Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
That, and the fact that the Wikipedia elite seem to be so inept in keeping secret their devious plots.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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!!!!
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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
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.
Wikipedia isn't immune from mistakes. Then again, neither is Encyclopedia Brittancia.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As soon as I can figure out how to give every post a meme spin or can analogy I'm in!
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
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...
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Jimmy Wales is no different than anyone else who (un)knowingly puts up false information on Wikipedia. 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.
And, ummm, why do we care? Are we all suddenly soap opera fans because it involves a 'geek'?
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.
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.")
It's an important example; and in fact intelligent design would never be called the accepted theory even with a vote system.
Why? Because on Wikipedia you have to write verifiable facts; and when intelligent design claims that "there is a significant part of the scientific community which disagree with evolution", they simply don't have the proofs to support it (all articles they could link are from the same few intelligent design advocates who have a phd).
(it doesn't mean there is no article on inteligent design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design; just that there is no mention of it on the "evolution" article)
That kind of "guidelines" on wikipedia effectively serve as a constitution; it's pretty efficient, but not as much as full blown moderation and meta-moderation as we have here, on Slashdot. Personaly, I think it's a shame, and I would love to see more "jury duty" like moderation on wikipedia, or some fork of it!
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
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)