[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales in the news

[Alec Conroy]

On 3/6/08, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/03/2008, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at 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