Talk:Retired Wikipedian suggests Pulitzer winner tried to pay him; practice unaccepted in journalism

"bad journalistic practices"

i don't see any accusations of "bad ..." in the quoted excerpt of EssJay's post. that is just someone else's characterization of the comment and doesn't support the headline, methinks.  — Doldrums(talk) 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn’t even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead."

According to Andrew Lih, who as mentioned is an assistant journalism professor, says that money being exchanged is bad practice. -- Zanimum 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

to my knowledge, not all journalists clear advance copies with sources. similarly, i expect compensation for time is common practice, with experts and pundits, for instance. my suggestion is to hold back the characterisations, ("bad" whatevers, "Disgraced"s, "putting himself up to further criticism", "decided to pass some of the blame") and simply report the Essjay's comment, Lih's views and Schiff's response. it's not for us to put words in EssJay's mouth, the way i think the title does.  — Doldrums(talk) 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

also, the note in the N-Yer piece says, "would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page."[italics mine], looks to me like she did her job and i'd be leery of printing accusations of bad journalism by her, especially in the absence of a clear-cut accusation. it needs a leap to go from EssJay's comment to the current headline, in my view, and we shld not be making leaps to potentially defamatory statements.  — Doldrums(talk) 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, shortened the quote to include only the accusation. The advance copies are almost unheard of, in my experience. -- Zanimum 17:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as disgraced goes. Well Jimbo telling you to resign is not an hounour by any means, there are still a lot of people on wikipedia who support him. (As can be seen by his talk page, and others proablly share similiar feelings). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Word removed. -- Zanimum 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much don't get the point of this article, it reads like a swipe at the New Yorker journalist that has no basis in the quoted material. EssJay appears to have argued from a position of unheld authority (put simply:lied). I don't care particularly whether convention considers offering to pay for his time was appropriate, you have a single source for this claim. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Single source for the claim? or Andrew's claim that this is ethically wrong? If you want another journalism expert to back up Andrew, I can find one. But if you want me to get Jordan to restate that she tried to pay him, that's next to impossible. And I mean, there's no debate that he did say that. Check the history. The multiple source rule is meant for real world events. -- Zanimum 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much a case of both, the payment offer is EssJay's word versus the journalist. Whether or not it is common practice to pay for expert opinions is another kettle of fish. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, were it not a serious acquistation, would Schiff have issued such a response? I'm asking Andrew for a source that agrees that this practice is bad. Note that his blog was regularly cited by the media in regard to the blocking status of Chinese Wikimedia sites. -- Zanimum 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

It might be useful to add another item to the timeline. Starting around March 1, people dug into Essjay's edit history and found examples of how he had made use of his false identity during wiki editing and other wiki-related activities (see). By March 3, Jimmy Wales became aware of these new revelations and asked Essjay to give up his positions of responsibility. Before March 1 it was possible to accept Essjay's claim that he had created a false identity to protect himself. After March 1 it became known that he had actively used that false identity in ways that made it difficult or impossible for his wiki peers to accept.--JWSchmidt 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Added. -- Zanimum 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

headline

change needed. he does not "accuse" her of "bad journalistic practices". see WP Signpost article, for instance, on how to word it so we don't go beyond what is actually said by the various people involved.  — Doldrums(talk) 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, and will continue to, marked this as cleanup due to the headline. I don't care whose blog the "bad journalistic practices" comes from, it ain't a credible source and this is an accusation that is being inferred from EssJay's comments. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OR quote

"Yes, New Yorker policy prohibits payment for interviews. And I can assure you that Essjay's assertion about Stacy Schiff and compensation is completely false and utterly absurd. This is one of the worst charges that can be made about a reporter, and Stacy Schiff, a Pulitzer Prize winner of unimpeachable integrity, whom we know well, does not deserve to be lied about in this way.

Thanks very much for writing and for giving us a chance to respond."

This is the text of what Michael provided me through Andrew. -- Zanimum 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making up this stuff? It's been explained that he probably meant reimbursement for the calling cards in that comment. Instead you're going with whatever some blog says and citing false sources for this article. Angela

Some blog? We're reporting on what the blog says, and what the blog says the New Yorker said. -- Zanimum 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)