Jimmy Wales and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Prize Money
"Jimmy Wales is Not an Internet Billionaire"
So went the tongue-in-cheek headline from a New York Times Magazine cover story about Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales in 2013—ill-treatment this blog mostly defended him from at the time. The profile included a (likely decontextualized) quote from then-Wikimedia executive director Sue Gardner: "Everyone makes fun of Jimmy for leaving the money on the table."
Eighteen months later, one has to think Wales would prefer the sort of light-hearted mockery received at the time to the kinds of questions being asked, albeit not too loudly at this point in time, about his current financial situation.
We pick up the story with this month's comparatively under-reported news that Jimbo would split, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a $1 million cash prize from the United Arab Emirates, pegged to a technology award named for the country's monarch. One only has to skim the Wikipedia article "Human rights in the United Arab Emirates" to get an idea why some people, especially the idealistic sort who make up Wikipedia's volunteer base, would find this so alarming.
On Jimmy Wales' user page, the now-archived discussion ran to some 8,600 words, and the way it began—under the heading "Congratulations", followed by cheery exhortations—differed greatly from how it ended—a contentious argument leading to the resurrection of old charges about Wales' supposed ties to the government of Kazakhstan, which was eventually "closed" to further participation and "hatted", i.e. hidden from view by default.
Soon after the well-wishes began piling up, the conversation abruptly shifted. An anonymous contributor claiming to be a student at the American University of Sharjah (with an IP address to match) chastised Wales for squandering an opportunity
to speak out for all Emiratis, and also those non-nationals who are forced into slave labour and have no rights. I am at risk by posting this very message. This is not how it should be Mr Wales. Instead, it appears you were bought for $500,000. You sold us out Mr Wales.
On December 11, below but not directly in reply, Wales wrote:
Every penny of the money will be used to combat human rights abuses worldwide with a specific focus on the Middle East and with a specific focus on freedom of speech / access to knowledge issues. Of course.
...
The first thing that I did upon returning to London was hire a human rights lawyer full-time to work for me for the next month on these issues. That may turn into a longer term thing, or it may not. As I say, I'm only at the beginning of figuring out the optimal strategic approach.
The mini-controversy was reported in The Daily Dot, a news publication focusing on the social Internet:
Wales made his intentions for the prize money public after pressure from Wikipedians who expressed dismay ... In an email to the Daily Dot, Wales specifies that he never planned to keep the money and will use the funds to start his own foundation dedicated to furthering human rights.
But Wales objected to this description of events. Back on his own discussion page, Wales wrote on December 17:
I've written to [The Daily Dot] to correct the core error in the story - the false claim that this was done in response to pressure from Wikipedians. I started the process from the moment I was told about the prize, including hiring someone full-time to work on the question of how to best accomplish my goals.
As of this writing, the story has not been "corrected", and there's no reason to think one is warranted. If in fact there is no causal relationship, and Wales wants to be believed, he should produce some kind of evidence to substantiate his charges. With or without that, The Daily Dot's story—that Wales announced his intentions after community pressure—would still have correlation going for it. After all, Wales' first reply on his own discussion page was:
Thank you all. It's pretty amazing. It's actually split with Sir Tim Berners-Lee so not $1 million to me but still it's impressive.
Does that sound like somebody who has hired a lawyer to help him start non-profit focused on human rights, or somebody contemplating the enjoyment of a sudden and unexpected windfall?
Of course.
Besides
the Kazakhstan situation, which has always struck me like a misstep on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wales both—seemingly a partnership entered into without a clear understanding of the situation—a few patterns are visible here.
Most superficially, Wales and The Daily Dot have a bit of history. While Wikipediocracy and The Register((Which at least thought to ask Sir Tim Berners-Lee how he planned to use the money, so give them credit for that.)) have self-identified themselves as Wikipedia critics and can therefore be dismissed more easily, The Daily Dot's Wikipedia coverage has always struck me as skeptical and responsible, as a good news outlet should be.
That history involves The Daily Dot reporting, ironically, that Wales had not paid out prize money he had pledged to winners of his own "Wikipedian of the Year" award in years before. Based on my reading, it sounds like Wales, realizing he was called out, promised to correct the oversight without admitting he was doing so, choosing instead to insult the reporter as "not a real journalist”.((One of the award-winners was a Kazakh national, so the plot thickens, or maybe just congeals.))
Similar to the above, I still remember at Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong where, as I wrote in the days after:
Wales called for a new “hybrid model” of journalism, encouraging collaboration between professionals and amateurs. It sounds interesting, maybe, but he didn’t have an actual model in mind: he called on the Wikipedia and Wikimedia community to help him think it up. I guess we’ll see.
Indeed, we've seen that Jimmy Wales has a way of letting things drop, and also his habit of handling criticism poorly. To be fair, I expect Jimmy Wales sees a ton of criticism almost every time he logs in to his Wikipedia account. Sometimes it's justified, but plenty of it is nonsense. Putting up with irate Wikipedians for more than a decade must result in some kind of negative psychological build-up. On the other hand, it's not a particularly good look for someone who is the public face of a globally-important non-profit.
While that hybrid journalism project never came to fruition, if I'm being honest, I doubt anyone really thought it would. Anyone who didn't attend that Wikimania probably has no idea what I'm talking about. But hey, how about this human rights organization he's talking about? No doubt, Wales has left himself an escape hatch, as he says the "full-time" (!) lawyer "may turn into a longer term thing, or it may not." But if he is going to escape through it, let's make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.
And this non-profit, it has a chance, maybe? We don't know what it would focus on, how it would go about doing so, or whether it could possibly be effective. But we can say this much: it has a famous spokesman, and it has a budget.
Jimmy Wales photo by Niccolò Caranti; Burj Khalifa photo by Nicolas Lannuzel; both via Wikimedia Commons.