If you want to hit the Wikipedia founder back, you can flip the card over for his contact information. Or you can just do what Assme did: wonder if he's a creepy while digging the "smoky" look Wales gives from the front side, sitting in "what appears to be Masterpiece Theater headquarters.". But remember: just because he bedded Fox News hottie Rachel Marsden and plotted to change her Wikipedia entry, is rumored to have slept with a married lady, maybe had sex with Wikipedia's executive director, and purportedly circulated racy pictures of a girlfriend without her consent — just because there's all these rumors dogging Wales doesn't mean he's out to bone you.

Not necessarily, at least.

Wales blamed the economy for Wikia Search's failure, which aimed to have volunteer editors revise Web search results rather than relying on an algorithm like Google's. But could his diffident attitude been the real cause? He did find Wikia Search useful — for impressing a girlfriend. Wales mentioned it in sex-laden IM chats with Canadian right-wing pundit Rachel Marsden, with whom he had a brief relationship early in 2008. "Work? Do I have a job or something?" Wales asked Marsden. "Oh right, I am supposed to be designing a Google-killing search engine so I can buy a jet!" (Later, Wales dumped Marsden on Wikipedia.)

It's worked out well for Wikipedia, after all, having amateurs post Kennedy-killer hoaxes and fake celebrity death reports. And many who have tried to get falsehoods corrected on Wikipedia have run afoul of its tyrannical volunteer editors, who wield rulebooks as skillfully as any government bureaucrat.

Wales thinks that using software that lets anyone edit a webpage will lead to better governance. Except it won't really, he explains:

Don't just throw up a wiki and hope that something miraculous will happen. A successful wiki requires a clear vision, a clear and achievable goal. I think there are great possibilities for the use of wikis to help citizens help each other. I recommend to try and fail, try and fail, try and fail, but to never give up on the objective of the political process becoming more rational and less prone to hidden pressure group agendas.

And he practices what he preaches! Wikia, a for-profit Wikipedia spinoff, is littered with wiki projects Wales has started and abandoned.

Wales's term was set to expire on December 31, along with two other trustees. The board of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization, is supposed to have 10 board members, half appointed and half elected. It currently has two elected members — Kat Walsh, a Virginia law student, and Ting Chen, a gay Chinese programmer working for IBM in Germany — and two temporary appointees. According to the foundation's bylaws, it requires a quorum — at least five trustees — to take any action other than appointing new members. On December 28, with days left to go, the board announced the reappointment of the three expiring board members on an obscure mailing list — a move that the board's chair, Michael Snow, only saw fit to make public on the foundation website's nearly a week later (after the publication of an earlier version of this post, and followup reporting by CNET News). Five of the ten board seats remain empty or filled by seatwarmers.

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.

Incompetence and infighting are endemic to nonprofits, of course. But Wikipedia's bureaucracy is distinctly, fearsomely awful. The site, which dictates the online reputation of countless living people and companies, itself operates by rules that are completely incomprehensible, determined by a self-appointed group of volunteer editors who can seldom stop arguing over obscurities to explain their ways to outsiders.

No one should be surprised, then, that Wikipedia's overseers are so hobbled that they can't even fill vacancies on the board — a situation Gardner has exploited expertly.

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.

(Photo of Wales via Wikipedia Commons; photo of Gardner via Seattle Times)

If so, Wales makes for an unlikely Jerry Lewis. The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation is trying to raise $6 million to fund its operations — chief among them Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia anyone with more time than sense can edit. Wikipedia does not run ads, instead relying on contributions from Wikipedia's users.

But Wales has had more luck drumming up donations from wealthy venture capitalists scheming to make money off of Wikipedia volunteers' articles than from ordinary users. Of the $3.9 million that has come in, $2.6 million came from already announced donations; half that amount has come from the fundraising drive.

We have to wonder: Is the problem Wikipedia's pitchman? Wales profits handsomely from his Wikipedia connection, parlaying his status as the site's cofounder into a lucrative speaking career. And he's also used his sway over Wikipedia's volunteer editors to get himself laid, most notably by Rachel Marsden, the Canadian political commentator who some say is the Great White North's answer to Ann Coulter. The junkets, paid for by sponsors, suit his taste for jet-setting, but conflict with the man-of-the-people image he needs to beg for money.

Unfortunately, he's the best Wikipedia has got. The Wikimedia Foundation's executive director, Sue Gardner, a Canadian pop-culture journalist with a thin resume, is actively scheming to supplant him as Wikipedia's public face, but she's embarrassed herself by defending Wales's sleazy sex hijinks and hasn't otherwise made much of a public impact.

So here's a notion: Why not have Marsden, Wales's former paramour, give it a try? She's a proven television presence with a knack for driving controversy. (Sure, she was escorted out of Fox's offices, but she says that was all a misunderstanding!) And she's proven herself to be very interested in what Wikipedia has to say about her — to the point that she was willing to bed Wales to get her entry edited. That's the kind of passion Wikipedia's fundraising needs!

An online thermometer, which has popped on and off the site, shows that the effort has raised $2,155,883 towards its $6 million goal. But that figure is meant to deceive potential donors about the level of Wikipedia's grassroots support. It started out $2.1 million ahead, by counting previously made donations from large organizations like the Sloan Foundation, which has already agreed to give Wikipedia $3 million over the course of three years.

But that's not what has Wikipedia's volunteer editors up in arms. They're calling the donation banner "ugly." They're debating how to make it easier to hide. They're even questioning whether the foundation should be asking them for money at all, since they already contribute their labor.

On a Wikipedia mailing list, Nathan Awrich sums up the reaction:

My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative, and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at all. Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by Danny Wool last spring.

Wool, a former Wikimedia Foundation employee, noted earlier this year Jimmy Wales's attempts to expense a $1,300 dinner with a venture capitalist. Now, he points out on his blog, by most standards of charities, the Wikimedia Foundation is incredibly inefficient, spending very little of the money it raises on the mission it claims to be raising money for. Wales's jetset lifestyle is the least of the issues, since much of that is funded by his speaking fees. It's time for the people Wikipedia is hitting up for donations to start asking questions about the foundation's management, starting with the executive director, Sue Gardner, and its board of directors.

Wales has long been an Objectivist, a follower of the writings and political philosophy of Ayn Rand, who thoroughly rejected altruism. Wales's statements in the video thoroughly contradict Objectivist thinking on foreign policy, which boils down to "an eye for an eye" and "screw the United Nations." He also contradicts his own privately expressed political views. But that just makes him a clever capitalist: He knows he can get more speaking gigs overseas by feigning Euroliberalism.

The answer is pure self-interest. $4 million is nothing to a 97-year-old venture capital firm like Bessemer. It could easily write off its investment in Wikia, an attempt to capitalize on the anyone-can-edit wiki concept popularized by Wikipedia.

But Levine has invested his reputational capital in Wikia. Admitting he made a mistake in backing Wales means Levine would lose face with Bessemer's partners, who will be more likely to question his subsequent investments. (That he has also invested in Yelp and Diapers.com surely does not burnish his record.)

Levine would have us be impressed by the fact that Wales "volunteered to forgo his Wikia salary." This would be more impressive if Wales had not long ago forgone any pretense of doing any work to earn that salary. When Levine first invested in Wikia, Wales promised to spend 90 percent of his time on Wikia and 10 percent on Wikipedia. In fact, he spent nowhere near that proportion of time on either, focusing instead on an increasingly lucrative speaking career.

I'm inclined to feel sorry for Levine, who was clearly deceived by Wales, but is stuck defending him, lest he admit to the con. We will give Levine this much. In a recent blog post, he wrote, "Valleywag reported some nonsense about Jimmy getting fired because of a bogus expense report. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

What is uncontestably true: Levine was enraged when he learned that Wales tried to get Wikia to reimburse him for a $1,300 dinner with a private-equity investor, at which he primarily discuss ways to profit off of Wikipedia, not Wikia. But it is quite possible that Wales's attempted expense-account flim-flam was the least of his sins as CEO of Wikia, and that Levine actually fired him over more serious matters. If so, why doesn't Levine wash his hands of Wales, write off the investment, and tells us what Wales did? Otherwise, he'll find that he's only just begun his career of lying on Wales's behalf.

The cause? The same kind of expense-account hijinks that landed him in trouble at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit parent of Wikipedia.

In 2006, Wales was courting Marc Bodnick, a cofounder of Silicon Valley private-equity firm Elevation Partners, in an effort to find a way to profit from Wikipedia, despite its nonprofit status and volunteer contributors. Bodnick and an assistant had traveled to St. Petersburg, Fla., where Wikimedia was then based. The talks went nowhere, but Wales, his wife, Bodnick, and Bodnick's assistant had a $1,300 meal at one of the city's finest restaurants. ($600 of the bill was spent on wine.)

At that point, the Wikimedia Foundation had confiscated Wales's corporate card, so he paid for the meal himself. But he then sought to have it reimbursed by Wikia. Michael Davis, Wikia's chief operating officer, became enraged and reported the expense to Jeremy Levine, a Wikia board member and partner at Bessemer Venture Partners, which had invested $4 million into the company only a month before.

Levine then told Wales he was fired as CEO, and found Penchina, who had already made a fortune at eBay. Wales must hate that: Every time he sees Penchina, he must ask himself, "Why is this guy rich and I'm not?" Penchina, meanwhile, must be asking why Wikia is still paying Wales a salary.

Here are your options: You can spend thousands of hours editing Wikipedia entries to boost your credibility in the online community, and then pursue a tortuous quasi-legal process for months to change a single word in the entry. Petty-minded volunteer bureaucrats will oppose you at every turn. Or, if you want to make it simpler, you can just bribe Wales with money or sex. But anyone who thinks merely whining will do the trick is deluded. (Photo by David Shankbone)

A source who has seen Wikia's numbers says the company is experiencing "a hemorrhaging of cash circa 1999" — losses, in other words, like the first generation of dotcoms. No surprise there, since it has offices in San Francisco, New York, and Poland, and many of its products, like Wikia Search, are staggeringly unpopular. Wikia raised $14 million in venture capital from Bessemer Venture Partners and Amazon.com, the last of which came in December 2006; without a new infusion, it must surely be running low on cash.

The previous evening, the Berliner Kurier reports, Wales dined with Celia von Bismarck, shown here, a dilettante magazine editor and think-tanker. (She hates "boring society ladies," according to Vanity Fair, so she and Wales must have self-loathing in common.) No mention of Wales's current fling, Andrea Weckerle, who's said to be on the outs with him after rumors circulated that he sent around racy photos of Weckerle without her knowledge.

Wales himself, obviously. He can't resist a chance to burnish his image as a font of wisdom regarding all things Internet, no matter how irrelevant his experience might actually be. AdWeek's Brian Morrissey reports Wales used the word "authenticity" more than a dozen times while on stage.

Wales says he didn’t create green Wikia so much to fulfill his passion for green living, but more to help deliver the truth of eco-info, which he says is sorely lacking: “I’m really passionate about having objective information in this area. It is really hard to get clear information on green issues.”

Doesn't Wales sound just like an oil-company executive insisting we need more research before we can really say if carbon emissions are responsible for global warming?

SmartPlanet catches Wales in a similar hypocrisy, asking him if Wikia has taken concrete steps to reduce the electricity used by its servers. The short answer: It hasn't.

Finally, there's this charge aired on the Wikipedia Review: That Wikia Green has taken copyrighted content without permission from other pro-environment sites.

But why should this be any surprise? Wikia Green, like so many of Wales's efforts, isn't an offshoot of some deeply held belief, besides his core principle — that other people should do the work that makes him popular and rich.

But it will give Wales something to chatter about the next time he runs into Bono or Sir Richard Branson at a party. We'd bet his celebrity friends are too polite to ask the notoriously cheap Wales if he's actually springing for carbon offsets to make up for all of the emissions he generates through his nonstop round-the-world jet travel. Oh, and should we get into the contribution to global warming he makes through all the hot air that issues from his lips?

It's a charity. Nobody is making any money from the organization. Nobody has made any money, and nobody will ever get rich from it because we're never going to sell it. We're not open for business; we're not looking for investment.

Gardner goes on to note the many ways in which the foundation has cleaned up its act under her rule — though some of her claims seem exaggerated. As with so many ex-journalists, Gardner makes an excellent spin doctor. Behind the little fibs and fudges, here's the big truth she's hiding: Wales has attempted, several times, to profit from Wikipedia. And in one way, he's succeeded.

In a 2006 meeting in Mexico City, Wales openly discussed the prospect of commercializing Wikipedia with Bono, the rock star, and Marc Bodnick, a Silicon Valley investor and Bono's colleague at private-equity firm Elevation Partners. Roger McNamee, another Elevation Partners money manager, orchestrated the Wikimedia Foundation's relocation to San Francisco and the hiring of Gardner as its executive director.

Those moneymaking efforts have, to date, gone nowhere. But that doesn't mean Wales didn't try. Wikia, his for-profit wiki startup, was another effort to make money off the Wikipedia brand, though that has mostly floundered; the market share of Wikia Search, the effort Wales has worked most closely on, is infinitesimal.

Where Wales has been successful in making money: His speaking gigs. He's said to be traveling 250 days out of the year, and often gives paid speeches while on tour, garnering $30,000 to $90,000 per event. People aware of Wales's dealings with the Wikimedia Foundation say he pockets those fees rather than give them to the nonprofit — even though his status as cofounder of the online encyclopedia is the only reason anyone's interested in hearing Wales talk.

That's where Gardner is, at long last, hitting Wales where it hurts — his pocketbook. How so? By competing with him.

Buried in a lengthy update for the foundation's board, Gardner included this note:

Sue is now represented by The Lavin Agency for speaking engagements. Her fees will be paid to the Wikimedia Foundation.

That Gardner's fees would be paid to her employer only makes sense, since she's speaking in her capacity as the foundation's executive director. It would hardly be worth nothing — except to draw a contrast to Wales's venal abuse of his role as the site's cofounder. It's a big shift from March, when Gardner was defending Wales as "modest" and "frugal."

Wales has long tried to portray himself as Wikipedia's "hereditary monarch," a role the foundation's board nodded to when they created a permanent board seat for him. That Gardner is gunning for Wales's speaking gigs suggests that she's realized he's more of a liability than an asset for Wikipedia. She's ready and willing to displace him as the community's leader. When Wales and Gardner met up in Amsterdam for a friendly chat about her taking the top job at Wikipedia, who was taking advantage of whom?