Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Essjay controversy/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

Essjay controversy
The controversy itself is now over, and the edit wars are now finished. What is left is very comprehensive and concise article that I think is now good enough for FA. Let something good come out of something bad. DevAlt 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a section about its impact on Wikipedia. After Seigenthaler, we made the BLP policy and oversight, and anons cannot write new articles. Last section of "Wikipedia community" needs references. --Kaypoh 13:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a section about changes made after Seigenthaler is not appropriate on an article about Essjay, and there are already paragraphs about the failed credentials plan. The last section on Wikipedia community is derived from the previous reference given in the quote above. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe this article to be fundamentally unsuitable to be an FA. We cannot hold this up as an example of the best work on Wikipedia - it is self-referential and obsessed with our own importance. It is also an article about a short term news event rather than a topic of actual encyclopedic interest. I have long advocated its deletion and still do so now. However aside from this I believe this article falls well below our expected standards in the following ways: I certainly think this article falls below the FAC now and have reservations at whether it could ever meet that criteria. WjBscribe 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not stable and is frequently the subject of edit wars.
 * 2) The structure is pretty weak and is really just a collection of quotations with a bit of text in between, rather than a free standing article
 * 3) The "Notes" section contains quotes not related to the subject of the article but general criticism and attacks about Wikipedia - this is against policy on references and would not be acceptable in other articles.
 * 4) Some of the detail seems excessive
 * 5) I'm not sure about neutrality - I realise there are few sources to use for balance, but Essjay's editorial contribs were minimal and whether or not he was a professor pretty irrelevant to a lot of his participation in the project. The article seem to imply he was a major contributor of content, which is simply not the case.
 * Every article that exists on Wikipedia should have an equal chance of reaching FA, regardless of how self-referential, obsessive or even naff it is. This article has enough separate sources that it will never be deleted, so it should have as great a shot at FA as anything else. Secondly, this article, with the exception of this brief spat on Larry Sanger I accidentally started, has not had any edit warring for the past fifty edits in its page history, which goes back to the beginning of August. I do not think it is as controversial as it was originally. And a lot of your issues can be fixed - I have removed the quotes in the Notes section. There's not a lot one can do with the structure of the article: it was a scandal about what Essjay said and how others responded to it, that does require quite a lot of quotation. If you could be a bit more specific about your complaints regarding neutrality and detail, i'd liek to deal with those too. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like your removal of those quotes got reverted - as mine did some time previously.... WjBscribe 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can try for the semblance of an FAC, at least. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given Quackguru was just blocked for reverting repeatedly my removal of the quotes, would my removing them again count as revert warring because he can't respond? I want to address your objection but I'm not keen to break either the letter or the spirit of 3RR. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would a bad idea for you to revert further. I will get back to you with more detail on my above points. If you want to make this a better article, feel free - but I doubt my view that it is unsuitable to be an FA will change... WjBscribe 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not actionable. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad article - I've seen worse. Few things - probably too much self-reference, in that WP is not a RS, and if you can't find another source, the likelihood is that no once cares. Bit of that, and some other stuff. Will try some fixes. Moreschi Talk 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in this case the relevant guideline is WP:SELFPUB, I think. In this article, the primary issue is that Wikipedia is a primary source.  So in cases where we have items like "Jimbo made a statement" cited to The New Times or whatever, it's acceptable to link directly to that statement of Jimbo.  But if the point is not made anywhere else, then Moreschi is right, probably nobody cares. --JayHenry 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the simple fact that Raul would not be foolish enough to put this on the main page. Might make a good article, but not featured.  Majorly  (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul put Islam on the main page just after attempted Islamist bombings in the UK. That was hell - this would be far better! Moreschi Talk 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I also agree with WJBscribe's points. This is really an embarrassment to Wikipedia, if anything. And I doubt it would be included in a paper encyclopedia. It's simply a bloated news report.  Majorly  (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul maintains a select list of Featured Articles that he will never place on the main page - I imagine Essjay controversy will be one of them when it passes. And just because an article embarrasses Wikipedia doesn't mean we should exclude it, we come off rather badly in Criticism of Wikipedia. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What's more, this isn't the appropriate place to revisit whether or not the Essjay AFDs were correct. --JayHenry 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What WJBscribe said. This would just make us look stupid if we ever had it on the main page, or as a featured article. That, and the fact that I don't think it reads like a featured article either. --Deskana (talky) 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, this simply isn't a valid objection. Personally, I don't find the fact that we trusted someone and they subsequently betrayed us embarrassing to Wikipedia, but I'm apparently in a minority here. The article exists, it has passed several AfDs, it's not going anywhere and theoretically, every article on Wikipedia should have a chance to become Featured, its content should be irrelevant. Like I said above, Raul keeps a list of articles that will never be put onto the main page, so this is a misplaced fear - Essjay controversy, in terms of how embarrassing it is, is similar to handjob, facial, and Citizendium(which is full of attacks on Wikipedia). All should have their chance to be FA, even if they don't make it onto the front page. Which is how it should be. Now, if you object to the prose, be more specific so I can address your objection. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... yes it is valid, and you seem to have misunderstood my objections, as I don't find it embarassing either. However, I think the press would find it quite funny were we to have "Essjay controversy" on the main page. We're trying to build a reputation as a reputable encyclopedia, and if we start featuring articles on us on the main page, it makes us seem like we write about every little thing that happens on our website. This is how I feel about it. --Deskana (talky) 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already told you that becoming FA isn't a guarantee it will end up on the main page, but that's up to Raul. Do you have any objections to the content of the article? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose as Majorly says, it's simply a bloated news report. And having an article about ourselves on the main page would make us look stupid. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually reading any of the previous comments at all? Have I not said at least three times now that becoming FA does not guarantee a place on the main page, an honour which is entirely at Raul's discretion? And are not all events basically extended news reports? Virginia Tech Massacre comes to mind. What exactly am I supposed to do with that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did read your comments. I stand over my comments. I'm not keen on the idea of any FA that would be inappropriate on the main page. And, I repeat, it's a bloated news article. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I am opposing per the others, as well as several problems with the actual article. I would personally like to see a section on other related incidents, similar Wikipedia issues etc. etc. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's just too self-referential. -- ChrisO 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to flesh out a few base principles here - (1) If this is promoted, I will not put it on the main page for the same reason I declined to put Wikipedia on the main page when it was a featured article - it's simply too self-referential. However, (2) the fact that it is not suitable for the main page, or the fact that is self-referential, should not in-and-of-itself disqualify this article from becoming a featured article. I've often said, and I'll say again here - any article that can or has survived a trip to the AFD should, at least in theory, be eligible for featured article status. (3) For the first three weeks in August, this article received only 16 edits; the diff for last month shows very little substantive change in the article. Therefore, I do not consider it unstable. The likelihood of vandalism or future edit wars is NOT a consideration when determining featured article status. Please restrict commentary here to the substance of the article. Raul654 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This may just be the nature of covering such subjects, but I really don't like how much of the article is an indiscriminate list of quotes. In my opinion, the preferable way to document the media reaction would be a far shorter summary with few, if any, quotes. This is just a personal preference, however, and there is nothing really wrong with including too much verifiable information. As for actionable items...
 * At least one ref is broken (missing).
 * The linking of dates needs to be consistent - if you're going to link the month and day, the year should be linked. I also don't think month/year dates need to be linked.
 * ctrl+f "noted" - replace with neutral "stated" as it is someone's personal opinion
 * Is everything in the timeline accurate? Cited? --- RockMFR 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find that broken ref, though I've clicked through to all of them. Dates should now be appropriately linked. All two "noted"s have been chnaged. :) So far as I know, everything in the timeline is cited in the text - it's basically an infobox. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The writing is really quite pathetic and it is really just a collection of quotations strung together with some interspersed text now and then, rather than a free standing, narrative article featuring brilliant prose.  If the version someone had tried to replace it with (I reverted to it once) in early March had been allowed to stay up for more than 2 minutes, this would most certainly not be so.  Now you have the consequences.  CyberAnth 06:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting version. I will see about integrating some of the prose from it to make it more like narrative. In the mean time, I will drop a line to the WP:LOCE to iron out any informal tone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Possibly bad P.R., length, lacking of MOS and per Majorly  Mi r a n da   06:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FAC is not AfD. It works by people what's wrong with the article and other people trying to fix it. Saying "length, lacking of MOS" is meaningless, I cannot fix a problem which consists of one noun. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am stating what's wrong with the article. Let me rephrase for you. Oppose - The length is too short, the criticism section is merged in together when different viewpoints are expressed (MOS), this would be bad PR for Wikipedia because the article gives the impression that every person has to verify their credentials to edit Wikipedia, when in case some users enjoy their right to be anonymous (hence IP users).  Mi r a n da   07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Length in itself is not a reason to support or oppose - what else do you want in the article that would lengthen it? Please clarify what you mean about the criticism section, there is no one section entitles criticism, so I do not know to what you refer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In some cases length is an appropriate case to oppose, and support. Criticism section (seen here) subheaders like "criticism from magazines/newspapers/etc." would be nice.  Mi r a n da   07:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is going to make the article look very chopped if I create subheaders for a single paragraph each. I was going to put in more connecting sentences today, so come back and tell me what you think then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No. I don't think it's good enough to be a futured article, and the edit history doesn't seem too stable (At least, at first glance.) No way...-- Isis 4563  12:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please withdraw this per WP:SNOW. &larr;Ben B4 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is NOT an AfD. I have at least five days to address objections - Raul has stated that all opposes based on the nature of the article itself are irrelevant, so I have to fix the article according to the the remaining prose concerns to get it promoted. I believe this can be done, and as soon as I have a decent Internet cable (because I just moved into halls today but didn't bring an Ethernet cable with me. *smacks self*), I will do my best, considering most people are being frustratingly unspecific about what they see wrong with this article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dev, this is not an AFD discussion, and this discussion has already been flooded with people who are misunderstanding the FAC process (I'm hardly an expert on FAC, but comments like "this shouldn't be on the main page" are of no use, or "this article could never be eligible," when all articles are eligible.) Perhaps we should restart this nomination with some sort of disclaimer? --JayHenry 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the best option is to work on the article with the actionable objections made here, and it can be restarted if necessary after that. No point losing good criticism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom lol -- Y not? 05:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm going to try and give actionable objections here. I don't like this article personally, and I doubt it will ever pass FAC (the complete absence of supports is significant). However, FAC is about improving the article not giving it a star... So here goes:
 * 1) There is an over-reliance on quotes in this article. As it stands its questionable if the sheer quantity is acceptable under fair use (the law not the wiki-policy). It seems like all the quotes are being included merely to bloat the article's size, suggesting inappropriate length. (WP:WIAFA 4)
 * 2) Is WP:SIGNPOST really a reliable source? I find that questionable...
 * 3) There needs to be a distinction between "related articles" and "source material"; that would still make sense in the context of a mirror. Specifically, the link to Essjay's user page should be an external link not an internal one and not dumped in the see also with other articles.
 * 4) There are no images or graphics whatsoever in this article, its just dry prose. A picture of Essjay would be relevant for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a lot of quotes given without any connecting sentences, and I am going to try to fix that. Unfortunately, I am not yet connected to the Internet in my halls, which I wasn't expecting when I started this nomination, so it'll be maybe one of two days before I can actually deal with this issue. But I thank you, gratefully, for your comments, and I apologise both to you and to everyone else for this annoying delay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.