Talk:Wikipedia founder embroiled in affair and financial allegations

Thread moved from Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous
FYI. Will keep track of sources here for now. It's probable that there will be more coverage of this in other major news sources within a few hours. Cirt - (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why here? Why not start an article? Or a page within your userspace? This seems highly irregular. --SVTCobra 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I wanted community input, and when this was breaking I did not yet feel comfortable/feel there were enough sources for an article. Other than my userspace or a new article, is there another type of place to post sources for a potential new article, in order to elicit community feedback first?  Cirt - (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Story preparation. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can someone give some input as to a potential title for the subpage off of Story preparation ?  Cirt - (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Wales-Marsden Affair, and the subsequent cover-up by Wikipedia"? - 68.87.42.110 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See above link. Cirt - (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Story preparation/Wikipedia founder's involvement with Rachel Marsden article

The story
Before this gets close to anything published, I want to stress what kind of mes this can cause us. If Wikipedia covered something up, and we have proof, and intentions were to cover something up, then that IS a story and should be published. Regardless of who Jimbo dated for how long, why they broke up and the result of that break up is, it is not something that WN needs to report on. I admit that we have published some borderline tabloid stuff, but there is a line and this I think is crossing it. So please be careful. We don't need to slanderize or bash anyone. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is why I am working on sourcing first, before writing anything at all. I agree with what the story should focus on from the 2nd sentence you wrote, above.  Perhaps you could take a look at the listed sources to pull out that specific information?  Cirt - (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm on ComCom, the title on this is utterly inappropriate. Based on information I cannot reveal there was no coverup, standard w:WP:BLP process which Yellow Journalist sites don't grok. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really did not know what title to go with at all. It is still in preparation subpage,, please feel free to immediately change the title yourself if you feel it is inappropriate.  Cirt - (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the conflict of interest and financial issues alone are weighty/newsworthy, without needing to delve into any sort of depth about the personal issues involved, other than a very brief mention for context. Also, I think it is best to wait on this a bit longer as it develops and gets more news coverage - we can see if more information comes out in other secondary sources - and what tack major media newswires are taking. Cirt - (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * According to the statement in Jimmy's userspace the work to make Marsden's article conform to w:WP:BLP was distinct from the relationship. Insinuating that the OTRS process for applying WP:BLP has been subverted is a serious allegation and - as far as I can tell from the sources - not supported by the facts. It should be noted that this is only present in the Yellow Press who have a reputation for gossip and scandal. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Balanced reporting
As already stated, I have a conflict of interest when it comes to this article. I am a member of the Foundation's Communications Committee and privy to internal communications on the subject. When Jimmy states there is no overlap between applying WP:BLP with the help of the OTRS team and his liason with Marsden, I believe that due to a variety of reasons and confidential communications.

Moving on to how this must be balanced, it cannot go anywhere until efforts have been made to get feedback from involved parties. Jimmy Wales, Rachel Marsden, and staff in the Foundation office such as Jay Walsh or Sue Gardner must be allowed a right to comment on this. Yes, the project takes pride in being as independent and free from influence by WMF as possible, but the BBC would never run a story on an affair of their Director General without giving him a right to reply and others to confirm he had declared there was a potential conflict of interest to staff. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Further progress on this article
I will defer to more experienced Wikinews contributors as to the article-writing itself if anyone wants to start writing this article now, but for the time being I am just going to contribute by compiling sources. I have heard from a few people that the story may hit a couple other major newswires. But at any rate especially in light of the comments above, I'd appreciate help/input from others on this article. Cirt - (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After some discussion w/ experienced editors and after reading the piece on this incident in The Wikipedia Signpost, I think it would be fine to put something together, drawing from some quotes from that piece, and from some of the more major/reputable news pieces. Cirt - (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, since this last above comment, more major newswires have reported on the story, and thanks to The Wikipedia Signpost we have some good comments/quotes to use as well. Cirt - (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes on the article title
Input on a different title for this piece? See the title choice in The Wikipedia Signpost :



Suggest move to Story preparation/Wikipedia founder's involvement with journalist Rachel Marsden raises controversy

Thoughts? Cirt - (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like that - concise, neutral, informative. I say go for that one! Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to Story preparation/Wikipedia founder embroiled in affair and financial allegations, after suggestion by User:TheCustomOfLife and agreement by User:Ral315. Cirt - (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note on sources
Note: All material in this article as of this timestamp is sourced to secondary news sources, and contains no OR. Cirt - (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Publish
Article written by Cirt - (talk) and marked as ready, reviewed and changed to publish by. Cirt - (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect
As an article that you would like to see mirrored and more likely than most you write, as well as having already attracted a number of vandals, I suggest we semi-protect this text to registered users. Δημοσθένης - (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I agree with you and I have requested semi-protect be placed on this article, at WN:AAA. Cirt - (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Content edits to the article post March 5
Let's try not to edit the content of the article itself too much save for copy-edits, post the article's date of publication, March 5, 2008. Further content could go into another follow-up article at some point. Cirt - (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dup info re: team of editors contacted
With regard to the conflict of interest in Marsden's article, Wales acknowledged to a team of Wikipedia editors that he and Marsden "became friends ... and that we would be meeting about that," and stated "I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography." This was present in the version of the article published March 5, 2008. In early February 2008 he asked OTRS volunteers to watch the article, noting that he was recusing himself from editing due to a conflict of interest. This part was added after the article was published, on March 6, 2008 - and it also happens to be dup info (see info quoted above and also in the following paragraph in the article itself). Cirt - (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added a small bit to the prev version that wasn't actually dup info. Cirt - (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Implosion?
"The implosion of a relationship between Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and journalist Rachel Marsden..."

Anyone like to explain what it means for a relationship to implode? Were there casualties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.19.252 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask, who initially started a brief intro, but I think the wording sounds fine, and as the article is way post publish date, no need to change it at this point. Cirt - (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it's a slightly dramatic way of saying "non-amicable break-up". Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 03:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources post March 5, 2008
Subsection to keep track of new developments and new coverage in news/media sources post this article's date of publish, which was March 5, 2008. Cirt - (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

quote
The quote "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past. Get a grip!". Are the brackets arround it because the editor added them, or were they in the original quote? If an editor added them for clarification they should be square [] brackets. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This was initially the way it was quoted in a secondary source. Cirt - (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Add to the latest stories
Why isn't this automatically added to the latest articles on Category:Jimmy Wales? Is something missing in the code? OptimistBen - (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be showing up there now. Cirt - (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)