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.'"

11 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. The devious plot is out.. again by fictionpuss · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  2. Like Volkswagen by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Like Volkswagen by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  3. An open community wins again by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. How is it different... by ShatteredArm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Wait, THIS is corruption? by pcgamez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /.

    1. Re:Wait, THIS is corruption? by qortra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
  6. Re:Wikipedia... by fictionpuss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Wikipedia... by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  8. Re:Not a peach by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.")

  9. Re:Dates and dinners are not the issue by fuzzlost · · 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)