On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:16:27 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, it's the same in the UK. I think people are failing to consider the fact that while Wikipedia is enormous, the WMF is tiny. Yes, she had the title "COO", but that's because she was the only person in her department, so she had to be in charge of it. There is a big difference between the COO of a large multinational corporation and a solitary bookkeeper of a one-office charity.
But some involved in the foundation would seem to be trying to have things both ways; to expect their organization to be treated as a small private club when that suits them, and have it be treated as a huge multinational operation when *that* suits them.
On 15/12/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:16:27 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, it's the same in the UK. I think people are failing to consider the fact that while Wikipedia is enormous, the WMF is tiny. Yes, she had the title "COO", but that's because she was the only person in her department, so she had to be in charge of it. There is a big difference between the COO of a large multinational corporation and a solitary bookkeeper of a one-office charity.
But some involved in the foundation would seem to be trying to have things both ways; to expect their organization to be treated as a small private club when that suits them, and have it be treated as a huge multinational operation when *that* suits them.
You appear to be attempting to deny the point that it is in fact both - it's not a matter of "suits them", it's a matter of which aspect is relevant. There may be hundreds of thousands of volunteers, but it really is a vanishingly tiny charity office.
Your paragraph is phrased like a response to Thomas' point, but isn't actually one and doesn't refute it in any way.
- d.
In my experience, it's the same in the UK. I think people are failing to consider the fact that while Wikipedia is enormous, the WMF is tiny. Yes, she had the title "COO", but that's because she was the only person in her department, so she had to be in charge of it. There is a big difference between the COO of a large multinational corporation and a solitary bookkeeper of a one-office charity.
But some involved in the foundation would seem to be trying to have things both ways; to expect their organization to be treated as a small private club when that suits them, and have it be treated as a huge multinational operation when *that* suits them.
You appear to be attempting to deny the point that it is in fact both
- it's not a matter of "suits them", it's a matter of which aspect is
relevant. There may be hundreds of thousands of volunteers, but it really is a vanishingly tiny charity office.
The Wikimedia Foundation is rather unique in this sense. Its revenues are a few million a year, but its market value would probably be in the billions.
In any case, I think this is irrelevant. A non-profit organization with roughly a million dollars in cash and equipment isn't "tiny". Small, maybe, but not tiny. A big mistake was made entrusting the operation of such an organization to someone without properly investigating her background. Maybe the principle of "assume good faith" is being relied on too heavily here. We are told a process is in place to make sure it doesn't happen again, but there doesn't seem to be an acknowledgment that such a big mistake was made in the first place. No one has stepped up and taken the blame, and I think there's a lot of blame to go around. I guess legal considerations make it difficult. But I also think there are some people who really don't understand how negligent they were.
On Dec 16, 2007 8:31 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
A non-profit organization with roughly a million dollars in cash and equipment isn't "tiny". Small, maybe, but not tiny. A big mistake was made entrusting the operation of such an organization to someone without properly investigating her background.
Many small charity or volunteer organizations don't do detailed background checks. It's only very recently that schools started doing it with staff and teachers and volunteers around here. I know of charities which haven't done checks on anyone on staff. I know a number of companies that haven't checked anyone either, though some of the ones I worked for and worked at as a consultant do.
There may have been an assumption that the contract or employment agency conducted a background check.
In some cases, a contract or employment agency may do a check, and miss something. I've seen that happen, a criminal record later turn up outside the time scope of the check (11 years ago, with a 10 year check).
Maybe the principle of "assume good faith" is being relied on too heavily here. We are told a process is in place to make sure it doesn't happen again, but there doesn't seem to be an acknowledgment that such a big mistake was made in the first place. No one has stepped up and taken the blame, and I think there's a lot of blame to go around. I guess legal considerations make it difficult. But I also think there are some people who really don't understand how negligent they were.
I have seen Jimmy and Mike and Anthere step up and accept responsibility.
Accepting "the blame" is more complicated and presumes that someone in the Foundation did something actively wrong, as opposed to a passive mistake.
On Dec 16, 2007 9:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's only very recently that schools started doing it with staff and teachers and volunteers around here.
Where's "here"? Not vetting teachers before giving them responsibility for a class full of children is simply crazy...
I have no idea, it's been done in Canada for around 20 years (teachers cannot be licensed without a background check). Anyone working with children, at least 8 years. Most liability insurers require that those with signing authority or otherwise handling money must be bondable, and that's been in place for at least 30 years...maybe not a legal requirement, but an insurance one.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 8:31 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
A non-profit organization with roughly a million dollars in cash and equipment isn't "tiny". Small, maybe, but not tiny. A big mistake was made entrusting the operation of such an organization to someone without properly investigating her background.
Many small charity or volunteer organizations don't do detailed background checks. It's only very recently that schools started doing it with staff and teachers and volunteers around here. I know of charities which haven't done checks on anyone on staff. I know a number of companies that haven't checked anyone either, though some of the ones I worked for and worked at as a consultant do.
Clean criminal records checks carry a false sense of security. Many of the more sensational child abuse cases involve first time offenders in the sense that it is the first time they were caught, even though the abuse may have carried on secretly for many years.
Maybe the principle of "assume good faith" is being relied on too heavily here. We are told a process is in place to make sure it doesn't happen again, but there doesn't seem to be an acknowledgment that such a big mistake was made in the first place. No one has stepped up and taken the blame, and I think there's a lot of blame to go around. I guess legal considerations make it difficult. But I also think there are some people who really don't understand how negligent they were.
I have seen Jimmy and Mike and Anthere step up and accept responsibility.
Accepting "the blame" is more complicated and presumes that someone in the Foundation did something actively wrong, as opposed to a passive mistake.
The need to have someone to blame, even if it happens to be the victim, is a common moral ill.
Ec
Clean criminal records checks carry a false sense of security. Many of the more sensational child abuse cases involve first time offenders in the sense that it is the first time they were caught, even though the abuse may have carried on secretly for many years.
True, but conversely, many offenders do reoffend (I don't know how many, but it's definitely a significant number), so it still worth checking.
On Dec 18, 2007 9:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
True, but conversely, many offenders do reoffend (I don't know how many, but it's definitely a significant number), so it still worth checking.
Also, if you've set up an expectation that anything significant that might show up in a background check should be disclosed beforehand during the hiring process, such a surprise indicates someone feels they need to hide something; possibly problematic.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 9:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
True, but conversely, many offenders do reoffend (I don't know how many, but it's definitely a significant number), so it still worth checking.
Also, if you've set up an expectation that anything significant that might show up in a background check should be disclosed beforehand during the hiring process, such a surprise indicates someone feels they need to hide something; possibly problematic.
The first step to getting the right answers is to ask the right questions. If a person is not asked about any criminality in his past, he should not feel obliged to volunteer that information.
Some with criminal records will lie and say "No." That mostly comes from a perception that an honest answer results in unfair treatment. The lie may never surface, but it is nevertheless a compounding offence. It too needs to be judged in a context.
The question then is what to do when we get a "Yes" answer. If the person was convicted in a trial only the judge and jury had any real say in the matter. Even with a highly publicized case none of the sensationalism stirred up by the journalists makes any difference. What purpose is served by a repeat performance of the public exposure? If you missed knitting in front of the guillotine the first time, too bad.
Thomas' statement that a significant number of offenders do re-offend verges on the tautological. When you are faced with a real employment candidate you want to know if that person will re-offend, and a statistically determined likelihood is a very rough tool. If that person encounters enough rejections, that relatively higher proportion will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who are worried about an employee who has shot her boyfriend(s) should maybe avoid acting like male spiders.
Ec
On 12/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The first step to getting the right answers is to ask the right questions. If a person is not asked about any criminality in his past, he should not feel obliged to volunteer that information.
My view is that the current situation might in fact warrant telling each job applicant, that wikipedia is currently a big thing, and thus often under a microscope, so if they have stuff that people might feel they want to use to embarrass wikipedia/media with, it might be best to forewarn people of the foundation, so that a comprehensive evaluation of PR-risk can be done and effective defense strategies put in place, preferably ahead of any attempts at mudslinging.
Such applicants should also be informed that the foundation *will* protect to the best of its ability, the privacy of its staff in every respect, *provided* it is given sufficiently accurate description of possible concerns. It should be made clear that the Foundation is going to be on their side in any matters which they have disclosed to them, but that people seeking to criticize _will_, as likely as not, find out whatever it is.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
The first step to getting the right answers is to ask the right questions. If a person is not asked about any criminality in his past, he should not feel obliged to volunteer that information.
Absolutely. That's why I explicitly asked if Doran was asked that key question... I never received an answer.
On 16/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:16:27 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, it's the same in the UK. I think people are failing to consider the fact that while Wikipedia is enormous, the WMF is tiny. Yes, she had the title "COO", but that's because she was the only person in her department, so she had to be in charge of it. There is a big difference between the COO of a large multinational corporation and a solitary bookkeeper of a one-office charity.
But some involved in the foundation would seem to be trying to have things both ways; to expect their organization to be treated as a small private club when that suits them, and have it be treated as a huge multinational operation when *that* suits them.
You appear to be attempting to deny the point that it is in fact both
- it's not a matter of "suits them", it's a matter of which aspect is
relevant. There may be hundreds of thousands of volunteers, but it really is a vanishingly tiny charity office.
Which is about all you need to run a shoestring ISP. When the foundation sticks to being that it generally does okey. It is when it moves beyond that that things become problematical.