Those of you who have been following the Jimmy Wales saga are no doubt aware that Danny Wool, formerly Jimmy's assistant, has suggested that Jimmy tried to use Wikimedia as a "piggybank" to fund his preferred lifestyle. This is a very serious accusation—far more serious than anything relating to Rachel Marsden—and one that, if even remotely true, would be grounds at the very least for Jimmy's expulsion from the projects, and even possibly a visit from the Florida Attorney General.
Danny's comments have garnered a huge amount of attention from all over the place. There's two responses that I found especially interesting. On one hand, we have WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner claiming that "Jimmy has never used Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures."
And on on the other, we have WMF Chair Florence Devouard (in yet another email on yet another Wikimedia internal list; boy howdy do they have a lot of those): "It may have been a mistake Jimbo, but you originally actually asked the Foundation to pay for that dinner. I find tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past. Get a grip ! You asked the Foundation. Michael told you "no". Then you asked Wikia. And for whatever reason (I do not know), you ended up paying yourself." (Emphasis is mine; the dinner in question is, I am pretty certain, the bill with the $650 wine tab that Danny mentions in his post.)
So, do you believe Sue, or Florence?
I suppose you can believe both: Jimmy tried to get WMF to pay for his dinner, but Michael said no, and so they didn't. But that's just one incident. What possible reason do I have to believe Sue when she says that Jimmy has never charged anything to Wikimedia, when she wasn't there and is necessarily going on information fed to her by someone else? Who could that someone else possibly be but Jimbo? It wasn't Danny. It wasn't Florence. I doubt very much that it's Michael. And there's nobody else who was there.
Danny's comments have garnered a huge amount of attention from all over the place. There's two responses that I found especially interesting. On one hand, we have WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner claiming that "Jimmy has never used Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures."
And on on the other, we have WMF Chair Florence Devouard (in yet another email on yet another Wikimedia internal list; boy howdy do they have a lot of those): "It may have been a mistake Jimbo, but you originally actually asked the Foundation to pay for that dinner. I find tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past. Get a grip ! You asked the Foundation. Michael told you "no". Then you asked Wikia. And for whatever reason (I do not know), you ended up paying yourself." (Emphasis is mine; the dinner in question is, I am pretty certain, the bill with the $650 wine tab that Danny mentions in his post.)
So, do you believe Sue, or Florence?
I suppose you can believe both: Jimmy tried to get WMF to pay for his dinner, but Michael said no, and so they didn't. But that's just one incident. What possible reason do I have to believe Sue when she says that Jimmy has never charged anything to Wikimedia, when she wasn't there and is necessarily going on information fed to her by someone else? Who could that someone else possibly be but Jimbo? It wasn't Danny. It wasn't Florence. I doubt very much that it's Michael. And there's nobody else who was there.
"And for whatever reason (I do not know), you ended up paying yourself."
ReplyDeleteCan someone explain to me what that means?
FloFlo is saying that she presumes that Wikia, Inc. also refused to pay for the dinner (good for you, Gil!), but she didn't want to publicly speculate, so she said in her Anglo-French way, "And for whatever reason (I do not know), you ended up paying yourself."
ReplyDeleteA more accurate phrasing may have been, "And presumably since you ended up paying for the dinner out of your own pocket, one would assume that Wikia also didn't care to reimburse you."
I've been harping on it for months, but is someone going to expose the fact that the WMF incorrectly completed its Form 990 in both 2004 and 2005, since they obfuscated the business relationships that existed among 60% of the Board members at the time? It's not too late for the IRS to look into that, is it?
Honestly, Kohs, obfuscating business relationships is fairly small potatoes. I'm not even sure what the penalty would be, since it's just an information item. Penalties are usually based on the amount of additional tax owed. If the IRS could prove fraud they'd take up the case, but that would require proving that the WMF intentionally filed the 990 incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteThe general statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of filing, though it can be extended in certain cases.
"Who do you trust?"
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean "WHOM do you trust?"
Doc