As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Jimmy Wales came out and shit all over GamerGate recently. In fact, he’s done it multiple times, over the last few days. After we reacted negatively to the insanely biased GamerGate Wikipedia entry, he decided to fire on us. To me, it seems like Wales has forgotten history. The media has repeatedly maligned us unfairly. If anyone could understand, you’d think it would be Jimmy. But no, he’s bought the SJW party line, and doesn’t show too many signs of deviating from it. 

First, let me show you some of Mr. Wales’ comments about GamerGate. Here’s the tweet from the other day, that had originally prompted this column:


That was bad enough, but he didn’t stop there. He then fired of an extremely long email, that takes shot after shot at us, while pretty much exonerating the SJW, and their cohorts in the agenda media. I’m not going to reprint the whole thing, because I don’t feel like transcribing that many lies. But here’s a screenshot of what he wrote: B5PYONWCYAA1ss4

He talks a lot about GamerGate being tarnished, despite the fact that no harassment or death threats have ever been tied to us. He appears to have Listened and Believed 100%. I’m not naive enough to think that we’ve never made any mistakes. Only egomaniacs claim a completely clean record. But on balance, we’ve been head and shoulders above the mainstream media and gaming press. It’s not even close, in my opinion.

Jimmy Wales should know what it’s like to be misrepresented in the media. At least, I’m assuming he thinks these are mischaracterizations. For instance, did you know that he was accused of using his influence to edit Wikipedia biographies, and that the allegations originally ran on Gawker’s Valleywag? How can Jimbo side with the clowns that tried to ruin him? I can’t find the original Valleywag link, but here’s a recap of the story:

“So, what’s the big deal when a relationship goes sour? Well, the two met when Marsden contacted Wales to help her “clean up” what she perceived to be errors on her personal Wikipedia page, and there have been allegations that Wales used his influence improperly to make changes.

Former associates of Wales’ are using this scandal to bring up other worries they have about the organization at the foundation. Former Wikimedia exec Danny Wool, who left the foundation last year, wrote a blog post insinuating that Walesused the nonprofit foundation as his own personal piggy bank. Expenses that Wales tried to apply to the foundation included $300+ bottles of wine and visits to Moscow massage parlors, Wool alleges. According to Wool, the expenses got so out of hand that the Wikimedia Foundation took away Wales’ corporate credit card.

“There were occasions where he used [the Wikimedia Foundation] for personal advancement under the guide of the mission. And, as someone who was in there for the mission part of it, I found that rather distressful,” Wool told Epicenter.”

Here’s a Gawker article about Wales’ “other women.” It doesn’t stop there, ladies and gentlemen. They have another piece that basically portrays poor Jimmy as nothing more than a figurehead beggar who has to bow down to the SJWs he let take control of his operation. The woman they’re talking about, Sue Gardner, left in May 2014. But one has to assume that she hand a large hand in picking her successor:

How did Wales come to this embarrassing pass? The former porn merchant and options trader, who has traded sex and money for his help in getting Wikipedia entries edited, has met his Machiavellian match, in the form of Sue Gardner, a Gothy, spider-tattooed Canadian pop-culture expert who now runs the site he helped start as Wikimedia’s executive director…..The Wikimedia Foundation is celebrating the fact that it has just badgered Wikipedia users with a sitewide telethon — featuring Wales — into filling its $6.1 million budget. Donors have just handed a blank check to Gardner.

She has a cushy job: The former Canadian journalist has $6 million to spend, with no functional supervision. And Gardner managed to get herself on the board’s nominating committee, so she gets to pick her own bosses — a conflict of interest so ridiculous it beggars the imagination.

Wikipedia is now running ads thanking Wales for his help with Wikipedia’s fundraising. Wales has held onto his special “community founder” board seat all his own, now that the board has gotten around to reappointing him — but the move required Gardner’s consent.

These guys pretty much tried to destroy Jimmy Wales with the same SJW playbook they used on GamerGate. Why is this fool taking their side now? Maybe he’s forgotten. He also has financial interests at stake. That could also be playing a role. But I don’t see how he could side with a media like this. It’s not just Gawker, either. Here’s the Associated Press making him look foolish when talking about the dispute over the founding of Wikipedia:

“Wales has repeatedly tried to address this — even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia’s community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005.

In a lengthy instant-message exchange about Citizendium and other topics, Wales raised the subject of Sanger’s role: “When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger’s absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.”

“I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,” he added.

Yet a few moments later, Wales asserted that he didn’t really care: “I am not bent out of shape about it,” he wrote. “The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.”

Instead of siding with the biggest threat these media clowns have faced in years, he take their side. SJWs appear to have relegated him to punk status in his own company. Maybe that’s why he doesn’t dare speak out in our favor. But he could have at least refrained from throwing us under the bus. His comments in that email are being paraded around as a huge victory for the other side. It even seems like he’s raising money off of it. The whole thing is just a sad episode. He appears to be another moot. He showed signs today of being willing to listen, so one can only hope. But I wouldn’t put too much faith in him coming around at this point. The stench of Kool-Aid is pretty strong. I would love to be wrong, though.


UPDATE: I had some interesting Twitter exchanges with Wales earlier. Here are some highlights:

  1. He shows those little glimmers of being willing to listen / engage / discuss which is why I encourage others to be civil, or if they can’t to leave him alone. After reading your article, we should probably entertain the idea that he’s just playing the part for the SJW crowd to protect his money and position.

  2. Well, Wikipedia is pretty much an agenda based “encyclopedia”. Maintaining the narrative of its “editors” so no surprise that Wales is as big of a cock.

  3. Yes, that’s all GG is, a hashtag. Very good point, Jimmy. We didn’t get the FTC to change its rules, we didn’t convince advertisers to dump Gawker, we’re just a hashtag.

  4. Wiki in reality is just pocket lint to Jimmy now. He is moving on with his new corporate adventure. Soon to be hitting the shores of the USA. He will now have to deal with the SEC, FTC, and FCC watchdogs. Wait and see his future with new headaches, Wiki is now just a hobby that he has no real interest in anymore. Jimmy is going to try and compete with Facebook in 2015….He may just keep one hand in Wiki to distort information on his competition and his detractors.

    Links below about Jimmys Mobile phone deals and plans.

    TPO just filed on the 19th for licensing.

  5. Remember this:

    1. Wales will always side with and defend Wikipedia, regardless of any perceived or actual flaws it might have. He has a mother’s unconditional love for his baby. It also helps as it is his life-work, source of income, and contribution to the world, however flawed.

    2. He will be neutral regarding any and all issues, unless that issue somehow involves attacking Wikipedia. You all may note that his overt criticism of GamerGate (the “movement”) started when folks started digging into and compiling a list of the biased Wikipedia satraps who were holding the reins of the GamerGate article, and others even tangentially related (CH Sommers, 8chan, Fredrick Brennan, etc.). He will preserve Wikipedia’s image, even if that involves sweeping all the dirt under the carpet.

    3. Wikipedia is, according to current policy (not this way since the beginning), simply a media-aggregator. Its policy of attributable, respectable sourcing implies that it presents only the mainstream media’s opinions on any current topic. As the topics become old, and books and better quality critical analyses become available, the quality of Wikipedia articles regarding those events also improves. However, since the latest news is always dominated by clickbait-media sites, Wikipedia will indeed reflect the sensationalist bent of those sources. THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM.

    4. If anyone thinks approaching or engaging Jimmy Wales is going to have any effect on Wikipedia, they are wrong. I see Wales having little to no operational control over Wikipedia or its editors. In this he is more like m00t than he probably cares to believe. While he can technically block editors left and right and correct alleged shortcomings, it will lead to a thinning and partial destruction of Wikipedia’s community (that has great numbers of progressives, who are brainwashed into believing that the few SJWs are their messiahs).

    5. Since Wales has no operational control over Wikipedia, it is futile to engage with him at all. We should instead focus on building primary sources of information first, whose information we can later feed into Wikipedia. Secondly, those who are registered editors in Wikipedia, keep up the pressure. Wikipedia internals are like a Byzantine bureaucracy, and those inside it are the best positioned to deal with it.

    1. >Wales will always side with and defend Wikipedia, regardless of any perceived or actual flaws it might have.

      Yup. I linked him to proof that Ryulong was biased and actively banning neutral or pro-GG editors from working on the article months ago, and the dude flipped out on me. I LINKED HIM, and the fucker called me a liar. He’s an idiot, and an egotist, and incapable of separating himself from his horridly flawed pet project, and I for one saw this shit coming back then when I had this conversation with him.

      That said, while your info is interesting, if your intention is to excuse Whales’ bullshit, save it.

      1. Wales appears like a Classical Tragedy figure to me. A King whose kingdom that he built through blood, sweat and tears, crumbles to dust as he watches on—powerless to prevent its collapse as he is blind to its failures. Wales is a smart man, so he absolutely realises what the issues here are. But his love for Wikipedia will not let him address them.

        My intention was not to excuse his bullshit, merely to point out the reasons for his obstinate position. As a Wikipedia user since 2003, I feel deeply saddened at its subversion myself, so I empathise with what Wales must feel. However, I do offer a practical advice that Wales is unlikely to change his opinion at all, as doing so could make Wikipedia look bad, so it makes very little sense to engage with him at all. Pay him respect for his past contributions, and move on.

        The rest of my comment deals with issues with Wikipedia itself.

    2. Actually I think spending time trying to fix Wikipedia is a mistake. We need to supplant it and replace it with something based on reality and not ideology.

      1. If the Wikipedia experiment has taught us anything, it is that something completely ideology-free is not possible to achieve in this world. What you’re calling for is actually the raison d’être of Wikipedia, but look how poorly it is doing now. Democracy inevitably leads to demagoguery. Of course, the alternative is a commercial encyclopædia with strict editorial control (like Britannica), but then again look how poorly they’re doing! The market has already spoken. Out of the two models for encyclopædias, Wikipedia’s model is the right way to go for now. What we see as the poor quality of Wikipedia on recent events simply reflects the prevailing media bias. If anything, Wikipedia should place a moratorium on covering news for a certain period after they happen.

        1. You have neither provided a solution, nor an alternative. Our choices are to become the prevailing voice on wikipedia against the onslaught of feminist and other allied hate movements or to outright replace it.

          My experiences in movements without clear hierarchies is that people merely claw their way to primacy with shifting temporary allegiances.

          Britannica has done poorly since they’ve not grasped current models which these days are primarily donation based. Whereas wikipedia is largely funded by the well-funded hatemongers we know as feminists.

  6. At my school, when we have to write a report, we’re not allowed to reference wikipedia in any way. We can use the site’s references and site them, but if we even mention “wikipedia”, it’s an automatic F.
    Was wikipedia ever relevant to use academically?

    1. The only time I ever used wikipedia was to look up the occasional word definition. I would never use that site for any kind of actual unbiased view of any subject.

    2. i wouldnt even do that at this point. The editors are now removing sources from talk pages and altering the wiki’s of sources to put them in worse position.

  7. “To me, it seems like Wales has forgotten history.”

    Wales has not forgotten history, he is of the belief that the editors of Wikipedia are writing history. Literally “His” “Story”

  8. Wikipedia is usable for most uncontroversial technical subject. But once it gets just slightly political or controversial, the articles are generally heavily biased by socialist world views.

    I guess a lot of the contributors are academics attempting to rewrite history from their own narrow perspective.

    1. STEM master race checking in, that might have been true at one point. But SJW’s are attempting to narrative edit even technical pages now, including inserting attacks against notable individuals in fields.

  9. It saddens me to see that mail. It’s so full of SJW terms and expressions it really makes it painful to read.

    He also falls for the same fallacy that David Jaffe did with his interview at Niche Gamer. That GG should have a board of directors and elected officials to regulate it’s actions in order to be seriously taken as a movement…forgetting that the people we are up against will have no qualms destroying these elected officials’ lives and reputations and then claiming, quite rightly, that GG is over.

  10. Good article Ralph, but you should add some context and a link to the archive of the so-called “hitlist” Jimbo was referring to, so people understand it and can see just how unreasonable he’s being there.

    The “hitlist” was simply a dry, factual documentation of events and activities by Wikipedia editors that were unethical, and when informed of it Jimbo decided to shoot the messenger, then justified it by calling it a “vicious attack.”

  11. A bunch of manchild, harassing pissbabies and a couple of shitty celebs.

    Shit tons of celebrities and a Kickstarter smasher who made tons of cash because side one are manchild, harassing pissbabies.

    Sorry but side one is the wrong one.

    And Ralph’s a poop fan judging by the amount on his fingers. Poop up to his shoulders, fuck that cocksucker lol

    1. For people acting as if they’re on the morally just side of this argument you antis sure resort to the bigoted insults alarmingly quickly. Freud would have a field day with you dipshits.

    2. Take your bullshit back to your hugbox, which is within the academia (the elite part of the educational institution), where you immaturity and ignorance derives from…

  12. No wonder no professor teaching an ACTUAL course allows Wikipedia as a source for any research papers covering REAL world issues.

  13. I had an enormous argument with him about his laughable hypocrisy. How the fuck the idiot calls himself a “free speech advocate” when he purposely silences a massive group of people because an overwhelmingly small proportion of us have been linked with harassment (and most of that’s even probably false accusation) is beyond me. He’s just another disingenuous asshat that says one thing and does quite another.

  14. I thought Jimmy might actually have a shot at fixing his stupid site,
    didn’t realize he already handed it over to the fucking SJWs a long time
    ago. I’ll repeat my long term prediction from twitter here in greater

    Wikipedia will continue to be edited and re-edited to
    fall in line with marxist, rad-fem and identity politics slants. It will
    eventually become indistinguishable from rational wiki, don’t be
    surprised if they announce a fucking merger. From there it’s content
    will become so openly biased, poorly sourced and demonstrably wrong
    it’ll become nothing but an object of ongoing fun. At the same time the
    tone and attitudes it will begin to display more and more openly will
    drive people away.

    Meanwhile behind the scenes the foxes in the
    henhouse will embezzle all the money and with the place firmly under
    their control begin fighting amongst themselves the way SJW mean girl
    cliques always do. The site will become increasingly dysfunctional and
    at the same time donations will start decreasing each year.

    the fall from grace begins to become painfully apparent to all a
    competitor will rise up, probably one that makes a point of being
    properly sourced in it’s charter and it’ll fill the vacuum as Jimmy’s
    ship breaks on the rocks. What SJWs never figure out is that you can shout lies as often and as loud as you’d like but when they’re blatantly obvious some kid will always point out your Emperor has no clothes. It’s why their “narrative” always fails in the end.

    It’s a shame really, Wikipedia was
    never a very reliable source but it was a big one you could use as a
    jump off point. Now it’s not even that.

  15. I rather like what Wikipedia does, but it isn’t just GG that they have made no effort to allow both sides on the matter to be represented.

    Many articles which are controversial often end up with one side on an issue getting the last and final word on the editing. Look up the articles on Hitler, the Crusades, ect.

  16. I always had a good laugh at the Citation Needed tumblr blog but now I can’t even bring myself to read anything on wikipedia.

  17. All this is – is a tacit agreement that wikipedia can never be trusted and as such must be replaced.

    All it takes is a wiki that relies on science and not feminism since the two are antithetical to each other.

  18. “Even if 90% of the supporters are good and 10% are bad, the bad are poisoning the message for everyone. That’s not an evaluation of right and wrong, just an observation of a clear fact.”

    Seems to apply to Wikipedia editors as well, doesn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.