Prominent web commentator Seth Finkelstein is no fan of Wikipedia – and even less so of its founder Jimmy Wales. Finkelstein’s Infothought blog regularly features sharp criticisms of both, and while sometimes it can be perhaps overly negative about Wikipedia itself (he likens its functioning to that of a sweatshop, due to the ‘exploitation’ of unpaid contributors), I cannot help but feel that when he is critical of Wales he is sometimes right.
Wales is partially responsible for attracting some of criticisms leveled against him. The rather extravagant use of the Wikimedia expense account, that has been both widely documented and criticised (he once, unsuccessfully, attempted to charge a $1,300 dinner for four to the account) is one factor. It has long been a tricky PR topic for Wales and Wikipedia for some time, with some former employees publishing details of careless expenditure on a few occasions in the past.
Some of these things might not sound so bad, relatively speaking, when taken out of the wider Wikipedia context (especially if compared to some of the behaviour of your average well-paid, high-flying executives and CEOs etc).
Unfortunately for Wales, the problem is all the more serious because of its context. Wales is often going to great lengths to make himself, and Wikipedia seem virtous and noble, though his expense account handling has often been at odds with these claims.
See for example this summary of his views on democracy and the internet, which he is advertising as an after-dinner topic for his guest speaker work. Below is an extract:
‘Mr. Wales predicts that the internet will democratize developing countries by making the world ‘flat,’ opening markets, promoting cultural understanding, and giving developing nations the resources they need to compete in the 21st century. Mr. Wales asserts that internet will combat stereotypes, censorship, media control, and monopolies while simultaneously allowing citizens of developing nations to have a more prominent voice.’
For many, including Seth Finkelstein, this seems frankly tiresome and slightly hypocritical for Wales. After all; it can seem a bit cheeky to claim Wikipedia is a democracy enabling, freedom-of-information spreading revolutionary creation (thus appealing to potential donors to the Wikia Foundation which keeps the whole thing running) – and then to have reports of $600 bottles of wine paid for by expense accounts leaked on the net.
Wales’s lofty claims for Wikipedia are entirely desirable and commendable in theory, and one must not be cynical in denying Wikipedia credit for what it has achieved. However in practice the juxtaposition with the negative press over expenses slightly negates the above assertions, and erodes the credibility of the effort that he otherwise works so hard to promote.
I don’t know if Wales regrets that he chose not to profit from Wikipedia by choosing to run it as a charitable venture (his official answer is that he doesn’t). Perhaps there remains a desire to know how it would have been had he done otherwise, and was now as royally rich as Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Tom Anderson (Myspace) and all the other Web 2.0 success-story characters.
One cannot blame him for failing to live up to the lofty idealistic image of himself and Wikipedia that he aspires to (he never made any vow to poverty or sainthood – as Finkelstein observes). However we must recognise that his failure to live up to this, (often in quite spectacular and headline-grabbing ways) is nonetheless hurting Wikipedia, by eroding its respectability, credibility and image.
Finkelstein may exaggerate when he compares Wikipedia to a sweatshop, (in my view his comparison is slightly offensive to people suffering in, and fighting against, the use of actual sweatshop labour), but this is separate matter.
As someone who considers Wikipedia to be a very positive thing (if it can remain independent, accurate, democratic and reliable) I believe it is paramount that Wales guards against the slips that, now he is so in the public eye, damage him not only personally but by extension (and more importantly) Wikipedia. I am one of many that wants to see it develop into the massively positive and useful, democratic, knowledge-sharing tool that it has to potential to become (and that it already is in some countries), which it can only really do if Wales rectifies the slip-ups that inevitably are seized upon by the press, and result in a real PR headache…
Dejan Levi