Jimmy Wales Faces Allegations of Corruption 289
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.'"
Re:that's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
That's something (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An open community wins again (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More to the story? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:That's something (Score:3, Interesting)
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, this being Slashdot, you didn't do anything so radical as actually, you know, RTFA.
Source [wikipedia.org]
Here's why it matters (Score:2, Interesting)
What percentage of them would like to know that their donations went to unapproved steak dinners that we know of, and god know what else that we don't?
Sorry, if you make it your business to solicit money from me, then you make things like this my business.
And no, I don't consider the willingness to steal a small sum any different than the willingness to steal a large one.
There's also the whole antisocialmedia.net thing (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:But what if you did nothing wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Wait, THIS is corruption? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wikipedia and big Corporate donations (Score:5, Interesting)
I have noticed all the 'Spam entries' like Chipotle's restaurant.
When I added a bit on their prices , it was quickly removed.
Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Like Volkswagen (Score:3, Interesting)
No sense giving Corporal Schickelgruber more credit than he deserves.
In any case, as you say a steakhouse bacchanalia does not necessarily qualify somebody to be compared to the author of the Final Solution. If you've ever worked for a non-profit, a lot what the top brass does is suck up to rich people. It's not very attractive or (once you strip the gold plating off) dignified, but that's how things roll. 1,300 is not an eye popping amount of money in the scheme of things if it results in a $100,000 donation. Now if it turned out it was really a visit to one of those cat houses where they make your credit card charge look like a vist you to an expensive restaurant
Re:Mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.