I can’t lie. I am sort of a Wikipedia “stan,” not only do I use it close to every day, but I have also added and edited Wikipedia pages for years. So, the fact that the New Yorker dedicated an entire article to the website doesn’t surprise me. In the article “Know It All” by Stacy Schiff, she discusses her experience while navigating Wikipedia and speaks about one of the website’s regular users, Essjay. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.” At the end of the article, there is an Editors’ Note meant to clarify some discrepancies in Essjay’s alleged credentials. After the article went live, Essjay, whose real name is “Ryan Jordan, revealed that he is twenty-four, holds no advanced degrees, and has never taught.” As he was a significant part of the article, I’m not surprised that the Editors felt the need to offer a correction after the fact.
However, I don’t believe the note necessarily affects the credibility of Wikipedia or The New Yorker. While, yes, the New Yorker should have conducted a more thorough background check, I think that reflects more poorly on Schiff than it does the New Yorker. To be completely frank, there were so many avenues she could have taken to try and cover all of her bases. For example, she could have tried to track down Essjay’s real name to make sure he was who he said he was, or she could have tracked down another Wikipedia user who took on the same duties but was willing to provide her with their real name and credentials.
Additionally, I don’t believe this reflects poorly on Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia encourages its editors and users to be honest, but that doesn’t mean the website has to enforce it. If Wikipedia were to conduct background checks on all its 27 million registered users, the website would never have flourished the way it has.
As a whole, this serves as a reminder that (1) even newspapers and their authors are capable of mistakes and (2) that in moments of error or inaccuracy, it is their duty to correct it. That is how these websites and newspaper retain their creditability. It also serves as a reminder to readers to approach any information with a healthy level of skepticism before blindly taking everything as fact.
Leave a Reply