Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jimmy Wales Faces Allegations of Corruption

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the he's-no-jimmy-james dept.

The Internet 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.'"

cancel ×

289 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hitler (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653048)

Hitler would have said the same thing.

Re:Hitler (5, Funny)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653272)

[Citation Needed]

Re:Hitler (4, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653754)

Godwin would have, too.

Re:Hitler (5, Funny)

Gloy (1151691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653980)

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

The devious plot is out.. again (5, Insightful)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653064)

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 (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653104)

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:Like Volkswagen (0, Flamebait)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653128)

First Goodwin!

Re:Like Volkswagen (1)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654030)

No, in this thread the fp was also the fg.

Re:Like Volkswagen (1, Troll)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653312)

So we've Godwinned a thread that talks about Jimmy Wales "evil plot" to take 3 people out to an expensive dinner and edit his date's user page.

Really? That's what we're going to accuse him of? And with hitler references, no less?

Sad.

What's really sad is that when we talk about the head of SCO or Microsoft, we require much more evil before we start throwing rocks than we do for Google or Wikipedia, both of which have contributed more to Open Source than the vast majority of their peers and frankly made the world just a little bit more useful in their wake.

Re:Like Volkswagen (0, Redundant)

provigilman (1044114) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653466)

What's really sad is that when we talk about the head of SCO or Microsoft, we require much more evil before we start throwing rocks than we do for Google or Wikipedia

What are you smoking, and can I have some??? This slashdot, the home of "M$". The mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates is enough evil for people around here to start slamming them.

Also, after RTFA, I found myself wondering why this woman had Jimmy's personal e-mail address two years before they started dating... Perhaps he doesn't consider affairs "dating"???

Dates and dinners are not the issue (5, Informative)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653558)

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.

Re:Dates and dinners are not the issue (1, Flamebait)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653594)

Either way you Godwinned the thread. It's the most tried and proven way to inflate a discussion into a big messy heap of a flame war. You should know better.

You made your bed. Now sleep in it.

Re:Dates and dinners are not the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653660)

You wet your bed. Now sleep in it.
I have corrected your spelling error.

Re:Dates and dinners are not the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654028)

lrn2godwin, it only counts when comparing X to hitler in order to say "X is soooo bad" It does not count when discussing history, Wagner, or Volkswagons, no matter how hysterical these topics make you.

Re:Dates and dinners are not the issue (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653790)

I think he was following WP:IAR [wikipedia.org] - "Ignore All Rules".

Re:Like Volkswagen (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653576)

What's really sad is that when we talk about the head of SCO or Microsoft, we require much more evil before we start throwing rocks than we do for Google or Wikipedia


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 great that content is so open to editing. This moderating increases the likelihood that content is accurate and true. It's not foolproof, however. A story may conform to what the majority of visitors believe and that doesn't necessarily coincide with the truth.

Re:Like Volkswagen (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653582)

What's really sad is that when we talk about the head of SCO or Microsoft, we require much more evil before we start throwing rocks....

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:Like Volkswagen (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653786)

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 (3, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653892)

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:Like Volkswagen (1)

omnipresentbob (858376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653906)

Apparently you missed it when he said, "Not that I'm equating Wales with Hitler, just using an extreme case to make my point."

What's really sad is that when we talk about the head of SCO or Microsoft, we require much more evil before we start throwing rocks than we do for Google or Wikipedia
I think most people start throwing rocks at Google because the unofficial official motto of Google is "Do no evil".

Note (not that you'll pay any attention to it): I'm not trying to take a side, one way or the other. Just pointing stuff out (and my brief analysis).

Re:Like Volkswagen (1)

Dara Hazeghi (1076823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654072)

A new record for Godwin's Law!! (I keed, I keed)

Wikipedia... (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653214)

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... (4, Insightful)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653360)

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.

I hope you verified the data with original sources (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653554)

Wikipedia isn't immune from mistakes [frozennorth.org] . Then again, neither is Encyclopedia Brittancia [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Wikipedia... (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653398)

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

As much as I love Wikipedia and use it daily, this is exactly why I have never given them my money. I've occasionally contributed to an article, but I won't give them my hard-earned cash.

Re:Wikipedia... (3, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653732)

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:The devious plot is out.. again (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653236)

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"

But what if you did nothing wrong? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653634)

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"
Off-topic a bit but:

What if you really did nothing wrong and the person calling you a hypocrite is simply mistaken?

Example: Police officer races his personal car down a nearly-empty street at 3AM. You call him a hypocrite. Explanation: He is taking his kid to the emergency room and didn't want to wait for an ambulance, i.e. he's doing what any reasonable parent would do in the circumstance.

What if the definition of "wrong" in the situation is unclear? Saying "I did nothing wrong" may simply be stating your legitimate point of view.

Example: Police officer is driving his private car 5 MPH over the speed limit so he doesn't impede traffic on a crowded highway. Everyone else is going 5-7 MPH over the limit as well. By going only 5 over he is technically breaking the law without an emergency excuse but he is keeping himself and others safe while encouraging others to drive slightly slower.

Re:But what if you did nothing wrong? (3, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653838)

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.

what makes speeding wrong (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654000)

Some people live by an moral code that says you must follow the laws of government unless they conflict with a higher moral law. If they violate a statute without a good reason they are hypocrites. If they speed without reason, they are hypocrites not because they sped, but because they violated the rules imposed by government without a good reason.

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 when you can.

In the example of speeding 5mph over on the highway, there is an alternative that satisfied the law and the moral code: Don't drive on roads that are unsafe to drive on at or below the speed limit. Now, is the cop in this example a hypocrite? It depends on what his moral code tells him.

Generally speaking Hypocrites don't believe the rule(s) apply to them
Sometimes, the rules really don't apply to a particular person or to a particular situation. You see on TV where cops lie or break the law during drug busts because the law allows them to do so. That is, the "normal rules" that apply to everyone else don't apply to them. That is but one example of many.

Re:The devious plot is out.. again (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653240)

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

Re:The devious plot is out.. again (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653276)

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.

Fiscal oversight should be there regardless (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653662)

Or at least some significant fiscal oversight needs to be put in place, and a responsible board of (unpaid) directors needs to take over.
Fiscal oversight and a board of directors should be routine with any public foundation.

It's just common sense and in some states and countries it's required by law or custom.

a hypocritical douche (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653966)

Is that like when you don't have that not-so-fresh feeling, but you say you do?

Jimbo Hilton (5, Funny)

inflamed (1156277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653070)

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

Please no (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653108)

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!

Re:Jimbo Hilton (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653870)

The difference between Jimmy Wales and Paris Hilton is Jimmy Wales actually did something that benefitted the word.

I mean, besides porn.

Re:Jimbo Hilton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653958)

Benefited the Word? As in, the Word of God? ;-) ... oh, you meant the worLd!

that's funny (5, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653082)

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

this should not be anything new (1)

OrochimaruVoldemort (1248060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653086)

i'm more than confident that he has been doing this long before it went public

Privilege? (2, Insightful)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653112)

Wow, he used his *special* privileges to edit someone's Wikipedia article? Oh noes! Now maybe I'll use *my* special privileges to send around unauthorized copies of Linux!!!!

More to the story? (1)

conlaw (983784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653298)

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? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653346)

Well, Chris Benoit's wife's death was reported on Wikipedia before it was reported to police. A "lucky" guess.

Re:More to the story? (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653716)

So she tried to sell his stuff on ebay, ha ha that's nothing, now there would be more of a story if it said she used it to make a voodoo doll, or in some kind of ritual sacrifice so that he would suffer horrible pain. Then there would be more to the story, selling his stuff is kids stuff, almost as just like throwing it out the window or something.

Re:More to the story? (5, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653946)

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.

An open community wins again (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653148)

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:An open community wins again (2, Interesting)

Badbone (1159483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653222)

"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 (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653430)

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, Sanger's accounts of Neupedia, interviews of Whales himself, and more), Jimmy Whales is not the kind of man that should be running the Wikipedia. He appears to be extremely corruptible and not particularly principled, exactly the opposite of Wikipedia really need: a strong reputation for incorruptibility at the highest levels.

Re:An open community wins again (4, Funny)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653942)

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... (5, Insightful)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653166)

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.

Um, it's obviously different (1)

keineobachtubersie (1244154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653618)

Ok, here's the answer

"Some CEOs of nonprofits get paid hundreds of thousands per year of donated money,"

That's their salary. No one has a problem with CEO's paying for their friend's dinner out of their own pocket.

"and this guy can't treat three friends to a $325 meal?"

That IS NOT a salary, and as such, NOT out of Jimmy Wales' pocket.

I have no idea why you're finding it so hard to see such an obvious difference.

Re:Um, it's obviously different (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653794)

Who pays the CEO's salary?

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:Um, it's obviously different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654064)

Since you seem to be dense, and this is slashdot, here's a car analogy:

Situation 1: You decide to make a little extra money by operating your car as a taxi on your way to and from work. You pick up your neighbor and drive him to work for a fee. You then spend the money you earned on a comic book.

Situation 2: You and your neighbors decide to start carpooling "for the public good." You set up a fund to cover maintenance for the vehicles. You then take money from this fund and buy a comic book.

Can you spot the difference between these? People don't mind a non-profit's CEO's salary because they knew when they gave their money that some of it would be used to pay staff. In this case, the money Wales took was given in the belief that it would be used to fund Wikipedia, NOT to buy expensive dinners. That's why people are upset.

If Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation think that he should have a salary, by all means, they should draw up a contract and make it official. Then when people donate they will know what their money is used for. Otherwise, it's embezzlement, pure and simple.

Re:Um, it's obviously different (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654086)

Yeah, the source of the money is the same in either case (the non-profit), but the two are completely different. A salary is agreed on compensation. In exchange for their work, the CEO (and every other employee) has agreed to take $X and possibly other benefits like an expense account.

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 for things he feels he deserves.

The difference is oversight (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653744)

CEOs who collect a paycheck and even those who get reimbursed for meals have these expenses approved by someone other than themselves and/or given rules to follow for reimbursable expenses.

It's fine if he takes 3 friends out for an expensive meal if he follows the rules laid down by the foundation for reimbursed meal expenses. It's equally fine if he collects a $325/day paycheck instead, as long as it's done according to foundation rules and doesn't otherwise violate the law.

Re:How is it different... (1)

Peeet (730301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653904)

If anyone would actually RTFA (yeah I know, must be new here) it says that he was accused of submitting a receipt for reimbursement of the $1,300 and that it was denied. I would say that doesn't count as using the funds without permission.

That's something (5, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653192)

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:That's something (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653280)

Actually he passed on the information he wanted to change to other editors so that they could change the article without a conflict of interest.

I knew it was just a matter of time till slashdot criticize him for this but on this issue hes done nothing wrong.
The meal on the otherhand is questionable

Re:That's something (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653798)

Actually he passed on the information he wanted to change to other editors so that they could change the article without a conflict of interest.
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 editors to do it, why not us?

Re:That's something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653344)

"write us a shinny burb on Wikipedia!" I can say I was going with their policy because the editors should of caught my writing?

Shiny. Blurb. Have.

-- Grammar Nazi in the tradition of Wiki and Slashdot. :-P

I can has grammar? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653820)

[ALL CAPS]
"Rite us shinny burb on Wikipedia!!!" I can say I wuz goin wif their policy cuz teh editors shud ov caught mah writin?
[/ALL CAPS]

--Grammar Nazi of the stupid funny feline [speaklolcat.com] purrsuasion
[damn you Slashdot all-caps filter!!!]

Re:I can has grammar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653934)

You has flavr of troll... And AC beat you to Punch.

Re:That's something (2, Interesting)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653418)

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]

Re:That's something (2, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653658)

I appreciate that, this being Slashdot, you didn't do anything so radical as actually, you know, RTFA.
Thank you, I try my best to give the Slashdot community my whole half-assed, misspelled, and blatantly wrong opinions based solely off RTFS.
As soon as I can figure out how to give every post a meme spin or can analogy I'm in!

Not a peach (5, Informative)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653210)

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 (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653432)

Besides being a (former) talking head on Fox's Red Eye, Rachel Mardsen has been accused 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.

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 expenses issue sounds more worrisome.

Re:Not a peach (5, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653624)

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 (0, Flamebait)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653672)

The entire conversation about tweaking her WP entry was published elsewhere, along with the more puerile parts. Wales did not bother to refute them.

AFAIK she is not accusing Wales of anything, so your reference is irrelevant. The fact that she works for Fox is irrelevant. The fact that you don't consider her a "peach" is irrelevant.

In the past three days a veritable army of astroturfers and apologists have been furiously committing character assasination on this woman all over the place. The same thing happens whenever some not-so-rosy news is published about Wikipedia. This is not news, you all take WP too seriously, the woman is evil, etc.

When WP claims (or rather, Jimmy Wales claims) that WP is the most important thing on the internet then we are all supposed to take WP very seriously. When the shit hits the fan (remember Essjay?) then we're all being too critical. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Hmmm.... (3, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653212)

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.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653932)

2) Even by blog standards

Are you referring to Ralph Blog, god of the hangover, who you pray to at the porcelain alter?

Wait, THIS is corruption? (4, Insightful)

pcgamez (40751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653304)

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? (-1, Offtopic)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653412)

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.

Well, you can be sure that Barack Obama has never done that! I mean, have you ever listened to that guy speak in front of a crowd? It's like music (if you can hear it above the shrieking girls). So, there's no way that he's ever put a US Senate pencil in his pocket, or used extra sugar in his coffee to avoid paying for more calories when he gets home. If only he would win, then it would Bring Change, even to Wikipedia. Change is in the air! Change! Change change change. Of some sort.

*sigh*

Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (1)

Digi-John (692918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653602)

... Change? You got any... chaaaaaaange? Chaaaaaaaaaaange.

Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (0, Offtopic)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653562)

Wrongdoing is never relative. Unless of course you are predisposed to consider it that way. I doubt anyone else would get a pass in this case.

Funny Slashdot didn't mention the "I want to fuck your brains out" part of the Mardsen thing. Anyone else and it would have been regurgitated front and center.

Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (3, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653580)

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? (1)

trongey (21550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653600)

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:Wait, THIS is corruption? (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653654)

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

Hello ... this is slashdot! You should change that number to 100%.

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 (2, Interesting)

keineobachtubersie (1244154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653784)

What percentage of the Slashdot populace has donated to Wikipedia?

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:Wait, THIS is corruption? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653844)

Those are firing offenses at Microsoft. Plus they mark you down as "do not hire again".

Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654032)

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

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 illegal, its immorality is questionable, but it most certainly is unethical by the very definition of the word.

BTW, Why is it legal to have sex with my congressman's wife but illegal to pay her for it?

This is not news! (3, Funny)

positiveexperience (1070518) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653352)

Excuse me, but this is not news.

Abusing Power (0, Troll)

AZScotsman (962881) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653414)

Gee - what good is having power if you can't abuse it every once in a while?

$13,000 for steak? (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653424)

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

Wikipedia link! bonus!

er, I mean $1,300 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653504)

my bad. I added another bouncy zero in my excitement. Back to ogling now...

Another Conservative Down (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653448)

KJimmy Wales is a "Conservative", the extreme kind called a "libertarian" (though there are plenty of libertarians who aren't "Conservative", Wales is the kind of libertarian [wikipedia.org] who call themselves "Objectivists" [wikipedia.org] ). Objectivists subscribe to the ideology put together by Ayn Rand that selfishness is the primary, the only virtue, the only possible way to see the world as it truly is.

Objectivism makes for some great fictional novels, like the allegories Rand wrote to tell people about the Objectivism she made up. But selfishness in that extreme is a pretty good excuse for corruption. Ask a Conservative about it.

BTW, doesn't Fark have an entire category of corruption and other stupidity called "Florida"? Seems inevitable that the embezzlement would take place there.

And your point is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22653758)

shut the fuck up

Re:And your point is? (0, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653862)

"AC": "Anonymous Coward", "Another Conservative"

Who pretends the point is somehow hard to see, and that cursing at me in a Slashdot post does anything but prove how stupid fake "Conservatives" are, especially when Conservatives' corruption is being exposed yet again.

$1300 for a dinner is not 'corruption' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654010)

Just because you've never had a $1300 dinner is no reason to be jealous.

Try enron, and other companies. As others have said, $1300 for a dinner is nothing and many non-profits spend much more money.

Re:Another Conservative Down (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653846)

Rand never identified herself as a "Conservative" and routinely excoriated the Conservative establishment in the U.S. In the very Wikipedia article you link to, Jimmy says he is guided by the principles of "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights..." Hardly "Conservative" principles, which are all about security, surveillance and greater police powers.

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 Conservatives are corrupt.
Jimmy Wales is a Conservative.
Therefore, Jimmy Wales is corrupt.

Can you say undistributed middle? Likewise your remarks regarding Florida.

It is fairly amusing seeing someone deploy such sleazy innuendo while accusing Jimmy of being sleazy. The meat of the story is: pyscho ex g/f is spreading dirt, aided and abetted by former employee whose accusations are not backed up by any of the people who have their hands on all the facts. It's a pretty thin basis for trying to smear a guy who in my few personal dealings with him has always been decent and reasonable, and who did an excellent job of running MDOP, where I was an active critic of "Objectivist" philosophy for several years.

Wait a second? (3, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653468)

You can have someone else edit you?

*calls up the wife*

The real Q: How dumb is his girlfriend? (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653590)

Maybe the summary is bad or something, but I'm pretty sure *I* could change a Wikipedia entry on me without screwing the guy who invented it... did Jimbo's "abuse of power" there amount to anything that anyone with a web browser couldn't replicate?

Uncyclopedia entry on Jimmy Wales (1, Offtopic)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653708)

This article is a filthy Image whore.
This article has been with way too many images.
This article would be right at home on the streets of Bangkok sucking someone off for $3. Hell, you may even get lucky with this article.

This article may have something to do with The lore and faerie tale of Wikiland and its noble and majestik King Jimbo I. Then again, it might not. Who knows?"

"I gave him a small penis after he reverted my entries."
~ God on Jimbo Wales

"Imagine a world where every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. I expect this to occur next year, barring unforseen -- what are you staring at, punk? You actually think you could take my idealistic ass? I'd like to see you try."
~ Jimmy Wales

"We make internet access to porn not suck"
~ Jimmy Wales on "www.Bomis.com," his adult internet search engine.

Jimbo Wales, Prince of the United States is a well-known huckster, con-man and dictator of Wikiland, who has adopted a lifestyle of libertinage, debauchery, nudism, international travel, kitten huffing and Ferrari connoisseurship by standing on the shoulders of a million nerds; although he simply describes himself as a "rockstar, but without the sex and drugs"[1]. He is a high-ranking member both of the GNAA ,NAMBLA and among the leaders of the Sicilian Mafia, and frequently trolls the satirical "encyclopedia" Wikipedia as part of his official duties. He is well known for his amusing stunts. These include editing his own biography to pretend that he actually came up with the whole idea, and accusing people of killing JFK and Gerald Ford. His account has been locked thricewise and twain for vandalism and replacing entire pages with the phrase TROLLS AER THE 13347 several hundred times. His most memorable vandalism was his repeated claim on the Wikipedia page for Uncyclopedia that Uncyclopedia was, in fact, a parody site of Wikipedia. Even though, in fact, it is the other way around, Jones imprinted some kind of malicious code on the edit page, locking the statement in place for all to see. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, John 2.0. Nothing was ever proven.
There is, of course, more.

Bye bye karma, it was nice knowin' ya!

Wow (1)

PalmKiller (174161) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653740)

$325 for each steak dinner, what was it half a cow for each. I certainly hope they had lots of vintage wine with it or something like that. About the wiki entry, who cares its just a community website, its not like he edited a real encyclopedia...are they fishing for more visitors or something?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654024)

I'm sure even you could rack up a $350 meal after drinks and dessert.

*pfft* I had a $100 meal yesterday at lunch with a business rep. This isn't news. It's petty.

His Wiki Page (1)

WebmasterNeal (1163683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653780)

Ironically with all this news about him recently, his own page on wikipedia appears to be missing all of this info. Are the wiki-ites so dedicated that they can't post current news and criticism about him?

There's also the whole antisocialmedia.net thing (3, Interesting)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653822)

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.

stupidity, not corruption (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22653848)

Wales may be squandering Wikipedia funds, but that's not the same as "corruption" or embezzlement. As long as he officially requests the reimbursements from the foundation and the foundation pays and this is visible in its financial documents, it may be stupid on their part and his, but it's not wrongdoing.

Many non-profits, including so-called aid organizations, that have achieved much less than Wikipedia, pay their officers lavish salaries.

Re:stupidity, not corruption (1)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654002)

It can no be "wrongdoing" but still news. A lot of people have an expectation that donations to wikipedia go towards the maintenance of wikipedia, not $325/plate dinners.

I'll definitely think twice before donating. I know there are administratice costs - but this is excessive.

Jimmy Wales' own Wikipedia entry is locked. (1)

perdue (1153995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654044)

And there is currently no mention of the Rachel Marsden or spending issues. Seems there was an edit war [wikipedia.org] going on.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>