how's that going to work.. I'd say that at least 75% of what's added to Wikipedia is taken from pre-existing sources. What a cluster-eff.

That is the worst newspaper illustration I've ever seen. I look at it and think Darth Vader?

I would still like a follow-up on that whole sending naked pictures of his wife and mother of his child to his friends thing. While this may draw more attention, what founders fail to realize is that they oftentimes are no longer needed when their work is complete. Yes, whatever it is they were working on would not exist without them. But it can exist, after it is built, without them. At a certain point I suspect this will become the case with Wales and Wikipedia.

The bigger issue is the allegation I alluded to, which is a character issue. Not a "he cheated on his taxes" character issue, a serious, incredibly disgusting flaw that essentially invalidates everything else he has ever done in life and should brand him forever as a gigantic piece of shit. He's old enough (30+) that his indiscretions should no longer be forigven, and if that story was at all true, then despite it not being a crime he should be ridiculed by everyone, for as long as possible, in as many ways as possible.

@dweezil give me a break. The guy being a sleazebag is certainly less newsworthy than shady business transactions. Why exactly do we care about what Wales does in his off time, if it isn't illegal (here's looking at you Elliot)?

The only reason any of these points are close to interesting is because Wikipedia is (was?) free culture's next big hope, so Wales' behavior /where it is concerned/ has ramifications.

McNamee says he's "acting as a volunteer" fundraiser of over a million dollars, so far. BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. He must think we're a bunch of rubes.

Some members further wonder if Mr. Wales, who has created a company, Wikia, to make money from wikis and to implement a volunteer-created search engine, will reduce his role within Wikipedia.

But Mr. Wales said he was adamant.

"Dialing down is not an option for me," he said.

TRANSLATION: Fuck you, I have a fucking ego to feed.

"Leveraged branding" on the backs of all the dumbasses who were stupid enough to do JimbHO's work for him. HAHAHA you lose, dummies.

WIKIPEDIA TRIVIA GAME? LMAO!
Host: "What does Wikipedia say is the name of the current Pope?
Contestant: "Uhh, Benedict?"
Host: "Wrong. Sorry. According to Wikipedia, it's 'Bababooey'."

The more interesting conflicts of errr interest will have to come from Chickipedia, though.

[chickipedia.com]

@ebaaf: Wikipedia would not have become what it has without Wales at the helm. He is synonymous with the brand, partially because of his own penchant for loving the spotlight. He's what Steve Jobs was to Apple early on. One of the reason Wikipedia is the powerhouse it is isn't just because of the idea, but because people wanted to follow someone. He's self-righteous, and if it turns out he's a huge fuckhead it does put many Wikipedia contributors into an interesting position.

The biggest crime Jimmy Wales pulled off was whitewashing from history that Larry Sanger actually created the Wikipedia. Sanger created the concept of a wiki + encyclopedia, and Jimmy refuses to admit that he is in fact the co-founder.

I can't think of anything worse you can do to a person then deny them such an amazing accomplishment. Larry is an intelligent and gentle man who gave up fighting the Jimmy Wales hype machine long ago.

I say we bring back Larry Sanger.

He should be the front person for Wikipedia. He should be at the Time 100 party. He should be the one being flown around the world for speaking gigs.

He's the real brains behind the project, and his vision has always been two years ahead of JImbo's.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Jimbo's conduct of late shows the type of egotripper we're dealing with. Having made himself a public figure, he knows that everything he does is going to be analyzed with intense scrutiny. Everything he does is to serve his sense of self.

@JasonCalacanis - I have to agree wholeheartedly. To attempt this complete denial of Larry Sanger's contribution is just simply unconscionable.

This, coupled with the idea of monetizing and privatizing the amazing amount of work that so many individuals have contributed of their own accord, with no expectation of compensation, is just sad.