Comments:Wikipedia founder embroiled in affair and financial allegations

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Opinions

Any thoughts? Share them here, below. Cirt - (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really ethical for Wikimedia users to create such a story on Wikinews? Isn't there POV bias by definition? Regardless, this looks pretty serious, especially the company credit card thing. With the Carolyn Doran controversy, the Creation Science Evangelism censoring, and now this, people will surely start being suspicious. I personally think it's a load of crap created by the media, but I am really concerned of what people will think of these events. Wikipedia already embodies an "unreliable image", one that was disproved by that Nature magazine article I might add, and now it might even get worse. - w:User:Ian Lee 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that especially after coverage in The Canadian Press, The Associated Press, ABC News, and United Press International, among many other news sources, it was okay for Wikinews to cover it. Cirt - (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There will always bias in anything, but the idea is that "truth by consensus" will end up being closer to the actual truth, than truth as viewed by a small group of elites in some section of the population (academia, news media, etc). I don't see why this is even controversial. It seems like this information is pretty well supported, and I'd consider it notable, so why would we balk at posting it? -161.88.255.240 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor Wikifag is butthurt and BAAAAWWWWing that his beloved leader could truly just be a big hypocrite. --71.232.227.162 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is ethical and truly NPOV

Personally, I believe Wikinews is what truly separates us from the rest of the Wikimedia community, we're willing to publish a story even if it's bad against our mother foundation and our founder. It truly is being NPOV, instead of covering it up and not publishing it, we're publishing it, and if we did cover it up, which would be bad due to the fact there's controversy over Jimbo's Wikipedia article anyways embellishing some of the earlier history, we bring it to the forefront and some user would have started the story anyways. Wikinews is the news arm of the Wikimedia community, but at the same time we're the ombudsman/public editor, we're not afraid to report something that will affect negatively, weither it be Benoit story, the leak of the finicial documents or this. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt - (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez and crackers...

This is not exactly an atmosphere that fosters cooperation between the Wikipedia volunteers...

Conditional donations

If you want to support the Wikimedia Foundation's projects financially, but you're suspicious of whether staff travel benefits the public, one solution is to put a condition on your donations, saying they can only be used to buy, upgrade, maintain, repair, power and colocate servers and associated equipment, and/or buy bandwidth. That's what I'm doing in my will; if the conditions aren't met, my money instead goes to my mom. 192.197.54.41 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You Hypocrites !

I find it really interesting how people would get together to do stupid things ! I don't know either of them but I know that this guy is wikipedia's founder, so he demands respect from all of us, I don't know allot about the journalist except her wikipedia page (and actually I don't want to put any more time in that) but it shows that she has a not-very-good history with her ex boyfriends. I'm not trying to judge anyone, what I'm trying to say is ..."DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO ?" why do we always want to bring good people down, and this is also for the wikipedia committee, were you really arguing about a "steak house" bill !!! really ?! I thought you all were more mature than that !

Before you all end up somewhere where you don't want to be, think for a second about what you are doing ? & what is it leading to ? is it really worth it to make all this fuzz about someone's relationship, which is more important, fixing the biased article (if any) or sitting there and making a story of it ! If he really did something wrong, then apply the appropriate penalty, just get it done with instead of feeding all those failure-monger people out there !

I apologize for my strong language, but this was the last thing I would expect from wikipedia, thanks.

Michael Tadros

Wikinews

Wikinews : The source for news about Jimbo's sex life. 81.65.18.180 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Point of view? How about relevance? Or respect? Speaking as someone completely outside the Wikimedia community (NPOV, right?) I think that to post what is little more than tawdry gossip about anyone is conduct unbecoming of a news source--not that it ever stops anyone, I just thought this community would be better than that. To claim NPOV by throwing some Wikimedia folks to the wolves occasionally is pretty pathetic too IMHO.

Not news.

-Victor "StarSeeker" Sheckels 12.207.133.59 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we care about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.32.25 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the Wikinews people basically have a choice between A)reporting the story and being subject to accusations of bias OR B) not reporting the story and being subject to accusations of bias and 'censorship'. I think it's great to see readers almost automatically questioning the position taken bey Wikinews, and I think it's great that Wikinews has both gone on with the item and assured (as always) there is a forum specifically for discussion of the item and the way it is being handled. Really, how could this be handled any better than it has been? Marsden's bio page doesn't look 'neutral' to me, but by getting intimate with Wales (in order to get rid of the bio?), Marsden has ironically assured that Wales will never be able to touch the item again. To be more fair: if even half the facts in Marsden's bio page are correct, one might say that the facts of Marsden's life, themselves, 'are not neutral'. That's gotta' hurt. But she called the tune; the tune is 'being a deliberately controversial public figure'. -Joshua Clement Broyles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.67.162 (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay...

Why do I want to know about Jimmy Whale's personal life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.236.138 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The JzG angle

Did anyone ever interview User:JzG to determine what prompted him to make these two edits on February 7, 2008? JzG had never shown an interest in the article before, nor since, and the calendar timing of the edits is noteworthy, considering that Wales admitted to a February 9, 2008 meeting with Marsden. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)