Changes

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidentially in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages."  No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors.  Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information.  Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor.  Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts."  Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known.  In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to call attention to the abuse, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidentially in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages."  No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors.  Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information.  Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor.  Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts."  Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known.  In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to call attention to the abuse, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref> one of whom was Essjay.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controvercy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref>

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref> one of whom was Essjay.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controvercy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref>

This alleged “reform” in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more high profile scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, lack of accountability, and core policies.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

This alleged “reform” in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more high profile scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, lack of accountability, and core policies.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>