Wikipedia's 'Catholic Expert'

[marmalade]

Wikipedia 'Catholic expert' resigns after being exposed as a fake

Wikipedia 'Catholic expert' resigns after being exposed as a fake
Supposed expert used "Catholicism for Dummies" as source


New York, Mar 8, 2007 / 12:05 pm (CNA).- One of Wikipedia’s foremost contributors and editors resigned last week after it was learned that his supposed credentials as a professor of Religion with a PhD in Theology and a degree in Canon Law were fake, reported The Age.

The editor, who called himself Essjay, was recruited to work on the online encyclopedia’s arbitration committee, a team of “expert administrators” who vet content. But it seems no one vetted his credentials.

According to The Age, Essjay was found out after The New Yorker magazine referred to his estimated 20,000 contributions to the site and how he would spend up to 14 hours a day editing, "correcting errors, and removing obscenities".

However, afterwards a Wikipedia critic later told The New Yorker that Essjay’s biographical information was untrue.

Essjay is really Ryan Jordan, a 24-year-old college drop-out from Kentucky, who used texts such as “Catholicism for Dummies” to correct articles on religion. The New Yorker admitted to not knowing Essjay’s real name at the time of publication.

In a statement, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said he Essjay was asked to "resign immediately."

[flowperson]

Unfortunate indeed. The vetting process at Wiki needs some serious work. There have been several such situations arise there over the recent years, the worst being the revision of some articles by Government and Corporate entities to put a more favorable spin on their images.

Now one could be a cynic and observe that establishment forces are originating such negative events just to generally discredit Wiki as a quick, free information source, because if there's anything that establishment forces want in life, it is to minimize the number of independent smart people in the world and charge them dearly for the information that they do obtain.

Maybe it's just another aspect of the "dumbing down" trend made popular by the powers that be in recent years. You know, say one thing and do the opposite to suit your hidden goals. Or as the leaders in 1930's Germany proved so well, devise a great lie and tell it often enough and convincingly enough in word, sound, and image, and eventually the people will believe it.

Jimmy Wales needs to recruit some smart, independent people with more real world experience. 24 ? He should have known better.

flow....

[marmalade]

Yeah, I love wikipedia. I'd hate to see it become marginalized.

[shamsery]

Sad, fake people is every where.

[Pathless]

I thought wikipedia was pretty cool when I first noticed it; however, it seems to me to be overly cited and used, which is unfortunate, given that the information on it seems overly bland and a at least a little biased towards the authors of history's present telling. The presence and ease of access of something like wikipedia contributes to laziness. Rather than delving into research and actually reading books, it gives people one more quick fix outlet to feel as if they have been educated. The presence of something that has become such an authority for so many people so quickly is rather disturbing.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Wiki is good for what it's good for. It's a good place to find leads and links to other information. I don't consider Wiki an authoritative source on anything.

Chris

[path_of_one]

I ditto Chris. This is why when I was teaching, Wikipedia was not allowed as a source of information for research. It simply isn't vetted enough.

[marmalade]

I second that ditto. Wikipedia is a great starting point, but its wise to extend your search beyond it. Some of its entries are extremely good, and some utterly suck. However, if you're new to the info, you have no way of judging its validity.

[Pathless]

Yeah, it's an alright place to start.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Wiki is good for what it's good for. It's a good place to find leads and links to other information. I don't consider Wiki an authoritative source on anything.

Chris

Correct.

If people think it is rubbish don't use it.

If people quite like it, but see it only as a start point, go double and triple check the info.

If people think it is that rotten, go start their own one.

*Shrugs*

[kiwimac]

Perhaps a more germane question in regard to the OP is. " Were any of his contributions factually incorrect?"