The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What's in Jimbo's wallet?
thekohser
post Wed 27th July 2011, 3:49pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 27th July 2011, 4:16pm
Post #2


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 27th July 2011, 4:20pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



All three stories were pulled into the Google News stream, after about 14 minutes. Look out, traffic stats!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Wed 27th July 2011, 7:19pm
Post #4


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 27th July 2011, 7:23pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 28th July 2011, 4:26am
Post #6


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

Most CEOs spend more than that on shoes every month.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MZMcBride
post Thu 28th July 2011, 5:06am
Post #7


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed 25th Mar 2009, 5:02am
Member No.: 10,962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MZMcBride
post Thu 28th July 2011, 6:26am
Post #8


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed 25th Mar 2009, 5:02am
Member No.: 10,962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kevin
post Thu 28th July 2011, 6:29am
Post #9


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat 28th Feb 2009, 2:58am
From: Adelaide, Australia
Member No.: 10,522

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Agree with MZ on this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Thu 28th July 2011, 7:12am
Post #10


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

Agree with MZ on this.

Hear, hear.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alison
post Thu 28th July 2011, 9:17am
Post #11


Skinny Cow!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined: Tue 26th Jun 2007, 8:08pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806



[ 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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 28th July 2011, 11:18am
Post #12


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Adversary
post Thu 28th July 2011, 11:35am
Post #13


CT (Check Troll)
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat 20th May 2006, 12:09am
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 dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Thu 28th July 2011, 11:57am
Post #14


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 28th July 2011, 12:25pm
Post #15


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Thu 28th July 2011, 2:29pm
Post #16


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 28th July 2011, 3:26pm
Post #17


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 28th July 2011, 3:39pm
Post #18


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 28th July 2011, 3:51pm
Post #19


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Thu 28th July 2011, 6:19pm
Post #20


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th 7 14, 3:50am