On Dec 13, 2007 9:43 PM, wikien-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@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@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@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
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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.
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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"
On Dec 13, 2007 7:35 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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.
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.
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
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.
I'll be quite interested in finding out.
-Justin
On Dec 13, 2007 11:01 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Malice is defined if I recall correctly as "knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth" and I seem to recall that not fact checking whether people with the same name are in fact that the same person can constitute reckless disregard for truth but I don't have a citation and I'm not a lawyer.
Quoting Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
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@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 14, 2007 4:16 AM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@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.
On Dec 18, 2007 6:38 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 4:16 AM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@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.
Er I meant Doran, the subject of the piece (not Metz, the author).
On Dec 13, 2007 8:01 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
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.
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On Dec 13, 2007 8:01 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
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.
Really? What evidence do we have that Metz has relied on any sources that have falsified information for the press? Falsified information to attack Wikipedia yes, but to information given to the press as far as I can tell (the previous articles were terribly distorted but did not appear to be have falsified information per se. Much more of an issue with leaving out relevant details).
joshua.zelinsky@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
Quoting Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
joshua.zelinsky@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.
That's a good point. Consider my earlier remark withdrawn. In any event, it is doubly withdrawn because it really looks now like it is the same person.
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...
On Dec 13, 2007 10:52 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Well, Pinellas county records show that the Carolyn Brothwell Doran who was arrested in Pinellas County had a fugitive warrant from Virginia. That'd be quite a coincidence.
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@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@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@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
On 14/12/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I hope this all gets clarified as quickly and as publicly as possible.
Mike Godwin's posted this, which he says (for obvious legal reasons) will need to be his final word on the subject (he says "on this list", but I suspect that the prurient asking on wikien-l won't count as a different venue):
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036007.html
- d.
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@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 7:12 PM, Avi avi.wiki@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@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l