On 3/6/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The bigger problem are the allegations mentioned in the article about use of foundation funds.
I don't see the big deal here. Employees are entitled to fill in expenses forms and their employers are permitted to say "Sorry Jimmy, that's just outrageous".
The Foundation's finances are public and I've no doubt there will be some combing through past expenditure by enterprising journalists. It's even possible that there is some evidence of serious financial mismanagement in there. Meanwhile this is a dreadfully minor matter and is being treated as a "those crazy internet geeks" story by the press.
Well, let me be clear-- I don't at this point see any reason to believe the allegation based just on the word of one disgruntled employee, so please let me re-interate that *I* am not saying it's true at all-- I'm just saying it's a public relations issue that's, if it exploded, would be really bad. The journalists who repeated the allegations without any evidence are definitely being seriously irresponsible.
But _IF_ it were true, it would be a really big deal. Moreso, even if it's not true but the community at large were to believe it were true, it would be a big deal?
Jimbo has a very unique place in Wikipedia. He picks the Arbcom members, he's a permanent board member, and his words are usually law on the project. He's also the de facto speaker. He's not just another user. A quick survey of my friends reveal most people think he actually "owns" Wikipedia.
If the unsubstantiated allegations were true and Jimbo really had tried to get the foundation to pay for extravagant wine, massages, or even 'massages', it would imply that 'the guy who runs Wikipedia' tried to profit at the expense of the non-profit. For people who don't know him, it wouldn't be "no big deal", itds be kind of a pitchforks and torches moment.
That the attempt failed would be little comfort-- it's like being a customer of bank, and finding out that the bank manager tried to rob the bank, but was stopped by the security guard. Only the manager still runs the bank, but the guard is paying extra close attention to him now. If a bank did that, and it got out, the bank would find its deposits drying up.
It's not a "no big deal", it's a dangerous perception that should be refuted. So, if crazy media calls up the foundation, somebody should be able to say "Nope, never happened, a disgruntled employee just made all that up" or "he sent X gazillions of receipts and a naturally a few got mixed in accidentally" or whatever.
(This as opposed to the whole Marsden nonsense, which is just tabloidesque silliness which I think, even under the worst light, is mostly harmless to the project. )
Alec