Contradicting himself

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:11 pm

I looked hard for a thread about occasions where our friend said things that were either contradictory, or that were blatantly inconsistent with reality. Couldn't find one. So, as a start:

March 26th, 2009: Wales is quoted by Susan Kuchinskas when asked about any updates on Wikia Search, "I have my team focused on the front end, working on the user experience, and making sure we have all the wiki-like tools people need to work on the site. We're just cranking away."

March 31st, 2009: Jimmy Wales "closes the doors" on Wikia Search. The site is permanently taken offline.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:36 pm

Don't forget all those Quora threads where he quietly deleted things and had people banned.
Or his messing with the Rachel Marsden bio, and denying it.

Long before Marsden and Wales had met (which was supposedly sometime in late 2007, or early 2008, depending on the source), the hatred for Marsden by Wikipedians had already evolved into a major editwar, focusing on her bio, and on related articles. In September 2006, an arbitration was opened over it, an arbitration in which Wales himself meddled. It resulted in one editor's permanent ban, and a strange "rule" which is constantly ignored and abused: "2) Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit. Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)"

To this day, her Wikipedia biography -- repeatedly deleted/restored in an utterly chaotic and incompetent manner[10][11][12][13][14], heavily watched and tinkered with[15] by Wikipedia's deepest insiders and worst patrollers -- continues to be hostile and negative in tone. The massive editwar in March 2008, triggered by Jimbo's breakup with Marsden and her subsequent auctioning of his semen-stained clothing on eBay, became infamous for the insertion of extremely defamatory false information, supposedly by Guy Chapman and others. There is no record of these changes in the article history, as they were oversighted out of existence. Marsden has repeatedly requested her BLP's deletion, and been repeatedly rebuffed with much hostility and contempt. Her personal attempt in April 2012 to change the article photo resulted in further abuse.

The bizarre and highly defamatory article called Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy has existed since February 2006 and has survived a number of its own incompetent deletion attempts[16][17].

Or Essjay, or WikiBilim, or the "Wikipedian Of The Year" awards that he didn't pay, or Jimbo Found Out, or the true nature of Bomis, etc. etc.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:54 pm

Maybe doesn't perfectly fit. But on Dec. 21 2012 he wrote:

In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers. Because the changes I hope to make are substantial, I will seek endorsement from the wider community. (There are powers which I theoretically hold, but can't practically use without causing a lot of drama, but it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change. One good example of this is the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change. Some have asked me to simply use my reserve powers to appoint a bunch of admins - but I've declined on the view that this would cause a useless fight. Much better will be for us to put my traditional powers on a community-based footing so that we, as a community, can get out of "corner solutions" that aren't working for us. More to come in January.

Would prefer not to have a random speculative fear-mongering discussion about this today. Leave the end-of-the-world doomsaying to the Mayans. (Or rather, to the nutters who willfully misinterpreted the Mayans!) There will be plenty of time for panic in January. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And on July 26 2013 he wrote (having never submitted such a proposal):

My ideas, which are not yet fully formed, are more about how to reform and adjust my role in the project so that I give away some of my theoretical powers (which are unused today and likely unusable without quite rightful outrage) and invest them in new community processes for decision-making that are more clear and more sane. Right now we have the problem, in my view, that we are in strange "corner solutions" where any of several competing options would be better than the current default, but because we require "consensus" (ill-defined, but often meaning 70-80% support) to change anything, a small and vocal and organized minority can block reform indefinitely, or two competing but equally sensible ideas can't either of them gain enough support to be even tested. The core idea, which I need to flesh out in my own mind because it is a big freaking deal, is that we institute a process that can be invoked rarely to bring about change but only with majority support in the community. Right now, there are lots of things that, in theory, I could do by fiat - but I won't and it wouldn't make sense. But imagine if I (upon the advice of ArbCom or a suitably large petition from the community) could call for a majority vote, and we would all agree in advance to constitutional procedures that would ensure that (a) we don't start having votes about everything all the time but (b) we can finally make some decisions that have just been dangling for years.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit that good ideas are hard to come by. But he was "planning" to share such ideas in January 2013.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:17 am

I was going to write about that!

Anyway, as reported in my first and only blog post, Jimmy Wales took a twenty-day WikiBreak so that he could "work on some new ideas". All that he has done after that time is to come up with some nearly worthless waffle that Wikipediocracy could tell anyone at any time, carefully calculated to appease Teh Communitah™.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:05 am

After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!) who are intimidated and bored (sorry, Nupedia!) with the tedium of the process. jwales at bomis.com Tue Oct 30 22:02:03 UTC 2001.

I founded Wikipedia, Larry just worked for me. The idea for using a wiki orginally came to me from an employee -- Jeremy Rosenfeld. I am adding a note to the Bomis article's talk page about this one as well.-- Jimbo Wales 18:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:30 pm

Peter, you may have been looking for this thread, but didn't see it. Or, you wanted to start something similar in a public-view folder.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:39 pm

thekohser wrote:Peter, you may have been looking for this thread, but didn't see it. Or, you wanted to start something similar in a public-view folder.

Yes, that was the one I was vaguely thinking of, but couldn't find it.

Do you think we should post some more, or close this thread?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
thekohser wrote:Peter, you may have been looking for this thread, but didn't see it. Or, you wanted to start something similar in a public-view folder.
Yes, that was the one I was vaguely thinking of, but couldn't find it.

Do you think we should post some more, or close this thread?

I think we should organize it on the WPO wiki (Kazakhstan timeline style), so that it emerges to the general public in a blog post here.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:17 pm

I think the genuine communities, like Wikipedia, will be built on love and respect. (Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikimedia Foundation, quoted in Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution xvi).

01:15 < Ironholds> TParis: oh, sod off. Kiefer needs his rubdown.
01:15 < TParis> Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there.
01:17 < Ironholds> only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter.
(Oliver Keyes, Wikimedia Foundation employee)

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:12 pm

I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =570365233

Sue, I'm another English Wikipedia ArbCom member. In my view, we arbitrators simply do not have enough training or protection to retain responsibility for child protection investigation … The situation on the English Wikipedia at the moment is basically like Facebook giving a group its fifteen most active users responsibility for investigating concerns sent to Facebook that another account holder is using the site to share illegal pictures or recruit people to terrorism. It beggars belief ... User:AGK 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=5488086

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:47 pm

Those last two posts are hardly "contradicting himself", just "wrong".

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:56 pm

Hex wrote:Those last two posts are hardly "contradicting himself", just "wrong".

No, contradicting (admittedly not himself).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:40 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =570365233

Sue, I'm another English Wikipedia ArbCom member. In my view, we arbitrators simply do not have enough training or protection to retain responsibility for child protection investigation … The situation on the English Wikipedia at the moment is basically like Facebook giving a group its fifteen most active users responsibility for investigating concerns sent to Facebook that another account holder is using the site to share illegal pictures or recruit people to terrorism. It beggars belief ... User:AGK 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=5488086

This is the one situation where I feel sympathy for ARBCOM.

There is no fucking way they should ever touch these types of issues.
They have no training, they have no real authority to fix things.
All they can do is assume personal liability through their actions.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:55 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
Sue, I'm another English Wikipedia ArbCom member. In my view, we arbitrators simply do not have enough training or protection to retain responsibility for child protection investigation … The situation on the English Wikipedia at the moment is basically like Facebook giving a group its fifteen most active users responsibility for investigating concerns sent to Facebook that another account holder is using the site to share illegal pictures or recruit people to terrorism. It beggars belief ... User:AGK 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=5488086
This is the one situation where I feel sympathy for ARBCOM.

There is no fucking way they should ever touch these types of issues.
They have no training, they have no real authority to fix things.
All they can do is assume personal liability through their actions.

Arbitrator Salvio giuliano (T-C-L) stated on my talk page that

I have already made abundantly clear to my fellow arbs that I will never get involved in child protection issues because of
liability concerns and
general qualms (we are a bunch of dedicated people who try to do what's best for the encyclopaedia, but we lack both proper training and resources to deal with such investigations).

My only involvement in the topic area has been to push for the foundation to take over.
Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:49 am, 8 July 2013, Monday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+2)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:33 pm

It figures that the least insane person

on ARBCOM might come to the same conclusion.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:37 pm

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:43 am

Perhaps this thread should be re-titled ‘Cognitive dissonance’? To contain examples of statements by Jimmy that completely contradict statements or facts that he is certainly cognisant of.

There is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection. --Jimbo Wales 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The entirely separate issue of another editor's behavior is an entirely separate issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

He [the whistleblower] has also made on-wiki allegations that other editors may have violated the policy on the protection of children
The Arbitration Committee, giving the reasons for the whistleblower’s block.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:00 am

Has anyone noticed that Jimmy is fond of using quantifier words like ‘none’, ‘nothing at all’, ‘never’ and so on. These are risky terms, as it only takes one counter-example (‘no swans are black’).

I see Greg has noticed this.

Jimmy Wales calls this blog post “utterly dishonest”, which means of course that it is “mostly true”.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:15 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Perhaps this thread should be re-titled ‘Cognitive dissonance’?

Please don't rename the thread.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:21 pm

Maybe we should have a thread called "Jimbo being consistent". How long would it be?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:56 pm

Poetlister wrote:Maybe we should have a thread called "Jimbo being consistent". How long would it be?

I think you just divided by zero.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:07 pm

Jimbo says:

There seems to be no particular issue here for me to personally get involved with, as this has nothing to do with me in any way, and as it involves no particularly interesting philosophical or policy questions for the project of the sort that I like to discuss here.... -- Jimbo Wales, 11:23, 3 September 2013

The topic was Wealthfront staff misusing Wikipedia to promote the Wealthfront brand. Jimbo has a much-publicized "Bright Line Rule" against such editing of Wikipedia. Gil Penchina is an investor in Wealthfront, and he is actively using web and e-mail marketing to gather new subscribers to the firm's services. Penchina was the CEO of Wikia, Inc., a company that Jimmy Wales co-founded and serves as chairman. In 2009, Wales owed Penchina a personal loan of $30,000.

Yet, Jimbo says that Wealthfront has "nothing to do with me in any way".

Additionally, it would seem that Prioryman would like to ride to the defense of Wealthfront, even though Jimbo sheepishly admits that Wealthfront's editing "should be examined carefully and most of them reverted as obviously promotional".

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:08 pm

February 17, 2010; Jimbo makes a guest appearance on the audio blog "Be The Media", with David Mathison.

"Yes, thank you. It's good to be here."

<They continue to talk with each other, for over 20 minutes.>

September 3, 2013; Jimbo denies even knowing David Mathison:

"...this is not a friend of mine nor even someone I actually know in real life at all..."

(Jimbo's likely defensive explanation is that an audio blog guest appearance is not really "real life".)

Extra for experts:
I asked Mathison on July 22 whether he had reached out to Jimmy Wales for assistance with his BLP, because semi-protecting Mathison's BLP was one of the first things that Jimbo did upon return from his three-week hiatus. Mathison replied, "Wow. that is quite an honor, I suppose! But I am not a wikipedia editor or anything, so I dont really know." Yet, Jimmy Wales says that Mathison "emailed me to inquire about the vandalism (which was pretty vicious and personal) so I semi-protected the page. He did not specifically request protection, he just wanted to know what to do about it."

I wonder if Al Franken has the rights to a follow-up book, "Liars: And The Fellow Lying Liars Who Lie For Them"?

Note: I understand that Mathison has been fighting cancer for years, undergoing regular treatments at the Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, so don't be too hard on him. This is really, as always, about Jimbo -- not Mathison's fault that his biography was savaged, most likely to "get back" at some guy named "Samuel Mathison", not even David.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:31 pm

7 August 2011 [speech at Wikimania Israel, 4-7 August 2011] "this year, the winner is Rauan of Kazakh Wikipedia […] I've been following the story of Kazakh Wikipedia, er, since, er Ting went to Kazakhstan [16 June 2011], and he came back and he reported on something amazing that was happening there. And I started to get in touch with them, and I also I've been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there."

22 Apr 2013:"I don't remember when I became aware of Ting's participation - I'd have to dig that up. I can tell you that the press conference and Ting's visit had no bearing at all on my decision to award Rauan, who richly deserved it.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I have never met with him [the Prime Minister]

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:01 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
7 August 2011 [speech at Wikimania Israel, 4-7 August 2011] "this year, the winner is Rauan of Kazakh Wikipedia […] I've been following the story of Kazakh Wikipedia, er, since, er Ting went to Kazakhstan [16 June 2011], and he came back and he reported on something amazing that was happening there. And I started to get in touch with them, and I also I've been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there."

22 Apr 2013:"I don't remember when I became aware of Ting's participation - I'd have to dig that up. I can tell you that the press conference and Ting's visit had no bearing at all on my decision to award Rauan, who richly deserved it.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I have never met with him [the Prime Minister]

We might as well add this one:

Did you contact Wikibilim to find out why a portrait of Karim Massimov [the prime minister of Kazakhstan until September 24, 2012, now the president's chief of staff] appears on all of their site's pages? If so, what did they have to say? [...] 2001:55810:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't contacted Wikibilim yet. My wife, as you may know, just had a baby. [...] --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:38 am

Peter Damian wrote:
I've been talking to the Prime Minister there. ... I have never met with him[/b] [the Prime Minister.

I suppose he could say that he's never actually met him, just spoken to him on the phone. Sneaky, but not actually a contradiction.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:05 am

Outsider wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
I've been talking to the Prime Minister there. ... I have never met with him[/b] [the Prime Minister.
I suppose he could say that he's never actually met him, just spoken to him on the phone. Sneaky, but not actually a contradiction.

Sure. That is very much his general style.

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:22 am

DanMurphy wrote:Maybe doesn't perfectly fit. But on Dec. 21 2012 he wrote:

In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers. Because the changes I hope to make are substantial, I will seek endorsement from the wider community. (There are powers which I theoretically hold, but can't practically use without causing a lot of drama, but it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change. One good example of this is the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change. Some have asked me to simply use my reserve powers to appoint a bunch of admins - but I've declined on the view that this would cause a useless fight. Much better will be for us to put my traditional powers on a community-based footing so that we, as a community, can get out of "corner solutions" that aren't working for us. More to come in January.

Would prefer not to have a random speculative fear-mongering discussion about this today. Leave the end-of-the-world doomsaying to the Mayans. (Or rather, to the nutters who willfully misinterpreted the Mayans!) There will be plenty of time for panic in January. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And on July 26 2013 he wrote (having never submitted such a proposal):

My ideas, which are not yet fully formed, are more about how to reform and adjust my role in the project so that I give away some of my theoretical powers (which are unused today and likely unusable without quite rightful outrage) and invest them in new community processes for decision-making that are more clear and more sane. Right now we have the problem, in my view, that we are in strange "corner solutions" where any of several competing options would be better than the current default, but because we require "consensus" (ill-defined, but often meaning 70-80% support) to change anything, a small and vocal and organized minority can block reform indefinitely, or two competing but equally sensible ideas can't either of them gain enough support to be even tested. The core idea, which I need to flesh out in my own mind because it is a big freaking deal, is that we institute a process that can be invoked rarely to bring about change but only with majority support in the community. Right now, there are lots of things that, in theory, I could do by fiat - but I won't and it wouldn't make sense. But imagine if I (upon the advice of ArbCom or a suitably large petition from the community) could call for a majority vote, and we would all agree in advance to constitutional procedures that would ensure that (a) we don't start having votes about everything all the time but (b) we can finally make some decisions that have just been dangling for years.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I admit that good ideas are hard to come by. But he was "planning" to share such ideas in January 2013.

He did say "January", but not in what year. (Always leave a back door escape route.)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:26 am

I haven't even tried to count up all the incidents like this, because there are so many of them......

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:20 pm

EricBarbour wrote:I haven't even tried to count up all the incidents like this, because there are so many of them......

Truly.

It's his MO.
Say something pacifying; wait for enough time to pass.

Makes you wonder how things worked in the old days when he was in the office.
Did he ever make a schedule date?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:45 pm

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:48 pm

Vigilant wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:I haven't even tried to count up all the incidents like this, because there are so many of them......
Truly.

It's his MO.
Say something pacifying; wait for enough time to pass.

Once upon a time, long long ago:

Come visit the Pamela Anderson Lee Web Ring at: http://www.bomis.com/rings/pal/ The ring features a lot of pages devoted to Pamela and is a great place to find Pamela resources on the web. Thanks.

Visit the Anna Nicole Smith ring at: http://www.bomis.com/rings/ansmith/ The ring includes a number of web pages devoted to Anna. If you're an Anna fan, you might want to check this out. Thanks.

I could be wrong but all i see are porn links on that page. Please keep your posts as close to the topic of this newsgroup as possible. if you must spam please try and specifiy your topic as close as possible so people not interested don't click on the links. thank you.

No! I'm just a regular guy. I'm not selling anything. I just thought this would be a neat webring. Take a deep breath. Everything will be o.k. –Jimbo

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:59 pm

Links, please, Peter.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:07 am

thekohser wrote:Links, please, Peter.

The refs are now hard to find as Google has hidden many of the search results for news groups of that era. However you can find all the links and the story of Bomis’ spam campaign on the book wiki here

I think Jimmy would have argued it wasn’t spamming because Bomis was intended as a resource for the whole internet, a ‘web ring’. Nonetheless he managed to post about 4,000 messages in 259 groups, mostly from 1997 to 1998, infuriating many of the regulars.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:58 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
thekohser wrote:Links, please, Peter.
The refs are now hard to find as Google has hidden many of the search results for news groups of that era. However you can find all the links and the story of Bomis’ spam campaign on the book wiki here

I think Jimmy would have argued it wasn’t spamming because Bomis was intended as a resource for the whole internet, a ‘web ring’. Nonetheless he managed to post about 4,000 messages in 259 groups, mostly from 1997 to 1998, infuriating many of the regulars.

Wow, so the hyper-serial spammer would 8 years later turn into the guy who described this content as "spamming Wikipedia with corporate fluff".

You know, every time I go over what happened in October 2006, it makes me despise Jimmy Wales all over again.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:35 pm

thekohser wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
thekohser wrote:Links, please, Peter.
The refs are now hard to find as Google has hidden many of the search results for news groups of that era. However you can find all the links and the story of Bomis’ spam campaign on the book wiki here

I think Jimmy would have argued it wasn’t spamming because Bomis was intended as a resource for the whole internet, a ‘web ring’. Nonetheless he managed to post about 4,000 messages in 259 groups, mostly from 1997 to 1998, infuriating many of the regulars.
Wow, so the hyper-serial spammer would 8 years later turn into the guy who described this content as "spamming Wikipedia with corporate fluff".

You know, every time I go over what happened in October 2006, it makes me despise Jimmy Wales all over again.

Yes but you see there he is talking about community values.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:52 pm

August 20, 2006:
In response to a question about whether paid-for GFDL content might be allowed in Wikipedia User page space:

Absolutely unacceptable, sorry. -- <jwales@wikia.com> Received: from sun.tpa.wikia-inc.com [84.40.25.230]

October 1, 2012:
In response to a Signpost interviewer question about direct editing by paid editors:

The "bright line" rule is simply that if you are a paid advocate, you should disclose your conflict of interest and never edit article space directly. You are free to enter into a dialogue with the community on talk pages, and to suggest edits or even complete new articles or versions of articles by posting them in your user space. -- Jimmy Wales

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:57 pm

thekohser wrote:August 20, 2006:
In response to a question about whether paid-for GFDL content might be allowed in Wikipedia User page space:
Absolutely unacceptable, sorry. -- <jwales@wikia.com> Received: from sun.tpa.wikia-inc.com [84.40.25.230]
October 1, 2012:
In response to a Signpost interviewer question about direct editing by paid editors:
The "bright line" rule is simply that if you are a paid advocate, you should disclose your conflict of interest and never edit article space directly. You are free to enter into a dialogue with the community on talk pages, and to suggest edits or even complete new articles or versions of articles by posting them in your user space. -- Jimmy Wales

Well, of course, your edits aren't likely to make Jimmy any money.
Also, you're not his friend.

Perhaps if you sent him a fish bouquet.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:07 pm

Once again: Pete Forsyth (T-C-L). Open the "Notice of paid work".
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1028

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:25 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
7 August 2011 [speech at Wikimania Israel, 4-7 August 2011] "this year, the winner is Rauan of Kazakh Wikipedia […] I've been following the story of Kazakh Wikipedia, er, since, er Ting went to Kazakhstan [16 June 2011], and he came back and he reported on something amazing that was happening there. And I started to get in touch with them, and I also I've been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there."

22 Apr 2013:"I don't remember when I became aware of Ting's participation - I'd have to dig that up. I can tell you that the press conference and Ting's visit had no bearing at all on my decision to award Rauan, who richly deserved it.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I have never met with him [the Prime Minister]

Ting Chen really is the gift to Wikipediocracy that keeps on giving. Learned just today that The Tinger accepted a "quite expensive looking" gift while in Kazakhstan:

And by larger gift, like a quite expansive looking image band I received in Kazakhstan I brought it to the office and left it there.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:14 pm

On January 21, 2014, Jimbo said about The People's Operator:

Yes, as of right now (and since the company launched) TPO customers can choose to have 10% of their bill donated to the Conservative Party. We welcome that.

Donation to the Conservative Party actually was not available to TPO customers at that time.

So, Jimbo scrambled to modify that, speaking on January 24th to key Conservative Party members, presumably to gain their agreement to be listed by TPO as an eligible recipient of TPO funds:

Update: Just for you (ha) I just now told the PM and Chancellor about TPO and how it could help the Conservative party.

Within 48 hours, the TPO site was suddenly listing the Conservative Party as a potential recipient of customers' donations, where previously it hadn't.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:58 am

Have to add this one to the list of Jimbo "contradictions" (otherwise known as "deliberate lies").

Jimbo must really think that journalists and the insiders at Wikipediocracy are so stupid that we don't know how to spot conflict-of-interest editing in Wikipedia articles.

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:08 am

thekohser wrote:Have to add this one to the list of Jimbo "contradictions" (otherwise known as "deliberate lies").

Jimbo must really think that journalists and the insiders at Wikipediocracy are so stupid that we don't know how to spot conflict-of-interest editing in Wikipedia articles.

My observation is that he generally judges others by his personal standard. Would he know how to recognize COI editing?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:28 am

Wales also contradicted himself in a way, when he said:

...it's worth pointing out as a correction that Sarah <Stierch> has never been a WMF employee to my knowledge...

Of course, he could just claim his own stupidity for uttering that falsehood (Stierch was an employee of Wales' foundation); but even then, he cannot admit error without blaming others around him:

I just don't know and have received conflicting information.

Any other office in America, if you ask "Does so-and-so work here?", you get a quick "yes" or "no" response. Only at the Wikimedia Foundation headquarters would you "receive conflicting information" about an employee's employment history with the organization.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:45 pm

Bielle wrote:Would he know how to recognize COI editing?

He seems to be a dab hand at deciding whether or not it's OK in any given case.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:41 pm

(Note well though, the possibility of a Joe job).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not say, and have no opinion without looking into it - which I have not - this particular case is a Joe job.

I suppose you could argue that saying that x is possible is different from saying that x, I will leave that up to the linguists.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:14 pm

Another beauty, highlighted by Nemo (T-C-L) towards the end of this section of Jimmy Wales' talk page:

I have also made a commitment that in case it ever came up that my vote would need to side with either the expertise-appointed seats or the community-elected seats to make a decision, I will vote with the community-elected seats.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you did. Too bad it was a lie. --Nemo 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the link, you'll see the following two voting records:

Motion to vote by Phoebe, seconded by Stu
Approve: Jan-Bart, Phoebe, Bishakha, Ana, Jimmy, Stu, and Alice
Oppose: Sam, Patricio, and Maria

Motion to vote by Phoebe, seconded by Stu
Approve: Jan-Bart, Phoebe, Bishakha, Ana, Jimmy, and Stu
Oppose: Sam, Patricio, Maria, and Alice

Now, for reference, the ten-member board is composed of:

1. Jimmy Wales
2. Four board-appointed experts
3. Three community-elected members
4. Two chapter-elected members

To be as good as his word, it would seem Wales ought to have voted in support of the majority opinion among Sam, Phoebe, María, Patricio and Alice. He didn't.

Of course, in the same discussion he used another bit of misdirection, and was caught on it by Odder (T-C-L):

[...] There exists no other website where the community's control is greater. The users of Facebook do not elect the majority of the board. The users of Google don't get to collaboratively work with developers with all software open source and publicly distributed to improve Google. "...you must now accept a new political economy: you have permanent lower-caste status" - that's just sheer unmitigated bullshit. And the idea that I express "medieval views on copyright" is just intellectually dishonest of that author. I express no such views and my views on copyright are quite dully mainstream.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Sheer unmitigated bullshit is your claim that the Wikimedia community elects the majority of the Board. You might not have noticed, but we only elect three out of ten (3/10, 30%) members of the Board of Trustees — the rest are either appointed by the chapters or by the Board themselves. Your lack of knowledge of the composition of the Board is worrying. odder (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So why don't you step back and ask yourself a question about what you've said? Do you think it is really possible that I don't know how the board is composed? I'm focussed right now on the last sentence: "Your lack of knowledge of the composition of the Board is worrying." I'm pretty sure that even when you wrote that, you knew full well that I know completely and exactly how the board is composed. So rather than say "Jimbo, I don't think the chapter representatives count as representing the community" - a mistaken but respectable position to take - you instead made an insinuation that is insulting and ridiculous. Don't do that, is my advice, because it is not a productive way to have a serious conversation.

It is my view that the chapters represent the community as well as the directly elected editors. Certainly all of the chapter representatives to the board have been active Wikimedians. If you want to have a serious discussion about whether they do it well, and what the problems there are with our current setup, then let's have that conversation.

I have also made a commitment that in case it ever came up that my vote would need to side with either the expertise-appointed seats or the community-elected seats to make a decision, I will vote with the community-elected seats.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you did. Too bad it was a lie. --Nemo 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: My advice is, in order to have a serious conversation, just don't write stuff that's blatantly false. Even if you count chapter-appointed Board members as representing the community, that's five out of ten — not a majority. You wrote: "The users of Facebook do not elect the majority of the board." — the Wikimedia community doesn't elect the majority of the Board of Trustees, either. And if you know that, why did you mention it at all? odder (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:05 pm

Not so much a contradiction, but more of an embarrassing inability of Jimbo to realize that he is actually describing himself. This one is a priceless classic, as far as I'm concerned.

If someone... is the sort of person who would block everyone who disagrees with him from his talk page, then the solution is to ban the user. People like that aren't here to build an encyclopedia. I'm hoping we can move to an understanding that we don't have to put up with people who have nothing useful to offer other than rancor.

--Jimbo Wales, 15:13, 4 September 2014

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

thekohser wrote:Not so much a contradiction, but more of an embarrassing inability of Jimbo to realize that he is actually describing himself. This one is a priceless classic, as far as I'm concerned.

If someone... is the sort of person who would block everyone who disagrees with him from his talk page, then the solution is to ban the user. People like that aren't here to build an encyclopedia. I'm hoping we can move to an understanding that we don't have to put up with people who have nothing useful to offer other than rancor.

--Jimbo Wales, 15:13, 4 September 2014

He wants the Facebook feature where you can just click on a user you don't like, and ban them from your talk page. And he's decided this because of the spat over his own page. Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not (I think it would be funny, at the very least, to give all the little edit warriors the power to run around and issue little "bans" at each other), he's the wrong person at the wrong time to be "inventing" it.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:13 pm

If someone... is the sort of person who would block everyone who disagrees with him from his talk page, then the solution is to ban the user. People like that aren't here to build an encyclopedia. I'm hoping we can move to an understanding that we don't have to put up with people who have nothing useful to offer other than rancor.

--Jimbo Wales, 15:13, 4 September 2014

And yet, a large percentage of Wikipedia's administrators aren't "there to build an encyclopedia". In fact, they love to remove content, often for completely bogus and insane reasons. Try to get him to admit it, go ahead.