Wikipedia fan fiction, Oh Jimbo, she gasped as I thrust my turgid prose... Options

[carbuncle]

I guess it was inevitable. Please enjoy this really, really lame piece of soft-core porn Wikipedia fan fiction:

"M-Mr. Wales? You wanted to see me?"

Her words jolted me from my trance and I immediately returned to presence.

"Oh, ah... I did want to see you," I nervously stumbled over my words. "I mean ah, well, yes. I wanted to see you - I mean speak to you." She smiled at my nervous attempt to speak, but I knew she was just as nervous as I was. "I mean... I mean call me Jimbo. Jimbo Wales. You don't need to call me Mr. Wales."

She smiled serenely again, a lock of her blue hair falling over her eye. She gently brushed it back into place.

Clearly the author hasn't seen those text messages allegedly sent by Jimbo to the completely sane and not crazy at all Rachel Marsden.

[The Wales Hunter]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

[Doc glasgow]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

[Doc glasgow]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

Rubbish.

How do the man's personal relationships impinge on his ability to do his job? Sure, if there's evidence that he was editing a lover's bio etc, that might be fare comment. But beyond that?

This is just part of the "we hate Wales and we'll rip into him with whatever" argument - that justifies commenting on his relationships, marriages and even child-rearing on some basis of "public interest".

Now, personally, I'm a moral conservative, who believes in chastity and fidelity, but I will not let that colour my interactions here. I'll comment on what people say, and their responsibility in doing the job they purport to do, I'll not bring my moral compass and impose it on the unconnected antics of others.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

Rubbish.

How do the man's personal relationships impinge on his ability to do his job? Sure, if there's evidence that he was editing a lover's bio etc, that might be fare comment. But beyond that?

This is just part of the "we hate Wales and we'll rip into him with whatever" argument - that justifies commenting on his relationships, marriages and even child-rearing on some basis of "public interest".

Now, personally, I'm a moral conservative, who believes in chastity and fidelity, but I will not let that colour my interactions here. I'll comment on what people say, and their responsibility in doing the job they purport to do, I'll not bring my moral compass and impose it on the unconnected antics of others.

Have you every noticed how seldom Larry Flynt speaks on behalf of groups defending free speech despite his sincere commitment to freedom of speech and considerable financial support? That guy has been in a wheel chair for 30 years. Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

[Doc glasgow]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

[GlassBeadGame]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

Well, as long as you asked, is Mr. Wales divorced or still married? In the USA their are only two marital statuses, married or single. "Getting a divorce" or "separated" (absent a rarely used judicial proceeding know as "separate maintenance" made available for people who don't can't divorce for religious reason...hate to belabor this but, you know...) are in fact married. Married people, particularly married people with minor children, ought not to date or have sexual relationships with people who they are not married too. This is know as "adultery" and is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions. It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities. Of course becoming involved in a public break-up with a girlfriend (while still married?) in which sexually related items are sold on eBay is a very bad version of this kind of thing. Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad. This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man.

[Doc glasgow]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

Well, as long as you asked, is Mr. Wales divorced or still married? In the USA their are only two marital statuses, married or single. "Getting a divorce" or "separated" (absent a rarely used judicial proceeding know as "separate maintenance" made available for people who don't can't divorce for religious reason...hate to belabor this but, you know...) are in fact married. Married people, particularly married people with minor children, ought not to date or have sexual relationships with people who they are not married too. This is know as "adultery" and is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions. It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities. Of course becoming involved in a public break-up with a girlfriend (while still married?) in which sexually related items are sold on eBay is a very bad version of this kind of thing. Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad. This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man.

I don't care whether he's divorced on married, and I don't care whom he sleeps with.

But, I'm flabbergasted by your post.

*Separated people "ought not to date"? Can you give me a citation to a legal code that says that? Or are you just assuming Leviticus something or other?

*Adultery "is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions"? Is it? Is it even in one? Does that include California?

*"It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities." Maybe, but this is a website that's about considering people's responsibilities to run a wiki. Last time a checked this wasn't "Parentworthy Review".

*"Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad." That's an old allegation that was made by a disgruntled ex-employee, denied and never authenticated. Dragging it up again without any evidence is scurrilous.

*This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." What kind of thing? And by whom?

*"Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man." Fails to answer the question of whether they should, and therefore on what grounds you are critiquing the WMF. That lots of low-grade tabloids muckrake, is a poor excuse for muckraking.

[taiwopanfob]

I don't care whether he's divorced on married, and I don't care whom he sleeps with.

I doubt GBG does either. His was a round-about way of answering your question what "impropriety" is. In this case, taking money from a man of questionable morality (as many would think Larry Flynt is) would probably put a charity into some amount of disrepute. Whether this is good, bad or irrelevant is beside the point: it's just what will happen.

The sensitive donor recognizes this and just does his job anonymously.

It's not too difficult to extend this kind of impropriety to the charity/non-profit itself. If the people hosting local television begathons were proven to be child molesters or something, it's not entirely unreasonable to think they won't be hired again for the job -- regardless of how well they did it in the past, or how unrelated it may be to child molesting.

In essence, the question is whether Wales, as a mouthpiece for the WMF, is a liability. The answer does not come from how the world ought to work, but how it actually does. How does he look from the outside, looking in?

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

[Doc glasgow]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

[Sarcasticidealist]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

Me too. Does anyone know if these are ever enforced and/or whether any of them have been challenged constitutionally? The Florida statute appears to provide for prosecution even if two single people live in such a state, though I'm too lazy to look up the referenced sections.

[GlassBeadGame]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

Me too. Does anyone know if these are ever enforced and/or whether any of them have been challenged constitutionally? The Florida statute appears to provide for prosecution even if two single people live in such a state, though I'm too lazy to look up the referenced sections.

They are of course seldom enforced. The state legislatures revisit these laws from time to time and overwhelming decline to repeal them. This is mostly as a matter of public policy. There is a strong interplay between these criminal statutes and civil family law. It is felt that if they withdrew the criminal sanctions that there would be rational no basis to uphold child custody and property divisions effected by the conduct and they would fail as invidious discrimination for what would then be lawful behavior. This makes a strong working coalition of social conservatives, progressives and feminists opposing repeal. Adultery is universally considered to be fault in determinations of child custody and property division. Even states with "no-fault" divorces allow consideration of adultery on those issues.

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is felt that if they withdrew the criminal sanctions that there would be rational no basis to uphold child custody and property divisions effected by the conduct and they would fail as invidious discrimination for what would then be lawful behavior.

Forgive the silly question from a Canadian law student making a conscious effort to remain as ignorant as possible about family law, but if the legislatures want adultery to be a factor in child custody and property division, why couldn't they just write that into the relevant statute? Surely there's plenty of lawful behaviour - say, habitual consumption of large quantities of alcohol in private - that factors into child custody fights?

[everyking]

It is felt that if they withdrew the criminal sanctions that there would be rational no basis to uphold child custody and property divisions effected by the conduct and they would fail as invidious discrimination for what would then be lawful behavior.

Forgive the silly question from a Canadian law student making a conscious effort to remain as ignorant as possible about family law, but if the legislatures want adultery to be a factor in child custody and property division, why couldn't they just write that into the relevant statute? Surely there's plenty of lawful behaviour - say, habitual consumption of large quantities of alcohol in private - that factors into child custody fights?

Don't even try. Logic and social conservatism are mutually unintelligible languages.