In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:18:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, risker.wp@gmail.com writes:
Meanwhile, in what might possibly be the weirdest part of all this, Jimbo's sweater is currently going for $810 with 8 days to go, and his t-shirt is going for...wait for it...$15,000. I do hope Rachel Marsden has selected a fine charity to benefit from this.>>
---------------------------- Wouldn't that be the charity of "I've been outta work for a while?"
And does the above rise to the level of notability?
And thirdly, how do you actually cite to Ebay? Do they have permalinks to old auctions?
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On 04/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:18:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
risker.wp@gmail.com writes:
Meanwhile, in what might possibly be the weirdest part of all this, Jimbo's sweater is currently going for $810 with 8 days to go, and his t-shirt is going for...wait for it...$15,000. I do hope Rachel Marsden has selected a fine charity to benefit from this.>>
Wouldn't that be the charity of "I've been outta work for a while?"
And does the above rise to the level of notability?
And thirdly, how do you actually cite to Ebay? Do they have permalinks to old auctions?
As far as I know, the links are permanent; I have seen ones a couple of years old on other websites.
The Sweater: http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Jimbo-Wales-Sweater-left-ex-g-fs_W0QQit...
The T-shirt: http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Jimbo-Wales-Sweater-left-ex-g-fs_W0QQit...
Hell hath no fury &c., &c.....
Risker
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/03/2008, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:18:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
risker.wp@gmail.com writes:
Meanwhile, in what might possibly be the weirdest part of all this, Jimbo's sweater is currently going for $810 with 8 days to go, and his t-shirt is going for...wait for it...$15,000. I do hope Rachel Marsden has selected a fine charity to benefit from this.>>
Wouldn't that be the charity of "I've been outta work for a while?"
And does the above rise to the level of notability?
And thirdly, how do you actually cite to Ebay? Do they have permalinks to old auctions?
As far as I know, the links are permanent; I have seen ones a couple of years old on other websites.
The Sweater: http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Jimbo-Wales-Sweater-left-ex-g-fs_W0QQit...
The T-shirt:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Jimbo-Wales-Sweater-left-ex-g-fs_W0QQit...
Hell hath no fury &c., &c.....
Risker
OOPS - correction on the T-shirt url: http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedia-Jimmy-Jimbo-Wales-T-Shirt-left-at-ex-g-fs_W0QQ...
Risker
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Risker wrote:
On 04/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:18:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
risker.wp@gmail.com writes:
Meanwhile, in what might possibly be the weirdest part of all this, Jimbo's sweater is currently going for $810 with 8 days to go, and his t-shirt is going for...wait for it...$15,000. I do hope Rachel Marsden has selected a fine charity to benefit from this.>>
Wouldn't that be the charity of "I've been outta work for a while?"
And does the above rise to the level of notability?
And thirdly, how do you actually cite to Ebay? Do they have permalinks to old auctions?
As far as I know, the links are permanent; I have seen ones a couple of years old on other websites.
My experience with them has been that most records are removed after three months.
If the clothing is not hers to sell, disposing of it this way could be considered theft by conversion. If the price were consistent with the usual price of such items it would be a petty theft, but a price of $15,000 or more could upgrade the offence. The auction should be allowed to run its full course. At that point a suggestion that she donate the proceeds to WMF (for which she would get a proper tax receipt to offset the capital gain) might be an offer she can't refuse.
Ec
The Rachel Marsden issue is a non-story. Obviously a lapse in judgement for Jimbo to intervene on her behalf, even if he did it through the correct channels, just because like it or not, Jimbo isn't a normal user, and his words are given weight beyond what they should. What can you do but say oops? That's why pencils have erasers.
The bigger problem are the allegations mentioned in the article about use of foundation funds. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out.
But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find out that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen them say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else out there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on the issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Just a thought Alec
The bigger problem are the allegations mentioned in the article about use of foundation funds. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out.
But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find out that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen them say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else out there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on the issue, neither has almost everyone else.
If it's true, the foundation clearly knows - they can't have missed the fact that they took away his credit card, can they? If it's not true, it would be good if the foundation said so. If it is true, then clearly they decided at the time that (probably for evangelical/PR reasons) it was worth keeping him involved, and I'm inclined to trust them on that decision - now that it's been made public, however, that changes things. If they can't deny it, they probably do need to do something...
On 04/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If it's true, the foundation clearly knows - they can't have missed the fact that they took away his credit card, can they?
Yes but there are many perfectly blameless explanations for that. There are various ways the foundation could have decided to change how it handled it's money that could have resulted in the removal foundation credit cards from one or more board memebers.
On 04/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If it's true, the foundation clearly knows - they can't have missed the fact that they took away his credit card, can they?
Yes but there are many perfectly blameless explanations for that. There are various ways the foundation could have decided to change how it handled it's money that could have resulted in the removal foundation credit cards from one or more board memebers.
Absolutely - the general accusations being false doesn't preclude some small part of them being based on truth.
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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card. Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out. But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find out that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen them say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else out there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on the issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Sue Gardner did answer on Danny Wool's blog, fwiw.
Mostly the media interest is as cheap tabloid filler. All the London commuter papers, with the focus of the "story" being dumping people using technology. In between fabulously newsworthy reports on Kelly Osbourne's haircut.
- d.
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside, I will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As an employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on the "despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product of the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't we just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card. Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out. But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find out that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen them say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else out there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on the issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Sue Gardner did answer on Danny Wool's blog, fwiw.
Mostly the media interest is as cheap tabloid filler. All the London commuter papers, with the focus of the "story" being dumping people using technology. In between fabulously newsworthy reports on Kelly Osbourne's haircut.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside, I will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As an employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on the "despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product of the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't we just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
Well, one of them is Ward Cunningham, and there are several that have met him several times at wiki conferences. But you don't have to meet the founder of a non-profit personally to know he's doing more harm than good. I don't have to meet Phil Knight to understand the affect he has on Nike.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside,
I
will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As
an
employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff
agree
unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on
the
"despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product
of
the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't
we
just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding
Yes.
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And did Ward give you permission to publicly admonish Jimbo in his name? Your appeal to authority is weak. A roomful of supposed group-think biased "me-too"s certainly isn't going to change my opinion.
FWIW, I've had the opportunity to speak with both Ward and Jimbo and as far as I can tell they are a team. I'm calling you out on this.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
Well, one of them is Ward Cunningham, and there are several that have met him several times at wiki conferences. But you don't have to meet the founder of a non-profit personally to know he's doing more harm than good. I don't have to meet Phil Knight to understand the affect he has on Nike.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all
aside,
I
will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense.
As
an
employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff
agree
unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on
the
"despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a
product
of
the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but
still...wouldn't
we
just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a
resounding
Yes.
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 3/4/08 5:06 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside, I will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As an employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on the "despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product of the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't we just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
What difference does it make? Take an honest, objective look at the condition of the Community of people he is supposed to be leading. Good, healthy leaders never forget the people they are leading; for, without them, they would be just another person taking a very lonely, and unremarkable, walk.
Marc Riddell
What difference does it make? Take an honest, objective look at the condition of the Community of people he is supposed to be leading. Good, healthy leaders never forget the people they are leading; for, without them, they would be just another person taking a very lonely, and unremarkable, walk.
I'm sorry, are you trying to turn this into a "Wikipedia is failing!" debate? If so, I'm not interested...
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside, I will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As an employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on the "despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product of the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't we just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
I'm not so sure. I've always opposed Jimbo Wales' undue influence in Wikimedia content, and this isn't really a problem now. There was a time where he could have been titled "GodKing", but with arbcom and through his own disengagement, this is no longer an issue.
Jimbo Wales does a lot in terms of publicity and public relations. The talks around the world that he has given have raised the profile of the project. Is this still so?
Jimbo Wales does a lot in terms of publicity and public relations. The talks around the world that he has given have raised the profile of the project. Is this still so?
That's the vast majority of what he does these days, as far as I can tell - lots of talks and interviews. While I don't agree 100% with everything he says, he generally seems to do a good job.
he generally seems to do a good job
Except when he does completely stupid and unecessary things like editing the bio of his conservative nutjob of a mistress and buying $300 bottles of wine with donations funds. If we wanted a decent spokeperson, who cares about the mission and is eloquent, there are 75,000 volunteers to pick from. Surely we could find one that doesn't do the moronic, childish things Wales does from time to time.
On 3/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo Wales does a lot in terms of publicity and public relations. The talks around the world that he has given have raised the profile of the project. Is this still so?
That's the vast majority of what he does these days, as far as I can tell - lots of talks and interviews. While I don't agree 100% with everything he says, he generally seems to do a good job.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Except when he does completely stupid and unecessary things like editing the bio of his conservative nutjob of a mistress and buying $300 bottles of wine with donations funds.
He's never edited her article, he just asked the OTRS people to take a look at it. And as for the bottle of wine - as far as I can tell, we only have Danny's word for that, and personally, I trust Jimmy more than Danny.
On 3/4/08, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Except when he does completely stupid and unecessary things like editing the bio of his conservative nutjob of a mistress and buying $300 bottles of wine with donations funds.
He did not edit the bio. He did not buy $300 bottles of wine with donation funds.
Please don't take everything you read on the Internet at face value.
On 04/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
He did not buy $300 bottles of wine with donation funds.
Any idea where Danny got that idea from? Is it purely imagination, or was there some wine incident?
Danny doesn't exactly claim that. Danny states that the request for reimbursement was refused.
geni wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
He did not buy $300 bottles of wine with donation funds.
Any idea where Danny got that idea from? Is it purely imagination, or was there some wine incident?
Danny doesn't exactly claim that. Danny states that the request for reimbursement was refused.
If its false - no harm done.
If its true - the foundation reimbursement process worked, no harm done.
./scream
On 04/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
He did not buy $300 bottles of wine with donation funds.
Any idea where Danny got that idea from? Is it purely imagination, or was there some wine incident?
Danny doesn't exactly claim that. Danny states that the request for reimbursement was refused.
Good point.
Just as a heads up, I believe the information in this thread has been republished on the wire via the Associated Press at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_founder;_ylt=Amsx0...
The news article may have some fallout on the two articles, so we would need to be keen on those articles with regards to BLP. As a heads up.
./scream
On 05/03/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
The news article may have some fallout on the two articles, so we would need to be keen on those articles with regards to BLP. As a heads up.
I'd be amazed if [[Rachel Marsden]] and its talk page weren't two of the most watched pages on Wikipedia right now ...
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
The news article may have some fallout on the two articles, so we would need to be keen on those articles with regards to BLP. As a heads up.
I'd be amazed if [[Rachel Marsden]] and its talk page weren't two of the most watched pages on Wikipedia right now ...
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please don't miss understand me, I was not requesting folks to write, just saying be watchful. I won't assume how many have it watchlisted. There would be no way to know.
./scream
On 05/03/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
The news article may have some fallout on the two articles, so we would need to be keen on those articles with regards to BLP. As a heads up.
on 3/4/08 7:11 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be amazed if [[Rachel Marsden]] and its talk page weren't two of the most watched pages on Wikipedia right now ...
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
Eager to change to subject, David? Now, why would that be?
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
The news article may have some fallout on the two articles, so we would need to be keen on those articles with regards to BLP. As a heads up.
on 3/4/08 7:11 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be amazed if [[Rachel Marsden]] and its talk page weren't two of the most watched pages on Wikipedia right now ...
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
Eager to change to subject, David? Now, why would that be?
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I tried to kill the thread earlier, d. made the threads relevancy known.
./scream
on 3/4/08 7:29 PM, Screamer at scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
The news article may have some fallout on the two articles, so we would need to be keen on those articles with regards to BLP. As a heads up.
on 3/4/08 7:11 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be amazed if [[Rachel Marsden]] and its talk page weren't two of the most watched pages on Wikipedia right now ...
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
Eager to change to subject, David? Now, why would that be?
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I tried to kill the thread earlier, d. made the threads relevancy known.
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from whom? It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
Marc
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from whom? It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"
To hide the issues from whom?
"
May I have some good faith, I think I've shown it.
If you read up to the beginning of the thread, my reasons for killing it were well spoken... by me. Please read *that* email before posting this type of message, because it really makes no sense. After you read that email, where I initially suggested the thread my be OT, then reply with some substance, and I would be happy to discuss it with you. :)
For your reference... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/091399.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/091401.html
The onus is yours to prove I'm attempting to hide something.
./scream
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from whom? It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Addendum to last
I guess pushing it over to foundation-l is attempting to hide stuff. Huh?
./scream
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/4/08 7:29 PM, Screamer at scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I tried to kill the thread earlier, d. made the threads relevancy known.
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from whom? It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
And it's this kind of behavior that makes you look foolish and pretentious.
Nobody was trying to kill the thread. David's comment about WIP was clearly a semi-humorous aside, not intended to hide anything. The only mistrust I see here is coming from your misinterpretation of a comment.
Please don't take everything you read on the Internet at face value.
Erik Moeller, I'm unaware of the history involved with Danny Wool, does he really have motive to blatantly go headhunting against JImbo and the Foundation? You'd hope that whomever wrote the article would take the time to notice such things. But sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if they did. They can't even get the difference between the WMF and Wikipedia half the time.
On 3/4/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/4/08 7:29 PM, Screamer at scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I tried to kill the thread earlier, d. made the threads relevancy
known.
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from
whom?
It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
And it's this kind of behavior that makes you look foolish and pretentious.
Nobody was trying to kill the thread. David's comment about WIP was clearly a semi-humorous aside, not intended to hide anything. The only mistrust I see here is coming from your misinterpretation of a comment.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from
whom?
It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
On 3/4/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
And it's this kind of behavior that makes you look foolish and pretentious.
Nobody was trying to kill the thread. David's comment about WIP was clearly a semi-humorous aside, not intended to hide anything. The only mistrust I see here is coming from your misinterpretation of a comment.
Wow! The ranks are closing, the defenses are strong, and the drawbridge is going up. :-)
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from
whom?
It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
On 3/4/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
And it's this kind of behavior that makes you look foolish and pretentious.
Nobody was trying to kill the thread. David's comment about WIP was clearly a semi-humorous aside, not intended to hide anything. The only mistrust I see here is coming from your misinterpretation of a comment.
Wow! The ranks are closing, the defenses are strong, and the drawbridge is going up. :-)
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The important fact that you missed, and much to your detriment....
...is that I put piranhas in the moat.
:)
./scream
Marc Riddell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Scream, why would you try to kill the thread? To hide the issues from
whom?
It is this kind of behavior that breeds and perpetuates mistrust.
On 3/4/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
And it's this kind of behavior that makes you look foolish and pretentious.
Nobody was trying to kill the thread. David's comment about WIP was clearly a semi-humorous aside, not intended to hide anything. The only mistrust I see here is coming from your misinterpretation of a comment.
Wow! The ranks are closing, the defenses are strong, and the drawbridge is going up. :-)
Marc
on 3/4/08 9:19 PM, Screamer at scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
The important fact that you missed, and much to your detriment....
...is that I put piranhas in the moat.
:)
./scream
Ouch! :-)
Marc
<quote>
*In an interview with The Associated Press, Florence Devouard, who chairs the Wikimedia Foundation, defended Wales and said he had simply been "slow in submitting receipts." She pointed out that the foundation rejected the steakhouse expense.*
*A short time later, in an e-mail exchange with her fellow board members, Devouard reported that she had persuaded the AP that "the money story was a no story." Yet she proceeded to indicate the opposite, upbraiding Wales for having asked the foundation to pay the steakhouse tab.*
*"I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past," she wrote to Wales in the message, which was obtained by the AP. "Get a grip!"*
</quote> True?
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
<quote>
*In an interview with The Associated Press, Florence Devouard, who chairs the Wikimedia Foundation, defended Wales and said he had simply been "slow in submitting receipts." She pointed out that the foundation rejected the steakhouse expense.*
*A short time later, in an e-mail exchange with her fellow board members, Devouard reported that she had persuaded the AP that "the money story was a no story." Yet she proceeded to indicate the opposite, upbraiding Wales for having asked the foundation to pay the steakhouse tab.*
*"I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past," she wrote to Wales in the message, which was obtained by the AP. "Get a grip!"*
</quote> True?
Nathan
Yeah. The first quote comes from a direct discussion I had with the journalist. The two other quotes were taken from two different emails sent to the comcom list.
The comcom list is supposingly an internal list to deal with communication issues. A *private* and *confidential* list. Unfortunately, some members of that list (and I have no idea who) are also leaking information. It also happened on internal-l some time ago (again, no idea who is the author of the leak).
We are currently in an odd situation. I wish from all my heart that we be transparent as much as possible. But for all the transparency in the world, there are stuff that is just internal discussion, cases where we need to discuss openly without the fear that it will make the headlines the next day. Unfortunately, there is now no way we can be certain that a discussion we have anywhere, be it irc, email or phone, will not be leaked.
These are very sad times.
Anthere
Nathan wrote:
<quote>
*In an interview with The Associated Press, Florence Devouard, who chairs the Wikimedia Foundation, defended Wales and said he had simply been "slow in submitting receipts." She pointed out that the foundation rejected the steakhouse expense.*
*A short time later, in an e-mail exchange with her fellow board members, Devouard reported that she had persuaded the AP that "the money story was a no story." Yet she proceeded to indicate the opposite, upbraiding Wales for having asked the foundation to pay the steakhouse tab.*
*"I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past," she wrote to Wales in the message, which was obtained by the AP. "Get a grip!"*
</quote> True?
Nathan
on 3/5/08 5:20 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
We are currently in an odd situation. I wish from all my heart that we be transparent as much as possible. But for all the transparency in the world, there are stuff that is just internal discussion, cases where we need to discuss openly without the fear that it will make the headlines the next day. Unfortunately, there is now no way we can be certain that a discussion we have anywhere, be it irc, email or phone, will not be leaked.
These are very sad times.
Anthere
Yes they are, Florence. But I also believe that there are enough persons in the Project with sensitivities and a sense of fairness and openness like yours, that, once a healthy culture is established, the Project will not only survive - it will thrive.
Marc
Yes they are, Florence. But I also believe that there are enough persons in the Project with sensitivities and a sense of fairness and openness like yours, that, once a healthy culture is established, the Project will not only survive - it will thrive.
Absolutely. The project not only *will* thrive it *is* thriving. We're getting scandals every other week at the moment, and it doesn't seem to be hurting the project at all and I see no sign that it ever will. I think all these scandals are just a sign of our success - the press are interested in every little thing we do - and they're going to continue. The foundation is not perfect and never will be, mistakes are going to happen and when they do it's going to be a massive scandal. As the foundation improves and becomes more organised and professional, these mistakes are reduced, however the foundation is also growing at an enormous rate and the more the foundation does, the most opportunities there are to make mistakes, so I don't think the number of news stories is going to change much over time.
On 05/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yes they are, Florence. But I also believe that there are enough persons
in
the Project with sensitivities and a sense of fairness and openness
like
yours, that, once a healthy culture is established, the Project will
not
only survive - it will thrive.
Absolutely. The project not only *will* thrive it *is* thriving. We're getting scandals every other week at the moment, and it doesn't seem to be hurting the project at all and I see no sign that it ever will.
Let it breed 'til it really kicks us in the nads, right? Or... hey, let's do something to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place. I see only these two choices.
On 05/03/2008, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
Let it breed 'til it really kicks us in the nads, right? Or... hey, let's do something to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place. I see only these two choices.
The financial allegations are from a couple of years ago. What are the chances the present team is taking your second option?
- d.
Fantastic, if they are. I make no allegiations as to which path they're taking :o)
On 06/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
Let it breed 'til it really kicks us in the nads, right? Or... hey,
let's do
something to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place. I
see
only these two choices.
The financial allegations are from a couple of years ago. What are the chances the present team is taking your second option?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not to mention - how much effort should we expend on preventing the reoccurrence of something we aren't sure happened in the first place? So far, most of it by far is unconfirmed. They are allegations by Danny which follow on from similar allegations of gross misconduct during the Board election. His obvious personal animus takes away a huge portion of any credibility he might have otherwise had (at least to me, apparently not the AP).
Absent confirmation from the Board/Jimmy (which Florence's quoted e-mail don't necessarily constitute) then I'm not sure what you or anyone else who thinks this is a huge problem is asking for. Should new rules and announcements, Board resignations and extensive mea culpas follow from a vicious attack in a blog written by the classic "disgruntled former employee" who also failed to be elected to the Board?
Asking these questions, and questioning the credibility of the accuser, isn't the same as whitewashing what happened. I'm not a follower of "St. Wales," if anyone actually is, but I do (1) appreciate the existence of Wikipedia and (2) feel that accusations of such weight should be substantiated by at least a tiny little bit of evidence. I mean, seriously - if that aide to Bush who was dismissed for fabricating dozens of newspaper columns then came back and said, with no evidence, "Bush charged the Fed for expensive wine and prostitutes while in Moscow!" would anyone, even his most ardent opponents, believe him? No. The same should be true here.
Nathan
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:27 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
Let it breed 'til it really kicks us in the nads, right? Or... hey,
let's do
something to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place. I
see
only these two choices.
The financial allegations are from a couple of years ago. What are the chances the present team is taking your second option?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
vicious attack in a blog written by the classic "disgruntled former employee" who also failed to be elected to the Board?
To be fair: places 3-6 in the election were a photo-finish. Danny didn't so much lose as not quite win.
substantiated by at least a tiny little bit of evidence. I mean, seriously - if that aide to Bush who was dismissed for fabricating dozens of newspaper columns then came back and said, with no evidence, "Bush charged the Fed for expensive wine and prostitutes while in Moscow!" would anyone, even his most ardent opponents, believe him? No. The same should be true here.
I think that's not really an apposite comparison. Danny quit because he was angry and upset at how WMF was being run, not fired for malfeasance.
- d.
The point isn't necessarily the exact details of the situation, but the probable (and evident) effect on Danny's approach to Wikimedia. I know he wasn't fired for malfeasance, and the margin by which he lost the election is irrelevant. The fact is he is no longer an employee, and clearly still upset by whatever caused him to leave (witness his e-mails to Erik, in addition to his blog posts). With evidence of such a personal investment in attacking Wikimedia and its officers/Board members, it is difficult to lend credence to unsubstantiated accusations coming from him.
If there are true issues of misconduct, then I'd say Danny is arguably complicit. Being aware of issues of gross misconduct for a long period of time, even while he was an employee, and saying nothing is not anything other than negligence. Lets keep in mind - he accuses Jimmy of attempting to bill the Foundation for a visit to a "wink wink massage parlor." He has "declined to elaborate at this time on my reasoning for waiting so long" (not a direct quote, more a paraphrase) and I think we should be asking him why this is so rather than assuming that his accusations are fact, or that those who suggest otherwise are trying to cover something up in a vast St.Wales conspiracy.
Nathan
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
vicious attack in a blog written by the classic "disgruntled former employee" who also failed to be elected to the Board?
To be fair: places 3-6 in the election were a photo-finish. Danny didn't so much lose as not quite win.
substantiated by at least a tiny little bit of evidence. I mean,
seriously -
if that aide to Bush who was dismissed for fabricating dozens of
newspaper
columns then came back and said, with no evidence, "Bush charged the
Fed for
expensive wine and prostitutes while in Moscow!" would anyone, even his
most
ardent opponents, believe him? No. The same should be true here.
I think that's not really an apposite comparison. Danny quit because he was angry and upset at how WMF was being run, not fired for malfeasance.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely. The project not only *will* thrive it *is* thriving. We're getting scandals every other week at the moment, and it doesn't seem to be hurting the project at all and I see no sign that it ever will.
Let it breed 'til it really kicks us in the nads, right? Or... hey, let's do something to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place. I see only these two choices.
As the rest of the email you half-quoted said, plenty of things have been done and are being done to reduce the chances of problems like this happening in the future. There is a big difference between accepting that perfection is unattainable and not even trying to better ourselves.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Wow! The ranks are closing, the defenses are strong, and the drawbridge is going up. :-)
Or you are attacking defenses that exist only in your imagination...
On 05/03/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/4/08 7:11 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
Eager to change to subject, David? Now, why would that be?
'Cos it's a completely stupid thread, IMO, with exceedingly little relevance to writing an encyclopedia. I don't expect that will actually lessen contributions to it in any way, but I thought it was better to say so than not nevertheless.
Also, I said it as a civility initiative: part of the ongoing effort to make wikien-l less like a sewer, and more like something someone working on the project would actually want to read.
* Runaway pissed-off threads appear to have lessened in number of late. * Pointing out and enforcing that this is not unblock-l has helped *greatly*. * Trying to add relevant and IMO interesting thread starters whenever I spot one (others are most welcomed).
This list should be able to be a useful thing for en:wp. As far as I know Wikback is working quite well in this regard - but I just can't stand working with forums, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. There's a lot of en:wp old hands here who have experience to lend to the project, having too low a signal:noise ratio has already driven off too many. I'd like to reverse that.
- d.
on 3/5/08 3:12 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/4/08 7:11 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
Eager to change to subject, David? Now, why would that be?
'Cos it's a completely stupid thread, IMO, with exceedingly little relevance to writing an encyclopedia. I don't expect that will actually lessen contributions to it in any way, but I thought it was better to say so than not nevertheless.
Also, I said it as a civility initiative: part of the ongoing effort to make wikien-l less like a sewer, and more like something someone working on the project would actually want to read.
- Runaway pissed-off threads appear to have lessened in number of late.
- Pointing out and enforcing that this is not unblock-l has helped *greatly*.
- Trying to add relevant and IMO interesting thread starters whenever
I spot one (others are most welcomed).
This list should be able to be a useful thing for en:wp. As far as I know Wikback is working quite well in this regard - but I just can't stand working with forums, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. There's a lot of en:wp old hands here who have experience to lend to the project, having too low a signal:noise ratio has already driven off too many. I'd like to reverse that.
David,
Civility is not censorship; it is not what you talk about, but how you say it. As I understand this List, it is for discussing all issues related to the English Wikipedia Project, and the Community that is affected by them; and trust in its leadership should certainly be one of those issues. The Community should be able to openly discuss all of the laundry that belongs to it - both clean and dirty. This way, we may not always like what we hear, but we can always trust that we are hearing it all.
Marc
David Gerard wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/4/08 7:11 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Hey everyone! There's lots more stuff to write about! See the list at the bottom of [[WP:WIP]] for ideas!)
Eager to change to subject, David? Now, why would that be?
'Cos it's a completely stupid thread, IMO, with exceedingly little relevance to writing an encyclopedia. I don't expect that will actually lessen contributions to it in any way, but I thought it was better to say so than not nevertheless.
Alas! Suggesting that a thread be killed (like feeding trolls) only encourages them into outrageously repetitive rhetoric.
- Trying to add relevant and IMO interesting thread starters whenever
I spot one (others are most welcomed).
I've noticed that from you. And I take this opportunity to express my appreciation. A few (very few) additional words about the topic might help to decide which ones I look at. I am penitent in admitting that I do not look at all of them, but many that I do view are interesting.
Ec
On 05/03/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Just as a heads up, I believe the information in this thread has been republished on the wire via the Associated Press at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_founder;_ylt=Amsx0...
This article refers to an exchange between Jimbo and Florence on this. Where is it? I notice this thread is an "Re:", where is the original?
On 3/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Any idea where Danny got that idea from? Is it purely imagination, or was there some wine incident?
As geni pointed out, he did not actually make that claim. His blog entry is carefully constructed to do the maximum damage to the reputation of the Foundation and to Jimmy Wales personally, without making many (any?) actionable, specific claims. (Not that legal action against trash blogs would actually be a good idea -- it only gives them the attention that they seek.)
Generally speaking, at the time when Jimmy was essentially still running the Foundation, the organization was tiny (first employee in 2005) and didn't have the kinds of reimbursement procedures and controls you'd expect, so what'd happen is that Jimmy would scribble "Wikia" on a receipt, or maybe lose it entirely. Then there would be some back and forth about what it meant, etc. When anything was in doubt, Jimmy would write the Foundation a check later to make sure everything was fully covered. In fact, he hasn't claimed many expenses which would be perfectly reasonable.
Organizations aren't born with benefits packages, financial controls, and reimbursement policies; they develop them over time. Wikimedia is now under professional management, and these matters are handled as you would expect, with expense sheets, travel policies, a requirement for receipts or other documentation, and so forth. But back in the day, they weren't. It doesn't take a lot of creative energy to use the inherent messiness of a young start-up organization as the basis for making outrageous claims, and it takes, frankly, a lot of time and energy to undo the damage caused.
Yea imagine that... The internet is an excellent invention to run smear campaigns this is EXACTLY why [[WP:BLP]] was drafted.
I do not know nor care if Jimbo edited his bio, there is nothing banning him from doing so regardless. What made people think Jimbo is not allowed to edit the article on him? It is not like Jimbo was involved in a political scandal he is trying to cover up.
If Jimbo is really wasting foundation money, he is doing a very poor job. When I saw him he was wearing a wikia t-shirt and not something remotely expensive. He was also not juggling $300 worth wine bottles.
Fund management is the duty of foundation people and I do believe they spend plenty of stressful time to balance the budget that historically had never hit the foundation target. I'd imagine they would be the first people to lynch Jimbo if he wastes a penny.
- White Cat
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3/4/08, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Except when he does completely stupid and unecessary things like editing
the
bio of his conservative nutjob of a mistress and buying $300 bottles of
wine
with donations funds.
He did not edit the bio. He did not buy $300 bottles of wine with donation funds.
Please don't take everything you read on the Internet at face value.
Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Yea imagine that... The internet is an excellent invention to run smear campaigns this is EXACTLY why [[WP:BLP]] was drafted.
I do not know nor care if Jimbo edited his bio, there is nothing banning him from doing so regardless. What made people think Jimbo is not allowed to edit the article on him? It is not like Jimbo was involved in a political scandal he is trying to cover up.
If Jimbo is really wasting foundation money, he is doing a very poor job. When I saw him he was wearing a wikia t-shirt and not something remotely expensive. He was also not juggling $300 worth wine bottles.
Fund management is the duty of foundation people and I do believe they spend plenty of stressful time to balance the budget that historically had never hit the foundation target. I'd imagine they would be the first people to lynch Jimbo if he wastes a penny.
While I agree with most of your post, I think you're wrong to say that it doesn't matter that a representative of Wikipedia (regardless of whether Jimbo, a board member, an admin, staff, chapter members, &c) edits their own bio.
As the Associated Press article that Screamer posted makes clear, Wikipedia has a strong attitude against conflict-of-interest editing. See [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]. We strongly discourage non-Wikimedian individuals and organisations editing articles about themselves. If anything, we should oppose conflict-of-interest editing by Wikimedians even more. We need to behave as we preach and set an example, not behave hypocritically. Jimbo, being a very public face for Wikipedia, is no exception.
On 04/03/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not so sure. I've always opposed Jimbo Wales' undue influence in Wikimedia content, and this isn't really a problem now. There was a time where he could have been titled "GodKing", but with arbcom and through his own disengagement, this is no longer an issue.
Jimbo Wales does a lot in terms of publicity and public relations. The talks around the world that he has given have raised the profile of the project. Is this still so?
Wikipedia has about as much profile as it is going to get. I would suggest that we should be more concerned with optimising our use of that profile.
Steven Walling wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside, I will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As an employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on the "despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product of the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't we just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
I can't see that it will make much difference at all to the site. There is a giggle factor to his being taken in by this Circe, but that alone is not adequate reason for fomenting a coup.
Ec
I asked Ward about this and he said someone must be putting words in his mouth.
Cheers, Brian
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside, I will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As an employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on the "despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product of the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't we just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card. Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out. But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find out that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen
them
say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else
out
there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on the issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Sue Gardner did answer on Danny Wool's blog, fwiw.
Mostly the media interest is as cheap tabloid filler. All the London commuter papers, with the focus of the "story" being dumping people using technology. In between fabulously newsworthy reports on Kelly Osbourne's haircut.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I asked Ward about this and he said someone must be putting words in his mouth.
Cheers, Brian
Apologies, below is the correct threading.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
Well, one of them is Ward Cunningham, and there are several that have met him several times at wiki conferences. But you don't have to meet the founder of a non-profit personally to know he's doing more harm than good. I don't have to meet Phil Knight to understand the affect he has on Nike.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all
aside,
I
will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense.
As
an
employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff
agree
unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on
the
"despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a
product
of
the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but
still...wouldn't
we
just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a
resounding
Yes.
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside,
I
will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As
an
employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on
the
"despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product
of
the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't
we
just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card. Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out. But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find
out
that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen
them
say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else
out
there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on
the
issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Sue Gardner did answer on Danny Wool's blog, fwiw.
Mostly the media interest is as cheap tabloid filler. All the London commuter papers, with the focus of the "story" being dumping people using technology. In between fabulously newsworthy reports on Kelly Osbourne's haircut.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card. Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out. But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find out that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen them say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else out there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on the issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Sue Gardner did answer on Danny Wool's blog, fwiw.
It's worth nothing. Sue Gardner wasn't there when these things happened.
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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
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.
Tony Sidaway 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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
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.
About the possible "serious financial mismanagement", I would like to remind that the years concerned were fully audited by an independant company. I would expect that an audit would reveal anything of the sort... it is not exactly as if our organizational structure was terribly complicated to study and analyse :-)
Meanwhile this is a dreadfully minor matter
and is being treated as a "those crazy internet geeks" story by the press.
yeah
Tony Sidaway 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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, kindof. Here is what happens in my work. Employee files expense report. Accounting says no. Seems simple. The first time.
The second time, employee files expense report, accounting says no. At this point, accounting has forwarded the information to HR and the employees supervisor. The supervisor has options available at the point.
Of course, each corporation is different. ./scream
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J Wales, either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
Giacomo
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway 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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, kindof. Here is what happens in my work. Employee files expense report. Accounting says no. Seems simple. The first time.
The second time, employee files expense report, accounting says no. At this point, accounting has forwarded the information to HR and the employees supervisor. The supervisor has options available at the point.
Of course, each corporation is different. ./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J Wales, either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
Third "shut up" today on these lists. Is it really necessary?
Frankly, "the evidence" holds no water, by implication it is slanderous, in real fact it amounts to nothing. Jimbo - filed an expense, it was rejected, he paid - where is the story? It happens to executives every day of the week everywhere, nothing criminal,nothing remarkable.
Giacomo
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J
Wales,
either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
Third "shut up" today on these lists. Is it really necessary?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Giacomo M-Z wrote:
Frankly, "the evidence" holds no water, by implication it is slanderous, in real fact it amounts to nothing. Jimbo - filed an expense, it was rejected, he paid - where is the story? It happens to executives every day of the week everywhere, nothing criminal,nothing remarkable.
Giacomo
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J
Wales,
either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
Third "shut up" today on these lists. Is it really necessary?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, exactly. I find this instance of expenses here, very extremely forgivable. And I do not see where any offense was done. Everyone from Jimmy to the Foundation was doing their job. Requesting reimbursement is not a crime, and not something unsavory.
./scream
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z wrote:
Frankly, "the evidence" holds no water, by implication it is slanderous, in real fact it amounts to nothing. Jimbo - filed an expense, it was rejected, he paid - where is the story? It happens to executives every day of the week everywhere, nothing criminal,nothing remarkable.
I completely agree with you. I don't think this is an issue, which is why I've stayed out of that discussion. I was just making issue with the amount of "shut up[s]" these lists have seen today. Your use was the least objectionable, the only reason I responded to yours is because it is the third and most recent.
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On 06/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J Wales, either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
Giacomo
Why? You can't prove "keen to ruin J Wales" so making that accusation is rather ironic in the light of the rest of your post. " tender an apology" for what?
"with their resignations" Who are you suggesting resign and from what?
On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Giacomo M-Z wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J Wales, either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
While I do not know Danny well, I've worked with him on the wiki for years and had several conversations with him. Nothing in any of those conversations has led me to believe that he would be keen to "ruin" anybody.
I have no particular opinion on whether he is right or wrong in his accusations. I suspect, in practice, the answer is somewhere in between - Jimbo probably made some decisions that were not necessarily the best, but I would be shocked at any malfeasance on his part. But the idea that Danny is some black-hatted villain bent on destroying the project and Jimbo is equally ridiculous.
-Phil
On 06/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I have no particular opinion on whether he is right or wrong in his accusations. I suspect, in practice, the answer is somewhere in between - Jimbo probably made some decisions that were not necessarily the best, but I would be shocked at any malfeasance on his part. But the idea that Danny is some black-hatted villain bent on destroying the project and Jimbo is equally ridiculous.
Agreed. I was taken aback by Danny's decision to make a meal out of this, mainly I suppose because he did such a good job of suppressing his resentment in the past. My regard for Danny will recover. I suspect I may be less likely than most to regard another person's private life as any of my business.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I was taken aback by Danny's decision to make a meal out of this, mainly I suppose because he did such a good job of suppressing his resentment in the past. My regard for Danny will recover. I suspect I may be less likely than most to regard another person's private life as any of my business.
For me, this is a good example of what kind of media-frenzy can get generated out of not much than a frivolous issue such as a personal relationship with a "difficult" woman, and the following mud-throwing by a disgruntled ex-employee.
It is sad that this is the state of affairs with today's media. Wikipedia and Wales attracts attention, only because of one thing: Wikipedia is one of the most successful collaborative projects *ever*, nothing else.
-- Jossi
"the idea that Danny is some black-hatted villain bent on destroying the project and Jimbo is equally ridiculous." They are your words not mine.
Giano
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Giacomo M-Z wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J Wales, either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
While I do not know Danny well, I've worked with him on the wiki for years and had several conversations with him. Nothing in any of those conversations has led me to believe that he would be keen to "ruin" anybody.
I have no particular opinion on whether he is right or wrong in his accusations. I suspect, in practice, the answer is somewhere in between - Jimbo probably made some decisions that were not necessarily the best, but I would be shocked at any malfeasance on his part. But the idea that Danny is some black-hatted villain bent on destroying the project and Jimbo is equally ridiculous.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
The simple fact of the matter here is that those so keen to ruin J Wales, either have to present some better evidence than this, or shut up, and tender an apology with their resignations - and pray he accepts it.
I am curious to know what, exactly, people are expected to resign from.
On 06/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I am curious to know what, exactly, people are expected to resign from.
Flatulence
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:24 AM, 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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
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".
Intentionally submitting a receipt to a non-profit charity which one knows is unacceptable is unethical at best. However, "intentionally" and "knows" are two key parts to that sentence which have not been proven - in fact, the entire incident has merely been alleged.
Your comment also neglects a key bit of context - that we are talking about a non-profit charity. A for-profit employer is legally permitted to reimburse just about anyone for just about anything. A non-profit charity is not.
On 07/03/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Intentionally submitting a receipt to a non-profit charity which one knows is unacceptable is unethical at best.
How do you know it's unacceptable until the finance director turns it down? I don't find the idea of expensive wine and massages improbable for a high profile personality; not that I don't also admire the frugality that leaves the weary traveller paying the bill himself occasionally (just as long as it never happens to me).
However, "intentionally" and "knows" are two key parts to that sentence which have not been proven - in fact, the entire incident has merely been alleged.
I get an amusing picture of Jimmy Wales sheepishly handing in a receipt, trying to forget the *last* time he got a waggy finger for daring to claim expenses. Sorry but I'm drawing a complete blank on seeing this whole discussion as anything other than ridiculous. Unethical is where you do something *wrong*, not just something that might make some busybodies mutter a lot.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Intentionally submitting a receipt to a non-profit charity which one knows is unacceptable is unethical at best.
How do you know it's unacceptable until the finance director turns it down?
Hypothetically? If you know it violates the reimbursement policy, a board resolution, the bylaws, or the law, you certainly know it's unacceptable, at least without asking the board (not the finance director) to change the rules in the first three instances.
I'm snipping out the rest of your email, because I'm not talking about a particular incident (I don't have enough information to even speculate on intent or knowledge). Rather, I found your implication that it's OK to submit anything to a finance director to be overly broad and therefore terrible advice.
On 08/03/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
How do you know it's unacceptable until the finance director turns it down?
Hypothetically? If you know it violates the reimbursement policy, a board resolution, the bylaws, or the law, you certainly know it's unacceptable, at least without asking the board (not the finance director) to change the rules in the first three instances.
Urm, we're talking about food and drink, meals and massages. What do board resolutions, byelaws and the law have to do with it (unless you're in a country with a prohibitionon drinking wine, that is)
On 3/9/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com
wrote:
How do you know it's unacceptable until the finance director turns it down?
Hypothetically? If you know it violates the reimbursement policy, a board resolution, the bylaws, or the law, you certainly know it's unacceptable, at least without asking the board (not the finance director) to change the rules in the first three instances.
Urm, we're talking about food and drink, meals and massages. What do board resolutions, byelaws and the law have to do with it (unless you're in a country with a prohibitionon drinking wine, that is)
Not to defend the current hysteria at all, not at all,,,
But there was a time (a hugely idiotic time, to be sure) when Angela was just gathering the pieces of having been sacked and having attended a close family members burial, after which she was voted in to the board, and pretty much flat out said she didn't have the wherewithal to attend, if people couldn't see their way through to subsidise her to get to the board meeting. The whole thing didn't come to a head, because I personally (successfully, yay!) inspired a drive to donate money *earmarked* for the sole purpose of getting Angela to Paris. But come on!
We have come so far beyond that now. We didn't need the foundation then, much at all, we felt, at that time (though I did know they could either bury us or lift us huge monuments to remember us by), but now we know how much the foundation can do for us, let us let them deliver!
And if they can't stand and deliver, we will just go ahead and find a new cove to band together at...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
But there was a time (a hugely idiotic time, to be sure) when Angela was just gathering the pieces of having been sacked and having attended a close family members burial, after which she was voted in to the board, and pretty much flat out said she didn't have the wherewithal to attend, if people couldn't see their way through to subsidise her to get to the board meeting. The whole thing didn't come to a head, because I personally (successfully, yay!) inspired a drive to donate money *earmarked* for the sole purpose of getting Angela to Paris. But come on!
This isn't true. I've never been sacked, and I had to pay my own ticket to Paris for that first Board meeting.
Angela
Okay everybody, you've all seen where idle gossip gets you. Now stop it!
On 3/9/08, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
But there was a time (a hugely idiotic time, to be sure) when Angela was just gathering the pieces of having been sacked and having attended a close family members burial, after which she was voted in to the board, and pretty much flat out said she didn't have the wherewithal to attend, if people couldn't see their way through to subsidise her to get to the board meeting. The whole thing didn't come to a head, because I personally (successfully, yay!) inspired a drive to donate money *earmarked* for the sole purpose of getting Angela to Paris. But come on!
This isn't true. I've never been sacked, and I had to pay my own ticket to Paris for that first Board meeting.
Angela
Thank you for reverting me. It pays to be precise, and I wasn't.
Nor accurate.
Should have said "lost her job" and "reimbursing Angelas costs for flying to Paris".
BTW, there is a book about US presidents biography, "in words of one syllable", I am proofreading for Project Gutenberg, at Distributed Proofreaders, which would make a splendid source for Simple English Wikipedia...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
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
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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out.
Does someone want to have a go at explaining how any of the above could possibly be described as "bad"? Is this one of those "Puritan" things again?
Tony Sidaway 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. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card.
Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out.
Does someone want to have a go at explaining how any of the above could possibly be described as "bad"? Is this one of those "Puritan" things again?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Puritan?
./scream
On 3/4/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the clothing is not hers to sell, disposing of it this way could be considered theft by conversion. If the price were consistent with the usual price of such items it would be a petty theft, but a price of $15,000 or more could upgrade the offence. The auction should be allowed to run its full course. At that point a suggestion that she donate the proceeds to WMF (for which she would get a proper tax receipt to offset the capital gain) might be an offer she can't refuse.
For another approach: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate "Help us buy back Jimbo's t-shirts!"
—C.W.
On 07/03/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
For another approach: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate "Help us buy back Jimbo's t-shirts!"
—C.W.
Lol done not sure how far $2 goes in walmart! ;-)