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.

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?

Gardner did, however overspend by $60,000 in finance and administration — a sum which Wool believes mostly went to Mona Venkateswaran, whom he describes as a "crony" of Gardner's from the Canadian Broadcasting Company, where Gardner previously worked. One wonders if Venkateswaran's financial-accountant charter is good enough to let her verify this calculation: Instead of 61 percent of every donated dollar going to support Wikipedia's technology and programs to support its mission, only about 35 percent did.

Gardner has a difficult choice. Keeping Möller as an employee seems untenable; no respectable donor will want their money handled by someone who has conducted such distasteful philosophical hair-splitting about pedophilia, a subject on which the civilized world has an unqualified negative opinion.

Yet she hired Möller for a reason: To buy him off. Möller has never made any secret of his plan to profit from his work on Wikipedia, and getting on the payroll has realized that dream. For Gardner, it accomplished the goal of keeping her friends close, but her enemies closer; Möller is in the United States on a work visa, which Gardner controls. And getting him to resign as a director helped her move towards her goal of controlling the board.

Gardner has a choice: She can either admit that she was sloppy, and failed to check Möller's background. Or she can admit that she was conniving, appointing him to his job and hoping no one would notice. Either way, she looks weak. And that's the one thing she can't stand.

(Photo by Gerard Meijssen)

Not that she needs the help. The foundation's bylaws only require that a majority of its board members be "elected or appointed from the community." The spirit of the term "community" suggests those who actively edit Wikipedia; Wikipedia was originally conceived as a membership organization. But that plan was abandoned, the bylaws rewritten. The Wikimedia Foundation's board can define "community" as it sees fit.

By right, the board could declare that, say, Roger McNamee, the Elevation Partners cofounder who helped broker $1 million in donations recently, was a member of the community, by virtue of his financial support.

The current board, of which three out of seven members are elected, would likely oppose such a move. But three more Gardner-approved appointees could likely swing the vote the other way. And then the board could redefine "community," or just rewrite the bylaws altogether.

Only one seat is up for election in the short term. Conveniently, it is that of board chair Florence Nibart-Devouard, who has consistently led the opposition to Gardner's moves. She is unlikely to stand for reelection in July, we hear. Wikipedians may elect a new board member in protest, but at the cost of losing the most effective resistance they have to Sue Gardner's quiet takeover. (Users have started a toothless online petition.)

The most curious seat is Wales's. It is reserved for a "community founder," and according to Wikimedia vice chair Jan-Bart de Vreede, if Wales does not occupy it, it will go empty. Here's an amusing thought: Why not have Larry Sanger, whom some say has a better claim to founding Wikipedia than Wales, bid for the spot in December, when Wales's term expires?

If the board rejects Sanger for the "community founder" spot, it will have to admit the truth: Jimmy Wales gets a board seat not because he was elected to it. Not because he has any distinct competence. Not because he is popular with the chapters. No, Wales gets a board seat because he's special. This isn't gerrymandering. It's Jimmymandering.

The board, led by Florence Devouard, refused to sign. Among other things, the poorly written agreement made board members sound like employees who reported to Wikipedia staff, rather than the other way around. Gardner surely dodged a bullet when they refused to sign, though. Imagine if Jimmy Wales answered to Gardner. Wouldn't he have a sexual harassment case?

More on Gardner's qualifications, from her LinkedIn bio:

As a journalist, she specialized in pop culture, social issues and media analysis, covering stories such as manipulation of the news media during the first Gulf War, the rise of gated communities in California, the racial implications of the return of the death penalty to New York, changing feminist attitudes towards pornography, the dawn of interactive media, and the rise and fall of rave culture in the UK.

A Florida business registration for the nonprofit filed last May shows Wales's title did change — but to "EC," short for "executive chairman," a worker in Florida's Department of State confirms. On paper, Wales still outranks Devouard. Could he have told her that "EC" stands for "emeritus chair," while secretly keeping legal authority over Wikipedia to himself? That would explain why Wales feels entitled to bypass Devoard and cut deals with venture capitalists on the side.

The legal filing:

(Click to expand.)

Gardner is no longer disputing the past improprieties raised by former Wikipedia administrator Danny Wool; now she's just arguing it's a distraction from Wikipedia's mission. And then she attempts to change the subject to this humble gossip blog: "I used to say Valleywag was read by 11-year-old boys, but now I think that would be a disservice to 11-year-old boys." Gardner said that in the course of denying claims by former employees that she made out with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in Amsterdam. We were starting to wonder why Gardner kept bringing up 11-year-old boys, until we realized they make up Wikipedia's core demographic.

For once, a Valleywag commenter has held back. Writes mediawhoremeow, "I hear this chick had an interesting job interview with Jimbo in Amsterdam." That's one way of putting it. More precisely, Wikimedia Foundation employees say they witnessed Gardner and Wales making out last June in Amsterdam, shortly before she was hired as a consultant to the Wikipedia nonprofit. At least one had a cameraphone. We haven't gotten any pictures yet. Surely they must be circulating. Anyone care to send them in?

That's at least a year after the dates of the claims made by former employee Danny Wool, who was pretty clear on Monday that "This questionable use of Foundation funds stopped in 2006, largely because Jimbeau's credit card was taken away." CNET didn't ask Gardner to confirm or deny the claims made by non-former-employees, including the Slashdot-suing entrepreneur who allegedly got a page erased in exchange for a $5,000 donation.