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.'"
The devious plot is out.. again (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and the fact that the Wikipedia elite seem to be so inept in keeping secret their devious plots.
Like Volkswagen (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Though in this case due to his Philanthopic efforts, Bill Gates is liked more and more while they hate MS as much as ever.
Not at all (Score:2)
Bill Gates, on the other hand, uses his philanthropy to Microsoft's benefit. Even the big press meeting where Warren Buffett made his announcements was on a stage draped in Microsoft ad material. Clearly Microsoft was supposed to absorb some of the good karma.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No sense giving Corporal Schickelgruber more credit than he deserv
Dates and dinners are not the issue (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You made your bed. Now sleep in it.
Re: (Score:2)
That was not Godwin's point at all. Personal attacks seem a much easier way to turn a discussion into a flame war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding right? Are we visiting the same Slashdot?
I can't recall ever reading anything overly negative about Google and I think people here are generally quick to defend them. The criticisms of Microsoft are never-ending. Even a positive story on Microsoft descends into a bash-fast.
Regarding, Wikipedia, as has been mentioned I think it's
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "throwing chairs"...
Anyway, putting aside your odd complaint that people here don't hate SCO and Microsoft with sufficient mindlessness and insanity, it should be completely clear that the GP wasn't comparing Wales to Hitler. If nothing else, the "Not that I'm equating Wales with Hitler..." should have clarified that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, $1300 for four people? And I thought my girlfriends were fat! Poor Jimmy!
Re:Like Volkswagen (Score:4, Informative)
Damn, $1300 for four people? And I thought my girlfriends were fat! Poor Jimmy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$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. (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia... (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I hope you verified the data with original sources (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wikipedia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shock Story! Wikipedia moderators also human!
News at 11...
Re: (Score:2)
John Galt would be proud.
(350 page monologue to follow...)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is "Oh Crap, Sorry. How do I fix this?" verses "I did nothing wrong"
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.
what makes speeding wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
In the example of speeding to a hospital because the ambulance would be too slow, there is a conflict with the higher moral law that says you must save a life
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
a hypocritical douche (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Jimbo Hilton (Score:5, Funny)
Please no (Score:2)
It's like beer for your computer screen.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, besides porn.
Re: (Score:2)
that's funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:that's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
An open community wins again (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
and his later life or his personal details don't effect that.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in principal. However, open initiatives or not, a group like Wikipedia can easily be poisoned by rogue moderators and staff. Wikipedia has been slowly moving towards a more tightly controlled model (in the same vein as Larry Sanger's Citizendium [citizendium.org]). This model might be good for the Wikipedia and give it a much needed credibility, but it also opens it to all kinds of corruption from within. From everything I've read (comments from Wikipedia administrators, Sang
Re:An open community wins again (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing. What are the chances that the two most used temperature scales would be named after guys with the first name "Degree"?
(And does that mean Kelvin was like the Madonna of his day?)
How is it different... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the CEO's get paid a salary, and then use that salary to pay personal expenses. Wales seems to have billed the foundation directly for personal expenses - a significant difference. Worse yet, when the IRS gets wind of such shenanigans... They check the tax returns of the organization pretty closely.
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays for the $325 meal?
Oh yeah, the same people. The CEO's dinner that comes out of his pocket actually came out of the nonprofit's pocket. If Jimmy Wales is actually receiving a salary from Wikimedia that is comparable to your big nonprofit salary, and he's still expensing crap like that, you'd have a point. But either way, both of them are spending money for personal stuff that was probably not donated with that intent.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Wales is taking more salary than has been agreed to. If he Is not being paid enough to afford expensive meals then he needs to renegotiate his salary or find another job. What he should not do is steal money
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A more apt analogy would be this:
You and your neighbors decide to start carpooling, and on the way home stop for lunch. You submit an expense report for it, hoping that it somehow gets approved.
I *never* said what he didn't isn't wrong, nor did I say it's not different. But you can't argue that many of those nonprofit CEOs are way overpayed, and are doing just as much harm to their causes as Wa
That's something (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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, t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As soon as I can figure out how to give every post a meme spin or can analogy I'm in!
Re: (Score:2)
He still passed it on for change even if he knew it was wrong or misleading or about someone he knows personally? Basically saying it's up to the editors to catch it before. I'm just asking, if it's good enough for Jimbo to just say "I'm going to make this change and X person/company/subject even if it is not 100% accurate" even though he went through the other e
Not a peach (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The moral of this story appears to be don't schtupp a bunny boiler.
Personally I don't think he has done anything wrong except not take heed of what the woman's previous history. The separate ex
Re:Not a peach (Score:5, Informative)
Not just accused, but found guilty [provincialcourt.bc.ca] of harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just accused, but found guilty [provincialcourt.bc.ca] of harassment.
Re:Not a peach (Score:5, Insightful)
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.")
Re: (Score:2)
I never said she was accusing Jimmy Wales of harassment. If she was sending un-elicited explicit messages and photos to the man she accused of sexual harassment, that would be considered harassment. She was already accused and found guilty of harassing another man. Now if Jimmy Wales was not a public figure, posting what she did on public forum could be described as harassment. She just chose to do it on a
Hmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
2) Even by blog standards, "All's Wool that Ends Wool" is a pretty awful name.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to Ralph Blog, god of the hangover, who you pray to at the porcelain alter?
Wait, THIS is corruption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real, this is small time stuff that is not even worth making it to the news much less
Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Good god, if this is corruption then about 95% of the people in middle and upper management should be in jail...
Yes, this is corruption. It's not multimillion dollar embezzlement. It's not using position to manipulate the legal system. It's just the every day run-of-the-mill kind of corruption.
Yes, just about everybody in management should be in jail. In fact, just about everybody should be in jail for something. Some people get caught and get it trouble, most don't. Wales' mistake was that he did stuff that was too little to be worth the crap he has to take now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello
Haven't you ever seen Office Space ? ALL middle and upper management are just like Bill Lumbergh, and if they're not we will not rest one second until we can find a way to make it somehow so.
Sheesh!
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe 95% of people in management SHOULD be in jail, but you don't have to break the law to be corrupt. Committing adultery with your competitor's wife isn't illegal in Illinois, but it's sure as hell corrupt and immoral.
Not everything immoral is illegal, and not everything illegal is immoral. Wales' sin wasn't breaking the law, but breaking a policy he, himself, wrote. What he did wasn't ille
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not news! (Score:3, Funny)
$13,000 for steak? (Score:2)
Wikipedia link! bonus!
Wait a second? (Score:3, Funny)
*calls up the wife*
The real Q: How dumb is his girlfriend? (Score:2)
Uncyclopedia entry on Jimmy Wales (Score:2, Offtopic)
Wow (Score:2)
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.
stupidity, not corruption (Score:2)
Many non-profits, including so-called aid organizations, that have achieved much less than Wikipedia, pay their officers lavish salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll definitely think twice before donating. I know there are administratice costs - but this is excessive.
This is Rachael Marsdens revenge (Score:2)
Do you honestly think this whole 'abuse of power' accusation is a coincidence? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Key word: Allegations (Score:2, Insightful)
And although a $1300 meal sounds expensive, the article doesn't actually say it was a dinner with friends. Maybe he dined with some corporate donors that would be responsible for contributing many times that amount back to the foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
$330 each! (Score:2)
I once managed to spend $90 per head in a steak house directly opposite the Opera House in Portland, OR. For that we got a very large steak, a poor quality baked potato (no texture) and broccoli! Won't go there again. I figure we paid $35 each for the meal and $55 for the nice white linen tablecloth and general ambience (of which it had lots because it was almost deserted even immediately after the Opera).
But that wasn't
Re:Hitler (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hitler (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hitler (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
More to the story? (Score:2)
Re:More to the story? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong about the quality of Rand's fiction, as well.
As well as being factually wrong on these counts, your comment is logically fallacious:
Some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect example.