I posted this on the discussion page of my last post, in response to a question by Ben Yates: "So Jimmy slept with a Republican?"
"And you thought Jimmy was a Democrat? Remember, he is a Randian libertarian with all that that entails. As an example of this, though I worked almost 18 months in the office, I never received medical insurance. Not a high priority for a Randian, and Brad, well, he was never around enough to actually do something about medical insurance (he was not in the office four out of the 11 months he worked there--not a bad gig for $160k a year). In fact, it was Carolyn who finally got around to arranging medical insurance and a 401k for the staff.
"The irony is that while I was busy arranging travel expenses and the Board's babysitting fees, since these were deemed an obvious expense for the Foundation to cover (see my Board campaign for details), no one considered the staff's medical insurance a priority."
The truth is that many of my accusations were removed then, however, I would like to clarify my position. While I have no objection to covering certain basic costs to the Board, I believe that, first and foremost, the Board has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of the staff. Apparently, this was not the position of either Jimbeau or Brad.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Oh please. If you don't like the benefits, don't take the job. There are plenty of other people who I'm sure would be happy to take it.
You completely misunderstand anonymous - there is context you don't know, or in your hair-trigger desire to flame, you simply refuse to see. When Danny started the WMF couldn't give benefits, but soon grew big enough to where it could. It's simply strange and ironic that the holier-than-thou Jimbeau, who cares so much for the illiterate children of Africa, had less caring for his own employees than a multiple convicted felon. If you don't like this blog, there are certainly plenty of others who will read and not complain - anonymously.
You guys should have unionized.:)
Actually, that was promised as a benefit. Certainly by Brad, who was coming in to clean up Jimbeau's little mess. Too many rock stars; not enough guitars.
This one goes up to 11...
I've always thought that the philosophy of Objectivism seemed incompatible with the goals of the free content movement. :/
A cynic might then conclude from Wales' "Randian libertarian" beliefs that he had no interest in the well-being of the community of contributors to the English-language Wikipedia. After all, the policy on "Biography of Living Persons" was only set forth after Siegenthaler held Wales responsible; when it was his well-being, something was quickly done.
A couple years ago, I threw out the idea of a "Wikipedian/Wikimedian in Residence" program, which would provide some benefits (or at least credibility) to established Wikipedians/Wikimedians. It never got off the ground due in part to my failure to promote it sufficiently -- although I mentioned the idea to Wales & someone else could have run with the idea & benefited from it. I guess I should never have mentioned that it could have also extended health care to some of the folks who work on Wikipedia full-time. (This is a matter of increasing importance to many US citizens & residents.) And for all of its flaws, it might have been useful in coping with the current failure to scale problem Wikipedia is experiencing.
Geoff
I don't see anything strange or ironic about it, and I don't even see what it has to do with caring. I care about a lot of people that I don't buy healthcare for. And the fact that Brad made another one of his broken promises says nothing about Jimbo.
Maybe there is context I don't know. For instance maybe Danny has some expensive pre-existing medical condition which he can't afford to treat without employer provided health coverage. But if that's the case shouldn't he ensure that this health coverage is going to be provided before taking the job?
It's not Jimmy Wales' responsibility to ensure that Danny stays healthy, it's Danny's.
And if Danny doesn't want to allow people to criticize him in his blog's comments section, he has every right to delete this and any other comment he doesn't like. I wasn't aware that blog comments had to be exclusively from people who agree with the blogger.
"I don't see anything strange or ironic about it, and I don't even see what it has to do with caring."
Well just because *you* don't see anything strange and ironic, that doesn't mean there isn't. Furthermore, I don't see how you've proven anything whatsoever other than you simply don't like what Danny had to say.
How about I put it to you this way - Jimbeau's shown in many different contexts, in multiple ways, that he cares about no one and nothing but himself. If it were you who had the promise of benefits, and then didn't have that promise kept, I'm sure your opinion would be different.
I don't mind constructive, useful, informative comments that disagree with the bloggers. I just happened to find yours particularly churlish and misinformed.
"How about I put it to you this way - Jimbeau's shown in many different contexts, in multiple ways, that he cares about no one and nothing but himself."
To some extent that's most likely true, and yet even if completely true there is nothing strange nor ironic about it.
"If it were you who had the promise of benefits, and then didn't have that promise kept, I'm sure your opinion would be different."
I've certainly had employers make promises that they haven't kept, and I currently have individual health care for myself and my family which I pay for out of my pocket, so I'm really not sure what it is that would change my opinion. Of course, if I were the kind of person who expected others to take care of me instead of taking care of myself, my opinion would be different.
Danny apparently took a job helping Jimbo cover up his embezzlement, waited until a year later to tell the public, and his big complaint is that Jimbo didn't pay for his health insurance?
Just to be fair, I have no problem with people criticizing my statements on this blog. Some people may still consider Jimbeau to be the Godking, while I consider him something less than a fallen angel.
As some people have pointed out, my argument is that Jimbeau is excessively self-centered, as anyone who knows him well will concede. He also saw my role as staff as being to make him money, which is why I spent over half my time coordinating his personal speaking engagements, which may have cost the Foundation money, but for which in the end, he would pocket the speaking fees (incl. two for $25,000).
This description is best summed up in how Jimbeau himself described the role of an assistant (aka me) to several people in the office as being "to pick up his dry cleaning and take his wife out on dates." Admittedly, I did neither. You see, I thought my role was to help Wikimedia.
i·ro·ny1 /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
Jimbeau to world - I am this benevolent person, and because of this benevolence, I get to hang out with Bono, Richard Branson, and make a lot of money.
Jimbeau in reality - I don't give a shit about anyone but myself.
Is the irony clear now ANONYMOUS TROLL?
I congratulate you on your rugged self-sufficiency. It still has no bearing on the fact that this caring individual, Jimbeau, fucked Danny by not keeping a promise.
If you're going to portray yourself to the world as someone better morally than most of humanity, you are naturally held to a higher standard.
If you're still not convinced that you don't have a point, then go away.
"As some people have pointed out, my argument is that Jimbeau is excessively self-centered, as anyone who knows him well will concede."
I'm sure he'd concede it himself, though maybe not in writing, as people would too easily take it out of context. To a Randian, it's a compliment to be called "selfish", and being called "selfless" is an insult.
That's my problem with this blog post. Not that you're pointing out Jimbo's selfishness, but that you're framing it as a bad thing.
"Jimbeau to world - I am this benevolent person"
Please, point me to some places where Jimbo said this. Not to a place where someone else said it about him, mind you, but to some places where he said it.
No, my problem is with selfishness masquerading as selflessness. If the goal of Wikipedia and all the other projects is truly to advance Jimmy's selfish agenda, then perhaps Seth Finkelstein hit the nail on the head here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia).
Don't confuse the goal of Wikipedia with the goal of Jimmy Wales.
I challenge you to show me some places that Jimmy Wales has called himself selfless. I can pretty much guarantee you he hasn't used that word to describe himself, at least not in the last decade or so.
ANONYMOUS TROLL - are you high? Since you started by flaming Danny, I say the burden of proof is on YOU, to show some place in which Jimbeau tells the truth, and says "I'm realy out for the money and chicks,and nothing else", instead of talking about the grinding poverty in Africa, and wanting to spread knowledge to the far reaches of the planet, all things that IMPLY selflessness. Jesus, ANONYMOUS TROLL, even his friends call him "Jesus Jimbo" - but you'd know that if YOU HAD THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
So far from going through the trouble to prove what's obvious to everyone else, I'm challenging YOU to come up with something where Jimbeau tells us how it really is.
If so, and in the spirit of transparency, Jimbeau should have no problem with me pointing out his selfish motives. More on that in a later post.
Here's the other side.
Jimbo invents (or at any rate comes into possession of) a brilliant and soon to be very successful internet idea. It becomes one of the biggest internet phenomena ever, and makes him a medium celebrity.
However, unlike the proprietors of Google and Youtube, Jimbo doesn't make millions. He (selflessly or recklessly) gives the whole thing to charity (WMF). All he's left with his the fame.
Now can you blame him if he had regrets? What if he'd kept ownership, milked advertising, bought a jet (and given 50% away to African kids - beat that Bono!). Next to that $25k speakers fees are nothing.
The dilemma. What he's left with is
1) fame - which he can try to cash in on 2) the kudos of an association with a charity and personal benevolence. The problem is that cashing in (even to a limited degree) and keeping the benevolent profile are contradictory.
But seriously, what would you do if you were Jimbo?
ANONYMOUS TROLL, what does any of that have to do with the point you made that started this whole farce of a discussion - with you castigating Danny for his legitimate complaint of having a promise for benefits broken?
What does your rugged, ever so manly self sufficiency in providing your own health care have to do with the fact that Danny took a job based on certain promises which weren't kept?
Bono, Richard Branson, YOU, believe in Jimmy Wales because he's portrayed himself to the world as someone who gave his "brilliant" idea to the world. Danny knows what the wizard behind the curtains really looks like.
Look, ANONYMOUS TROLLS don't get to determine the agenda of the discourse. So when you're ready to really delve into why Danny's point isn't valid, which is YOUR claim, not mine, I'm alllll eyes...ANONYMOUS TROLL...
This conversation reminds me of a classic Greek myth featuring a coupla characters named Narcissus and Echo.
This one has a third character whom we may call Echo Canceler.
"Since you started by flaming Danny, I say the burden of proof is on YOU, to show some place in which Jimbeau tells the truth, and says "I'm realy out for the money and chicks,and nothing else", instead of talking about the grinding poverty in Africa, and wanting to spread knowledge to the far reaches of the planet, all things that IMPLY selflessness."
I definitely don't think Jimbo is out for the money. For the chicks, maybe, but that's not a goal which is best achieved by letting the world know that's your goal.
I think Jimbo honestly gets a kick out of spreading knowledge to the far reaches of the planet. That only implies selflessness if his spreading knowledge is done to the detriment of his enjoyment of life, which I don't see him doing or claiming that he does. Time Magazine asked Jimbo "What drives people to contribute to Wikipedia? Altruism?" and he responded "No. It's realizing that doing intellectual things socially is a lot of fun—it makes sense." I think that explains what you see as a contradiction. One can spread knowledge and have fun, so there's nothing selfless about it.
Now look, I'm not a fan of Jimbo. I have a big problem with some of his methodologies, especially his lies and bending of the truth. But the picture of him as a selfless person is not one he painted himself. I guess you could fault him with not being proactive enough about fixing these misconceptions. Time will tell whether or not that was a mistake on his part, but these recent events suggest that it was.
Finally, I don't think the burden of proof is on me. Danny is the one who first suggested an irony, not me. Looking back at what he considered ironic, it seems to be that his own acts of altruism didn't inspire selflessness in others.
I'm curious about something else. Is Danny saying Brad made 160 thousand dollars a year, but didn't show up in the office for four months? That's like 50 thousand bucks for what? Was he also paid from donations?
Of course that's what he is saying. Where do you think his salary would come from if not from donations. Remember ... Wikipedia (and all the other projects) are funded 100% by individual donations, period.
That's you, isn't it, Kurt?
Sorry about the previous nuked comment, I pressed submit before I finished typing. Here's the full comment:
Anonymous wrote:
--
Jimbeau to world - I am this benevolent person"
Please, point me to some places where Jimbo said this. Not to a place where someone else said it about him, mind you, but to some places where he said it.
--
He didn't have to /say/ it. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. He touts himself as this beacon of free content.
In reality, he just wants to make money and sleep with some women and be treated like a rockstar. He cares for no one but himself (and I realize this is a compliment to him, to the majority of us it's a rather big insult).
Personally, I think the whole thing is disgusting. I don't care that he slept with Rachel Marsden. Hell, he could sleep with Monica Lewinski and drag her back into the spotllight all over again for all I care. I just believe serious questions have been raised about his ethical behavior in regards to board matters and his actions in regards to Rachel's biography. While these accusations may or may not be true (I tend to believe they are, but I'd like more proof), they certainly warrant productive discussion.
Just to clarify, I know about jimmy's politics -- it was just that the first thought that struck me was "a republican? gross!", and I thought that was funny.
Ben wrote: "it was just that the first thought that struck me was 'a republican? gross!', and I thought that was funny."
The first thought to strike me when I read that to wonder "Isn't Rachel Marsden dead?" -- then realize that I confused her with Rachel Corrie. (I guess I remember the edit wars over Corrie better than the more recent ones over Marsden.)
Geoff
I have never heard such a bunch of whining in my whole life.
Danny Wool, if that is your real name, you have some balls posting this kind of crap. If I or any other potential employer found this kind of rubbish after googling your name upon receiving your application, there is no way in hell I would hire you - you're nothing but trouble. If your contract was violated, sue. If not, and you don't like your job, quit. Either way, take some fucking responsibility for yourself and grow up.
To the laughable flame war about whatever Wales said or did or whatever, give me a fucking break. You sound like a spoiled child complaining that Timmy got 3 cookies but I only got 2 and mommy it's not faaaiiirr! Jesus Christ you people, have you no self-respect?
"A Healthy Wikipedia Is a Happy Wikipedia" - translation, "I want free health insurance". Man, you want health insurance, buy it like everyone else. The world, and Jimmy Wales, don't owe you a damn thing, and your attempt to use your blog's recent, sudden, and temporary popularity to cry like a baby about the terms of your employment contract is a disgrace. You have a man's name, but I have my doubts - are you a man at all, or a mewling, whining child?
Unbelievable.
I'd take the comment above mine much more seriously if they had "the balls" to post their real name with it. But they don't. Such is the Internet.
Man, you want health insurance, buy it like everyone else.
Err, no. Health insurance is a standard part of most employment contracts in the US, unless (sometimes even if) you work at Wal-mart. That it was not provided to professional/technical employees is really unusual.
Jim
Post a Comment