Jump to content

Talk:Essjay controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEssjay 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 8, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 12, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
April 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 6, 2007Articles for deletionKept
September 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 24, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Did You Know 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

Instances of the name "Wikia" in the article

[edit]

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]

Discussion about linking to userpage...

[edit]

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

See also section

[edit]

[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]

wait he from ky?

[edit]

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

Does his photo need to be here?

[edit]

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? ꧁Zanahary21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]