WikiEN-l December 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

153 participants
156 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.
by Avi 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

On Dec 13, 2007 9:43 PM, <wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:43:54 +0000 > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon. > On 14/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote: > > According to the Register, the Foundation's former COO was convicted > felon. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/ > > > > This is just great. And now all the Register's previous material looks > correct > > because they broke this nonsense. This is likely going to be all over > the > > newspapers tomorrow. I'm so shocked and appalled that I don't even know > > what to > > say about this. Why were basic background checks not done and why > > didn't we know > > about this sooner. Are we trying to implode? > > Why would you do a background check for a pretty standard office job? > I don't know about the US, but in the UK such background checks are > usually only done for jobs where the person will be working with > children, or similar.<http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> > 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. --Avi -- en:User:Avraham ---- pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com> Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229

13 23

DRV and WT:BLP
by NavouWiki 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

Of interest to EnWP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#A ngela_Beesley There is also some related talk at [[WT:BLP]] regarding deletion discretion. I might duplicate the WT:BLP at village pump. Nathan

12 32

Re: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia critics' perfect storm
by Daniel R. Tobias 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

On 17 Dec 2007 at 14:33:44 +0000, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me to be inevitable that any balanced piece over a page or > two in length is going to link to WR (or a similar site), in much the > same way as it's guaranteed to have a paragraph or two on Citizendium > or Knol or whatever other competitor just got a press release issued. Is that a "law" of Godwin's variety... as a discussion of Wikipedia gets longer, the probability of a link to WR being introduced approaches one? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

3 2

The Wikipedia critics' perfect storm
by Daniel R. Tobias 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

Lately there has been a whole series of controversies, scandals, and the like which have led to negative publicity for Wikipedia. In the middle of all that, Google announced a (vaporware so far) project to produce a community-authored information resource of some sort, which got some press as an alleged "Wikipedia-killer". From the media reaction to all this, it is very clear that Wikipedia's honeymoon is long over. A few years ago, the media, blogosphere, general public, and the ranks of Wikipedians themselves were full of people in their initial bloom of enthusiasm over how fantastically Wikipedia had succeeded in such a short time through a method of collective authorship that it seemed in theory couldn't possibly work. Then, the critics were in the minority and were easy to dismiss as people who "just don't get new media", or who had conflicts of interest or personal grudges of some sort that impaired their objective judgment. The pro-Wikipedia crowd had a genuine enthusiasm that was catching, and the anti-Wikipedia crowd was just an ugly bunch of party-poopers. Now, everything is different. A victim of its own success, Wikipedia is now part of the "establishment", a major part of the world's information infrastructure rather than a neat little geeky project. Just about everybody in and out of it has moved on from their wave of enthusiasm to be jaded and cynical. The insiders circle their wagons against "attackers" and try to blame everything on trolls and harassers and banned users and attack sites and irresponsible reporters and pernicious memes and so on. The outsiders find it's more interesting and newsworthy to find and expose problems with Wikipedia than to talk about how great it is. Even a few Wikipedia- related bloggers who have previously stayed away from, denounced, or downplayed all of the "wikidrama" of previous internal controversies are now starting to sound alarms about how things are getting so bad that major change is needed: http://original-research.blogspot.com/ http://wikip.blogspot.com/ Unfortunately, some of the commentary they're drawing is just more of the same insider reactions: to kill the messenger by denouncing them as irresponsible rumor-mongers (even though these are actually people who have largely sided with the establishment before against the drama-queens and sensationalists). This sort of reaction may have worked a while back when the critics were a small minority, but it won't work now. Even if some amount of the criticism is still overblown and unfounded, it is necessary to constructively engage the critics instead of dismissing or attacking them, or else the problems will keep getting worse in a never-ending spiral. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

7 7

Google Code page on knol
by David Gerard 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

http://code.google.com/p/knol/ Yes, that's two, count 'em, a SECOND page on knol! Apparently I'm the first person in the blogosphere since Thursday to go looking. Here's the code: http://knol.googlecode.com/svn/ - it's just a single page. Looks like a wiki engine: http://knol.googlecode.com/svn/wiki/GoogleKnol.wiki - does anyone recognise which wikitext that is? - d.

1 0

Alexa Toolbar now exists for Firefox
by David Gerard 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

http://www.alexa.com/site/download/ Go on, send our ranking even horribly higher. We've slipped down to #9 the past few days. - d.

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia critics' perfect storm
by Daniel R. Tobias 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:13:45 +0000, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm really not sure this has faded as much as you make out. I mean, I > stumbled across *yet another* of those "let's look at Wikipedia, isn't > it really exciting" articles today entirely by accident - > http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid52864.aspx But I'll note that this positively-toned article does include a link to Wikipedia Review, showing that even friendly, sympathetic reporters don't seem to share the "Linking to attack sites is EVIL!" taboo. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

4 4

Requests on rehearing past arbcom matters (was: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion...)
by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

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]]

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.
by Daniel R. Tobias 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

On 16 Dec 2007 11:40:26 -0500, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>e wrote: > When in doubt (or in the wrong) blame the victim? Ah, but distinguishing reliably between perpetrators and victims once the fur starts flying... there's the rub. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon
by Sheldon Rampton 16 Dec '07

16 Dec '07

After following this thread for awhile, I think this is a big tempest in a teapot. Based on the information presented in the Register article, my impression is that Carolyn Doran falls more in the category of "dysfunctional person" than "major criminal." Her criminal record shows that she had a drinking problem, wrote checks for which she did not have funds, once stole a small amount of money ($300), and shot a boyfriend. This suggests to me someone who makes bad decisions, has a chaotic personal life and has poor impulse control. I'd rather not have her as a next-door neighbor, and it is unfortunate that the Wikimedia Foundation hired her, but I doubt that she used her position to embezzle large sums of money from the Foundation, and thus far I've seen no evidence presented suggesting that she stole anything at all or failed in any other way to perform her duties while a Foundation employee. There are a few questions that Wikipedians and the public in general might want to know about this incident, including the following: * Does this incident warrant changes in the Wikimedia Foundation's personnel hiring and screening procedures, and if so, has it implemented them? * Did Doran misappropriate funds or engage in other on-the-job misconduct that materially affected the Foundation's fulfillment of its mission? (Her trip to Amsterdam on Foundation business may have violated her parole and added to her personal legal difficulties, but I wouldn't classify it as conduct that materially hurt the Foundation's work.) * Does the Foundation have adequate procedures in place for preventing internal fraud? (For example, I serve on the board of a nonprofit organization that handles several million dollars in assets, and it has a number of policies in place regarding who can write checks, who opens the mail, etc.) These questions are of legitimate interest to potential donors who want to know whether the Wikimedia Foundation is effectively managing its resources. However, I see little point in pursuing questions about what Jimbo knew when or whether Foundation representatives should have done more by way of publicly discussing the circumstances behind Doran's departure. I've had some experience in personnel matters, and there are good reasons for employers to exercise care in what they disclose publicly about former employees and their reasons for leaving. These include the privacy rights of employees as well as negotiated agreements that sometimes accompany resignations and firings. I therefore would not expect Wikimedia Foundation representatives to share much information about Carolyn Doran, even if they do know something more than they have publicly shared. If they didn't know more, they didn't know it. If they DID know more, there's probably a good reason why they're not discussing it. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
16
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2007