What's in Jimbo's wallet? Options

[thekohser]

Have you ever wondered how many people are curious about Jimmy Wales' net worth?

Thanks to an investigative report in the mainstream media, we will soon find out.

[thekohser]

I'd like to ask those of you offended by the prurient nature of my news story...

At what point in the article did you stop reading, so as not to participate in this crime against the Wales family's privacy?

It sounds like MZMcBride, at least, somehow got to the part about Jimbo's actual net worth, which was buried in the sixth paragraph, well below the fold.

[MZMcBride]

I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the Wales family, so I have to assume that they understand that it was better that I frame this information in my fair and accountable light than if Gawker or Encyclopedia Dramatica had done it.

Don't be ridiculous.

I knew there would be wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Nobody spoke up when ArbCom was sleuthing my Thanksgiving holiday travels, and I'm certainly a less public figure than Jimmy Wales is. I don't even have a Wikipedia biography.

A private mailing list is equivalent to Examiner.com? The bad acts of others justifies your own?

I'd like to ask those of you offended by the prurient nature of my news story...

At what point in the article did you stop reading, so as not to participate in this crime against the Wales family's privacy?

It sounds like MZMcBride, at least, somehow got to the part about Jimbo's actual net worth, which was buried in the sixth paragraph, well below the fold.

I read (or at least skimmed) all three articles and clicked the link to Wikipedia Review (to see the clipped image of the net worth). Humans are naturally curious. Generally this is a good thing, as it sparks creativity and innovation.

I wouldn't be surprised if these end up being the most-viewed articles of everything you've posted to Examiner.com. As you note, there are more than a few people who are curious about this information (cf. Google's search suggestions). But also, as you note, this is the type of reporting (I won't say "journalism") that can be found at places such as Gawker.com. Gawker exists because people are curious and gossipy and whatever else. That does not make most of what Gawker reports appropriate or noble (or in many cases, ethical).

To be clear, I would never say you don't have a right to publish something like this. You're more than protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and a free press. And as you mentioned to me privately, you also restrained yourself inasmuch as not mentioning some of the more private line items. (Thank you for that.)

My point had little to do with whether or not this information was interesting (to me personally or generally) or whether or not you have a right to publish this information. My point is that it's impossible for me and others to take criticisms about Wikipedia's practices seriously from the same people who engage in this type of behavior.

Is it legal for you to write this story? Yes. Is it right (or rather, is it appropriate to do so)? No, not in my opinion. Sites such as this one should stand as a beacon. They should be above reproach. Acting in a "well they do it too" manner while still trying to maintain a moral safe haven from which you can legitimately criticize this type of behavior, to me, is impossible. It's perfectly okay to say that Wikipedia shouldn't engage in this type of behavior and to condemn any and all who do so. It's perfectly okay to point out Wikipedia's failings in adequately handling this type of behavior and to criticize Wikipedia (and even individual editors) for engaging in this type of behavior. But when you engage in the same kind of behavior, for whatever reason, you lose any moral standing you had.

The collateral damage also must be taken into account, as Alison notes. Whatever views you hold toward Mr. Wales, his family is inextricably linked to stories such as the ones you posted. Even if you felt that this type of story was fair for him, I don't see any way in which it was fair to his ex-wife or children.

[thekohser]

...fair to his ex-wife or children.

What children? According to reliable sources, Jimmy Wales has only one child.

[MZMcBride]

...fair to his ex-wife or children.

What children? According to reliable sources, Jimmy Wales has only one child.

Sorry, that should probably read "child" or "daughter." I intended to be non-specific, but "children" suggests more than one (or none), not one or more. English, alas. It was something that Milton wrote that muddied my mind a bit.

[Milton Roe]

...fair to his ex-wife or children.

What children? According to reliable sources, Jimmy Wales has only one child.

Sorry, that should probably read "child" or "daughter." I intended to be non-specific, but "children" suggests more than one (or none), not one or more. English, alas. It was something that Milton wrote that muddied my mind a bit.

Kohs is kidding you. Children does mean "two or more" and Wales has two. One of which was born this Spring, but that he has yet to add to his BLP, inasmuch the only time he's ever mentioned the child is in an interview where he was pacing the floor waiting for his English partner, Kate Garvey, to deliver it. This is the woman he has been reported to be engaged to, in his BLP. Since Wales is now officially divorced in the US, one supposes the engagement has been broken off (DNA test came out badly?) or else the wedding has been put on hold, till she gets her figure back. Or until the mother of Wales' last child quits balking at the mother-of-all prenup agreements that Jimbo no-doubt would like her to sign, first. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Or something like that. One can only guess. As regards the last, it's possible Jimbo is one of the Last Great Romantics as regards his moolah, ala Paul McCartney or Bill Gates. Since he is a twice-divorced person, however, I doubt it. Experience, education, pain, and all that.