What's in Jimbo's wallet? Options

[MZMcBride]

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.

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?

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.

[thekohser]

...fair to his ex-wife or children.

What children? According to reliable sources, Jimmy Wales has only one child.

[MZMcBride]

...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.

[thekohser]

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.

[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?

[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.)

[MZMcBride]

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

[Milton Roe]

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.

[The Adversary]

(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!

[Milton Roe]

...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. 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.

[thekohser]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

[Sololol]

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.

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.

[EricBarbour]

"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.

[Emperor]

[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.

[thekohser]

...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 brief mention.

[SB_Johnny]

Meanwhile, Gawker has picked up on this with a brief mention.

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.

[Detective]

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

Have you any idea how much it costs to run his web site?

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

http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/history/afr...-ar/bokassa.htm

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

And he never set up a Wiki!

[Emperor]

...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 brief mention.

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.