The word on Wales' Wikipedia woes
Sex. Money. Incriminating instant messages. From the news that's been pouring in recently, you'd think Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales were the tech industry's own Client No. 9.
In a series of embarrassing peccadilloes that were originally relegated to gossip blogs like Valleywag, Wales' failed relationship with former Fox News commentator Rachel Marsden took center stage when Marsden "leaked" some of their online chats to the Web and made quite the public display of auctioning some of his clothes on eBay. The usual blog storm followed: photos of other women with whom Wales had reportedly been involved, hints that he may have acted inappropriately in editing Wikipedia entries to scrub details of the scandal, and what have you.
But with all eyes on the Wikipedia founder, other allegations have come into play, and they don't have anything to do with sex. First, there were reports that Wales misused foundation funds; now his ties with a high-profile Silicon Valley venture capitalist are calling into question Wikipedia's nonprofit aims. The New York Times notes a $500,000 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization, on behalf of Elevation Partners' Roger McNamee, with another $500,000 in the works. (Elevation Partners is the venture firm that counts U2 front man Bono as one of its founding partners.)
Considering McNamee's status in the Valley, it's easy to speculate that these massive donations could constitute an investment rather than a donation. That's bound to raise more prominent eyebrows than a trashy sex scandal. McNamee told the Times, "I am a Wikipedia volunteer--I help with strategy, fundraising and business development--it has nothing to do with Elevation Partners. And no one should be confused about that."
A representative from the Wikimedia Foundation told CNET News.com that it has not released an official statement addressing the speculation about McNamee's involvement. But Wikimedia Foundation chair Florence Nibart-Devouard said to the Times that she was "not comfortable with the concept" of the nonprofit accepting massive funds from donors best-known as capital investors, and the article went on to say that the foundation's board has passed a measure requiring approval for all donations that total over 2 percent of Wikimedia's revenues.
But despite the shift of "Jimbogate" concerns from personal to professional indiscretions, the musky tinge of sex-scandal still hangs over it. The latest, per Valleywag, involves a tipster who implied that Wales had a tryst in Amsterdam with Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner, who has remained one of his staunchest supporters throughout the controversy. It appears to be thoroughly unsubstantiated at this point, but the Valleywag blogger hinted that camera phone photos existed.
Even juicier, the tipster just had to bring Amsterdam, home to what's arguably the world's most famous red-light district as well as notoriously lax regulations on some substances that are frowned upon in the U.S., into the equation. It's all starting to read like the script of a made-for-TNT movie.
Eliot Spitzer, this Silicon Valley dirt might be one-upping you.
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
It's amazing how many people reference this site as something useful.
How many times does this have to happen before people quit using his P-O-S website?
Should it ever be cited as a primary source? Heck no, but then again, neither should any traditional encyclopedia. Even articles from noteworthy publications like Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana are often written by nonexperts. Even if the author of an article is a scientists or literature professor, he or she is unlikely to be an expert in all of the branches of study in that science of area of literature. (Academia is highly specialized these days and has been for quite some time.) Most students are told not to cite any encyclopedia as a primary source. All students SHOULD be told this.
Wikipedia provides overviews of many topics. It is more comprehensive and up-to-date than the traditional encyclopedias. Admittedly the quality varies from article to article, but in the age of the World Wide Web and hyperlinking, it is easy to check on the sources. The sources should generally be available as hyperlinks in the footnotes. It only takes a second or two to look at the original source materials used. If there are no sources, then the reader should immediately be wary of any assertions made in the article.
Some unsourced articles are not indicated in Wikipedia, but most are. Staff members seem to do a pretty good job of adding warning signs on shoddily-written articles, asking that the author(s) clean them up and add sources.
As for the difference between the creator and the product, there have been many unsavory, unethical and even insane individuals who have helped to create noteworthy products and companies. A notorious example is the insane prisoner who became a significant contributor to the early edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Apparently he did pretty good work.
Jimmy Wales doesn't write the Wikipedia all by himself. Thousands of individuals do. He created the early framework and then the project took on a life of its own. Yes, the money issue and the nonprofit status are troubling, but even if irregularities are proven, this wouldn't be the first time a nonprofit was involved in a similar scandal. The former head of the United Way was found to have spent the organization's funds to support a lavish personal lifestyle. The same thing happened with the United Way of the National Capital Region.
Has this changed the way most people think of the United Way? It did for a while, but I think most people today still think of the United Way positively. That's because they see that the organization is about far more than just a single man or woman. That's the same way it is with Wikipedia. Most people don't consult or contribute to Wikipedia because they like Jimmy Wales. Most people probably don't even know who Jimmy Wales is.
that's real shocking...
if you have a problem with it you can just go to wikipedia and edit it back if you want.
and he got a big donation. that's really scandalous...
yawn... wake me when some real news is happening.
this hit piece is something i would expect from fox, not cnet.
- The difference with United Way
- by thekohser March 18, 2008 1:15 PM PDT
- The difference between the Wikimedia Foundation and the United Way is that when the United Way leadership was found to be mismanaging the funds and abusing the trust of the donating public, the organization took seriously the allegations, admitted wrongdoing, swept out personnel, and made changes to prevent future wrongdoings.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(4 Comments)The WMF has circled the wagons, Sue Gardner's "investigation" into the allegations centered on conversations with JIMBO'S LAWYER (Brad Patrick), and telling CNET that (and this is a quote) "Jimmy has never done anything wrong."
Please don't impugn the story of the United Way by comparing it against the current situation we see at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's a disgrace.
Can you honestly say that Wikipedia would be worse off if Jimmy Wales stepped down now? If not, then why is he still there?
The answer, of course, is wrapped up in the millions of dollars invested by Bessemer Venture Partners, Amazon, and Elevation Partners. Jimbo's their "inside" man.