gale 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Co-founder, whatever. More relevant is his role on Citizendium, which I have added. Risker 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep and his early contributions to WP, which by all accounts (including Wales') were very significant. I was only saying that the "founder" thing is fraught with ways to waste time on meaningless wording. Gwen Gale 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Arbcom stuff generally significant?
I don't want to bowdlerize the work that many have put into the Sanger criticism without discussing, but I am not certain that I have seen a reference to the Arbcom issue anywhere but from Sanger's quotes. Adding it here does seem to be a little bit on the navel-gazing side, if it is apparently unimportant to anyone but Wikipedians. Risker 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is, but could be changed to "position of trust." Gwen Gale 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...leaving the Arbcom appointment as it is would be better than the "position of trust" because that also included appointments Essjay held long before the credentials were known. However, when I checked that reference, it went straight to Larry's Citizendium blog; it isn't even from a secondary source. Will look around to see if it did indeed get quoted elsewhere. Risker 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I didn't change it. Good luck finding a stronger reference though :) Gwen Gale 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty easy to find in the Google news cache. Just check "Essjay arbitration". The Daily Telegraph mentioned it here, the Register (our good friend Andrew Orlowski) mentioned it here, and WebProNews mentioned it here. Not all of the descriptions of ArbCom are completely accurate, but the appointment was definitely noted in third-party sources. Casey Abell 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Put 'em in then (as refs)? Gwen Gale 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

#REDIRECT Talk:Larry Sanger
It is my humble opinion that the level of Sanger's involvement with Wikipedia is irrelevant in the context of this article, thus I have boldly removed it before an edit war starts over this. "Former Wikipedia manager" is enough IMO (because it seems unquestioned), more can be found on the Larry Sanger article, to which we link for a reason. Let's not drown in digressions in the article. Cheers and sorry for the tyop in the edit summary. ;-) Миша 13 14:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I see it's been re-added again. Please reconsider the importance of this statement in the context of this article. Миша 13 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Misza completely- if the co-founder claim is in, someone will want to rebutt it. And the article is drawn down a tangent. If we have to include Sanger's views (and I remain unpersuaded on this point) can we describe him as what everyone agrees he is, rather than bringing up a dispute that has no place on this article? Those who want to know more about Sanger will visit Larry Sanger and find out all juicy details there. That is how Wikilinks work... WjBscribe 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for avoiding this debate on the article (if the Sanger bits are kept). Whether or not Sanger is included in this article should depend upon how much our sources are including him. We're not to be making an article that through original research becomes a source itself. 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with Sanger's criticisms in the article, so long as they're supported with reliable cites. Sanger is notable as Wikipedia's early manager and as the founder of CZ, a widely noted WP fork with an approach to credentials which is at odds with Wales' views in ways which are relevant to this article. Gwen Gale 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not up for discussion whether Sanger's critique is to be included, but rather the seemingly controversial claim that he is or claims to be the co-founder of WP. In my opinon, noting that he managed WP and is the current CZ editor-in-chief are just about enough. Adding anything more is just spilling the flaming fuel from the Larry Sanger article. Take a look at the article title again - it's >Essjay< controversy, not >Larry Sanger< controversy, so let's avoid unrelated controversies (lol repetitions). ;-) Миша 13 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wholly agreed! Meanwhile my edit of "claims to be co-founder" was only for one or two editors here who seem to want to make this article an attack piece on WP. I think if there is a consensus to leave the co-founder codswallop out altogether, editors here should show that consensus through their edits, which I would support. Gwen Gale 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source uses the information then their interpretation may be included, otherwise it is not relevant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For tom, Lincoln and Wales and NPoV
Look, Wales botched and has apologized. Next? Meanwhile Lincoln was indeed a psychotic mass murdering dictator who corrupted and chaveled the US and their civil war had little to do with slavery but Wikipedia only reflects the PoV of mainstream scholarship in blowing all that off for now. If scholarship one day sways into a take I can deal with, I might even edit there :) In my bloody dreams. Meanwhile who cares about AL's sexuality anyway (as if one could support any of the speculation)? This is a public wiki. Articles must be supported by independent and verifiable sources, weighted as to provenance and written by consensus. Worries about Wikipedia? Haha! Any of mine tend to have roots running straight back into the world we all live in. Cheers to all (Quack too!). Gwen Gale 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Quick Survey Vote"
Here is my proposal to organize the article.


 * 1 New Yorker interview
 * 1.1 Essjay's advocacy letter
 * 2 Reaction
 * 2.1 Wales
 * 2.2 Essjay
 * 2.3 Wikipedia community
 * 2.4 Media Please restore "media" heading and properly place it in the corrent position to organize the article.
 * 2.5 Critics
 * 2.6 Academics
 * 3 See also
 * 4 References
 * 5 Gallery
 * Support Q uack    G uru    TALK 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I will try again below.  Q uack    G uru    TALK 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Voting is teh ebil/Oppose. Firstly, no discussion has preceded this poll, making it an improper use of straw polling. Secondly, that's not any different than the current setup except that you're trying to readd the gallery (which was removed by consensus and has not been discussed since at all) for some obscure reason. --tjstrf talk 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this page describes how "polling isn't a substitute for discussion". Therefore in that sense Tjstrf is right in that what you're proposing hasn't even been disussed at all. 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They changed the shortcut again? Well, at least the WP:!VOTE shortcut doesn't have the same "interesting" phonetic reading that WP:PNSD did. --tjstrf talk 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * VIE is Voting is evil and "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" is WP:!VOTE now. They are two separate but related concepts. 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No voting on editorial content (my humble, wee take :) Gwen Gale 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Proposal To Organize The Article"
Here is my proposal to organize the article.


 * 1 New Yorker interview
 * 1.1 Essjay's advocacy letter
 * 2 Reaction
 * 2.1 Wales
 * 2.2 Essjay
 * 2.3 Wikipedia community
 * 2.4 Media Please restore "media" heading and properly place it in the corrent position to organize the article. (This one is easy.)
 * 2.5 Critics
 * 2.6 Academics
 * 3 See also
 * 4 References
 * 5 Gallery
 * Any suggestions? Q uack    G uru    TALK 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need the gallery, all the relevant content is already sourced externally so self-refs are unnecessary now. No opinion on the media section, and everything else is identical to the current layout. --tjstrf talk 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure we need the media section, now that so much additional commentary has been added in the other sections, and the lead has been re-written to emphasize the widespread media attention the controversy received. Concur with tjstrf about the gallery, it isn't adding anything at this point, particularly as the screenshots don't include the much-discussed credentials that were available for Ms. Schiff to see.  Risker 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, just rereading the article again, the Louisville reference is (I think) quite important, but doesn't exactly fit under the heading "Reaction." I think the lead is missing a sentence that ties things together to, will go work on that now. Risker 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Louisville ref is helpful but got orphaned by all the over-factoring. Which reminds me, why the whole section for Essjay's letter? Gwen Gale 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No gallery please as above. No media section please, WP:NPOV. Altogether I'd rather not settle into any agreements about the factoring, let unfolding events have their sway. Gwen Gale 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead to the "Reaction's" section is poorly organized. The "media info" is poorly placed. It will never stand. A little organizing will greatly improve the article. Organizing the article supercedes undueweight when the article badly structured. Q uack    G uru    TALK 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the gallery was still under debate. WP:SELF still doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7talk 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told I think the phrase "badly structured" has zero meaning. Please be specific, I mean, give quoted examples with your take on what you don't like and what you want to do. Thanks. Gwen Gale 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Agreed, he needs to be more specific. I would normally think an article was "badly structured" if it lacked sections, or was written as a flow-of-conciousness textdump or something. --tjstrf talk 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Media Section: It is badly structured because the media section is out of place. As for the truth, I am giving you space to develop as an editor.
 * Gallery Section: The hard fact that Essjay claimed the false bio was to protect privacy and yet posted a free image of himself is further evidence that brightly enlightens the picture. This is highy relevant and connected to the topic about this controversy, use of false credentials, and behavior of a so-called online persona. Q uack    G uru    TALK 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this bolded text helpful? Gwen Gale 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to collect "evidence." The screenshot of Essjay's user page is not the one that the journalist would have seen at the time she was reviewing his credentials, so it bears no actual relationship to the controversy. The Wikia page didn't exist at the time of the original article, and even if the argument was that it was how the New Yorker found out there was a discrepancy - Essjay's actual credentials are not visible in the screenshot. As to the photograph, at one point this article was in the fraudsters category; though it has been removed from that category, a quick look at a half dozen articles in that category had no photographs of the reported fraudsters, despite their availability. Risker 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent to respond to initial question) There do seem to be a few areas that need work. I agree with Gwen Gale that the sentence about the letter is orphaned right now, and as noted above, the Louisville reference is also not quite in the right place. It also strikes me that Jimbo had a lot more reaction than the one quote we have there now. I've beefed up the lead a bit, edit to your heart's content. Risker 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway yeah Quack, Essjay scammed. I think the article makes that clear. Gwen Gale 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just to a look at the article. It is worse now than it was 25 minutes ago in terms of organizing the heading and structure. It is way too cluttered again. This is reaffirming a case for the peer review team to act upon. Q uack    G uru    TALK 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Gwen Gale has done a very good job of refactoring the content to organize it more logically. Essjay and Jimbo were commenting in their roles within Wikipedia for the most part.  This has also taken care of the misplaced sections.  Risker 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Less subheaders is more clear, not less. What clutters the page is excessive subdivision without substantial content in each section. Also, peer review teams do not "act upon" anything, they're not some sort of official grand jury of article wars, they just say what they think. --tjstrf talk 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Quack's notion of dividing small fragments of text into a pre-defined skeleton could unhelpfully spin the article's weight and PoV later on. Gwen Gale 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is cluttered again and difficult to follow and read. The article is improperly structered. A beautiful disaster. Q uack    G uru    TALK 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please type normally, your formatting abuse is cluttering the talk page the same way your attempted header spam is cluttering the article. Article formatting should be as simple as possible. --tjstrf talk 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)