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

[Jonny Cache]

We don't know if they actually consummated their relationship though.

Ummmm … did you miss this post-game wrap-up chat?



I'm guessing from this that they sealed the deal in the DC Doubletree.

Hush your mouth !!!

Don't let The ExciseMum find out discipline was involved …

We wouldn't want her going over to the Dark Side, now would we ???

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 2nd March 2008, 7:51pm

[dtobias]

I like to think of my lack of personal stake in any of the battles being fought as something that gives me something approaching NPOV objectivity, meaning that I can see the absurdity, hypocrisy, self-servingness, and unreasonableness on all sides.

[Daniel Brandt]

As much as I'd love to see the WMF get successfully sued already, I don't have the stomach for court battles.

I agree. Today is the first time that the Wayback Machine entered my radar as a possible way for someone to sue the Wikimedia Foundation without getting hung up on Section 230. Anyone who sues the Foundation and doesn't want to spend five years in federal court, should try to avoid Section 230 arguments until Congress gets its act together. Going after the nonfeasance of Foundation employees is one way. Donating a substantial sum and then suing the Foundation for fraudulent misuse of funds and abuse of its responsibilities as a nonprofit public charity is another.

The reason the Wayback Machine issue is interesting is because there is case law on this issue already. The folks at Archive.org have an opt-out through robots.txt, and they are also responsive if you fax them and request a take-down of something if you own the copyright. It's clear that the Wayback Machine is off the hook because they are responsible. That means the Foundation's failure to utilize its administrative remedies in dealing with BLP articles that have been purged makes them liable. If the Foundation fails to take obvious steps, such as using robots.txt to keep the Wayback Machine's crawlers away from the site, then a BLP victim who can prove damages is in a position to hold the Foundation accountable without getting dragged into federal court by Mike Godwin over Section 230 immunity. That's my impression — I am not a lawyer.

The facts of the case would be important, however. You'd have to be a BLP victim who had their biography purged or deleted, and then was damaged subsequent to that because it was still on the Wayback Machine. If you don't have the right set of facts, and/or cannot show damages, it's not worth pursuing in court.

However, it's still worth needling the Foundation about the issue. There are technical measures it could and should take to decrease the exposure of BLP victims who had their articles purged or deleted, and the Foundation has yet to even consider this issue.

[WordBomb]

High bidder: wordbomb( 0 )

I've been outbid on the sweater, but am solidly in charge on the T-shirt.

[KamrynMatika]

Has it been picked up by the mainstream press yet? I need some reliable sources for my new [[Jimbo Wales T-Shirt Controversy]] article.

Here's something I'm unclear on: Jimbo said in his statement that there was one meeting. How did he meet her at the hotel in D.C. yet leave his clothing at her apartment in New York?

Oh come on, we all know Jimbo is a persistent liar.

[Jonny Cache]

Cos some of us are not turned on my salacious tales of Jimmy's sex life?

Frankly, my wikibiz, I don't give a damn.

Whut? You have salacious tales of Jimmy's sex life, too?

Jonny

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?

[Jonny Cache]

Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?

Wikipedia = <the non-trademarked analogue of> The National Enquirer.

Ergo, The Wikipedia Review = <the non-trademarked analogue of> The National Enquirer Review.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 2nd March 2008, 8:24pm

[Somey]

Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?

Well sheez, what do you expect, UV? The co-founder of Wikipedia pursues a sexual relationship with a controversial right-wing (though admittedly Canadian) media personality, possibly at the expense of foundation donors, despite the fact that the media personality already has a history on Wikipedia itself of receiving preferential treatment, not to mention a reputation for "stalking" ex-boyfriends and generating negative publicity about them using the internet? What are we supposed to do, say "move along folks, nothing to see here"?

Time and time again I'm reminded of that scene from The Naked Gun where Frank Drebin is saying those exact words in front of a fireworks factory that's in the process of going off after being rammed by a truck full of explosives.

[Jonny Cache]

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/nakedgun.gif

Oh, you already got it …

Jonny

[One]

The whole thing just reeks of Jimbo's poor judgment, and I don't mean the affair. If WMF is to survive, it needs to cleanse itself with a bit more than Tide extra-strength liquid detergent.

On wiki: the timing suggests that Jimbo once again nudged his minions into action, maybe including Thatcher, for the baffling New Years Day deletion. On the project, COI only seems to exist when he says so. This doesn't inspire confidence for either editors or donors who might naively believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Off wiki: the ginormous travel budget of WMF suddenly makes much more sense. Considering the way Jimbo mixes his for-profit, non-profit, business, leisure, and honorarium trips, it seems that a lot of his personal and Wikia expenses are being paid by kids who chipped in $5 at a time. That's more vomit-inducing than any mysterious white stain.

Sex is easier to understand than Catholic credentials or financial instruments, so I think we'll see much more coverage. Ideally, the media and public would be outraged by Wikipedia's daily sundry abuses, but I'll take what we can get.

This post has been edited by One: Sun 2nd March 2008, 9:01pm

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?

Well sheez, what do you expect, UV? The co-founder of Wikipedia pursues a sexual relationship with a controversial right-wing (though admittedly Canadian) media personality, possibly at the expense of foundation donors, despite the fact that the media personality already has a history on Wikipedia itself of receiving preferential treatment, not to mention a reputation for "stalking" ex-boyfriends and generating negative publicity about them using the internet? What are we supposed to do, say "move along folks, nothing to see here"?

Time and time again I'm reminded of that scene from The Naked Gun where Frank Drebin is saying those exact words in front of a fireworks factory that's in the process of going off after being rammed by a truck full of explosives.

You are so correct Somey.

Witnessing the hierarchy at Wikipedia is somewhat like watching a guy light his hair on fire and then watching him try to put it out with a hammer.

It is comical and yet frightening. Very little wisdom there; just fireworks and a loud sucking sound from the vacuum created by a void and "blackhole" of no morality.

[Robster]

One has to wonder if the Sole Flounder is [[WP:AGF]] of the "Canadian Ann Coulter*" at this point.

Poor guy... all he tried to do is help her remove her (perfectly legitimate) WP article (and apparently her pants), and now his [redacted]-stained clothing is being auctioned off on eBay. I almost feel sorry for him -- if this wasn't so reckless, and potentially a criminal misuse of WMF money and WP resources.

*no, wait, that's not fair, Marsden appears to be female

[Lar]

Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something
that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me
for doing so, which drew even more attention to the
matter, someone else mildly blackmailed me from asking
anything else to be blanked/deleted/oversighted (though
that's stopped with apologies), and now some jack-booted
violent thug claiming to be acting on behalf of WP is
threatening to cut my fingers off!

In other words, even if the OTRS member one talks to is
the sweetest person in the world, they don't actually have
the power to do anything. And I've heard some people
haven't even gotten responses from OTRS.

I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.

[Moulton]

Dinosaur Brains

The scary part is that it might be technologically feasible to treat that garment the way tree resin was handled in Jurassic Park and create a whole theme park based on these legendary characters.

[Somey]

Apropos of nothing, I'd just like to add that I made this avatar, recently added to our gallery, a full three days before I'd heard anything about the Marsden-Jimbo sexcapade allegations:

Weird, huh?

[Jonny Cache]

Apropos of nothing, I'd just like to add that I made this avatar, recently added to our gallery, a full three days before I'd heard anything about the Marsden-Jimbo sexcapade allegations:

Weird, huh?

In the future, everyone will be Nostradamus for 15 nanoseconds.

Jonny

[Daniel Brandt]

I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.

That's very considerate of you. Here's an OTRS from me that is still waiting for a reply. It's only been 2.5 months, so I don't mean to rush you.

OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.

Brion Vibber and Erik Moeller know about it, and have done nothing.

[AB]

Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something
that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me
for doing so, which drew even more attention to the
matter, someone else mildly blackmailed me from asking
anything else to be blanked/deleted/oversighted (though
that's stopped with apologies), and now some jack-booted
violent thug claiming to be acting on behalf of WP is
threatening to cut my fingers off!

In other words, even if the OTRS member one talks to is
the sweetest person in the world, they don't actually have
the power to do anything. And I've heard some people
haven't even gotten responses from OTRS.

I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.

A bit late considering someone already saw it and
threatened to cut my fingers off. And at this point,
I'm talking to people who have oversight, even if
it is rather late.

[Moulton]

OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.

Ironic that the serial number of that ticket is 1984.