Changes

As a [[Directory:The New York Times|New York Times]] writer commented in a column once:

As a [[Directory:The New York Times|New York Times]] writer commented in a column once:

:''"As long as he is involved with Wikipedia, however, Mr. Wales will continue to be a guiding light for its many contributors — as well as a lightning rod for its critics."'' UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000004D-QINU

:''"As long as he is involved with Wikipedia, however, Mr. Wales will continue to be a guiding light for its many contributors — as well as a lightning rod for its critics."'' 

As a [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Everyking&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Wikipedia administrator] with over 125,000 edits on the project has said:

As a [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Everyking&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Wikipedia administrator] with over 125,000 edits on the project has said:

:''It is a sad, sad statement on the Wikipedia community that it has never gotten rid of Jimbo Wales. It's remarkable to me that now, in 2010, Jimbo is still around, while the project itself is stagnating quite badly. I thought at one time that such a vibrant project with so much potential would surely jettison Jimbo -- who is so obviously a useless and unprincipled opportunist -- in relatively short order, once it matured to a certain point. Instead I'm starting to wonder if the project will sink and Jimbo will still be sitting there when it does.'' UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000004E-QINU

:''It is a sad, sad statement on the Wikipedia community that it has never gotten rid of Jimbo Wales. It's remarkable to me that now, in 2010, Jimbo is still around, while the project itself is stagnating quite badly. I thought at one time that such a vibrant project with so much potential would surely jettison Jimbo -- who is so obviously a useless and unprincipled opportunist -- in relatively short order, once it matured to a certain point. Instead I'm starting to wonder if the project will sink and Jimbo will still be sitting there when it does.'' 

==Not a pornographer?==

==Not a pornographer?==

While the Wikipedia project consistently released statements to the press in its earliest years describing Larry Sanger as the "co-founder" of the encyclopedia, Jimmy Wales later took it upon himself to reframe the description of Sanger as an "employee" of Wales'. Wales has stated that he appreciates Sanger's contributions, but he seems unwilling to accept Sanger as a pioneer of Wikipedia's construction.

While the Wikipedia project consistently released statements to the press in its earliest years describing Larry Sanger as the "co-founder" of the encyclopedia, Jimmy Wales later took it upon himself to reframe the description of Sanger as an "employee" of Wales'. Wales has stated that he appreciates Sanger's contributions, but he seems unwilling to accept Sanger as a pioneer of Wikipedia's construction.

Dr. Sanger has [http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html taken the time] to elaborate on the factual evidence that supports his identification as "co-founder" of Wikipedia.  Jimmy Wales has done very little such work to compile evidence that he is the "sole founder".UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000004F-QINU

Dr. Sanger has [http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html taken the time] to elaborate on the factual evidence that supports his identification as "co-founder" of Wikipedia.  Jimmy Wales has done very little such work to compile evidence that he is the "sole founder".

More recently, Sanger has called out Wales via an "open letter",UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000050-QINU where the displeased creator of the Wikipedia name and architecture accuses Wales of "lies and distortions", being "transparently self-serving", and issuing "particularly outrageous" claims.

More recently, Sanger has called out Wales via an "open letter", where the displeased creator of the Wikipedia name and architecture accuses Wales of "lies and distortions", being "transparently self-serving", and issuing "particularly outrageous" claims.

Clearly, the facts remain:

Clearly, the facts remain:

The Wikipedia article regarding controversial [[Directory:Canada|Canadian]] radio commentator [[Directory:Rachel Marsden|Rachel Marsden]] had been the subject of controversy on Wikipedia for some years.  According to Marsden, she had asked [[Directory:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] to delete her [[biography]]. Her concerns led her to contact Wikipedia co-founder [[Directory:Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], claiming that it was incorrect and libelous. Wales reviewed her biography and, deeming that it was not up to standard, helped to clean up the entry by quietly requesting that a closely allied administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=189784135&oldid=185926385 do the work], literally hours before Wales would meet Marsden in person at the hotel.

The Wikipedia article regarding controversial [[Directory:Canada|Canadian]] radio commentator [[Directory:Rachel Marsden|Rachel Marsden]] had been the subject of controversy on Wikipedia for some years.  According to Marsden, she had asked [[Directory:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] to delete her [[biography]]. Her concerns led her to contact Wikipedia co-founder [[Directory:Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], claiming that it was incorrect and libelous. Wales reviewed her biography and, deeming that it was not up to standard, helped to clean up the entry by quietly requesting that a closely allied administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=189784135&oldid=185926385 do the work], literally hours before Wales would meet Marsden in person at the hotel.

Wales announced in a statement on Wikipedia "My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it."UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000051-QINU On [[February 29]], [[2008]], the technology gossip blog [[Valleywag]] claimed that they had entered into a relationship, and published instant messaging chats that they had allegedly exchanged. On the following day Wales announced on his Wikipedia user page that he was no longer involved with Marsden. In return, Marsden, who claimed to have learned about the breakup by reading about it on the Internet, turned to [[eBay]] and put up for auction a [[t-shirt]] and sweater that she claimed to be Wales'.UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000052-QINUUNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000053-QINUUNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000054-QINUUNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000055-QINUUNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000056-QINU

Wales announced in a statement on Wikipedia "My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it." On [[February 29]], [[2008]], the technology gossip blog [[Valleywag]] claimed that they had entered into a relationship, and published instant messaging chats that they had allegedly exchanged. On the following day Wales announced on his Wikipedia user page that he was no longer involved with Marsden. In return, Marsden, who claimed to have learned about the breakup by reading about it on the Internet, turned to [[eBay]] and put up for auction a [[t-shirt]] and sweater that she claimed to be Wales'.

UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000057-QINUUNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000058-QINU

There is curiously only a brief mention of this episode in the anonymous-edit-protected Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales article about Jimmy Wales], even though it was the [http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_epq=Rachel%20Marsden&as_oq=Wales&as_occt=any&as_drrb=a&tbs=ar%3A1&authuser=0 talk of mainstream media] for the better part of March 2008.  Compare, there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident an entire article] about Mel Gibson's DUI incident; an article which any anonymous IP address can edit and malign.  Not so, Jimmy Wales' article.  He merits special protective editorial favors, it would appear.

There is curiously only a brief mention of this episode in the anonymous-edit-protected Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales article about Jimmy Wales], even though it was the [http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_epq=Rachel%20Marsden&as_oq=Wales&as_occt=any&as_drrb=a&tbs=ar%3A1&authuser=0 talk of mainstream media] for the better part of March 2008.  Compare, there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident an entire article] about Mel Gibson's DUI incident; an article which any anonymous IP address can edit and malign.  Not so, Jimmy Wales' article.  He merits special protective editorial favors, it would appear.

==Misspending Foundation funds==

==Misspending Foundation funds==

[[Image:Jimbo_in_Vogue.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Jimbo playing dress-up]]In March 2008, Wales was accused by former Wikimedia Foundation employee Danny Wool of subsidizing personal expenditures with foundation funds.  These included rebuffed attempts to have reimbursed a $1200 dinner for four, a $650 wine tab, and even a visit to a Moscow massage parlor that Wales submitted ''twice'' for payback from the Foundation. Wool also stated that Wales had his Wikimedia credit card taken away in part because of his spending habits, though Wales denied this claim.UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-00000059-QINU Foundation Chair Florence Devouard and former foundation interim Executive Director Brad Patrick denied any wrongdoing by Wales or the foundation, saying that Wales accounted for every expense and that for items he did not have receipts for, he paid out of his own pocket.UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000005A-QINU  Executive Director Sue Gardner would later defend Wales on CNET video, saying, "Jimmy has never done anything wrong."UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000005B-QINU

[[Image:Jimbo_in_Vogue.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Jimbo playing dress-up]]In March 2008, Wales was accused by former Wikimedia Foundation employee Danny Wool of subsidizing personal expenditures with foundation funds.  These included rebuffed attempts to have reimbursed a $1200 dinner for four, a $650 wine tab, and even a visit to a Moscow massage parlor that Wales submitted ''twice'' for payback from the Foundation. Wool also stated that Wales had his Wikimedia credit card taken away in part because of his spending habits, though Wales denied this claim. Foundation Chair Florence Devouard and former foundation interim Executive Director Brad Patrick denied any wrongdoing by Wales or the foundation, saying that Wales accounted for every expense and that for items he did not have receipts for, he paid out of his own pocket.  Executive Director Sue Gardner would later defend Wales on CNET video, saying, "Jimmy has never done anything wrong."

If these facts are not enough to convince you that money makes its way through the back door to Wales' wallet, then perhaps a look [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049340.html at the front door] is in order.  The Wikimedia Foundation announced in January 2009 that it was to begin paying rent to Jimmy Wales' company, Wikia, Inc., on a monthly basis.  They would use the tax-advantaged funds granted by the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund.  Did Wikia offer the lowest-priced rent solution to the Wikimedia Foundation?  Not at all!  After a [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049345.html frantic] back-and-forth [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049354.html attempt] by different [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049360.html agents] of the Wikimedia Foundation to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049411.html explain] how this [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049389.html level] of [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049391.html self-dealing] was [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049393.html allowed to happen], Wikia's CEO Gil Penchina finally revealed (a year later, January 4, 2010) in a personal e-mail:

If these facts are not enough to convince you that money makes its way through the back door to Wales' wallet, then perhaps a look [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049340.html at the front door] is in order.  The Wikimedia Foundation announced in January 2009 that it was to begin paying rent to Jimmy Wales' company, Wikia, Inc., on a monthly basis.  They would use the tax-advantaged funds granted by the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund.  Did Wikia offer the lowest-priced rent solution to the Wikimedia Foundation?  Not at all!  After a [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049345.html frantic] back-and-forth [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049354.html attempt] by different [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049360.html agents] of the Wikimedia Foundation to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049411.html explain] how this [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049389.html level] of [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049391.html self-dealing] was [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049393.html allowed to happen], Wikia's CEO Gil Penchina finally revealed (a year later, January 4, 2010) in a personal e-mail:

<blockquote>''They UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-nowiki-0000005C-QINU approached us and asked if they could rent space on a temporary basis.. and I think it ended up being 4-6 months give or take.  I thought about giving it to them for free and I wasn't sure which was worse... getting accused of bribing a non-profit for giving it away, or getting accused of stealing for a non-profit for charging... so we ended up asking them to get competitng (sic) quotes from other landlords so that THEY could feel comfortable with the decision.''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''They approached us and asked if they could rent space on a temporary basis.. and I think it ended up being 4-6 months give or take.  I thought about giving it to them for free and I wasn't sure which was worse... getting accused of bribing a non-profit for giving it away, or getting accused of stealing for a non-profit for charging... so we ended up asking them to get competitng (sic) quotes from other landlords so that THEY could feel comfortable with the decision.''</blockquote>

First there is a request to rent space from a hand-picked bidder, and only ''then'' a suggestion to get competing bids from other landlords?  It sounds like someone at the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to make sure that Jimmy Wales' for-profit company had the inside track on that bid, worth many thousands of dollars.

First there is a request to rent space from a hand-picked bidder, and only ''then'' a suggestion to get competing bids from other landlords?  It sounds like someone at the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to make sure that Jimmy Wales' for-profit company had the inside track on that bid, worth many thousands of dollars.

==Jeffrey Merkey favors-for-payment allegations==

==Jeffrey Merkey favors-for-payment allegations==

[[Image:Jimmy Wales on Washington Post interview.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Napping on the job.]]Later in March 2008, it was alleged by [[Jeff V. Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] that Wales had edited Merkey's entry in Wikipedia to make it more "favourable" in return for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. In May 2006 Wales had erased Merkey's article "because of the unpleasantness of it" and stated "we are nearing a resolution of this longstanding conflict," referring to a dispute between the Wikipedia community and Merkey over the content of the biography. Wales called the allegation that the Wikimedia Foundation had received donations in exchange for this "nonsense."UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000005D-QINU UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000005E-QINU Nonetheless, Merkey made a very clear and very deliberate statement to the Associated Press that attested: <blockquote>''Wales agreed that in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wales would use his influence to make Merkey's article adhere to Wikipedia's stated policies with regard to internet libel "as a courtesty" and place Merkey under his "special protection" as an editor.''UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-ref-0000005F-QINU</blockquote>

[[Image:Jimmy Wales on Washington Post interview.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Napping on the job.]]Later in March 2008, it was alleged by [[Jeff V. Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] that Wales had edited Merkey's entry in Wikipedia to make it more "favourable" in return for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. In May 2006 Wales had erased Merkey's article "because of the unpleasantness of it" and stated "we are nearing a resolution of this longstanding conflict," referring to a dispute between the Wikipedia community and Merkey over the content of the biography. Wales called the allegation that the Wikimedia Foundation had received donations in exchange for this "nonsense." Nonetheless, Merkey made a very clear and very deliberate statement to the Associated Press that attested: <blockquote>''Wales agreed that in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wales would use his influence to make Merkey's article adhere to Wikipedia's stated policies with regard to internet libel "as a courtesty" and place Merkey under his "special protection" as an editor.''</blockquote>

A few news sources that reported the story [http://pages.citebite.com/w1n0s3r6h3bmk provided the link to the article's history to show Jimbo edited the article], except if one is to hit "edit history" he will see nothing. The page was deleted from Wikipedia in May 2010. Still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Jeff+V.+Merkey the page's log from  October 2006 "(investigating new edits for possible violations of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:BIO [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed)"] shows that Jimbo Wales protected the page just as Merkey said he did. The page reminded protected for almost two years. It is very unusual for an article of little importance. Also unusual is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_30#Question_about_Merkey this exchange]: Jimbo was asked about the article:  

A few news sources that reported the story [http://pages.citebite.com/w1n0s3r6h3bmk provided the link to the article's history to show Jimbo edited the article], except if one is to hit "edit history" he will see nothing. The page was deleted from Wikipedia in May 2010. Still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Jeff+V.+Merkey the page's log from  October 2006 "(investigating new edits for possible violations of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:BIO [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed)"] shows that Jimbo Wales protected the page just as Merkey said he did. The page reminded protected for almost two years. It is very unusual for an article of little importance. Also unusual is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_30#Question_about_Merkey this exchange]: Jimbo was asked about the article:  

===Jimbo (finally) sees the light===

===Jimbo (finally) sees the light===

After about 26 months, Wales did ultimately [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArch_Coal&diff=258731121&oldid=224255965 apologize in a round-about way] for his mistakes in handling this situation.  Bravo!  UNIQ2eb4705358a30180-nowiki-00000060-QINU

After about 26 months, Wales did ultimately [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArch_Coal&diff=258731121&oldid=224255965 apologize in a round-about way] for his mistakes in handling this situation.  Bravo!  

==Jimbo plagiarizes photography==

==Jimbo plagiarizes photography==