Jimbo & Rachel Marsden : Scandalous, can you say WP:COItus? Options

In case you were wondering why Rachel Marsden got such special treatment on Wikipedia the secret is now out in the Valleywag. They also link here too!

Jimmy Wales loves to talk about "transparency" and "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Unless it's about his scandal-prone girlfriend. Wales, who is divorcing his second wife Christine, has been secretly seeing conservative TV commentator Rachel Marsden since last fall, friends say.

And something for JzG: a steamy chat log is included.

These chats turned my "stub" into a full wiki page

Not only is it scandalous and salacious, it also brings Wikipedia further into disrepute.

This has got to be close to Jimbo's worst nightmare.

This has got to be close to Jimbo's worst nightmare.

It needs to be the end of his association with the WMF.

This post has been edited by Aloft: Sat 1st March 2008, 6:43pm

This has got to be close to Jimbo's worst nightmare.

It needs to be the end of his association with the WMF.

I noticed Seth Finkelstein's comments that it is not really serious? I completely disagree- it clearly shows that Wales provides favourable treatment, either by direct intervention or by proxies to people with whom he is associated. Why should we believe that he does also not accept bribes, gifts, holidays etc from people who want the power to control their own biographies and other articles with sockpuppets as Gary Weiss has done? The man should resign from the Wikimedia foundation immediately and the project should completely break all ties with him.

I see there is now a thread on Wales' page, started by Cla68, mentioning that Wales supposedly commented on the sooper seekrit mailing list that he:

"felt unable, because of COI reasons, to participate in the BLP of certain Canadian journalist"

Why should we believe that JzG and JoshuaZ did not merely act as his proxies in fixing the article according to Wales/Marsden's preference?

I see there is now a thread on Wales' page, started by Cla68, mentioning that Wales supposedly commented on the sooper seekrit mailing list that he:

"felt unable, because of COI reasons, to participate in the BLP of certain Canadian journalist"

Why should we believe that JzG and JoshuaZ did not merely act as his proxies in fixing the article according to Wales/Marsden's preference?

It is almost certain that JzG was under orders from Wales as outlined here:

Most recently, a tipster tells us, Wales "sent a mass email to a 'special' Wikipedia list of admins at the beginning of February, right before he was set to spend the weekend with Marsden in DC. Said he wanted her page cleaned up.

http://valleywag.com/362511/how-wikipedia-...immy-wales-laid

Here's the type of thing JzG was doing early February:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189783275

This ties into the JzG / Jimbo Wales relationship. Where Jimbo is using a willing JzG, a man who seems on the edge of a complete breakdown, to act as a fixer / bully on content. Anyone can tell that JzG has lost the plot completely -- surely even Wales -- but as I've stated elsewhere, Wales doesn't seem to care about that as long as JzG is doing the dirty work.

As JzG says : You're either with his friend Mr. Wales or with the enemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176590424

I don't understand why everyone is so SHOCKED, SHOCKED that he cheats on his wife, cheats with a journalist, or even (heaven forfend!) sends sexy chat msgs.

He was a porn dealer for God's sake.

And if those listserver msgs are correct, he was more or less bragging about his affair, so he's probably not all that upset it is public. Hey, if it eclipses his bad Wikia press, it's gotta be good news... (with regrets for his poor wife. I hope she gets a decent settlement, and he doesn't rip her off)

Anyways, why would this render him liable to removal?

I'm thinking the lost funds might be grounds (gold washingmachine? Go Florence!).

But even then, I doubt it.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 1st March 2008, 7:42pm

Anyways, why would this render him liable to removal?

It is yet another example of Wikipedia's useless processes allowing for another blatant case of ...

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

...alongside a reiteration of WPs multi-tiered editorial practices. Meaning that if you are a "friend of Jimbo Wales" and if you are on some secret list, you are given...

PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT?

whereas if you are an outsider, through no fault of your own, you get humiliated and are subject to the most efficient revenge platform ever devised.

And as Danny Wool notes all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...

MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?

And as Danny Wool notes all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...

MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?

Danny best be careful and back this up with evidence. It's borderline libel territory, if untrue. If true... well, shit. Bye-bye contributions, bye-bye Wikipedia.

And as Danny Wool notes all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...

MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?

Danny best be careful and back this up with evidence. It's borderline libel territory, if untrue. If true... well, shit. Bye-bye contributions, bye-bye Wikipedia.

It's absolutely true. I don't have direct evidence, but I've known this for a long time through multiple independent sources, two of whom are or have been board members. Jimbo has also basically admitted it himself in an email conversation with me (though of course you have to read between the lines):

Yeah, well, I have no idea. We have up to date audited financials. In the past several months, basically since the audit, I don't even have a foundation credit card nor turn in receipts for reimbursement anymore, because my travel is nearly all being paid by third parties.

The only financial transactions of any substance (I want to say the ONLY but can't remember right now) between me and the foundation have been about reimbursements for travel. In the old days, I would use the foundation credit card to purchase tickets and cover travel expenses, and then submit receipts. Then every few months we would go through all this stuff and settle up...

In the time period between the expenses and the submission of receipts, there would be an accounting category for outstanding expenses by me which had not yet been accounted for.

ALL receipts have been submitted, and the account in the books for that account is exactly zero. There have never been any allegations by anyone of embezzlement.

The books have been audited by a third party firm, and ALL the transactions were examined in detail, including an examination of receipts, any and all payments back and forth.

If I have to think about what sort of thing might have been at some point twisted, the only thing I can think of is that at times Michael was grumpy with me for being very slow about turning in receipts. Everything was cleared up about that, without incident of any kind.