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.)

According to Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for the extreme-right-wing website, he is not "Jerusalem21," the Wikipedia user whose rejected edits to the Obama article formed the centerpiece of Klein's reporting. Wired and other publications raised questions about Jerusalem21's identity when a blogger noted that Jerusalem21's sole contributions to the free online compendium were edits to the Obama page and Klein's own Wikipedia article.

"I am not 'Jerusalem21,' but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story," Klein writes, adding that he "personally" oversaw "Jerusalem21"'s edits. In other words, Klein masterminded the creation of the supposed scandal he wrote about.

Klein doesn't see things quite that way. He claims our article was "defamatory." But the truth cannot defame. Klein himself freely admits that he was intimately involved in the creation of the supposed news event he wrote about. Here's Klein having his say:

Mr. Thomas —

I demand an immediate retraction of your Gawker article today, which is defamatory. (http://gawker.com/5167585/right+wing-writer-invents-his-own-obama-wikipedia-scandal)

Your headline states as fact, "Right-Wing Writer Invents His Own Obama Wikipedia Scandal." You then quote from Wired.com, which, you relate, stated that one Wikipedia user cited in my article is "almost certainly Klein himself." "Almost certainly" is not enough to justify your very certain, defamatory title.

First, I am not "Jerusalem21," but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story, which focused on investigating allegations I had received from others of Wikipedia scrubbing Obama's page. I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. For your information, often investigative journalists engage in exactly this kind of testing – like seeing if they can bypass mandatory disclosures while donating to a candidate (several newspapers did this prior to the November election), or if they can register a dog to vote in Illinois. Thus, even if I had personally edited Obama's page as a test to investigate allegations of scrubbing, this is entirely legitimate journalistic practice.

Second and more importantly, your article is entirely misleading; it paints a picture that my piece from yesterday was reliant simply upon "Jerusalem21" being barred from entering information on Wikipedia that is critical of Obama, suggesting the controversy was both "invented" and based on that one account.

But my article from yesterday notes that "multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately."

The article further notes that WND monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc) was scrubbed. This can easily be confirmed independently by simply going through the tens of thousands of attempted edits to Obama's Wikipedia page and seeing how a large number of critical edits are erased, including edits seemingly backed up with third-party media references.

Further, WND published a follow-up today noting many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91257. Indeed, WND has been flooded the past two days with e-mails from readers with their own "Wikipedia stories" of how they were barred from entering what they claim is legitimate, backed-up criticism on Obama's Wikipedia page.

My article from yesterday noted what is clearly a major trend at Wikipedia and is a very legitimate piece. I demand your Gawker article be immediately corrected. The title must be changed, the false accusations about "Jerusalem21" must be updated and the article should note the wider trend on Wikipedia outlined above, instead of wrongly claiming the controversy is limited to one user. Do not simply and misleadingly update your article just by stating that I know "Jerusalem21" and leaving in the defamatory portrayal that I somehow invented a controversy, when indeed there is indisputably a much wider, documented trend.

Sincerely,
Aaron Klein
Jerusalem bureau chief, WorldNetDaily.com

Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief and a frequent Fox News interviewee, took a break from covering the Middle East to fixate on the question of why Wikipedia's volunteer editors were supposedly censoring edits to Obama's Wikipedia page. According to Klein, "one user" was rebuffed when he tried to add the following paragraph to the page:

There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts.

That same user, Klein added, was given a three-day suspension after trying to add other material to the page. (Wikipedia editors, who are longtime users given extra authority, often reverse edits that they deem "fringe theories.")

Fox News picked up the tale of supposed Obamaniac censorship yesterday. But they never bothered to ask questions about the identity of "Jerusalem21," the suppressed Wikipedian. Turns out it was almost certainly Klein himself someone working for Klein (see below) who made the offending edits, Wired notes:

Curiously, it turns out that Jerusalem21, whoever he or she might be, has only worked on one other Wikipedia entry since the account was created, notes ConWebWatch. That's Aaron Klein's entry, which Jerusalem21 created in 2006, and has edited 37 times.

Update: Klein emailed us to demand we retract this story (we're not) because he's not actually Jerusalem21—his researcher is. He writes:"I am not 'Jerusalem21,' but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story, which focused on investigating allegations I had received from others of Wikipedia scrubbing Obama's page." You can read his whole letter over here.

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!

Free-speech zealots among Wikipedia's volunteer editors have insisted that the original cover of Virgin Killer, a 1976 album by German heavy metal band the Scorpions — shown here with a teddy-bear bowdlerization — must run alongside the site's page for the album. Their stubbornness has landed the Wikipedia page on a list of porn sites maintained by Internet Watch, a British group, whose censorship recommendations many British ISPs follow.

The ban seems like overkill, since it covers the album page, not just the image in question. But the fact that Wikipedia has let matters get this far speaks to the site's screwed-up culture. Erik Möller, the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's nonprofit parent, has defended child pornography in the past. His extremist stance is mirrored by an outspoken minority within Wikipedia's ranks of editors.

The Wikipedian child-porn fetish is disturbing. But it's a sign of a much deeper problem. Wikipedia editors love to make up bureaucratic rules. It's part of what makes the site so intimidating to new users, and why bias and misreporting so often go uncorrected on the site. Knowledgeable people are scared away by the need to engage in time-wasting arguments with bored teenagers and obsessive Internet users for whom enforcing these rules is a source of cheap entertainment. Why Internet providers are banning Wikipedia pages instead of Wikipedia editors is beyond me.

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.