Probably the strongest analogy here is with the Scientologists (Seth frequently compares Wikipedia to a cult).

The whole Scientology organization was basically run by the free labour (as well as the donations) of the cult members. Scientology members made the e-meters that were sold, staffed the store-front bookstores, manned the Sea Org etc. They made the wealth the cult executives exploited.

The Scientologists also had a nasty attitude towards outsiders. Cult leaders could label an outsider (usually a critic), "fair game" -- which meant the cult members had free reign to destroy his/her life.

The L. Ron Hubbard bio Bare-Faced Messiah is online, and fascinating reading on these sorts of dynamics. (Hubbard himself was kind of an Essjay, claiming all sorts of military honours, scientific credentials he didn't have).

Essjay is now actually lying about what the reporter said to him. In his message, he actually says the reporter offered to pay him for his time:

"Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead."

Andrew Lih contacted the reporter, Stacy Schiff, who said this was "complete nonsense."

link

Isn't paying sources unethical for a journalist?

The whole Scientology organization was basically run by the free labour (as well as the donations) of the cult members.

I'll do you one better: They actively seek out and recruit the "A-List" for their own ends. Not that Scientology is alone in this, of course.

I was one of the people interviewed for well over 8 hours by Stacy Schiff. Never did we discuss me being compensated, of course she didn't send me an advance copy of the article.

Geez, what a useless post. I came here from Felten's "Freedom to tinker"; the post there (written by David Robinson) states that "Jimmy Wales, who is as close to being in charge of Wikipedia as anybody is, has had an intricate progression of thought on the matter, ably chronicled by Seth Finklestein."

Ably chronicled? I don't know what post David read, but it can't have been this one. All I can see here is a more eloquent version of "waa waa Jimbo changed his opinion, so all of Wikipedia is teh suxx0r!"

Wikipedia has many flaws indeed, and Jimbo's reaction here would deserve closer scrutiny as well, but quite frankly, Seth, your post was worthless.

Is it possible that the change of mind has nothing to do with in-world vs. out-world, but with the ends and intentions of the lying? Lying about who you are (or how accomplished you are) is stroking the ego - so while it's no doubt still wrong, it's still more forgivable, than lying to get your way, push through your agenda baselessy (or rather based on fabrications). Is it possible that this sort of differentiation is an equally valid explanation of the observations compared to your inworld/outworld inferences?

I can't condone Bunny's tone, but I also came in from Freedom to Tinker and was disappointed by this posting - I was hoping for something like a timeline of the events. However, Jason Scott's analysis, linked from the above, is very good, and so I'm glad I came.

To Anonymous Coward who asks "Is it possible that this sort of differentiation is an equally valid explanation of the observations compared to your inworld/outworld inferences?" No, that kind of differentiation is not equally valid. Essjay lied about his qualifications to the *entire world* to make his opinions look good, and that was okay. He lied about his qualifications *to other Wikipedia editors* to make his opinions look good, and that wasn't okay. It's not a difficult question, or open to reasonable alternate explanations, what the difference is between those two lies.

It wasn't a different lie - it was the same lie to different people. It wasn't a lie with different ends and intentions - it was the same lie for the same purpose, to different people. The only difference is who was deceived, and if Jimmy Wales thinks that makes a difference to whether the lie was acceptable, then Jimmy Wales has values incompatible with mine.

David Robinson mistakenly linked to a specific post when I imagine he meant to link to:
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/cat_wikipedia.html
and refer to the posts from 28th February on.