They had to release Sarah and be public about it. What happened here goes straight against journalistic standards and the mission of Wikipedia, and the story w

They had to release Sarah and be public about it. What happened here goes straight against journalistic standards and the mission of Wikipedia, and the story would have broken sooner or later anyway. It would have been bad for donations. There's two things I just don't understand. First, how can anyone be so stupid and as a high-ranking member of Wikipedia accept money to pass of advertisement as copy? Second, what's with the culture of the Wikimedia Foundation? How come that they can hire someone with questionable ethical standards? They have continuous problems with the staff they hire, but then, from the outside, the place doesn't look like something that someone with a choice would like to be employed at.