Where the Power Really Lies

It seems that Effeietsanders has decided who should be on his proposed Wikicouncil. Not that anyone knows exactly what said Wikicouncil is intended to do, but at least we now know who they are, and how they can expand their little circle--by deciding among themselves.

So who are these new people with a title, and an as-yet-to-be-determined modicum of Wikipower? Ladies and Gentlemen, I present:

• Michael Bimmler, Mbimmler (Main project: de.wikipedia)
• Yaroslav Blanter, Yaroslav Blanter (Main project: ru.wikipedia)
• Lise Broer, Durova (Main projects: en.wikipedia and commons.wikimedia )
• Jesse Plamondon-Willard, Pathoschild (Main projects: en.wikisource and meta.wikimedia )
• Sydney Poore, FloNight (Main project: en.wikipedia)
• Milos Rancic, Millosh (Main project: sr.wikipedia)
• Ray Saintonge, Eclecticology (Main project: en.wikisource, en.wikipedia)
• Andrew Whitworth, Whiteknight (Main project: en.wikibooks)
• Michal Zlatkovsky, Timichal (Main project: cs.wikipedia)

Nine new people; nine new rassaphores about to enter the sanctum sanctorum of wikipolitics extraordinaire. The truth is, I like many of them, but still, I can only wonder about some of the choices.

1. Are all the people of legal age to make decisions regarding the Wikimedia Foundation? It could be decided that their power rivals that of the Board itself: if so, they should all be eligible to serve as Board members?
2. Have they maintained clean reputations on their respective projects? For better or for worse (I think for better), a bad reputation on her home project prevented Aphaia from being elected Steward. Should that not be a consideration here as well? After all, these people are appointed in lieu of elections in which they may not be electable.
3. Do they have other responsibilities (members of chapter committees, arb coms, the boards of local chapters, etc.) that would prevent them from giving their all to this new task? We don't want to seem like we are just adding titles to the already entitled.

Yet, while those are three points to consider, there is another, more important point that cannot be ignored. In a recent post to Foundation-l, Aphaia spoke out sharply about "American arrogance" ("I daresay I sure was not chosen to mimic US arrogance"). Now normally, I refuse to take anything she says seriously, but when it comes to the Wikicouncil, I'm afraid she has a point. Of the nine members, five are from English-language projects, while some of the most prominent projects have no representation whatsoever. I mean, sure Pathoschild speaks French, but he is not representing the French Wikipedia, nor is anyone representing Swedish, Finnish, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, or any of the other most prominent language projects. Wikimania is being held in Egypt (2008) and South America (2009), yet there is no one representing the Arabic, Spanish, or Portuguese projects. In fact, there is no one from Africa, Asia, or Australia either. All this does is tell me that despite the righteous indignation about why Wikimania should be in Alexandria/Buenos Aires, what really matters when it comes to governance is a hefty dose of Europe and North America--and sorry, but adding an Asian now will really smack of tokenism.

I hope that people will join me in denouncing this absurd proposal. In fact, given my last point, I expect to see GerardM and Aphaia on the barricades, opposing this resolution as vigorously as anyone. This is not the way to ensure the democratization of the WMF.

Don't Cry for Me, Argentina.

Well, it seems as if Wikimania 2009 will be held in Buenos Aires. While there is certainly none of the uproar that surrounded the Alexandria decision (what's happening with the security consultant?), there are some people raising objections about the cost of traveling to Buenos Aires as compared to somewhere in North America or Europe. Just for the fun of it, I checked some prices on Expedia, and found that if I book now, I can go Frankfurt-Buenos Aires round trip (Wed 7/30/2008 — Thu 8/7/2008) for as little as $1441, with a stopover in scenic Sao Paolo. If I flew from New York, it would cost $1033 with a stop in Mexico City. All in all, that's not too bad, considering the strange Travelocity results I got (Berlin - Buenos Aires, $9,000). And Buenos Aires is a beautiful city, with lots of great food (steak three meals a day), fabulous yerba mate (I am polishing off a bombilla as I type), and wonderful dance clubs (who will Jimmy tango with?).

Still, there are concerns about the cost, and whether the jury really considered this adequately. After all, Wikimedia has a high concentration of students, for whom these prices really are prohibitive. Perhaps there is a solution, though, which will address these concerns fairly. The jury consisted of 13 voting members, 2 advisors, and 3 moderators, for a total of 18 people. Perhaps it would be best if the Foundation announced that except for current Board members (Board and not Advisory Board) and Sue, all other participants in the decision will not have their airfare compensated by the Foundation. If they want to go, and they think the price is reasonable, they can pay their own airfare, leaving scholarships for run-of-the-mill Wikipedians who don't happen to have friends in high places.

As for any arguments that they are needed to help in planning and organization, that seems not to be the case, because it is a great organizing team. And so what if some of them are staff? When the WMF has a staff of fifty, will they all be flown around the world for each Wikimania? I am sure they can find something to do in the office while Sue is away. Nor is it a question of money: I am sure the donors who just gave so generously didn't intend their funds to have the favorite few tramp to exotic locations for parties. In fact it would be much more meaningful if the available funds were used to bring people from smaller projects to Wikimania, and make this a truly international event.

So, Angela, Achal, Dror, Britty, Titan, Yu, Austin, SJ, Damian, Delphine, Cary, Phoebe, James ... How about making the commitment here and now by stating unequivocally that you will not accept any money to attend Wikimania, and you are doing it so that other Wikipedians who have never attended a single event will have a chance to go? Besides, if you do choose to go to Wikimania, remember, it's not that expensive after all.

Grant it be so

A lot of people have asked me privately what I think of the recent grant that the WMF has received from the Sloan Foundation. Some were probably expecting some snide comment or devious conspiracy, but I have none. Actually, I think it is a fine thing and it opens up some great opportunities for the WMF. So kudos to everyone involved (and yes, that even means you, Erik).

I do want to add two hopes for this grant, which are especially important right now. Grants of this size generally require accountability, in the form of regular reports as to how the money is spent. I hope that this accountability will extend to the community as well, and to the many small donors. I have always found enormous inspiration in the lesson of the widow's mite, and hope that the Foundation does so too. While grateful to the large donors, we cannot overlook the enormous sacrifice of the small donors, and be equally accountable to them.

I also hope the Foundation can learn from one of my bigger failings in life--just because you have it, doesn't mean you have to spend it. One possibility with this grant is that it will free up other moneys to begin the creation of an endowment to ensure longterm sustainability. While new projects, hires, and gizmos may seem enticing, it is worth considering the Foundation in five years, and not just in the next week. I hope the Board, which has final oversight of the budget, will keep this in mind as they review spending, and remember the grassroots core of the projects that got them here in the first place.

Burt Lancaster and Jimmy Wales

Doesn't Jimmy Wales remind you of Burt Lancaster? For those of you who don't quite get the allusion, I suggest you rent the film Elmer Gantry (1960) this weekend. It won Academy Awards for Best Actor (Lancaster) and Best Supporting Actress (Shirley Jones as Lulu Baines--I wonder who she is in the WMF saga). Ironically, it also won Best Adapted Screenplay, since that is what Wikipedia is all about--taking information from other sources, in this case a Sinclair Lewis novel, and recasting it in a new medium. So watch the film and think about this question: Doesn't Jimmy Wales remind you of Burt Lancaster?

Getting the facts straight

I just read the most recent article by Brian Bergstein about Wikipedia. I found it to be very fair and balanced, but I want to take exception to one remark by Jimmy:

"Two years ago, if you donated $10,000, you might not even get a phone call or a thank-you letter," Wales said. "That's just not acceptable."

Actually, in 2005, everyone who gave over $5 got a thank you note (blue and silver in 2005; yellow and red in 2006), much to the ire of many community members, so that at the next fundraiser, it was upped to $25. Everyone from the US who gave over $200 also received a tax exemption letter as was then required by law. Jimmy was asked to sign thank you notes for over $200 and to call people for over $1000. He did, and in fact complained that there were so many that he got writer's cramp from signing them all. Nonetheless, he did sign them, either at the office or at home (though I have no evidence that he actually sent the ones he took home). Donations over $1,000 usually led to a telephone call as well. Donations over $10,000 were also accompanied by an invitation to "get together for dinner next time I'm [Jimmy] in your area." As for donations from overseas, Jimmy took great pride in how his mother-in-law helped him write notes in Japanese to donors from Japan, and I personally penned a note in Hebrew, which Jimmy signed, to Judy Nir-Moses-Shalom, an Israeli media celebrity and wife of then foreign minister Silvan Shalom, for her donation.

I know this may sound petty, but I can't imagine Jimmy forgetting all that. How could he possibly benefit from saying that this did not happen? What else could Jimmy have forgotten?

The Wisdom of the Masses

"There is one fact which, whether for good or ill, is of utmost importance in the public life of Europe at its present moment. The fact is the accession of the masses to complete social power. As the masses, by definition, neither should nor can direct their own personal existence, and still less rule society in general, this fact means that actually Europe is suffering from the greatest general crisis that can afflict peoples, nations and civilization.

"Strictly speaking, the mass, as a psychological fact, can be defined without waiting for individuals to appear in mass formation. In the presence of one individual we can decide whether he is "mass" or not. The mass is all that which sets no value on itself -- good or ill -- based on specific grounds, but which feels itself "just like everybody," and nevertheless is not concerned about it; is, in fact, quite happy to feel itself as one with everybody else.

"The mass believes that it has the right to impose and to give force of law to motions born in the café. I doubt whether there have been other periods of history in which the multitude has come to govern more directly than in our own.

"The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will. As they say in the United States: "to be different is to be indecent." The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.

"It is illusory to imagine that the mass-man of to-day will be able to control, by himself, the process of civilization. I say process, and not progress. The simple process of preserving our present civilization is supremely complex, and demands incalculably subtle powers. Ill-fitted to direct it is this average man who has learned to use much of the machinery of civilization, but who is characterized by root-ignorance of the very principles of that civilization.

"The command over the public life exercised today by the intellectually vulgar is perhaps the factor of the present situation which is most novel, least assimilable to anything in the past. At least in European history up to the present, the vulgar had never believed itself to have "ideas" on things. It had beliefs, traditions, experiences, proverbs, mental habits, but it never imagine itself in possession of theoretical opinions on what things are or ought to be. To-day, on the other hand, the average man has the most mathematical "ideas" on all that happens or ought to happen in the universe. Hence he has lost the use of his hearing. Why should he listen if he has within him all that is necessary? There is no reason now for listening, but rather for judging, pronouncing, deciding. There is no question concerning public life, in which he does not intervene, blind and deaf as he is, imposing his "opinions."

"But, is this not an advantage? Is it not a sign of immense progress that the masses should have "ideas," that is to say, should be cultured? By no means. The "ideas" of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-man can have recourse. There is no culture where there are no principles of legality to which to appeal. There is no culture where there is no acceptance of certain final intellectual positions to which a dispute may be referred. There is no culture where economic relations are not subject to a regulating principle to protect interests involved. There is no culture where aesthetic controversy does not recognize the necessity of justifying the work of art.

"When all these things are lacking there is no culture; there is in the strictest sense of the word, barbarism. And let us not deceive ourselves, this is what is beginning to appear in Europe under the progressive rebellion of the masses. The traveler knows that in the territory there are no ruling principles to which it is possible to appeal. Properly speaking, there are no barbarian standards. Barbarism is the absence of standards to which appeal can be made.

"Under Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the "reason of unreason." Here I see the most palpable manifestation of the new mentality of the masses, due to their having decided to rule society without the capacity for doing so. In their political conduct the structure of the new mentality is revealed in the rawest, most convincing manner. The average man finds himself with "ideas" in his head, but he lacks the faculty of ideation. He has no conception even of the rare atmosphere in which ideals live. He wishes to have opinions, but is unwilling to accept the conditions and presuppositions that underlie all opinion. Hence his ideas are in effect nothing more than appetites in words.

"To have an idea means believing one is in possession of the reasons for having it, and consequently means believing that there is such a thing as reason, a world of intelligible truths. To have ideas, to form opinions, is identical with appealing to such an authority, submitting oneself to it, accepting its code and its decisions, and therefore believing that the highest form of intercommunication is the dialogue in which the reasons for our ideas are discussed. But the mass-man would feel himself lost if he accepted discussion, and instinctively repudiates the obligation of accepting that supreme authority lying outside himself. Hence the "new thing" in Europe is "to have done with discussions," and detestation is expressed for all forms of intercommunication, which imply acceptance of objective standards, ranging from conversation to Parliament, and taking in science. This means that there is a renunciation of the common life of barbarism. All the normal processes are suppressed in order to arrive directly at the imposition of what is desired. The hermeticism of the soul which, as we have seen before, urges the mass to intervene in the whole of public life."

—José Ortega y Gasset, Revolt of the Masses, 1930, writing about the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s. Can he have been writing about Wikipedia today? Has so little changed since then?

The Analytical Psychology of Wikimedia

Once, when having dinner with Sue Gardner, she explained her fondness for the MBTI test, and her belief in how it should be used to run the Wikimedia Foundation. I nodded politely and smiled. Possibly not the best way to run such an eclectic group of people, by pigeonholing them into controversial categories, and favoring one type over the other, but who am I to argue with Sue? After all, as she is prone to remind us, she is a professional.

It seems, however, that some of the other staff are less than comfortable with the pigeonholing too, and one even had the courtesy to send me a screen shot of the current chart, as it appears in the office wiki. So, for your reading pleasure, here is the staff of the WMF as they are currently mapped. Before looking any further, can you guess who the Mastermind is? Can you guess who the Field Marshals are? We all know about the countless minions, but is there even a category for horndog? And then, of course, there is the Wikipedia article itself, which currently reads: "While many academic psychologists have criticized the indicator in research literature, claiming that it "lacks convincing validity data," ^[3][4][5] proponents and sellers of the test cite unblinded anecdotal predictions of individual behavior.^{[6]" I suppose that can be edited out. Now, how about a similar chart for the Board?}


(Click to read.)

Asking the right people ...

I was amused by some of Sue's responses last night on Not the Wikipedia Weekly. Straightforward denials aside, I was impressed by how she consulted with "Brad Patrick and some of the other staff who were around at the time." Considering that the in-office staff at the time consisted of Brad, Monica, and me, I can only wonder who else she spoke to. I know she didn’t speak to me, and I'm quite sure that she has never met Monica, nor would even know where to find her. I suppose she means she spoke with Brad, in his capacity as interim executive director.

So, Sue, I wonder if Brad Patrick filled you in on the following: Did he mention how, for a salary of $160,000 per year, he was out of the office for at least four months (though admittedly, three of those were with Board authorization, while he decided if he wanted to stay on)? Did he mention how he once went on vacation and forgot to approve salaries (Brion might remember because it was a Friday, and I had to send a check to him by Fedex overnight)? Did he mention how his negligence left the Foundation with a $50,000 property tax bill for an office we rented (it was finally resolved)? Did he mention how, during all that time, he did nothing to secure the Foundation's trademarks (apparently that is finally being handled)? Did he mention how he left his concealed weapon license on his desk when leaving the office one last time, with all the doors left open? Did he mention how, on those days he did show up, he came late and left early (or, to quote his mother-in-law, "Brad can't get his shit together in the morning.")? Did he mention the meeting with a prominent guest that he came 3 hours late for, because he forgot to wake up (it was, in fact, his last day in the office, shortly before Christmas)? Did he mention the several thousand pictures of his daughter that we found on his computer after he left, or how he used to break down in tears when he showed them in his PowerPoints (smile, Delphine! You know what I'm talking about)? Did he mention how he didn’t know Quickbooks well, and on occasion, when stuck, asked me to call his father? Did he mention why he and I were in Rotterdam, and how that finally ended? Did he mention how he was told to resign, or else he would be fired (or to quote an email from Erik to me, "when I joined the Board I certainly did not expect that we would have to fire our interim ED!")?

Or did he tell you that everything was hunky dory, how his life would have been different had he discovered sushi as a teen, and how his great moment in leadership came when he was drum major in his high school marching band? Oh, and to watch out for flying burritos …

Sometimes I can only wonder why, when Brad finally left, Florence instructed Carolyn to change the locks, but when I left the order came from above to erase my hard drive.

News from a disgruntled former employee

Feeling more and more gruntled every day ...

Florence answers

This morning I woke up to an email from Florence (cc'ed to Kat, Frieda, Michael Snow, and Jan-Bart from the Board, and to Jay Walsh, Director of Communications). The email said the following:

Hello Danny,

I just listened to your interview to Wikipedia Weekly, and noted that in that interview, you accuse the chair of the board (that would be me) of wrong-doings. As the interviewer noted, that's a very strong statement. You also add that the board was at that time aware that Brad and the chair were guilty of wrong-doings.
You note as an example in your interview that one of the wrong-doings of Brad was to simply not show up at work. However, you did not give any example of my own wrong-doings. Given that accusing someone of wrong-doings is a very strong statement, I would like you to clarify to the current board (some members were actually board members at that time) which are the wrong-doings you are accusing me of.
I could also understand that in the fire of an interview, words went beyond your thoughts. If it is the case, I'll be happy if you could publicly clarify what you exactly mean.

Thank you.

Florence

Since I have been asked to "publicly clarify," I will do so here.
1. In that interview my intention regarding Brad and the Chair of the Board was to Brad and Jimmy. Florence only became Chair in November 2006, and any accusations in previous posts refer to the period before that.
2. That said, in my Board election campaign, I raised various concerns regarding Florence. While I still hold by these and some other concerns which I will not bring up at this point, I do not believe that Florence acted out of malice. Rather, she acted out of unfamiliarity with the laws governing a 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit in the United States. Regardless, I continue to maintain that of all the people involved in this emerging story, Florence has consistently acted in what she believes to be the interest of the Foundation and its ideals.
3. I note that she has not dismissed my claims regarding Jimmy and Brad. In fact, from her email, she seems to be verifying my claims about Brad, albeit very cautiously.
4. I also note that her email to me failed to include Jimmy, Sue, Erik, or Domas in the cc.
5. Based on this email and on previous correspondence, I believe that Florence understands that what I said in previous posts was accurate. To avoid speculation, I will give an example of one such correspondence, dated March 6

Florence,
I am giving it all to you on a silver platter. (Sentence removed to avoid implicating others.) If you answer the questions honestly, Jimmy, Erik, and Sue are discredited. You come out the good guy. I think that is a far better situation than having them go after you next.

Danny

Florence responded as follows:

I do not think I can... At least, this evening, I do not think I can.

I had a question about the dinner. I have a vague memory that there were 4 people at that dinner. Do you remember who it was ?

Ant

I do not know why Florence chose not to answer my three questions below, but I continue to assume in the best of faith that she wants to. I do not know what, or who, is hindering her, but I repeat my earlier statement: The truth shall set you free.

Forgetting the Past; Condemned to Repeat It

Looking up a quote just now, I stumbled upon an interesting page, that really offers insight into what Wikipedia was intended to be. Where else can you find a cofounder stating that "We have never made it a secret that, eventually, we will start making money with this website ..."? Where but here can you see a Deputy Director talk about "the bandwidth requirements for a trimmed down version of Wikipedia (account-only), should the need ever arise ..."? And then there's the Tom Sawyer analogy, which I heard mentioned again only recently. Seems like the present is older than we think.

The Trouble with Orphans

While Wikipedians ramble on about "Power Structures: Who and How?" perhaps those who care about the mission (rather than who gets to decided what to do if Sue Gardner suddenly "gets hit by a truck") might consider the implications of an ongoing debate taking place at the U.S. House of Representatives. This debate concerns the future of an enormous corpus of orphan works.

This problem is very real. According to Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain (CSPD), these works "probably comprise the majority of the record of 20th century culture," but because of their uncertain status librarians and archivists prefer to play it safe by "drop[ping] copyrighted work unless it is clearly in the public domain. As a result, orphan works are not used in new creative efforts or made available to the public due to uncertainty over their copyright status, even when there is no longer anyone claiming copyright ownership, or the owner no longer has any objection to such use."

The results can be devastating. Years ago I edited a book, Israel Before Israel: Silent Cinema in the Holy Land, written by a scholar at the Spielberg Film Archive at the Hebrew University. At the time I had the opportunity to see the actual archive, a climate-controlled vault containing hundreds upon hundreds of film reels, including features, documentaries, newsreels, and stock footage, all carefully stored. I was told that if I smoked near the vault, it would be my last cigarette ever, because the works are so flammable. Beyond that however, these films are subject to serious decay because of the way in which they were first made, using cellulose nitrate and cellulose acetate stock.

Imagine the problem in the U.S., where the bulk of early film was created. In as early as 1993, the Librarian of Congress wrote regarding the restoration of orphan film that "the urgency may be the greatest."

Print materials are no less subject to gradual disappearance. Without the hindrance of potential copyright on these works, modern technology could enable millions of people to participate in efforts to preserve these works for posterity. Just look at Project Gutenberg (and Distributed Proofreaders) or Wikisource for two examples of how this can be achieved. But as a report by the CSPD notes, "… many modern media simply do not last as long as the copyright term." The situation is getting worse, not better.

Now, I am not a lawyer, nor am I qualified to perform a risk analysis about the possible consequences of adopting orphan works. Regardless, it seems to me that this issue is far more compatible with the mission of the WMF—"the sum of all human knowledge" and all that—than petty bickering over Volunteer Councils and power structures, Alexandria or Atlanta. When did the WMF lose sight of its mission?

Changing Times, Changing Slogans

So, it has now been suggested that the Wikimedia Board move ahead and vote on a proposed Volunteer Council. Some history here. Back in the old days, it was decided to created admins. Then came bureaucrats, stewards, officers, board members (for the Foundation and each chapter), member of the mediation committee, arbitration committee, communications committee, chapters committee, access to the internal mailing list, access to the comcom mailing list, access to the super-duper top secret mailing lists that shall not be named, wikimania jury, director of featured articles, deputy director of featured articles, project liaison, etc.

So sure, I support the creation of a Volunteer Council, and the creation of yet another title, Volunteer Council Member (signified by the addition of VCM after a user name). And I support an amendment to this proposed resolution. Proposed, "The slogan of Wikipedia shall be changed from 'Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' to 'Wikipedia, the bureaucracy that anyone can edit.'"

P.S. Whoops, I forgot to list editor and contributor. I guess I am in good company.

An Interlude

In his new blog, MessedRocker wrote a fine essay called the Messiah of Knowledge Foundation, describing some of the major problems he sees with changing attitudes about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation. His post reminded me of a saying that has long meant a lot to me:

When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.
I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.
When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town.
I couldn't change the town, so as an older man I tried to change my family.
Now as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have had an impact on my family.
My family and I could have made an impact on our town.
Their impact could have changed the nation, and I could indeed have changed the world.

—Israel Salanter (1810-1883)

Maybe Wikipedia should change itself before committing itself to changing the world ...

Learning from mistakes

Well, it seems that I was wrong. Erik has provided documentation that his work visa did arrive in about two weeks. It may surprise people here, but I am actually glad that I was wrong. By responding promptly and openly, Erik allayed certain concerns that people have had for a while now about his hiring, whether openly or in private. There were questions, stated or not, and there was a very simple answer. In effect, what happened here is that Erik's disclosure proved a key point: that openness really does work better. I hope that this new example of openness is continued, and that all concerns and questions are addressed in a forthright and open manner. As a reminder, there are still some questions a few posts down that could benefit from such open responses.

It's a funny thing. Over the past week or so, I have received countless emails with stories and "information" from the most diverse group of people imaginable. Some were credible (Board, staff, etc.), while others were far less so (the Tampa Bay Swingers Club? Gimme a break!). Nonetheless, I have decided to draw inspiration from this openness to ask everyone who really has something to say to be open about it themselves, rather than ask me to be their mouthpiece. As Erik's document shows, there may be a simple explanation.

In the meanwhile, I think Kelly Martin's new series on the most-viewed articles is fascinating, while MessedRocker offers some great observations in his new blog as well.

Timing is everything ...

Thanks to everyone who responded to my previous post. I wrote it in response to an email that Jimbeau sent to the Foundation in December 2006 with this interesting quote:

"I was recently asked this question by someone who is potentially in a position to make this happen, and he wanted to know what we need, what we dream of, that we can't accomplish on our own, or that we would expect to take a long time to accomplish on our own."

In the internal email that was leaked to the AP, Florence asked Jimbeau:

"... some people do wonder WHY would venture capitalists invest in us (be it in direct money, or indirectly, in giving their time). The mission of venture capitalists is to make money, in investing in companies. Given that mission, it seems entirely natural that people wonder why they are losing their time investing in us."

She was commenting on the same VC who Jimbo wrote about in 2006.

All of this caused me to wonder: so much has gone on between 2006 and 2008, but that same VC firm, Elevation Partners, has continued to show interest in the Foundation in some rather unusual ways. I accept the many points made against my argument by Dan, Teresa, Seth, Sage, Geoff and others. But is there a way around that? I wonder. Rather than just speculate, I decided to put together a timeline, based on documents I have at home. Some are private Google chats with people in the know, others are emails that were leaked to me, while still others are public or semi-public documents. To allay Sue's fears, there are no allegations and no insinuations, just a timetable of events.

June 1-3: Decision finalized to hire Sue. I can find no public minutes for this Board meeting.

June: Sue applies for work visa (received late November); also, Oleta the bookkeeper complains that Jimmy used Foundation funds for private travel. Jimmy blames Florence, and demands that the Board fire Oleta for "being rude."

June 28-29: Jimmy informs Sue that she must meet with Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners in San Francisco that Monday, before the holiday (information from Carolyn). Carolyn or Barbara arrange flight. Meeting is to be kept discreet.

July 2: Sue flies to SF to meet Roger, and flies back the same day.

July 3: Oleta informs Jimmy of Carolyn's misuse of credit card. Debt of $5,000 was already paid back before it was discovered.

July 4: Board votes to fire Carolyn.

July 5: Erik proposes a Board motion to hire Sue as Management Consultant until she gets her work visa.

July 7: Elections for Board end.

July 12: Erik is reelected to the Board.

Mid-July: Erik reports to the internal mailing list about his meetings in SF the previous week, including a meeting with Roger McNamee initiated by Jimmy. For those with access to the Internal mailing list, you will find the statement in the last paragraph: "On Jimmy's initiative, I also met with Roger McNamee, co founder of Elevation Partners (Bono's investment firm), who has helped us out a number of times already."

October 6-7: Board meeting in Florida. Erik stays for 2-3 days after the meeting (private email from participant).

October 30: Sue informs Florence and the Board of her intention to hire Erik. Erik apparently knows of this.

October 31: Erik requests Board authorization to travel to SF as a Board member to interview potential job candidates.

November 26: Sue has received her work permit and is promoted to Executive Director. Erik recuses himself from the Board vote, explaining that he gave his reasons privately to Sue.

December 1: Sue assumes role as Executive Director (see Resolution above); also, Jimbeau announces that the WMF will adopt a Creative Commons compatible license. Even insiders like David Gerard seem surprised. The decision was announced at a San Francisco party hosted by Elevation Partners.

December 11: Sue provides Board with a job description for Deputy Director and announces that she offered the position to Erik one month earlier, i.e., the idea was floated in October and offered in November. Regardless, as Management Consultant, Sue did not have the authority to hire without Board approval until December 1.

December 13: Sue announces to Board that Erik has received his work visa. Assuming the process would take the same amount of time as Sue's, he would have had to apply a few weeks after her, i.e., in July (see above).

December 15: Erik's new position is announced on an internal mailing list.

December 17: Florence posts about Erik's resignation from the Board to Foundation-l

December 18: Sue announces to Foundation-l that Erik has been hired as Deputy Director.

To be fair, I think Elevation Partners is an outstanding firm, that has been very generous in its donations to the Foundation. I know because I opened the accounts for them to donate stock. But as Florence pointed out, the fiduciary responsibility of VCs is to their investors/partners, and they would certainly not be the first such firm to attempt to invest in Wikipedia. Still, I am left with two questions:

1. When did discussions about hiring Erik really begin?
2. Who is really calling the shots at the WMF?

December 19: Erik announces that "Sue & I will try to be transparent about what we're doing & why."

Update: I was informed that the Foundation applied for Sue's visa in July, not June, as originally posted.

The Keys to the Kingdom

Many of my concerns about Wikipedia are not simply about what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future. What I want to outline is a possible scenario, to show how Wikipedia could be bought by venture capitalists for a song, and transformed literally overnight from a grassroots organization into a large corporate entity.

1. A large venture capital group offers to donate $50 million to Wikipedia. Now, that is certainly a lot of money, especially for most active Wikipedians. And imagine the benefits that might come from a donation of this size, beyond the tax write-off. Of course, the VCs ask for some assurances that their money is spent wisely. Easy enough: the Board is still lacking a Treasurer, so why not have the VCs appoint one, as well as one or two other trustees to provide adequate oversight. They might even suggest a few staff members, to ensure that operations are run professionally.
2. The newly expanded Board and staff suggest that unobtrusive ads be put on the site, perhaps just on the search page for now, to ensure that there is a steady stream of income. For some perspective, Veropedia has Adsense on its search page results, for which it has earned to date a grand total of $13.41. A piddly sum indeed, but Veropedia's total traffic since adding Adsense equals about 2 seconds of Wikipedia's total traffic. Using some conservative estimates, let's say that means $5 per second on Wikipedia, or $300 per minute, $1,800 per hour … You do the rest of the math. Not a bad income at all. The new staff and Board are enthusiastic about this, and manage to push it through.
3. With its enormous web presence, the newly expanded staff and Board want to ensure the highest quality of content. Edit wars are getting out of hand, and defamatory content is becoming so pervasive that something must be done about it. The solution is simple: lock all random editing except for the most trusted editors, and hire a team of professional editors to clean up what's already there. This will certainly make the news, but the outcome is not necessarily negative, since many of Wikipedia's harshest critics are pleased by a sudden shift to more responsible content. Schools are finally more comfortable recommending Wikipedia to their students. Traffic is booming.
4. More staff appointments, more board appointments, more ads, more money.
5. The newly expanded Board decides to sell usage of its name to a series of for-profit companies branded with the Wikipedia logo. These include publishing companies, media repositories, and yes, even a new, ad-driven website, Wikipedia+, to host the enhanced content. The role of the Wikimedia Foundation is that of a holding company, limited to maintaining ultimate control of the brand.
6. And for just $50 million, the VCs have bought a top ten website.

So how much is Facebook going for?

P.S. If you are a VC reading this, how about a small donation to help the kids in Sri Lanka. Just click on the image to the left to see how you can help.

Evil

I want to thank both Kelly and Chad for their comments regarding Cary Bass's statement that I am evil. Rather than go into how I got Cary his job, etc., etc., I thought I would attempt a different approach. If anyone has read my profile, they will know that one of my favorite books is Les Chants de Maldoror by the Comte de Lautréamont, which inspired the later Surrealist movement. The book is essentially a poetic depiction of evil, as exemplified by its eponymous protagonist. I quote:

Throughout my life, I have seen narrow-minded men, without a single exception, committing innumerable stupid acts, brutalizing their fellows and perverting souls by all means. They call the motive for their actions fame. Seeing these spectacles I wanted to laugh like the others but I found that strange imitation impossible.

If this is Cary's understanding of evil then I am guilty as charged.

Deep Thoughts

When one quotes Gilbert Ryle on a mailing list, I can only wonder if they do so in their capacity as the mapmaker or the village idiot.

An answer for Ben and Matt

Ben has asked me two questions on his blog. As these and the following question by Matt Brown, are all good questions, I will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. I think that, as always, some history is required to give the full answers. As a result, I will answer the questions in the reverse order that they are given, starting with Matt's.

In mid-January 2006, a Board meeting was held in St. Pete's. Attending this meeting were four Board members (Florence, who was unable to attend, participated by phone), as well as myself, representing the office and Grants, Brad, who was then volunteer legal counsel, and various officers, including Delphine (Chapters, though the position was not yet formalized at that time) and Mav (CFO). Over the course of that weekend it became evident that there was growing frustration regarding Jimbeau's performance (or lack thereof) and discussion of his removal. Thankfully, we were advised against this. Jimbeau is the face of the project, and it is not wise to replace that with a vacuum. Rather, we hoped to define his role more clearly, to formalize the role of Officers, and to extend authority to the community by establishing a series of committees, each led by a Board member (for legal reasons), but each consisting of handpicked members of the community, to be expanded over time in a manner determined by that committee. Our hope was that we could draw from the professional experience of a diverse community of people committed to the projects to ultimately manage the Foundation.

Those who were there will remember how we first began our discussions in Tastings, a local wine bar, then went back to the office to work out a viable alternative to Jimbeau. We sat there until three am, with the formal board meeting the next morning. That meeting went well, and the Board voted on implementing its conclusions. I believe that Jimbeau was also relieved by the results, since it took much of the onus of responsibility away from him. He could do what he did best, and leave the mundane tasks to others.

The results of this were a mixed bag. Some committees, such as the Chapters Committee, continue to be successful. Others, such as the Finance Committee, did not get off the ground for various reasons. Still others, notably Special Projects, did start off well enough but came under fire, particularly from Erik, who demanded a seat on it (that said, the Language Committee, which is a spin-off of the Special Projects Committee, is still operating). The Fundraising Committee was also touch and go: Erik demanded, in the name of openness, a seat on the Committee and access to our lists of donors, including all contact information. Veteran Wikipedians will remember a heated IRC meeting initiated by Erik about the Committees—I believe the transcript can be found on IRC. Needless to say, none of us thought that Erik should be included in this stage of the Committees, largely because he had told each of us individually that his ultimate goal was to take over the Foundation from Jimmy. In fact, there is a transcript of some conversation Brad had with Florence about precisely that in an earlier post, "The Day the Foundation Stood Still."

So, in answer to Matt, yes. This is one example of how we tried to fix the situation. There were others, as well, but I will not go into that here. All of us did, and still do, value the projects even if we are sometimes disillusioned with its leadership. We each, in our own way, are trying to help it get through what is a very painful adolescence, while remaining true to the mission and the community. Despite my criticisms, I continue to edit and contribute content, and hope to continue to do so.

But, and this is a really big "but," ignoring problems does not make them go away (unless you are a Randian, of course, but that's a different story). I believe in tackling problems, no matter how difficult they seem, no matter how painful the solutions are. Doing that shows real concern, unlike professions of righteous indignation (such as calling critics trolls or tabloid journalism) and unlike burying your head in the sand, waiting for the problem to go away. You may not like the critics or what they have to say, but that doesn’t mean that their criticism is invalid.

I think I have answered the final two questions. Since this is a long post already, I think that I will let this sink in some before I answer what my ultimate goal is. In that time, I hope Florence will answer at least two of my questions to her.

Three questions for Florence.

Since neither Erik nor Sue have bothered to answer, I will keep going up the ladder. Here are three questions for Florence Devouard, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Now, Florence and I have argued in the past, but I will say this: I do trust her integrity, and I believe that she has the best interests of the Foundation constantly before her. Regardless of any fights we may have had, she is an honest person. So, Florence, I ask you three questions:

1. Prior to the eruption of the Marsden-Wales issue, did you have any knowledge of any or some of Jimmy Wales's questionable financial activities regarding Foundation money?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, did you ever comment on this to Jimmy Wales or the Board?
3. In the past four months, have Jimmy Wales, Erik, and/or Sue ever asked you to step down as Chair of the Board for challenging some of their decisions or activities?

I realize that these are uncomfortable questions, but I assure you that your answers will win you a groundswell of support. Nevertheless, they are uncomfortable, so I am upping the ante. If you answer "No" to the above questions, I will stop blogging about this topic.

"The truth shall set you free," as they say.

A question for Erik

Since Sue is too busy to respond, I thought I would address this question to Erik. Do you still hold by this edit that you made to Jimmy Wales's article back in 2005?

A question for Sue

Hi Sue,

I guess this is the best forum to reach you. In response to a previous post you wrote:

"So I'm going to make one simple statement: Jimmy has never used Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures. Indeed, he has consistently put the Foundation's interests ahead of his own, and has erred on the side of personally paying for his own Wikimedia-related expenditures, rather than the reverse."

Are you willing to state unequivocally that Jimmy Wales never wrote a check to the WMF to reimburse the WMF for his personal expenses?

Best,

Danny

Jimmy Wales's "gold-plated washing machine"

I just read ValleyWag's recent post citing this blog, and I want to be perfectly clear. This questionable use of Foundation funds stopped in 2006, largely because Jimbeau's credit card was taken away. I do not believe, nor do I have any reason to believe, that it is continuing. If Jimbeau is still living the vida loca--and as you can imagine, he hardly keeps me posted--I have no reason to believe that it is at the Foundation's expense.

Now, let's see if we can help those kids in Sri Lanka. If people can bid $100 bucks for a dirty t-shirt, they can give $10 to help a kid in need.

Thank you

Since I posted my take on the recent revelations, I have had well over 2,000 hits on my blog. Admittedly, half of them were me, but to the other 1000+, thank you. And now that I have your attention, I'd really like to appeal to you to consider the project to help kids in Sri Lanka learn computer skills, which appears on the side bar. Let's take this opportunity to show how charity means charity by giving to a cause that really is helping people. For more information, just click on the image.

A Healthy Wikipedia Is a Happy Wikipedia

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.

Money for nothing, chicks for free?

Seth Finkelstein made a very valid point on Kelly's blog yesterday. The Marsden story, salacious as it is, is really just Jimbeau's problem. A quick look at Marsden's bio will show that she is better known in Canada for her lurid sexcapades than for her integrity as a journalist, and I am sure that both Sue and Jay Walsh, who come from the Canadian journalist community, could back up these charges. It is no mere metaphor to say that Jimbeau got in bed with the wrong woman … this time.

Why "this time"? Because ValleyWag seems to have missed a few of the facts. I've known about several of Jimbeau's affairs long before I started working at Wikipedia because, well, he used to boast of them to me. And not just to me either. In fact, I'd need two hands, two feet, and a bunch of other extremities to count all the people who knew. So Jimbeau is a lech. That still fails to address Seth's point that his sex life is no one's business but his. True, perhaps, but the fact is that this had an impact on much more than Jimbeau's integrity. It impacted the Foundation's cash reserves, which are derived from donations. You see, Jimbeau was certainly not frugal in his spending on his endless trips abroad, but when it came to handing in receipts, he could be somewhat careless. At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit. Not a bad sum, considering that many of those trips had fat honoraria, which Jimbeau kept for himself. (Florence will surely remember his explanation for one of these: "I don’t make any money, and my wife needs a washing machine." Her response was wonderful: "A gold-plated washing machine?")

So Jimbeau cancelled an upcoming trip to Italy, Serbia, and Croatia, and got to work finding receipts. I helped process them. Subway ticket in Moscow: $0.50. Massage parlor in Moscow: priceless. Some were accepted; others were not, like the $650 spent on two bottles of wine during a dinner for four at Bern's—I remember that one because he submitted it twice, once with the tip scratched out. I wonder if the students who gave up their lunch money to donate to Wikipedia would have approved of that expense. In the end he reached a deal with Brad—details unknown—and paid the Foundation about $7000 in two checks. I don't know what happened with the rest, but the checks can be found in the list of donors.

I remember how, in Mexico City, Bono explained to us how the band leaves the arena after a concert by running through a long plastic tunnel stretching from the stage to their limos. "I need one of those," Jimbeau responded, "because I am like a rockstar too." That may be. He certainly gets to have sex with groupies. It is just unfortunate that for the longest time, some of this was funded by well-meaning donors, who really thought that their $5.00 would pay for hardware and bandwidth.