| |
|
  |
 What's in Jimbo's wallet? |
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE You see, Wales' personally appointed "Arbitration Committee" on Wikipedia was as recently as January 2010 extensively discussing on a very leaky mailing list how they'd used IP address data to snoop into my city of residence, verify my place of employment, learn what operating system I use, which web browser, which toolbar was installed, and even track how I traveled back to my home town for Thanksgiving. Only one reader of that mailing list, which counts Jimmy Wales among the many recipients, stopped for even a moment to ask, "Safe to post [CheckUser] result info here?" The sheepish reply from Committee member and server at Connor's Steak and Seafood, Keegan Peterzell, was a damning "They have been before. Yes, this list leaks." Keegan is on the Audit Subcommittee, not the actual ArbCom. While I suppose this means he's technically part of ArbCom as AUSC is a "sub"committee, I think your article is a little misleading. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
I don't think this type of delving into someone's personal life is appropriate. To say that the rationale for doing so here is "thin" would be an overstatement. I certainly wouldn't want someone to publish this type of personal information about me; I imagine most of the posters on this site feel the same way.
A healthy portion of (properly) taking the moral high ground requires practicing what you preach. Wikipedia Review has been a champion in supporting the rights of living people, particularly privacy. If there's one lesson that can be gleaned from Wikipedia, it's that simply because information is technically publicly available, that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to broadcast it to the world.
As sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, there will be people on this site who will attempt to rationalize the author's behavior here. "He's not a private figure!", "This is what he gets!", etc. Again, there's more to taking the moral high ground than simply saying so. Actions speak louder than words.
Ironically, I think this research, as invasive as it is, puts Mr. Wales in a favorable light. I certainly would've guessed that his net worth was higher. The idea that he built up the Wikimedia Foundation (and Wikipedia) to get rich has certainly been eviscerated in my mind, assuming the information in these articles is accurate. I suppose that's a silver lining to this privacy plundering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Adversary |
|
CT (Check Troll)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
|
Disagree with Alison et al. This should definitely be published. Firstly: I don´t know how many times I have read in socalled "Reliable sources" that Jimbo earned so much in his Chicago days, that "he never had to work for money again". Well: Bullshit! ....by my local standard, he has a lower-than-average net value for a 40+ year old ...(But I sort of had known this, ever since Kelly found what dirt-cheap house he lived in with his then wife) Anyway, this of course completely kills the idea that he would like the world to believe: that he started Wikipedia just as a rich mans philanthropic venture for that "poor child in Africa." Again: Bullshit! As for his ex-wifes privacy: if she gets the money, she should be able to take the publicity. I have absolutely no sympathy in this case for her: if she "profits" from Jimbo, she better be able to defend it. And finally, I sure understand that that one time I went to hear Jimbo speak about Wikipedia...he spend half the time (or more) speaking about ......Wikia (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
Quoting with no comment ... QUOTE HL: Maybe children of famous people? JW: So children of famous people and its revealed their parents have been up to something the public doesn't approve of, I don't think there's anything to do about that certainly if your father's a footballer and has been having an affair on the side and it's suddenly slapped across all the newspapers, your schoolmates are going to find out about it and I don't think it's viable to say well we should have a law which prohibits the publication of personal details of famous people I just don't think it's viable so I don't think there is much to be done in that case. It's very different if we're talking about a situation where you know someone's bank details have been stolen and released on the internet, those kind of things where it is a truly there's an actual crime involved, stealing information and causing harm with it. HL: Relatives of... murder victims, how do you protect them? JW: Relatives of.... HL: Murder victims... JW: Murder victims, I'm not sure...protect them from what exactly? HL: Well there's been a very big case here in Britain over the past week. The family of a young girl who was murdered Milly Dowler and the personal details of the family details, the father and so on who are completely innocent have appeared both in newspapers and on the internet causing enormous distress and a great deal of anger. How do you protect people like that who have no real experience of being in the public eye and no real need to be taken apart in the public eye. JW: Well I don't think you can, I think that those are actually matters of legitimate public interest and so, you know as discomforting as that is to certain people you know the public has a right to know and I think that's very fundamental. I mean the one thing I would say is that I do think that as a matter of tradition and custom newspapers should give some thought to this kind of question to say rather than, than saying the persons name we should omit their name but even that you know it becomes, it becomes quite difficult because if we go down a path where we say actually you're not allowed to speak about certain things and certain crime cases we really cut off the avenue for the press and the public to investigate what's going on, to understand the legal system, to understand social problems because we end up with this censored view of the world that doesn't give us the full picture we need in order to make better decisions about policy, about how the law should be and things like that. HL: So if someone's life is wrecked that's just tough luck? JW: It might just be tough luck.....this is, it's a difficult thing but I also think that it's not actually wrecking people's lives. I mean I think the important thing is that the best answer to bad speech is more speech, that if in fact someone is an innocent victim in a situation we should have stories about that, say look this person here's how their life was impacted by this murder, they didn't do anything wrong but now these...this and that horrible thing has happened to them so that people can understand things. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/pmprivacy-wales.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 28th July 2011, 7:29am)  QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 11:18am) Google says there are 90 pages on the Internet that contain the phrase "Jimmy Wales net worth". It's not like this is something I pulled out of my butt.
Given the various things said about you on the ArbCom leaks, I'm not surprised that you would think that Jimbo's finances are fair game, but the fact that other people may be interested in it is not a very good reason for posting it. Isn't that the argument people on WP make for adding all kinds of gossipy info to BLPs? Of course it is. But not Wales' qualification: "legitimate public interest". Presumably that means he thinks he personally has an extra "out" against tabloid interest in the details of his own sex life, family life, finances, and fuckups. He's said things along those lines before. But not so, when it comes to other people. Plus, of course, he knows in the back of his mind all the time that he can merely go and have somebody fix the worst of what appears on WP about him. He's done that, and is still doing it (look for details of his last child in his BLP-- she isn't there. All you'll find is that he's been reported to be "engaged" to Kate Garvey. Engaged in what, we are not told.... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) More than anybody I can think of, Jimbo badly needs a tell-all book-length biography. One of these days, somebody he or his website has carelessly stepped on, is going to collaborate to write it. If the SlimVirgin case has tought us anything, is that character is fate, karma does exist, revenge is a major motivator of the human soul, and in general what goes around, comes around. As I've said before, none of this will teach Jimbo anything-- he's quite beyond the ability to step outside himself and have a look at himself (hey, but aren't we all, most of the time. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) ). However, as in the case of somebody we see finally get their comuppance, it will most satisfying for everybody else. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 28th July 2011, 2:17am) [ de-lurk, from my cell. I'm in Ireland (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ] I have to third MZ's position here. It's not so much about Jimmy "everyone should have a BLP" Wales, but his hapless ex-wife and child and their privacy. Bear in mind that they are in the process of distancing themselves from him, yet here's his ex-wife's financial affairs being lol'd over because they're going up the Goog ranks fast. Not fair (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Alison, there is no "good" way to fight people who hide behind innocents, whilst shooting at YOU. One way or the other, you're gunna lose. The conventional way to view this, is that any loss of privacy that Jimbo's family suffers is due to Jimbo's construction of a privacy-disruption amplification machine (which he defends in the name of "understanding things," see above). It's ultimately his doing, and if you don't like it, drop him some email. He still doesn't "get it," you know. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 7:18am) 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. QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 7:18am) 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? QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 11:39am) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 28th July 2011, 4:23pm)
A private mailing list is equivalent to Examiner.com?
The list wasn't very private -- it was known to leak, as was expressed by one of the members of the list. Thus far, these three Examiner articles have been viewed by only 159 absolute unique visitors. I'm not sure the differences you're assigning are really all that great. Look, you're entitled to your opinion. I have retracted material from Examiner.com when the subject of the material expressed to me that they were feeling harmed by it. Jimmy Wales cut off communication with me long ago (while still expressing how proud he was of the way he listens to and engages critics). So, it's not like I could vet this with him directly beforehand. I did share the knowledge of the papers with the CEO of his company, and even he couldn't find the time to even think about it. There was a good chance this material was going to come out sooner or later, somewhere. I wanted the scoop. You've even said that the information tends to put Wales in a good light, but that I shouldn't have done that. I think much of this hand-wringing is overwrought. I've been told time and again that Examiner.com is nothing more than a blog. It is on Wikipedia's external link blacklist. So, which standards am I supposed to be held to -- mainstream media or spam blog? I choose my own standards, and I elected after much thought to publish this content because it is of interest to many people. You may call it gossip, but that doesn't turn it into gossip in my mind. I consider Jimmy Wales this century's second-greatest con artist (after Bernie Madoff), which is newsworthy. I hope that as we put all of the pieces together, it will become clear to most, eventually. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 4:50pm) I choose my own standards, and I elected after much thought to publish this content because it is of interest to many people. You may call it gossip, but that doesn't turn it into gossip in my mind. I think this is fair. I really do appreciate that you made a thoughtful and considered decision here. The sad reality is that a lot of reporters and journalists these days wouldn't even do that. Getting people to at least take the time to think over their actions is half the battle. While I (obviously) wouldn't have made the same decision as you to publish, I respect the time you put into considering the consequences of such a story and the restraint you showed in writing it. I've more than spoken my piece on this, so I'll move along to other threads and other topics. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (The Adversary's post is an interesting one, but probably one that could/should be split off to another thread.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 28th July 2011, 1:46pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 4:34pm) QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 28th July 2011, 4:23pm) ...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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kevin |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
From: Adelaide, Australia
Member No.: 10,522
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 1:39am)
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.
It seems like you've taken too much offense here. I just feel that one common theme of this site is to criticize WPs propensity to accumulate every bit of published info on living people, and this makes it that much harder to do that. That said, having a diversity of views is a major attraction for this place over WP, so I wouldnt want to silence any particular view. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 2:41pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 28th July 2011, 5:22pm)
Children does mean "two or more" and Wales has two. One of which was born this Spring...
Milton, I don't want to be morbid, but we have no way of knowing whether that child was "born" or not, nor if born, whether the child is still alive. Indeed, we don't even know if Jimmy was lying to the reporter about this out-of-wedlock pregnancy. There is precedent for Wikipedians deliberately lying to even Pulitzer-winning reporters, and Jimbo not really having a problem with that. Okay, it's possible. Or maybe Kate is our Catherine of Aragon. (Can I still use metaphors like that, or do I have to say Terri Schuester). The truth will eventually out. If there was no child or the child did not survive, methinks we'd have heard some change in Jimbo's time to spend exactly 50% of this time in the UK. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sololol |
|
Bell the Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th July 2011, 11:49am) 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. Anyone else surprised by number 6 on google? People care about this? Why? He's always looked like a crypto-Welshman to me. Not that I know why people care what Jimbo is worth. The article seems morally equivalent to any other personality journalism based on public records. Questions of taste are a different matter. "He takes no salary from his business venture Wikia, Inc., the for-profit spin-off from Wikipedia" Worst. Objectivist. Ever. |
|
|
|
|
|
| SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 12:15am) Meanwhile, Gawker has picked up on this with a brief mention. QUOTE Maybe it's time for the internet entrepreneur to buy a more serious, less sultry set of business cards and apply for a day job like nearly everyone else who edits Wikipedia. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 5:15am)
You spend nearly $21,000 a month, Emperor?
Have you any idea how much it costs to run his web site? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Anyway, aren't emperors allowed, even supposed, to be extravagant? Consider this emperor: http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/history/afr...-ar/bokassa.htm"Bokassa's extravagant lifestyle kept the coffers almost empty" And he never set up a Wiki! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Emperor |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,871
Joined:
Member No.: 2,042
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 12:15am) QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 28th July 2011, 10:51pm)
...reality is that he lives like a regular guy...
You spend nearly $21,000 a month, Emperor? Meanwhile, Gawker has picked up on this with a brief mention. Apart from business trips he seems to live in a regular house and drive modest cars. Maybe that's what he means about people living in the third world on much less than the typical American salary and being happy. I guess it's easy to think that way if you spend half your life on the road, on someone else's dime. I just went and checked out his Twitter. Odd stuff. In between trading in the Hyundai and what movie he's going to see he's commenting on some article about a reporter's boobs around the time his baby is supposed to be born, and then he jets off to Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
