Rachel Marsden: The Fundamental Schizophrenia of BLP Options

[gomi]

I am amused and befuddled by the current ArbCom case re Rachel Marsden. The ArbCom has come down with a bunch of tough-minded words about BLPs.

On the one hand, I can see that the article would be embarassing and damaging to Marsden, resurfacing a 10-year-old false date-rape case and more recent criminal harassment charges. Marsden has apparently complained in person to Wales about this. While not finding any material unsourced, the ArbCom case says that the article is "too negative" and anyone can essentially blank it. Does this apply to Brandts article? To all BLPs?

On the other hand, the statements in this article, while negative, were well-sourced, and all the information remains in the article history.

Finally, and perhaps most bizarrely, SlimVirgin is the one who has stubbed and full-protected the page -- she isn't ArbCom and has not thus far been involved.

[Moulton]

According to my scorecard, Jimbo's biggest fear is having the project fall into disrepute.

Episodes of disrepute seem to be hitting the mainstream press about once a month now.

[Giano]

According to my scorecard, Jimbo's biggest fear is having the project fall into disrepute.

Episodes of disrepute seem to be hitting the mainstream press about once a month now.

There are times when it hard not to feel some form of schadenfreude, and resist the temptation to post an edited version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881 right back on his page. Joking apart, he probably feels pretty stupid, without anyone else needing to rub his nose in it. He's not the first man to be lead by his donger and he certainly won't be the last - so I shall say nothing more.

Giano

[Pumpkin Muffins]

There are times when it hard not to feel some form of schadenfreude, and resist the temptation to post an edited version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881 right back on his page. Joking apart, he probably feels pretty stupid, without anyone else needing to rub his nose in it. He's not the first man to be lead by his donger and he certainly won't be the last - so I shall say nothing more.

Giano

I'm surprised that the sex angle is getting so much play. Sure, it's funnier than hell, and if Jimbo bragges as much about his exploits as Danny says then maybe he deserves it.

But the real story here is $300 bottles of wine and Russian massages that Jimbo tried to stick to the foundation. Danny says Jimbo eventually paid with checks which showed up as "donations". If this is true and Jimbo deducted those "donations" on his income taxes, then it is a very big problem for both Jimbo and the foundation. (Wouldn't we all like to deduct $7,000 of our indulgent squanderings as "donations" with a convenient falsified paper trail.)

[Pumpkin Muffins]

There are times when it hard not to feel some form of schadenfreude, and resist the temptation to post an edited version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881 right back on his page. Joking apart, he probably feels pretty stupid, without anyone else needing to rub his nose in it. He's not the first man to be lead by his donger and he certainly won't be the last - so I shall say nothing more.

Giano

I'm surprised that the sex angle is getting so much play. Sure, it's funnier than hell, and if Jimbo bragges as much about his exploits as Danny says then maybe he deserves it.

But the real story here is $300 bottles of wine and Russian massages that Jimbo tried to stick to the foundation. Danny says Jimbo eventually paid with checks which showed up as "donations". If this is true and Jimbo deducted those "donations" on his income taxes, then it is a very big problem for both Jimbo and the foundation. (Wouldn't we all like to deduct $7,000 of our indulgent squanderings as "donations" with a convenient falsified paper trail.)

Wait a minute, I'm an idiot. The Real story here is the COI suggested by their copulation, followed by Jimbo's "worse than" coi quote - poisoning the very heart of wikpedia's neutrality by its Sole founder, no less.

jimbo.wales: and therefore not appropriate for me to directly edit the article with a conflict of interest
jimbo.wales: the truth is of course a much worse conflict of interest than that but that will do

Gosh, there's just so much here my tiny mind can barely grapple

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Mon 3rd March 2008, 9:32pm

[No one of consequence]

There are times when it hard not to feel some form of schadenfreude, and resist the temptation to post an edited version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881 right back on his page. Joking apart, he probably feels pretty stupid, without anyone else needing to rub his nose in it. He's not the first man to be lead by his donger and he certainly won't be the last - so I shall say nothing more.

Giano

I'm surprised that the sex angle is getting so much play. Sure, it's funnier than hell, and if Jimbo bragges as much about his exploits as Danny says then maybe he deserves it.

But the real story here is $300 bottles of wine and Russian massages that Jimbo tried to stick to the foundation. Danny says Jimbo eventually paid with checks which showed up as "donations". If this is true and Jimbo deducted those "donations" on his income taxes, then it is a very big problem for both Jimbo and the foundation. (Wouldn't we all like to deduct $7,000 of our indulgent squanderings as "donations" with a convenient falsified paper trail.)

Wait a minute, I'm an idiot. The Real story here is the COI suggested by their copulation, followed by Jimbo's "worse than" coi quote - poisoning the very heart of wikpedia's neutrality by its Sole founder, no less.

No, you were right the first time. In the real world, no one cares whether Jimbo influenced Marsden's bio. That's just so much Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review) narcissism and naval-gazing.

However, the financial shenanigan story apparently dates to the audit of 2 years ago when Danny was still at his old post, so its not really relevant to this story and is a bit stale to boot. Too bad, too. WR could make better use of whatever power it has to ignore this story and try to bring new light to the older financial issue.

[Kato]

No, you were right the first time. In the real world, no one cares whether Jimbo influenced Marsden's bio. That's just so much Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review) narcissism and naval-gazing.

However, the financial shenanigan story apparently dates to the audit of 2 years ago when Danny was still at his old post, so its not really relevant to this story and is a bit stale to boot. Too bad, too. WR could make better use of whatever power it has to ignore this story and try to bring new light to the older financial issue.

What a load of crap.

Folks cared about Jimbo editing his own biography a couple years ago -- it was all over the media. And this time round, plenty of people are interested in Jimbo's influence over Marsden's bio. Here's one such example.

http://poligazette.com/2008/03/03/wikipedias-authority/

No one of consequence, you are naive, wrong and you merely try to spin away almost all the key issues that come round. A classic Wikipedian. I imagine you were one of the people on Essjay's talk page spinning away there, "I don't have a problem with that..." etc. Nothing to see here etc. Story a bit stale etc. Or berating us for having the temerity to believe it actually meant something. Blaming us for Wikipedia's failures.

WR could make better use of whatever power it has to ignore this story and try to bring new light to the older financial issue.

You're a member here. You first.

[Doc glasgow]

Let's be clear.

1) I don't care who Jimbo has sex with - so he may be a letch, did I expect more? 2) The COI is bullshit. I can't see anything that was done to the article that shouldn't have been done under BLP anyway. Jimbo often asks OTRS to clean things up - and WR is at its best when in complains that cleanups don't happen quickly enough - not when it complains they happen too quickly.

3) The story is certainly news now. Not so much because it is sex, but because Mr Wiki (apparently) had the ill-judgement to dump neo-celebrity on wiki and she (predictably) retaliated (on e-bay). That's news that not even the London Times can resist. And this story probably has legs yet. It will almost certainly end up in Jimmy's bio. But (and this is something I fight for on many bios) BLPs are not news aggregaters. Because it's newsworthy this week doesn't make it encyclopedic. Whether this story has any durable importance in terms of recording Wales's bio, remains to be seen.

My guess is that Danny's allegations will prove more significant. But that's a guess, and till Jimmy and the WMF respond (as they must) we won't know what that significance is. WP:NOT a crystal ball etc.

Will any of this be significant in a week? Who knows? we can only speculate?

Anyway, the discussion will no doubt continue here (and on the official mailing lists .... if I can find it?) ....

[gomi]

Let's be clear. ... The COI is bullshit. I can't see anything that was done to the article that shouldn't have been done under BLP anyway. Jimbo often asks OTRS to clean things up ...

I don't know why you guys don't get it -- a reputable encyclopedia cannot be run by a "God-King". The issue may not be COI impropriety, but more the appearance of impropriety.

Jimbo's exalted status within Wikipedia, coupled with the lack of a viable and structured management system there, casts the whole enterprise into disrepute. Your arguments about BLP and whatnot ring hollow -- the differing treatment of (e.g.) Daniel Brandt and Rachel Marsden bear witness to this.

[Doc glasgow]

Let's be clear. ... The COI is bullshit. I can't see anything that was done to the article that shouldn't have been done under BLP anyway. Jimbo often asks OTRS to clean things up ...

I don't know why you guys don't get it -- a reputable encyclopedia cannot be run by a "God-King". The issue may not be COI impropriety, but more the appearance of impropriety.

Jimbo's exalted status within Wikipedia, coupled with the lack of a viable and structured management system there, casts the whole enterprise into disrepute. Your arguments about BLP and whatnot ring hollow -- the differing treatment of (e.g.) Daniel Brandt and Rachel Marsden bear witness to this.

So ask for Daniel Brandt to be treated like Rachel Marsden, rather than the other way about. Although, I'd not be too sure who has the lower opinion of Jimbo.

Seriously, you guys way overstate Jimbo's current influence. You've obviously all been banned so long that you're out of touch. Keep up with it. Jimbo's influence on en.wp is marginal in the extreme, and diminishing by the day.

[Kato]

Seriously, you guys way overstate Jimbo's current influence. You've obviously all been banned so long that you're out of touch. Keep up with it. Jimbo's influence on en.wp is marginal in the extreme, and diminishing by the day.

Nonsense. Why the hell did JzG suddenly appear at the article in February out of the blue? The same date the tip off said Jimbo arranged to have the Marsden article "fixed".

Have you had your porridge today? You are living in cloud cuckoo land Doc. Wake up laddie.