Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Read me first

This article is more than 17 years old
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive

Wikipedia's latest scandal is the revelation that a very high-ranking administrator, and employee (until this month) of an associated commercial venture, Wikia, had falsified his academic credentials. Concerns had been voiced by critics for a long time but the issue was validated by the publication of a correction added to a New Yorker article about Wikipedia. It said: "[A contributor called Essjay] was described in the piece as 'a tenured professor of religion at a private university' with 'a PhD in theology and a degree in canon law' ... Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is 24 and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught."

The misrepresentation was confirmed when, as part of the Wikia hiring process, accurate details of his identity were presumably required. Much discussion of the scandal has focused on how poorly the executive management handled everything, from initial vetting to subsequent explanations of the deception. But the deepest lesson is what this tells us about the social dynamics driving participation in Wikipedia.

Rhetoric about "peer production" often conjures up some alchemical process where collective action mystically transforms garbage into gold. The buzzword "emergent" functions as a synonym for "magic". A pioneer of computers once lamented being asked: "Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" Too many people are still searching for that sort of machine, and, much more dangerously, some marketers seem to want to build businesses on the premise that it has been developed at last (beware the catchphrase "wisdom of crowds").

The reality is much more mundane. Frequently, what is naively viewed as spontaneous generation is in fact the product of a relatively small number of people who have been induced to provide a huge amount of unpaid labour. The lifeblood of Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic. This is very clear in the Wikipedian's credo of "writing an encyclopedia". But all that'll happen is they will work for free, while elsewhere the Wikia investors will reap the rewards. But it's a powerful dream.

And "Essjay" - Ryan Jordan - was that dream's poster child. His biographical self-description asserted "Yes, I'm a professor", listed his supposed four degrees and included a claim to "teach both undergraduate and graduate theology". It represents a detailed fantasy that he found an opportunity to play out on Wikipedia. His writings on Wikipedia show someone revelling in the role. Ironically, many participants seemed to consider his lying in Wikipedia content disputes to be a far greater sin than lying to the New Yorker, which should be a red flag about the value system.

There was a letter sent to a professor, in which his phony credentials were used as part of an endorsement of Wikipedia's value and accuracy: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia." Later, describing fooling magazines, he bragged about "doing a good job playing the part".

Even his subsequent flailing as his tangle of lies became undone displayed a revealing mindset. He cast himself as devoted to Wikipedia. He seemed to believe he could extricate himself through continued further worship. "Essjay" ultimately should be viewed more in pity than in anger.

One of Wikipedia's major public relations successes has been in misdirecting observers into a narrative of technological miracles, diverting attention from analysing its old-fashioned cult appeal. While I don't mean to imply that everyone involved in Wikipedia is wrapped up in delusion, that process is a key factor. A charismatic leader, who peddles a type of spiritual transcendence through selfless service to an ideal, finding a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation's projects - that's a story worth telling. But not abetting.

· sethf.com

· If you'd like to comment on any aspect of Technology Guardian, send your emails to tech@theguardian.com

Most viewed

Most viewed