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 --------------------------------