Talk:Essjay controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Essjay controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Essjay controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 7, 2007 Articles for deletion No consensus March 8, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept March 12, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept April 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed May 6, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept September 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 24, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 7, 2007. Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Essjay controversy was copied or moved into List of Wikipedia controversies with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (March 6, 2007). "Wikipedia ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune.

This can't be right, surely. The article repeatedly refers to "Wikia". Wikia is another entity entirely – now called Fandom. I checked and the text which states "Wikia" has been there a long time. Was Wikipedia previously referred to as Wikipedia or is this just a mistake that hasn't been caught in years? Hoping someone else can advise on this matter. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I should do research before saying things :) Turns out that our Mr Wales co-founded the Wikia website. Maybe this article should provide more context on that, though, for those who are unaware? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need ... just click through the link at the first mention of Wikia in the article. Jibal (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can be found here Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] @Crazynas, what is unclear? They're both clearly labeled as key early Internet moments of online communities figuring out how to grapple with misrepresented anonymous identity. czar 15:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I do see, I just wasn't sure why a cartoon that came out 12 years before the controversy could be relevant. But I understand the connnection as far as the way Essjay presented himself, I'm going to reinstate it without your description (since we don't unusually put descriptions after See Also links do we? Crazynas ^t 19:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and yep: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." czar 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

think hes from louisville BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about nothing more than a super humiliating incident. No encyclopedic value is really lost with the removal of this tiny, poor-quality selfie from 2007. Does anyone object to its removal? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]