Slashdot Mirror
"DonorGate" Is Latest Scandal To Hit Wikipedia
MSTCrow5429 writes "In the latest of a long train of scandals to hit Wikipedia, the Sydney Morning Herald reports on an accusation that founder and Wikia President Jimmy Wales traded a multi-thousand dollar donation for an article re-write. Jeff Merkey, formerly of Novell, claims that Wales approached him in 2006 and said that for a fee, Wales would personally see to it that the article on Merkey, which had cast him in a negative light, would be re-written in Merkey's favor. Merkey claims that after he donated $5,000, Wales followed through on this quid pro quo. The Wikipedia edit history does indicate that Wales wiped out the article on Merkey, and then personally re-wrote it. The SMH reports that Wales has called the allegation 'nonsense.'" Merkey filed a harassment lawsuit in 2005 against a number of people and organizations, including Slashdot. Slashdot was removed from the suit on 2005-07-20.
Update: 03/12 00:39 GMT by KD : Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh provided this official statement: "Current allegations relating to Jimmy Wales soliciting donations for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to protect or edit Wikipedia articles are completely false. The Wikimedia Foundation has never accepted nor solicited donations in order to protect or make edits to a Wikipedia article — nor has Jimmy Wales. This is a practice the Wikimedia Foundation would never condone."
Update: 03/12 00:39 GMT by KD : Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh provided this official statement: "Current allegations relating to Jimmy Wales soliciting donations for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to protect or edit Wikipedia articles are completely false. The Wikimedia Foundation has never accepted nor solicited donations in order to protect or make edits to a Wikipedia article — nor has Jimmy Wales. This is a practice the Wikimedia Foundation would never condone."
...I can't imagine that Jeff Merkey would be high on anybody's list. I'd like to the Wikipedia article for full details, but, well....
Perhaps the news articles reflect the increasing importance of WikiPedia, and the desires of some people to control it.
Quote from the Slashdot story: "Merkey filed a harassment lawsuit in 2005 against a number of people and organizations, including Slashdot."
Maybe someday Slashdot will be important enough that there are a lot of accusations.
The locking of the article for editing by senior editors only is a tad odd.
However, I don't know how common this is. If we are to assume innocence, then it might be that wikipedia was just trying to avoid being a location for mud slinging.
If not, then yup, it's a bit odd.
However, merkey has long been associated with wacko behaviour, so in this light his accusation could b viewed as no more than yet another attempt to keep his name in internet headlines.
Given the absurdity of his previous claims, I'm tended to lean towards this last possibility.
To be honest there really isn't any content on citizendium. The concept is great...but they should concentrate on quickly copying as much as possible from wikipedia...coz until they do that noones gonna think "hey, I'll look that up on citizendium"!
Also the name is too hard to spell...and not that catchy in my opinion.
No kitty, this is my pot pie!
If you read the article closely, you'll see there really isn't a whole lot of fact, merely a bunch of accusations.
The thing that kept running through my mind as I read the article was that [citations were needed].
Bottom line: This article is definitely not NPOV, and none of the assertions therein have been substantiated.
Wikipedia is still one of the best bargains in the world. You get an amazing amount of valuable content for no cost. Should you use it as a sole source for a PhD dissertation? Of course not. Is it the best place to go if you're not a mathematician but would like a little background into combinatorics, are looking for some quick background into the War of the Roses, or want biographical data on the "father of alkali", James Muspratt, or the structure of the Dominant 7th chord? Fuckin' Aye.
When most of the conceptually anemic Web phenomena like Twitter are forgotten, Wikipedia will still be a valuable tool for people who want to look stuff up, and will be remembered for making the most of a brilliant idea and basically changing the way people use the Internet and facts.
Naturally, you're going to find twerps like Merkey who are pissed that the world doesn't recognize their brilliance and so get pissed at someone who they believe has garnered the adulation rightfully their own. Despite his best efforts and the insatiability of a zillion web news aggregators, Merkey will continue to be nobody.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Bruce Perens.
Money is only one of any number of threats to the integrity of such an organization. People inside the organization subverting resources to their own ends, building little zones of control, and so on. You deal with them all the same way -- by operating as openly as possible. If people can see where the money is coming from, they can make up their own minds about its influence.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Likewise, the governor of New York is being called to resign because he allegedly saw a hooker. This has nothing whatsoever to do with his ability to govern the state, but sharp political rhetoric is being flung about nevertheless. The Bill Clinton affair also springs to mind.
All this means is that Jimmy Wales has some political opponents who are willing to fight dirty. He might be no saint, but Wikipedia seems to be doing pretty darn well for the most part. Your comparison is wildly off the mark. If a politician sees a hooker, that has very little to do with his ability to govern the state. If Jimmy Wales takes money to edit an article on Wikipedia, then this goes directly to the heart of Wikipedia.
The second part is devoid of any logic. If, for example, TheRegister publishes such damning accusations, then (1) that does not make them "political opponents" (Are you seriously claiming that Wales has "political opponents"? I think the editors of TheRegister just can't stand him; that has nothing to do with politics). Second, it doesn't "only mean they are willing to fight dirty". There are quite a few possibilities, and four of these possibilities are: 1. They fight dirty. Or 2. They are mistaken. Or 3. They are exaggerating. Or 4. They are exactly on the mark.
Gimme a break. Let's face it: Wikipedia is a forum board that's gone "legit", and out of control, with a proprietary fancy interface that doesn't happen to look like VBulletin.
The same problems of moderation, rewrites, bitching, whining, favouratism and hidden motives and agendas... all go on on Wikipedia, just as they do on lesser boards. The problem is, Wikipedia involves "real-world" problems, and affects people in very concrete ways.
I was recently involved in a tussle on a board regarding a female member being stalked by another board member. Through-out, the arguments were wide and ranging, but almost invariably involved the "virtual" world vs. the "real" one.
If people understood the implications of having such a widely-[mis]regarded source cited as a credible fount of information, and the impact that could have on the real world, I think we'd all be better off, and relegate this misbegotten site to its real impact: a forum that has blown to momentusly dangerous proportions, and taken its adolescent behaviour to the masses.
Let's not fool ourselves. It could be porn reviews, or celebrity photos. No... it's Wikipedia.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
"Is it the best place to go if you're not a mathematician but would like a little background into combinatorics"
No. I've never read a maths article on wikipedia that wasn't written without regard to the ability of the average reader to understand it. Any time I try to read one I see an enormous chunk of long words, pages and pages of meaningless symbols and precious little explanation - whatever level they're written for, it's above me - and I have a degree in theoretical physics!
FGD 135
I don't think a change to BSD is anything the kernel team would seriously consider, though.
Bruce Perens.
I can follow your Slashdot user ID around posting stuff about you, but that doesn't make it true. There'd be lots of smoke, but no fire. (I wouldn't do this, by the way!)
The whole smoke and fire thing is great for smearing people with scandal, but it can be terribly unfair.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
If Spitzer was in an organization with a clear hierarchy of command, it wouldn't really matter what the hell he did in his free time. The general says, "jump", or "crawl" or "run at that machine gun nest". You do it, or they put you in prison. The general is mostly a manager: he makes decisions and issues orders, and you're forced to comply. A rousing speech might help, but a good battle plan is more essential.
Spitzer's position demands true leadership. Real leadership is getting people to follow you when they don't have to. I don't have it, but I know it when I see it. And if you're guilty of blatant hypocrisy, then people will question your motives. And if you're stupid enough to get caught doing illegal stuff, then people will question your judgment. So now they won't follow. If Spitzer tried to convince you to do something, would you feel inclined listen to him? Spitzer can still be an effective manager, but insofar as he needs to be a leader, things don't look very good.
Back on topic: these silly little scandals have little direct effect on the running of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers, so they can quit any time they want. If they are convinced that Wales is behaving in a way that isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia, taking bribes or using money for personal expenses, he will lose effectiveness as a leader. People will stop contributing, and Wikipedia will have a crisis.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
If a guy can't be faithful to someone he's married for life, what makes you think he'd be MORE inclined to faithfully fulfill his job duties in a shorter time period?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
*yawn* BFD. Anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, claiming to be one adds no weight to your claims but does lead to the suspicion that you are trying to (falsely) argue from authority.
It's only sensible if the article was a regular target for trolls before - otherwise it's only one article out of a million, and such protection makes no sense.
That's my point - unless the article is contentious or otherwise an ongoing target for trolls, then that kind of protection is unusual. Reviewing the pages history does not show it to have been such a target.
Ah my bad, I wonder where that darn "Criticism" section keeps going?
It's not the protection that's in question here, in my opinion, although most people would just write the article in a personal sandbox and copy the content into position when they were ready. It's the fact that the edit history now starts with Jimbo's edit in May 2006, when, by his edit comment, it's pretty obvious there was an article in place there before. Any normal editor (barring a need for actual oversight, meaning uncited defamatory BLP (biography of a living person) claims) would have just replaced the article's content with their own, but the way Jimbo did it means that all previous versions of the article are in the round file now, and the only way to recover such content would be to have archived it before Jimbo's edit.
So the question is, did the previous version of the article contain BLP issues that required an oversight action to remove them from the edit history? Or did it contain properly cited claims that merely cast Merkey in a bad light?
The sheer fact that Jimbo used "eerie powers", when replacing the article text with what he wrote, at least gives the impression of impropriety, whether or not anything wrong actually happened here. Yes, any admin could have deleted the article and started it anew, but most don't, because you're not supposed to do it that way. And Jimbo isn't just any admin - his edits carry additional weight, and therefore attract additional scrutiny.
foolish post period.
.01% arsenic, I suspect Wikipedia may be a mixture of bait (the article you mention) and payload - a few key facts buried, hidden, censored, whitewashed, etc ...
No one is suggesting that Wikipedia isn't a cool collection of link, and abstracts on mundane and sterile topics such as the canard you've trotted out here.
What people are suggesting is that Wikipedia is not what it claims to be, a neutral collection of verifiable facts, and is rather a collection of facts highly selected and censored, whitewashed, and otherwise secretly dictated by a few individuals for personal and pecuniary interests.
Rat poison is less than
Been There, got the teeshirt.
AIK
Agreed. Wikipedia's math pages are seemingly written by mathematicians to be read by other mathematicians. I've been taught enough math to falsely believe that I could follow a mathematical explanation but Wikipedia proved me wrong in no time at all. Wikipedia, in general, is a fast way to access information and follow information chains but in the particular case of maths it seems that dusting off an old uni book about the subject is both faster and way more productive.
Woosh!
Buried in the article, and shuffled into other articles. In particular his farcical attempts to pretend others had no input to the creation of Wikipedia.
It's not this laughing-stock of a showman who worries me though, it's the muppet uber-wikipedians who mindlessly humour and support him. They're scary.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Yeah, I know that. But we honestly don't know whether this was an oversight/office action or something else (such as Jimbo being sloppy by deleting and recreating the article instead of replacing its content). We have no idea what was in place before, but we do know that there were legal threats being thrown around, and we do know that Jimbo took it upon himself to fix whatever was going on there by himself.
This is a fairly big hole in current practices on Wikipedia when it comes to oversight and office actions. The removal of defamatory uncited BLP claims is an important thing, but currently, these changes are handled in a way that is unduly hidden from the average editor. People who aren't in the highest echelons (or who, like me, aren't even admins) take a look at these sorts of things, try to piece together the smattering of evidence remaining, and conclude (sometimes wrongly) that there are some sort of shenanigans going on. The point of those actions isn't to hide the fact that an article was there, or even that it contained defamatory content. The object is to remove the actual defamatory content itself. Hiding related logs from the average editor only makes things look worse rather than better (the topic of TFA being a case in point).
2) I suppose anything that can be edited by more than one person could be compared to a "forum board"
3) What's your point?
I think it's always been a question of organization. If Wikipedia is able to organize, source and create a context within which more information can be placed than in any other source, it has tremendous value. If it falls down on those criteria, then it's just the Internet's stream of consciousness (which isn't valueless, but not nearly as valuable).
You, of course, get to decide how it's measuring up.