Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"DonorGate" Is Latest Scandal To Hit Wikipedia

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who-to-believe dept.

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."

16 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Where there is smoke.... by sk8king · · Score: 3, Interesting

    there is fire. It seems that Mr. Jimmy Wales is the subject of a lot of news articles that don't paint him in a positive light.

    1. Re:Where there is smoke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Did it ever occur to you that none of your assertions have anything to do with the claims against Wales?

      There was a bit of a hullabaloo on the article's talk page when Wales started making changes. See Talk:Jeff V. Merkey#Rewrite/deletion and Talk:Jeff V. Merkey#Nearing a restitution?

      There was never any controversy over Wales semi-protecting the article. The controversy was over him disingenuously eradicating the article and its history and begging editors to rewrite it. Your own editors noticed Wales acting strangely with his treatment of the article and confronted him about it in 2006.

      You're either incredibly confused or a propaganda tool for Wikipedia.


      - Sherilyn

    2. Re:Where there is smoke.... by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ironically, he also prosecuted the operators of a couple of escort services while AG, allegedly while he was utilizing the services of this one. That's spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

      No.

      Spitzer prosecuted operators but did not focus his efforts on the clientèle, a.k.a. "johns" in North America or "punters" in the U.K. Focusing on the supplier of any illegal product or service is typical of most law enforcement agencies.

    3. Re:Where there is smoke.... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      as encyclopedists we have a moral obligation to set a very high bar [1]

      Citations:
      [1] Rachel Marsden

  2. thats fine by KevMar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Im all for it if the details of the purchase is added to the page.

    Kevmar is a stand up guy. He speaks his oppinion yet heardly flames anyone, even when they do mock his spelling.

    this post was brought to you by Kevmar for no charge

    --
    Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
  3. Citizendium to the rescue! by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Citizendium can be the answer to many of these problems...

    Also Wikitruth sheds a lot of light on ol' Jimbo Wales and his shenanigans

    --
    Here's to the crazy ones
  4. Shocking! by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So this guy is a power-hungry freak. Wow... did anyone not see this like a year ago, when Jimmy Wales was basically telling the world that he was here to save us all?

    Hopefully he'll be selling timeshares again soon.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  5. Jeff Merkey and lawsuits by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Jeff Merkey filed suit against me, and against PJ, some years ago. His family eventually convinced him to withdraw the suit against me, I don't know how his suit against PJ was resolved. The legal opinion I had at the time was that the suit would never see a hearing, but it was still a nuisance.

    Jeff mostly just wants to be listened to. He can be grandiose and can get somewhat separated from reality.

    Any article about Jeff on Wikipedia that relates events around Novell, SCO, and other stuff in 2005 would be a liability problem. I am not the slightest bit surprised that Wales had to re-write it. I don't think this has to be connected to a donation.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Jeff Merkey and lawsuits by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wasn't there a big Merkey-related blow-up on linux-kernel way back? Oh yeah, "On October 4, 2004, Merkey offered US$50,000 on LKML, the Linux kernel mailing list, to anyone able to provide him a version of the Linux kernel that was not licensed under the GPL for his project". Well, you can imagine how well that went down- and of course he would have needed the explicit permission of every single contributor.

      Didn't strike me as a particularly balanced individual during that episode. More I can't say.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    2. Re:Jeff Merkey and lawsuits by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any article about Jeff on Wikipedia that relates events around Novell, SCO, and other stuff in 2005 would be a liability problem. I am not the slightest bit surprised that Wales had to re-write it. I don't think this has to be connected to a donation.


      Actually, not a legal liability problem, except perhaps for the person who wrote an article that lied about Merkey (or somehow created other liability like violating some contract, breaching some trade secret, etc). Wikipedia is not liable for what it publishes in its site when that content is written by someone else (like practically all its content), because it doesn't moderate it. Though it could be a "frivolous lawsuit target" problem for Wikipedia, as you were. Did you stop doing what you were doing that ticked Merkey off?

      OTOH, by rewriting the article, Wales became responsible for what he wrote. If he used an account that has any privileges that people not on the Wikipedia editorial staff don't have, then he was making Wikipedia responsible for what he wrote. And since he was thereby moderating the Merkey article, he was thereby making Wikipedia responsible for the article.

      Now, it's by no means clear that a court would have found that editing out article parts that Merkey complained about would make Wales/Wikipedia liable for what had been deleted. Though just the act of moderating content for any other reason than something like "clear and present danger" (or technical problems) could indeed be argued that "Wikipedia does moderate, it is therefore responsible for all content". Not necessarily a winning argument, but in fact Wales' editing likely created liability that didn't exist until he edited that article.

      Now, it's all moot because Wales dropped his complaint. And perhaps he dropped his complaint because Wales made those changes. But Wales did probably increase his liability (from practically zero) by doing it. And he might have even produced evidence that "Wikipedia moderates content", which could make Wikipedia liable for all content. Including later complaints by Merkey. Including if someone else changed it back to the old version. But also including any other person who wants to complain, who could now hold Wikipedia liable for all content, because it does moderate.

      Again, not a clear case. But not quite a frivolous one. Therefore increasing the risk by the action, if only in the longer term. But a serious change.

      The real question is why didn't Merkey just edit it himself - that's what Wikipedia is for. Conversely, why didn't Wales have someone outside the Wikipedia org edit it, so the liability would be harder to prove.

      And of course the ultimate question is whether Merkey did indeed pay Wales $5000 to make the change. If there's real evidence of that, things become clearer, but not better. Probably including Wikipedia's liability for all its content, to say nothing of its credibility.
      --

      --
      make install -not war

  6. Jeff did attempt to go directly to Jimbo. by nyet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look no further than this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FJeffrey_Vernon_Merkey2&diff=133328226&oldid=133327935#Dealing_with_Major_Financial_Contributors_of_the_Foundation_who_Edit_Wikipedia

  7. Some editors are more equal than others by nyet · · Score: 5, Interesting
    For the sake of posterity (these things do tend to disappear quietly from WP quite often). Key points are in bold. They often occur right next to a statement saying the exact opposite. i.e. "treat everybody equal" but in the same breath "some people are more equal than others"

    Dealing with Major Financial Contributors of the Foundation who Edit Wikipedia (by Jeff V. Merkey)

    In general, major financial contributors who edit Wikipedia should be treated the same way and with the same level of courtesy as anyone else who edits Wikipedia and they should be required to follow the same rules. These rules also apply to admins, who, by ARBCOM precedence are expected to adhere to the highest standards of civility. Financial contributors to the Foundation contribute more than their time to the project. Some of them donate or invest in Wikipedia Projects each year many times the life savings of an ordinary person. Saying this does not matter is inaccurate and a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Foundation by those who have been granted administrative or other privileges. It DOES matter. Not ony do these people donate their time, they pay for hosting costs, personnel costs, equipment, and other critical areas where the Foundation needs support, and not everyone is equal in this regard, their contributions are important as well. This does not entitle them to claim special treatment, but it does entitle them to the same high level of conduct and professional stewardship expected from any admin involved with the project. They should not be subjected to the same treatment the project reserves for troll or vandal accounts.

    If you find yourself in a situation with a major contributor editing Wikipedia who is problematic, do not threaten them, argue with them, or debate with them about who is helping Wikipedia more -- from the Foundations point of view, both parties are contributors, and more so of a person donating both time and money. Some serious problems for the project may be created if an admin threatens, argues, or attempts to ban a major financial contributor from editing. These situations are best handled by more mature members of the community or of the Foundation, without ever resorting to threats or implied threats of action. It is said you cannot argue with a customer in a business setting and the same is true of a major financial contributor. Be polite. Ask polite questions about their concerns and try to listen to them, without loosing your temper. Some of the problems mishandling contributors are:

            * The contributor may feel they are funding a usenet project or trolling site and discontinue support.
            * The contributor may have significant contacts or influence in the public sector, and either intentionally or unintentionally influence other groups to withdraw support.
            * The contributor may have business interests or projects the Foundation has time or financial investment into that the general community is unaware of, the you may damage or destroy months or years of important relationships with a thoughtless act.
            * If a contributor is also in the same business space as the foundation, banning a Financial contributor or posting ban notices may interfere and harm not only their business enterprises, but the Foundation and Wikipedia Projects as a whole, with negative results for everyone involved.

    If you have strong feelings about the editing of a major financial contributor, be polite, do not threaten them. Many of these people will take great offense at being threatened by admins or users since they may feel you are doing so on servers and equipment they purchased to support the project.

    In summation, they should be treated the same way everyone else is treated who edits. With the same high level of civility and stewardship expected from an Admin when dealing with any editor or member of the project. And certainly not subjected to threatening language.

  8. Re:Where there is smoke... there is smoke & mi by SL+Baur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wikipedia is still one of the best bargains in the world. Could you explain this to me? Never mind the editing part. Why does Jeff Merkey rate a Wikipedia page at all? I know him as a guy who makes wild drunken posts to lkml from time to time.

    Anyway, having an entry on Jeff Merkey sure brings new meaning to "You get what you pay for".
  9. Could you clarify this part? by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Nice of Jeff to give a donation, but stubbing down a bad biography is standard practice.

    So you are saying that Jeff did give a donation? And I take it that the stubbing took place right afterwards?

    Can you explain why, even the negatives about Jeff that can be well documented were removed?

    > So it's really a non-story. We protect articles against people who want to write "WEE WEE WEE JACK IS GAY."

    Was the stuff about Merkey really of that nature? I saw the original article, and it did not look like that to me.

  10. I'm quite certan Merkey's telling the truth by WriterJudd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jeff Merkey may very well be litigious, but in my experience, he's not a liar. Let's be sure to separate the two issues. Jeff first told me about being shaken down by Jimbo Wales for Wiki-protection money in November of 2007. We discussed it multiple times in the interim, until I first wrote about this situation last week on my blog, AntiSocialMedia.net. Over the months, Jeff's story has remained consistent and the facts as he describes them to me are easy to correlate with the historical record. That, combined with the recent revelations of Jimbo trading favorable article treatment for "female companionship", convinced me that I could confidently blog about this situation. It's my hope that now others, similarly extorted, will find ways to tell their stories.

  11. Re:Where there is smoke... there is smoke & mi by Maserati · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because anyone who worked for years in the tech industry and managed to confuse a kill file with an assassination list, in a lawsuit on the topic is a legend in his own mind^h^h^h^h time.

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951