Re: [WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon. - WikiEN-l

George Herbert

14 Dec 14 Dec

3:30 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi <avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It depends on the company. For the companies I have worked for, a background check including criminal record check is pretty much standard. Some even require drug tests, and I work in the financial services industry where there pretty much is no exposure to child care.

My consulting company does background checks on everyone, and some of our customers do as well. Having a DUI conviction or arrest is not a disqualifier for an executive, financial, or technical job, usually. Not disclosing it would be grounds for termination if discovered, but that doesn't seem to apply here. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Reply

George Herbert

3:49 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

On Dec 13, 2007 7:35 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Quoting George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi <avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It depends on the company. For the companies I have worked for, a background check including criminal record check is pretty much standard. Some even require drug tests, and I work in the financial services industry where there pretty much is no exposure to child care.

My consulting company does background checks on everyone, and some of our customers do as well. Having a DUI conviction or arrest is not a disqualifier for an executive, financial, or technical job, usually. Not disclosing it would be grounds for termination if discovered, but that doesn't seem to apply here.

She wasn't just convicted of drunk driving. According to the Register "Her record also included convictions for passing bad checks, theft, petty larceny, additional DUIs, and unlawfully wounding her boyfriend with a gun shot to the chest"

Some digging on my own raises questions whether he's identified the same person there or not. I can't disprove the claim, but I can't verify it either. Someone will have to call the Florida courts tomorrow and get transcripts and her full legal name to see if it's the same person or not. If it is the same person, then she also apparently lost her husband in an accidental drowning on their honeymoon in 1999: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/shdoran.htm But again, I can't confirm that at this time. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Reply

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

4:01 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

Quoting George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Keep in mind that there are verifyably hundreds of Carolyn Doran's in the US. It's entirely possible she's not the same person who committed those other crimes. I don't know how good Cade Metz' fact checking is on that point; it needs to be verified, but I wouldn't assume it to be true.

If it isn't true the Foundation and Doran should sue The Register for libel. If this is wrong it might even constitute sufficiently reckless behavior to be actionable in the United States, and certainly would be libel in Great Britain where the Register is. However, I doubt even the Register would be this sloppy. I'd be willing to bet about 8 to 1 that this is the same Carolyn Doran.

Reply

Nathan Awrich

4:16 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

Libel in the US requires malicious intent, which is notoriously hard to prove - all they would need to do is demonstrate a legitimate belief that the WMF Carolyn Doran is the same one involved in these crimes. Additionally, since it is published in the UK there is the question of jurisdiction. Still, it does seem unlikely that the Register would expose itself to the comparatively low libel bar in the UK. On Dec 13, 2007 11:01 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Quoting George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

Keep in mind that there are verifyably hundreds of Carolyn Doran's in the US. It's entirely possible she's not the same person who committed those other crimes. I don't know how good Cade Metz' fact checking is on that point; it needs to be verified, but I wouldn't assume it to be true.

If it isn't true the Foundation and Doran should sue The Register for libel. If this is wrong it might even constitute sufficiently reckless behavior to be actionable in the United States, and certainly would be libel in Great Britain where the Register is. However, I doubt even the Register would be this sloppy. I'd be willing to bet about 8 to 1 that this is the same Carolyn Doran. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Tony Sidaway

18 Dec 18 Dec

6:38 p.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

On Dec 14, 2007 4:16 AM, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Libel in the US requires malicious intent, which is notoriously hard to prove - all they would need to do is demonstrate a legitimate belief that the WMF Carolyn Doran is the same one involved in these crimes. Additionally, since it is published in the UK there is the question of jurisdiction. Still, it does seem unlikely that the Register would expose itself to the comparatively low libel bar in the UK.

If it isn't the same Metz, it would be an open-and-shut libel in UK law.

Reply

George Herbert

14 Dec 14 Dec

4:22 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

On Dec 13, 2007 8:01 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Quoting George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

Keep in mind that there are verifyably hundreds of Carolyn Doran's in the US. It's entirely possible she's not the same person who committed those other crimes. I don't know how good Cade Metz' fact checking is on that point; it needs to be verified, but I wouldn't assume it to be true.

If it isn't true the Foundation and Doran should sue The Register for libel. If this is wrong it might even constitute sufficiently reckless behavior to be actionable in the United States, and certainly would be libel in Great Britain where the Register is. However, I doubt even the Register would be this sloppy. I'd be willing to bet about 8 to 1 that this is the same Carolyn Doran.

Based on who appears to be feeding information to Metz, he has sources that have falsified information before both for press and community attacks on Wikipedia before. This is not an indication that the particular information is wrong. But one should be wary, and fact check. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Reply

Ray Saintonge

6:10 p.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:

...

If it isn't true the Foundation and Doran should sue The Register for libel. If this is wrong it might even constitute sufficiently reckless behavior to be actionable in the United States, and certainly would be libel in Great Britain where the Register is. However, I doubt even the Register would be this sloppy.

Suing for libel is one of the sillier ideas to come up in this thread. If that were to happen Mrs. Doran would have a much stronger right of action than WMF. The most important question about such a lawsuit is, "What would you hope to accomplish with it?" There would be a lot of legal costs to bring the matter to court. Would The Register even be able to cover those costs if we won? And think of the fun that all of Wikipedia's detractors would have while all the dirty laundry was being displayed in court and in front of the press. Maybe a court would come out with a declaration that we are right; that would still be an expensive declaration. Ec

Reply

Thomas Dalton

6:36 p.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

...

Suing for libel is one of the sillier ideas to come up in this thread. If that were to happen Mrs. Doran would have a much stronger right of action than WMF. The most important question about such a lawsuit is, "What would you hope to accomplish with it?" There would be a lot of legal costs to bring the matter to court. Would The Register even be able to cover those costs if we won? And think of the fun that all of Wikipedia's detractors would have while all the dirty laundry was being displayed in court and in front of the press. Maybe a court would come out with a declaration that we are right; that would still be an expensive declaration.

Forcing The Register into bankruptcy sounds like an accomplishment to me...

Reply

Nathan Awrich

3:43 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

No one - no one - gets a position as a corporate officer with a felony record including deaths, gunshot wounds, larceny, check kiting, etc. No one. Not even for a convenience store, let alone a major world-wide organization like Wikimedia. The fact that this information was not disclosed to the community and the public is disturbing - the fact that it was glossed over as if the question was inappropriate when it was asked of Ms Devouard is far more disturbing, if its true the Board was aware of the details. On Dec 13, 2007 10:30 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi <avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It depends on the company. For the companies I have worked for, a background check including criminal record check is pretty much standard. Some even require drug tests, and I work in the financial services industry where there pretty much is no exposure to child care.

My consulting company does background checks on everyone, and some of our customers do as well. Having a DUI conviction or arrest is not a disqualifier for an executive, financial, or technical job, usually. Not disclosing it would be grounds for termination if discovered, but that doesn't seem to apply here. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Nathan Awrich

5:18 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

I don't want to badger you, and I imagine it takes time to craft an official statement/response to this issue, but when Mike says 'documentation' is that another way of saying you knew but didn't have documentary proof? Is this lack of proof the result of a failure to conduct a basic criminal background check ahead of hiring, or even a Google search that might have turned up the Washpost stories? ~Nathan On Dec 14, 2007 12:13 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

...

As Mike Godwin said to the reporter, ""We've never had any documentation of any criminal record on Carolyn Doran's part at all." There was no question of the board "disclosing" information that we did not have. Nathan Awrich wrote:

No one - no one - gets a position as a corporate officer with a felony record including deaths, gunshot wounds, larceny, check kiting, etc. No one. Not even for a convenience store, let alone a major world-wide organization like Wikimedia. The fact that this information was not disclosed to the community and the public is disturbing - the fact that it was glossed over as if the question was inappropriate when it was asked of Ms Devouard is far more disturbing, if its true the Board was aware of the details. On Dec 13, 2007 10:30 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi <avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It depends on the company. For the companies I have worked for, a background check including criminal record check is pretty much standard. Some even require drug tests, and I work in the financial services industry where there pretty much is no exposure to child care.

My consulting company does background checks on everyone, and some of our customers do as well. Having a DUI conviction or arrest is not a disqualifier for an executive, financial, or technical job, usually. Not disclosing it would be grounds for termination if discovered, but that doesn't seem to apply here. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Bryan Derksen

6:38 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

Steven Walling wrote:

...

This seems to be pretty old hat. The disgusting part of the Register's story is that it relies more on alluding to things without evidence. There's no evidence that she was fired or resigned because of the Foundation finding out about her record. But the Register sure works hard to make it look plausible. And next they so blatantly hint that the audit has been postponed due to her, again without any credible evidence.

It looks like this may be yet another situation where a lack of openness by Wikipedia/Wikimedia is going to result in a vaccum into which all manner of suspicion can be easily projected. Kelly Martin noticed an odd silence surrounding Doran's departure back in July, <http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-this-transparency.html> even if none of these allegations are actually true I suspect this apparent secrecy is going to give the story plenty of legs. I hope this all gets clarified as quickly and as publicly as possible.

Reply

Steven Walling

5:40 a.m.

New subject: Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.

This seems to be pretty old hat. The disgusting part of the Register's story is that it relies more on alluding to things without evidence. There's no evidence that she was fired or resigned because of the Foundation finding out about her record. But the Register sure works hard to make it look plausible. And next they so blatantly hint that the audit has been postponed due to her, again without any credible evidence. Worst of all, they are trying to scare up hits with the heavy hint that somehow millions of donated funds have been mishandled. With zero evidence of any financial mishandling, they so clearly say that donators have been duped by an organization that hires felons willy-nilly. Disgusting. It makes me want to burn my press credentials. Critics hating Wikipedia's methods or community is one thing. But this is pure slander for the sake of profit. On Dec 13, 2007 9:18 PM, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I don't want to badger you, and I imagine it takes time to craft an official statement/response to this issue, but when Mike says 'documentation' is that another way of saying you knew but didn't have documentary proof? Is this lack of proof the result of a failure to conduct a basic criminal background check ahead of hiring, or even a Google search that might have turned up the Washpost stories? ~Nathan On Dec 14, 2007 12:13 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

As Mike Godwin said to the reporter, ""We've never had any documentation of any criminal record on Carolyn Doran's part at all." There was no question of the board "disclosing" information that we did not have. Nathan Awrich wrote: > No one - no one - gets a position as a corporate officer with a felony > record including deaths, gunshot wounds, larceny, check kiting, etc. > No one. Not even for a convenience store, let alone a major world-wide > organization like Wikimedia. The fact that this information was not > disclosed to the community and the public is disturbing - the fact > that it was glossed over as if the question was inappropriate when it > was asked of Ms Devouard is far more disturbing, if its true the Board > was aware of the details. > > On Dec 13, 2007 10:30 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

>> On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi <avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> It depends on the company. For the companies I have worked for, a

background

>>> check including criminal record check is pretty much standard. Some

even

>>> require drug tests, and I work in the financial services industry

where

> there pretty much is no exposure to child care. My consulting company does background checks on everyone, and some of our customers do as well. Having a DUI conviction or arrest is not a disqualifier for an executive, financial, or technical job, usually. Not disclosing it would be grounds for termination if discovered, but that doesn't seem to apply here. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply