Comments on: Wikimedia executive comes to Wales defense

Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, says allegations that Wales misused funds were started by a "disgruntled former employee."

[thekohser]

Gardner's words aren't ethical

"Jimmy has never used Wikimedia to subsidize his personal expenses," said Gardner. That may be true on Gardner's watch (since June 2007), but all of the Danny Wool allegations reference times before her hire, and it was THANKS TO WOOL that most of the personal expenses were REJECTED. Instead of thanking him, the Foundation is making him a pariah.

"Jimmy has never done anything wrong." I won't even dignify that one with a rebuttal.

Gardner is caught between a rock and a hard place, and she's cast her lot with Jimmy Wales, who is a magnet for "digruntled" colleagues and a scandal-per-quarter. Sue feels "sorry for Jimmy"? I feel sorry for Sue.

[ckm5]

Who is Sue Gardner?

She has no Wikipedia page... How ironic.

[thekohser]

The hide-and-seek treatment

No, Sue Gardner doesn't get a Wikipedia page, because Wikipedia can't be trusted to always paint a glowing, rosy picture about the subject. So, they "redirect" to [[Wikimedia Foundation]] articles about Carolyn Doran and Sue Gardner. They've tried to bury the article about Angela Beesley, but the community won't let them. And the article about Michael E. Davis is apparently forbidden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_E._Davis

Get with the program. If the subject of the article brings disrepute to Jimbo or the WMF, the article gets the "hide-and-seek treatment". That's the Wikipedia way.

[kieranmullen]

Wikipedia Censorship?

I do not know the entire story who is right or who is wrong. However if this is a controversy, why is it not listed under the wikipedia article? why is it not open to discussion?

I have noticed many other articles on carious subjects do have a "Controversy" section.

Why not Wales entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

KieranMullen
http://360Oregon.com

[pilking]

"Troll"

Basically, she's trying to bring the "he's just a troll" defense off Wikipedia and into the real world.

But out here in reality, faced with actual allegations, you can't get away with just dismissing someone as a "troll". You can't ban people from talking out here, sweetie.

[thekohser]

There is a page now, where you can conveniently learn about the various "Criticisms of Jimmy Wales". Enjoy:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales