Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Jimbo Phenomenon _ What's in Jimbo's wallet?

Posted by: thekohser

Have you ever wondered http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/jimmy-wales-on-google-autocomplete-photo about Jimmy Wales' net worth?

Thanks to an investigative report in the mainstream media, we will http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/jimmy-wales-net-worth.

Posted by: Somey

You're right, those numbers are less than we'd been led to believe. He'll have to economize, and clearly he should start by cutting non-essential ongoing expenditures, such as internet service. Maybe he could also sell some stuff that's just lying around his house not doing anybody any good, like all the computers he owns.

Posted by: thekohser

All three stories were pulled into the Google News stream, after about 14 minutes. Look out, traffic stats!

Posted by: melloden

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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(melloden @ Wed 27th July 2011, 3:19pm) *

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.


Thanks, but I'll wait for Keegan to call for a correction.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Heh. He claims to make $26,008 per month before taxes.

Most CEOs spend more than that on shoes every month.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 28th July 2011, 12:26am) *
Heh. He claims to make $26,008 per month before taxes.

Most CEOs spend more than that on shoes every month.
Hello, hyperbole.

Posted by: MZMcBride

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.

Posted by: Kevin

Agree with MZ on this.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Kevin @ Thu 28th July 2011, 2:29am) *

Agree with MZ on this.

Hear, hear.

Posted by: Alison

[ de-lurk, from my cell. I'm in Ireland 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 unhappy.gif

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Wales' net worth has been surveyed and poked around for years on his Wikipedia biography. All I have done is shed some conclusive light on the subject.

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. If you choose to disagree with an AP investigative reporter who says divorce records are not used as often as they should be in the field of investigative journalism, and if you wish to disagree with the Society of Professional Journalists' stance on publishing divorce records, that's fine with me.

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.

Posted by: The Adversary

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 dry.gif

Posted by: Emperor

Well done, Mr. Kohs!

I'd like to point out that a lot of these Google searches head straight to Encyc for some reason.

Also, I've thought about the ethical complications here and come to the conclusion that because the myth of Jimbo plays such a central role to Wikipedia, and he's promoted that myth for so long, he's fair game. The astounding hypocricy in letting your own BLP be so obviously incorrect, for basically Wikipedia's entire existence, with only feeble attempts to set the record straight.... blah. This is a major factual error in Wikipedia and should be corrected somewhere on the internet.

Sorry kids, Wikipedia was not started by a millionaire playboy so rich he had nothing at stake. Rather it was started by a struggling pornographer looking to make some easy money. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: lilburne

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


Posted by: carbuncle

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?

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.... 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. unhappy.gif ). However, as in the case of somebody we see finally get their comuppance, it will most satisfying for everybody else.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 28th July 2011, 2:17am) *

[ de-lurk, from my cell. I'm in Ireland 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 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.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 28th July 2011, 10:26am) *

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. unhappy.gif ). However, as in the case of somebody we see finally get their comuppance, it will most satisfying for everybody else.

"The bane of hypocrisy is not its visibility to others, it is its invisibility to the practitioner."
-- Michael Shermer

Posted by: MZMcBride

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.

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: MZMcBride

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.

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: Emperor

I sort of lost track of the love child story. Could someone catch me up? His Wikipedia bio still says that he "has one child".

I mean, is it possible that the baby was born, is doing fine, and now Jimmy is refusing to acknowledge its existence? Is he really that much of a scumbag?

Posted by: The Adversary

I am stunned by the reaction of MZM et al.

Ok, so I live in a different world, a world which prides itself in financial transparency, to the extent that all tax-returns are public. That´s right; if I want to find what my neighbour´s income or taxes is ....it is only a few clicks away on my computer.

But I have a few questions to Americans out there: how accurate would such "net worth" -figures (quoted by Greg) be?

(I ask, as around my parts of the world the tax authorities only value real estate to about 1/3 of marked value. So if you have, say properties with approx. marked value of 3 mil., and a loan in the bank for 1 mil...that adds up to 0 in "net worth" according to the tax-man. There are three numbers made public about every citizen of my country every year, and that is "net worth", "net income", & "taxes due/paid". And everyone knows the only the two last figures makes any sense.)

Posted by: MZMcBride

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. smile.gif (The Adversary's post is an interesting one, but probably one that could/should be split off to another thread.)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 28th July 2011, 1:56pm) *

I sort of lost track of the love child story. Could someone catch me up? His Wikipedia bio still says that he "has one child".

I mean, is it possible that the baby was born, is doing fine, and now Jimmy is refusing to acknowledge its existence? Is he really that much of a scumbag?

No, he's just into "privacy." For himself. Not you.

Posted by: The Adversary

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 28th July 2011, 9:05pm) *
(The Adversary's post is an interesting one, but probably one that could/should be split off to another thread.)

Please don´t split it off: In order to to evaluate the scope of deception (if any!) by Jimbo wrt to his financial status, we need to know how accurate these figures reported by Greg are. For a non-American the answer is not obvious!

Posted by: Milton Roe

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. 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.

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: Kevin

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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th July 2011, 11:49am) *

Have you ever wondered http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/jimmy-wales-on-google-autocomplete-photo about Jimmy Wales' net worth?

Thanks to an investigative report in the mainstream media, we will http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/jimmy-wales-net-worth.

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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 28th July 2011, 3:25pm) *
"He takes no salary from his business venture Wikia, Inc., the for-profit spin-off from Wikipedia"
Worst. Objectivist. Ever.

He is not an "Objectivist". He is a slime, posing as a Rand fanboy. I suspect he just uses her
name to open doors and make fellow pseudo-libertarians feel all warm and fuzzy about him.

He HAS to do this--at least pretend to be poor. His "great creation" is run by smug little boys who
tend to dislike rich people. So he poses as "just an ordinary guy", and they seem to lick it up.

Remember that socialist asshole Orangemike? Plenty more like him in the admin ranks.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 28th July 2011, 6:37pm) *

[He HAS to do this--at least pretend to be poor. His "great creation" is run by smug little boys who
tend to dislike rich people. So he poses as "just an ordinary guy", and they seem to lick it up.


That's not true at all. His Wikipedia biography implies that he made so much money in Chicago that he would never have to work again. On the other hand, reality is that he lives like a regular guy, except for when he's on wiki-business trips, when he pretends to be the rock star.

I think he made a mistake putting so much effort into Wikia. It's never been more than a mediocre idea, and the shelf life of the MediaWiki software and all that pop culture content won't be forever. No amount of coddling from the WMF is ever going to turn it into a cash cow.

Being the face of Wikipedia is a much better idea, and is the reason he hasn't been forced to take a day job.

Posted by: thekohser

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 http://gawker.com/5825740/googles-married-chairman-has-a-new-girlfriend--and-boy-is-she-his-type.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 12:15am) *

Meanwhile, Gawker has picked up on this with a http://gawker.com/5825740/googles-married-chairman-has-a-new-girlfriend--and-boy-is-she-his-type.

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.

laugh.gif

Posted by: Detective

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? ohmy.gif

Anyway, aren't emperors allowed, even supposed, to be extravagant? Consider this emperor:

http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/history/africa/frenchwest/central-ar/bokassa.htm

"Bokassa's extravagant lifestyle kept the coffers almost empty"

And he never set up a Wiki!

Posted by: Emperor

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 http://gawker.com/5825740/googles-married-chairman-has-a-new-girlfriend--and-boy-is-she-his-type.


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.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 12:15am) *

You spend nearly $21,000 a month, Emperor?


Have you seen my cable bill?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 29th July 2011, 4:40am) *

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.

Well, that's just loading up on boob material like a camel, for a trip to the desert where there isn't any. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 29th July 2011, 7:40am) *

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.

This would have been improved with links to the actual tweets. Especially the boobs one.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th July 2011, 9:32pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 29th July 2011, 7:40am) *

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.

This would have been improved with links to the actual tweets. Especially the boobs one.


Too much work, but I'll try. https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales

Feb 19, 2011 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/feb/19/interview-jimmy-wales-wikipedia - "We're pacing the floors" - second child is late arriving.

Feb 20, 2011 - Jimbo tweets link to this article (re:boobs): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/20/victoria-coren-twitter-michael-winner

Feb 22 - packing for trip to Saudi Arabia, giving speech the next day

Feb 23 - in Saudi Arabia

Feb 24 - Back in London

Feb 27 - "quick trip to Florida"

Mar 8 - To Iowa from Florida

Mar 10 - Newark

Mar 12 - Trading in six year old Hyundai

Mar 13 - Florida to London

Unless quoted, I'm summarizing. Linking to the actual tweets is way to much work for me.

Posted by: thekohser

Techgoss is picking up the story now, too. (Not entirely accurately, either. Maybe Jimbo will sue them.)

http://www.techgoss.com/Story/469S11-Wikipedia-boss-spends--21K-a-month.aspx

Posted by: thekohser

It is http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+net+worth&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 how people seem to get intensely interested in Jimmy Wales' net worth right about the time the WMF starts begging for money every year.

Relatively http://www.wikipediareview.com/File:Jimmy_Wales_net_worth_Examiner_article_traffic_over_time.jpg have also appeared in page views of Examiner.com's article about Jimmy Wales' net worth.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 5th January 2012, 1:23pm) *

It is http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+net+worth&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 how people seem to get intensely interested in Jimmy Wales' net worth right about the time the WMF starts begging for money every year.


True. Same thing happens at another site I know about that I won't mention for fear of being accused of spamming yet again.