| |
|
  |
 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
