On 16/12/2007, Ayelie <ayelie.at.large(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2007 8:23 AM, Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Foundation has repeatedly stated that it can not and will not reveal
> > details about this. What, then, is the use of this speculation? As I've
> > said
> > to others, it accomplishes nothing. We have encyclopædias to write, let's
> > focus on that instead.
> ... and a freely-licensed image collection to build, libraries to collect,
> books to write, dictionaries to work on, quote collections to gather,
> species data references to create, news articles to publish, learning
> materials to prepare... ;)
To change the subject:
This gets to the point of what we're doing this for. WMF's job is not
in fact to run a hideously popular and expensive web site - it's to
generate a body of work that's freely reusable by all.
So. Plus and minus points of popularity?
+ Proves we're doing something of value.
+ We get attention and hence contributors.
+ We have power to comment in the press to further our mission.
+ We get an income to get staff to help further our mission.
- Immediatism is the enemy of considered working, and being top-10
means we have to do far too many things really fast.
- Costs a fortune to run the site.
- We're a target for attacks from ad-banner trolls.
- Mass popularity reruits volunteers from closer to the bottom of the barrel.
Please add more. Is there a case for trying to make ourselves less
popular so we can get on with work?
- d.
Dear all,
I think the discussion about the former COO of the WMF is now
definitely dead-locked. The last dozens of posts have not brought any
additional information and I doubt that anything interesting will come
out of this anymore, save for the reinterations and repetitions of
personal opinions, ideas and recommendations. I'm entirely confident
that the WMF has been following this threat and will take the advice
offered into consideration for the future.
This said, people are getting bored of this discussion. There are
other topics that could be discussed on this list and I think it's
time to make place for these.
And, if you really don't know of any alternative debate topics, there
is always an encyclopedia to write (and a media repository to expand
and a dictionary and a ... and a ...).
Really.
Michael
Allison writes:
> This is, clearly, good and sensible practice. I am, however, noting
> that
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings is clearly targeted
> at a
> world-wide base of possible applicants. How would a USA-based
> organisation
> (such as the firm you have retained) be able to carry out any criminal
> checks for such applicants outwith the USA? In the case of the UK,
> and I
> am sure other European and World countries, such information is not
> freely
> available to others than the law enforcement organisations of those
> countries.
There are USA-based firms that do international criminal background
checks, and the firm we have retained is one of these. We are also
aware (and I for one am fairly acutely aware) of the difference in
privacy regulation among the various nation-states.
Certainly an applicant from a nation-state with different privacy laws
could game the background-check system to some extent, but we hope
this doesn't happen too often. What we're obligated to do under state
and federal law is "due diligence" with regard to background checks --
we are not obligated to be perfect (no one is), and if information is
unavailable to us because of another nation's privacy laws, the
critical question is not whether we get it or not, but whether we do
what any reasonable company in the same or similar circumstances would
do. Moreover, we are obligated under U.S. law to take pains that
personnel background checks are not disclosed to unauthorized persons.
> Or is it intended that only US-citizens could be accepted for
> any staff position with the WMF?
This must be more of that UK irony stuff I've been hearing about from
Thomas. As an American, I am forbidden by international law to
understand it, because I know sports better.
--Mike
>
>
Thomas Dalton writes:
> You're not even reading what I'm saying, are you? I was *defending*
> the WMF by pointing out that they didn't know in advance, then Mike
> comes along and contradicts me suggesting that they in fact did.
It seems to be the general rule, Thomas, that whenever you summarize
what I or any other Foundation representatives have said, you get
something wrong (and often several things wrong). This is no
exception. My advice is to quit summarizing us in this way and go back
to quoting, if you must persist in taking issue with us.
The Foundation did not know "in advance" of Carolyn's hiring of
anything problematic in her background. We didn't know "in advance" of
the Register story what claims it would make about Carolyn. The
statements I made to the Register were carefully crafted and factually
accurate. The same goes for my statements on this list.
> If
> they didn't know, it's really not their fault, but if they did,
> failure to do anything about it is gross incompetence.
Precision in quoting and citation also would save you from creating
false dichotomies.
I'm heartened that most readers of this list seem to be reading our
actual words with a bit more care than you show here. (It would be a
shame if they relied on your summaries -- doing so would, in my view,
be a sign of gross incompetence. Not merely incompetence, but GROSS
incompetence, the very worst kind!)
--Mike
To give some measure of reassurance to Robert, there have been cases
where arbcom has re-evaluated previous cases. It has been a fact, and
I presume remains the fact that arbcoms are not bound by decisions
reached by previous incarnations of hte arbcom from previous years.
The case of RK's banning from the first arbcom being overturned by the
immediately following appointed arbcom, springs to mind.
(I am cc:ing this to wikien-l, where all followups should be directed,
as this is clearly not a foundation matter)
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Reposted from wikien-l - was posted there by mistake!
A single felony conviction is different from multiple felony/other
criminal convictions. It also depends on what the crimes are - some
crimes obviously have profound implications against the character and
judgment of an individual. Even if that isn't the case here, and it
may not be, giving a ex-convict a fresh start is different from hiring
them to operate your company.
I'd like to agree with what someone else wrote - assume good faith is
a principle of life that is included in policy at Wikipedia only
because cynicism has become such a habit, particularly in the United
States. I know I have difficulty adhering to that principle,
especially concerning public figures, but I try!
Thanks to Mike Godwin for clearing up that he and the Foundation are
prevented from commenting in detail.
Perhaps, though, you can answer some general questions?
* Does the Foundation perform criminal background checks on
prospective new hires at any level of responsibility?
* If it does not, can this be explained so that we understand your
reasoning on why it is unnecessary?
* If it does, has it always?
* Have you considered a general policy of informing the community
prior to the anticipated publication of news concerning Wikipedia,
when you have knowledge that would allow you to do so?
Perhaps these are questions that the current Board and counsel are
unable to answer as well, but they are governance issues that might
impact future elections to the Board.
Nathan
Nathan writes:
> The community assumes
> that the Board operates in good faith, but that faith must be upheld
> by the Board through disclosure of information material to the
> community.
I agree that the Board should generally disclose as much as it is
legally able to do so.
> And assuming that the Board believed that the community did
> not need to be involved in this situation, surely the interview
> between the Register and Mike Godwin alerted them to the fact that
> press coverage was inevitable in the near future. If it were me, I
> would have wanted to get out in front of that story.
Speaking as journalist and an editor as well as a lawyer known to
specialize in freedom of expression issues, I think we did fine. Now,
you may disagree about this, and I respect your disagreement, but
please understand that even a community-oriented, volunteer-driven
enterprise can't always share all the information it has regarding a
personnel matter. There are legal constraints that apply to the Board,
to staff, and to anyone acting formally on the Foundation's behalf.
Now I were you, I'd Assume Good Faith on the part of the Foundation
(and on my part too, I hope) and ask instead what event or person gave
this (oddly speculative and disconnected) story to our good friends at
the Register.
And that is pretty much all I'm going to say on this list about the
Register story or its subject matter.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
> Just go through the emails on this subject from members of the board
> and from Mike, and many of them say, very explicitly, that they did
> not know about this under hearing from The Register.
You use the word "this" -- a singular indicative pronoun -- when the
Register story includes many things. Your imprecision here possibly
explains the incorrectness of certain inferences you have made
elsewhere.
--Mike
Alison writes:
> Just the single 'L' please ... we know how to spell names correctly
> this
> side of the pond ;-P
I'm ashamed. To punish myself, not only will I subtract an l from
"Allison," but I will also add the letter u to "humor"* and "color."
> Ah ... clearly not taking enough steriods* and growth hormone then!
Worse, the Mitchell Report doesn't address the abuse of irony
supplements.
--Mike
*Obviously, my humour must be limited to sports jokes.