Jimmy Wales Faces Allegations of Corruption

eldavojohn writes "The SFGate site has up an article noting that Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is facing allegations from multiple quarters accusing him of abusing his power. Several people apparently claim he used the foundation to pay for personal expenses, including reimbursement for a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Accusations have also been made indicating that he edited the Wikipedia entry of political commentator Rachel Marsden, a woman he was seeing, at her request. In the case of that allegation, Wales replied that 'I acted completely consistently with Wikipedia policy. I did the right thing: I passed along my work to date for other editors to deal with, and I recused myself from the case.'"

The devious plot is out.. again

[fictionpuss (1136565)]

The most interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it could be founded by a hypocritical douche, but still remain a valuable repository of information. That in itself is enough to convince me that Web2.0 isn't just an empty phrase, not least because it is the legacy of Wikimedia and collaborative knowledge gathering which makes accounts of such douchiness hard to suppress.

That, and the fact that the Wikipedia elite seem to be so inept in keeping secret their devious plots.

Like Volkswagen

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

which was Hitler's baby.

No need to throw out the product with the person.

Not that I'm equating Wales with Hitler, just using an extreme case to make my point.

Re:

[hey! (33014)]

Actually, Hitler told Ferdinand Porsche he wanted a car like a certain model that the Czech company Tatra made, and Porsche obliged him from stealing the design, from the rear mounted air cooled engine down to the distinctive look of the body. Tatra sued, and Porsche was going to settle, but Hitler told him that he would take care of it, which he did by invading Czechoslovakia. Decades later VW payed Tatra millions of DM to settle the suit.

No sense giving Corporal Schickelgruber more credit than he deserv

Dates and dinners are not the issue

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Clinton didn't get into trouble for getting a blowjob and vandalising a cigar. No he got into trouble for lying. Jimmy Wales is getting scorched because he made a bunch of rules and flagrantly ignores them when it suits his needs. The real bad thing here is that it undermines the whole supposed democratic nature of wikipedia. Jimmy Wales might have started Wikipedia (arguably by editing Sanger out of the Wikipedia history himself), but Wikipedia is now bigger than Jimmy.

If you read the post above properly, you'll see that it does not say Wales == Hitler or use a Hitler reference to slur Wales, it just uses Hitler as an extreme case to say don't equate the product with the person.

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

[students (763488)]

Citation [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[garett_spencley (193892)]

No, Godwin's point was that as a discussion grows larger the possibility of Nazi or Hitler being mentioned increases.

My post was not intended as flaimbait or a personal attack. I was pointed out an observation and attempted to do it with a humorous tone but obviously it failed.

When Godwin's law is invoked it generally provokes a strong discussion about the fact that it was invoked and whether or not it was necessary. Did I feed it: absolutely. Shame on me. Was it inevitable anyway ? I feel that yes, it was.

Re:

[fuzzlost (871011)]

But this is proof that the editorship of Wikipedia is solid and independent enough to correct problems in their data, even if put there by a high-profile person.

Well, of course Wikipedia has no ethical problems. Any ethical problems that have been reported are quickly fixed. But perhaps you ask: what about the problems that just haven't been reported yet? Well, there aren't any, silly! I mean, of course there were problems in the past, but they've all been taken care of now. Everything is perfectly totally 100% okay.

It will never be 100% okay, perfect, because it is a self-correcting system with a lot of morons. Something will always be wrong with it, but hopefully individual wrongs always get corrected (more just show up)

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

So we've Godwinned a thread that talks about Jimmy Wales "evil plot" to take 3 people out to an expensive dinner

Damn, $1300 for four people? And I thought my girlfriends were fat! Poor Jimmy!

Re:Like Volkswagen

[spun (1352)]

So we've Godwinned a thread that talks about Jimmy Wales "evil plot" to take 3 people out to an expensive dinner
Damn, $1300 for four people? And I thought my girlfriends were fat! Poor Jimmy!

That's not food, that's booze. The food came to no more than $400, most likely. The rest was $200/bottle champagne & top shelf cocktails. Oh, and the $200 tip. $1,300 on four people is high end, but not over the top. Most major cities have at least a half dozen restaurants where you can drop that kind of cash without doing anything weird.

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

$1,300 on four people is high end, but not over the top. Most major cities have at least a half dozen restaurants where you can drop that kind of cash without doing anything weird.

And what's probably more interesting: they're the sorts of places that founders of non-profits tend to take prospective sources of large donations. I had a friend who worked for a medium-large non-profit, and he would not have batted an eye at this, had he been closing in on a $1m or larger donation. It's chump change compared to the potential benefit, and if it makes the person more comfortable donating, you just do it.

It's still wrong.

[raehl (609729)]

Whether it's common or not is irrelevant.

It's not ethical. No part of Wikipedia's mission is providing expensive dinners to donors and administrators. The donor is essentially getting a kickback and the administrator is misappropriating funds.

I run a non-profit. When I'm eating on the non-profit tab, it's when I'm traveling on non-profit business and done in an economical manner - no cocktails for sure! If a potential donor/sponsor wants to talk about it over dinner, they pay for the dinner. They don't

Re:Like Volkswagen

[Nefarious Wheel (628136)]

An angel taking a leak is more newsworthy than the devil strangling a kitten.

Wikipedia...

[Moryath (553296)]

is no less corrupt than the boss at its head.

After all the other scandals, all the numerous people abused by stuck-up/corrupt twits high on their "admin" powers, all the constant bias and nonsense in the articles, it took this long for Jimbo's embezzlement to come out? Anyone with a clue figured out he was doing this years ago.

Now you know where your "donations" to the "wikimedia foundation" went... while you were suckered into giving him free labor.

Re:Wikipedia...

[fictionpuss (1136565)]

Now you know where your "donations" to the "wikimedia foundation" went... while you were suckered into giving him free labor.

Over the last year Wikipedia has, quite easily, saved me (or more specifically, my clients) hundreds if not thousands of dollars in time because it is a valuable reference resource for science and technology.

I couldn't care less if they go all high-school on each others personal accounts, or whether political biases are enforced through some "admin" abuses - those pages are not those which I find useful.

Re:Mistakes

[Admiral Ag (829695)]

That's a bit mean. Wikipedia has obvious problems, but the fact that it is probably the world's largest book and is more or less accurate is an astonishing achievement. What it loses in accuracy or polish it makes up for in sheer breadth.

The problems it has occur largely because the management, and Wales in particular, are incompetent. Many of the obvious problems with Wikipedia could be solved by having professional administrators (at least at the top of the tree) who are barred from creating content, but merely enforce the rules. When those who create the content may also enforce the rules, it is obvious that there is the potential for conflict of interest. It is even worse when not only are those who create the content able to enforce the rules, but are able to themselves make the rules.

As it stands, Wikipedia's open structure encourages obsessives with major personality disorders. It's no surprise that the most influential admins tend to be obsessive, manipulative, vindictive scum, because the structure of the organization is such that obsessive, manipulative, vindictive scum will rise to the top. If you aren't an obsessive, you simply won't be able to match the work rate of people who are, and if you aren't Machiavellian, you will be beaten out by people who are. Communities need separation between those who make the rules, those who interpret them, and those who enforce them. Wikipedia doesn't have that, so the rules are simply interpreted according to the interests of the ruling clique.

It's all turned out rather like "Animal Farm" (with Wales as the swine in chief). Secret email lists, administrators who are seemingly able to break the rules, yet never be punished, while good faith editors whose agenda conflicts with those of the ruling clique are blocked based on the most trivial evidence. Mindless groupthink among the cabal. Rules continue to multiply like rabbits, many of them based on the weird personal agendas of admins. The Israel/Palestine articles are a shameful mess, etc.

Jimbo Wales has to go. Wikipedia is now one of the most important and influential sites on the net. It needs, competent and professional management.

Re:Wikipedia...

[rucs_hack (784150)]

All this proves, even if true, is that the Wikipedians are human, just like the rest of us, and like to swing the lead or get something nice on expenses when possible.

Shock Story! Wikipedia moderators also human!

News at 11...

Re:

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

Everyone is a hypocrite at some point in their life. The question isn't how do we deal with hypocrites, its how the hypocrites handle being caught in their hypocrisy, which is really telling of what kind of person they really are. Was it a momentary lapse in judgment or a deeper character flaw.

The difference is "Oh Crap, Sorry. How do I fix this?" verses "I did nothing wrong"

Re:But what if you did nothing wrong?

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

Speeding, by itself, isn't right or wrong. The law "don't speed" is for saftey of all, under most circumstances. However, there are exceptions to the "law" due to the fact of extenuating circumstances. In this case the siren and lights on emergency vehicles are indications of the exception in progress. So, your analogy is wrong on many levels.

A Hypocrite says "don't steal", which is wrong, and then gets caught taking something that is someone else's. The Hypocrite says "I did nothing wrong" and makes excuses as why what he did isn't wrong. A person with a momentary lapse of judgment will say "Oh shit, Sorry. How do I fix this". Generally speaking Hypocrites don't believe the rule(s) apply to them. Hypocrisy usually becomes clearer over time, and not always apparent at first glance.

Re:

[saleenS281 (859657)]

Nobody ever said you had to have common sense to be corrupt.

Re:

[seanadams.com (463190)]

The most interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it could be founded by a hypocritical douche, but still remain a valuable repository of information.

True, but IF there is any merit to the allegation that he is misappropriating donated funds, then he has to go. Or at least some significant fiscal oversight needs to be put in place, and a responsible board of (unpaid) directors needs to take over. Otherwise, they will simply lose all support and his douchebaggery will indeed have destroyed it as a resource.

Re:

[AxelBoldt (1490)]

I believe he was involved in pornography before he started Wikipedia.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

Jimbo Hilton

[inflamed (1156277)]

Hey, internet celebrities are just as scandalous and shocking as television celebrities. It's like beer for your computer screen.

Please no

[spun (1352)]

Hey, internet celebrities are just as scandalous and shocking as television celebrities.

It's like beer for your computer screen.

Oh God, I can't get that image out of my mind. You bastard!

that's funny

[ILuvRamen (1026668)]

Hey that's funny, it doesn't talk about any of that on Jimmy Wales' wikipedia page...hmmm

Re:that's funny

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

http://xkcd.com/250/ [xkcd.com]

An open community wins again

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

This case with Jimmy shows how open initiatives win the day again. It doesn't matter if Jimmy Wales gets thrown into jail for murder, or if his character is undermined. It doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters is the positive contribution he made by founding Wikipedia and his later life or his personal details don't effect that.

It is like science, it doesn't matter who comes up with the evidence or the theory to explain it. The only thing that matters whether it's correct or not.

Re:

[Badbone (1159483)]

"The only thing that matters whether it's correct or not."

No, the only thing that matters is if the truth can be told, or smothered by a small, powerful group that wields veto power. The truth is great, but will they print it?

Re:An open community wins again

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

It is like science, it doesn't matter who comes up with the evidence or the theory to explain it. The only thing that matters whether it's correct or not.

I guess, however I think the joule, watt, newton, tesla, ampere, degree celsius, degree fahrenheit, volt and many others would probably have something to say about it.

How is it different...

[ShatteredArm (1123533)]

from other nonprofits? Some CEOs of nonprofits get paid hundreds of thousands per year of donated money, and this guy can't treat three friends to a $325 meal? Not saying I approve of his conduct, but this isn't really that damning.

Now the real problem is that he, the creator of wikipedia, hasn't been able to convince some private company to give him lots of money. You think that'd do pretty well on a resume.

That's something

[techpawn (969834)]

I acted completely consistently with Wikipedia policy. I did the right thing: I passed along my work to date for other editors to deal with

So basically, he's saying that yes you can write anything and it's up to the editors to catch it and make sure you're true. If my boss says "write us a shinny burb on Wikipedia!" I can say I was going with their policy because the editors should of caught my writing?

Re:

[I confirm I'm not a (720413)]

No, he's saying (a) he didn't "write anything" on the page once the relationship began, and (b) far from being up to other "editors to catch it", he asked other editors to take over his work on the page.

He stopped (or claims to, you could check the page history yourself) editing the page. I'm not sure *how* you managed to interpret the summary (particularly the Wales' quote - "I passed along my work to date for other editors to deal with, and I recused myself from the case") so badly - I appreciate that, t

Not a peach

[DrWho520 (655973)]

Besides being a (former) talking head on Fox's Red Eye, Rachel Mardsen has been accused [www.ctv.ca] of harassment in the past. You might also note from the same article that she has falsely accused a man of sexual harassment. Ms. Mardsen target in the sexual harassment case claimed she sent him sexual e-mails and photographs.

Re:Not a peach

[cperciva (102828)]

Rachel Mardsen has been accused of harassment in the past.

Not just accused, but found guilty [provincialcourt.bc.ca] of harassment.

Re:Not a peach

[CohibaVancouver (864662)]

Which naturally raises the question of why the founder of an online encyclopaedia wouldn't have the good sense to use the resources at his disposal to check out her bonafides before getting personally involved.

Because...

a) He is male
b) She is an attractive female
c) She let him see her naked and have sex with her

Speaking as a man, never underestimate a man's ability to overlook the obvious when there's potential nudity involved.

(I think Matt Groening said it best in his "Life in Hell" comic script: "Love is doomed to fail because men are stupid and women are crazy.")

Hmmm....

[Otter (3800)]

1) In the sidebar on that page is "S.F. nonprofit fires CFO over missing $3.6 million", so a $1300 dinner tab and an angry ex-mistress seem relatively tame by comparison.

2) Even by blog standards, "All's Wool that Ends Wool" is a pretty awful name.

Wait, THIS is corruption?

[pcgamez (40751)]

Good god, if this is corruption then about 95% of the people in middle and upper management should be in jail. When I read the headline I thought he had been caught embezzling a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars. I don't think that there are too many people who are innocent of having their company pay for an expense that was not 100% appropriate.

Get real, this is small time stuff that is not even worth making it to the news much less /.

Re:Wait, THIS is corruption?

[qortra (591818)]

if this is corruption then about 95% of the people in middle and upper management should be in jail.

Then we're agreed; 95% of the people in middle and upper management should be in jail.

As a side note, I really don't care that much about the money. For me, any notion of impropriety in the Wikipedia with regard to rogue editing of personally relevant entries, especially among administrators, should not be tolerated. I also don't really care whether he goes to jail. I simply don't want to see this kind of behavior among any active administrators: play within the rules, or lose privileges.

Re:Wait, THIS is corruption?

[provigilman (1044114)]

Same with AT&T. We have a department called "Asset Protection" that puts out a very Cops-like newsletter every quarter. Everytime there's some story about some guy with like 29 working here that gets fired after using his corporate card to pay for personal stuff. These guys lose their pensions, their benefits, everything... They take it very seriously.

Re:

[MMC Monster (602931)]

Okay. I've donated a couple hundred dollars to wikipedia. Maybe they can ear mark that towards the steak dinner. Should we open up a separate donation for his breakfast?

This is not news!

[positiveexperience (1070518)]

Excuse me, but this is not news.

$13,000 for steak?

[OglinTatas (710589)]

is that for the whole Kobe beef cow? [wikipedia.org]

Wikipedia link! bonus!

Wait a second?

[downix (84795)]

You can have someone else edit you?

*calls up the wife*

There's also the whole antisocialmedia.net thing

[Phat_Tony (661117)]

At some point I picked up in slashdot comments about the whole antisocialmedia.net [antisocialmedia.net]/Gary Weiss/Judd Bagley/Overstock.com mess and decided I was interested enough to spend the time (several hours) reading everything I could about it and trying to figure out what the heck was going on. I haven't got the several hours more it would take to try to recreate and document my findings here in a slashdot post, but I came into this with no preconceived notions, and if I had any leanings, I really like wikipedia and wanted it to be in the right. But I mostly concluded otherwise. Yes, Judd Bagley took many inappropriate actions- but who cares, he's just some guy. It looks like Wikipedia took many more incorrect actions, and it's a foundation that is supposed to behave appropriately.

I found the documentation of rampant editorial abuse to pursue personal agendas, going all the way up the support of Jimbo, to be very convincing. Read anitsocialmedia.net, examine the documentation, look at attempts to counter Bagley's arguments on the web, and draw your own conclusions, but I came off extremely disappointed in Wikipedia, and will be even more suspicious of its content in the future. I already was prepared to take Wikipedia content with a grain of salt because it can be edited by anyone, but it's much worse to know that an editor can have their own petty dictatorial custodianship of an article where they deliberately delete well documented and referenced relevant facts, perpetuate falsehoods, don't let anyone else edit it or even discuss it on the discussion page, ban even extremely well-established editors with good reputations if they try to touch these articles, and even delete the history of the article and the history of their own edits and contributions. I still think wikipedia's valuable, because most articles aren't run this way, but I always have to keep in mind that some are, and I don't really know if I'm looking at something people were free to edit and debate on the talk page and try to work towards a consensus on, or the biased opinions of a single dictatorial editor.

Wikipedia and big Corporate donations

[zymano (581466)]

How can it stay objective with their funding coming from big biz?

I have noticed all the 'Spam entries' like Chipotle's restaurant.

When I added a bit on their prices , it was quickly removed.

Re:Hitler

[KevinKnSC (744603)]

[Citation Needed]

Re:Hitler

[sm62704 (957197)]

Godwin would have, too.

Re:Hitler

[Gloy (1151691)]

Godwin would have, too.

Since Godwin is employed by the Wikimedia Foundation [wikimediafoundation.org], he probably already has.

More to the story?

[conlaw (983784)]

According to a front page story in today's Tampa Bay Times [http://www.tampabay.com/tbt/], on Saturday, Jimmy posted a notice in his Wikipedia entry that the romance with Rachel Marsden was over -- this was allegedly done prior to his sending her an IM informing her of the split. She is said to have retaliated by offering a shirt and jacket of Jimmy's for sale on eBay.

Re:More to the story?

[vux984 (928602)]

That Marsden chick is nuts. I went to high school with her, and I was attending university at SFU at the same time her 'sex harrassment scandal' and got to see that unfold up close. We weren't in the same circle, but . "Nuts" doesn't really begin to cover it. Vindictive, manipulative, self-centered, detached from reality, borderline sociopathic ... I could go on.

I hadn't realized she'd become something of a minor celebrity since then. I'd had her pegged as ending up a bitter cat-person writing angry columns. I guess she managed to make a career out of that. Wikipedia mentions she ended up with Bill O'Reilly on Fox for a number of years... Figures. Crazy attracts crazy. And even THEY fired her.

If Jimmy Wales was keeping company with her... well... no wonder the breakup was bizarre enough to become newsworthy. As to charges of corruption... well.. you can learn something about a person by the company they keep. My assessment of Wales credibility is pretty low right now.

Re:

[thePowerOfGrayskull (905905)]

And, ummm, why do we care? Are we all suddenly soap opera fans because it involves a 'geek'?