Changes

==Controversy==

==Controversy==

In early October 2005, former [[Robert F. Kennedy]] aide and retired journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wales about false and libelous information in his Wikipedia biographical entry. [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_Wikipedia_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay]] got the call to deal with the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>

In early October 2005, former [[Robert F. Kennedy]] aide and retired journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wales about false and libelous information in his Wikipedia biographical entry. [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_Wikipedia_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay]] got the call to deal with the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> On December 1, 2005 Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine, the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry regarding Daniel Brandt,  

 

{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all... I find it hard to take him very seriously ...<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}Brandt was the victim of malicious<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=22336&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry22336</ref> and vile slanders  placed within his Wikipedia biographical entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=55132392</ref> by prominent Wikipedia contributors, in violation of numerous published Wikipedia policies.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Impugning_critics Wikipedia#Impugning critics], Conservapedia.com</ref> Four days later in a joint appearance with Seigenthaler on [[CNN]] Wales said,  

On December 1, 2005 Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine, the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry regarding Daniel Brandt,  

{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all... I find it hard to take him very seriously ...<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}Brandt was the victim of malicious<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=0&p=22336&#entry22336</ref> and vile slanders  placed within his Wikipedia biographical entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=55132392</ref> by prominent Wikipedia contributors, in violation of numerous published Wikipedia policies.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Impugning_critics Wikipedia#Impugning critics], Conservapedia.com</ref> Four days later in a joint appearance with Seigenthaler on [[CNN]] Wales said,  

{{Cquote|we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>}}

{{Cquote|we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>}}

 

Essjay was entrusted with oversight responsibilities in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal and wrote to a professor to persuade her to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a "reliable source,"

Essjay, who was given oversight responsibilities in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal, told a professor he was trying to convince to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a "reliable source,"

{{Cquote|It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.}}

{{Cquote|It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.}}