Anthony writes:

...

There's plenty that you apparently don't know about. For example, did you know that a company is legally liable if it mishandles a criminal background check, and that this is why this service is now contracted to specialized services?

That question is far too vague to answer. Yes, I'm aware that certain mishandling of criminal background check's can result in legal liability. I'm not aware of any legal liability which can be had for checking the county court records on someone who's already left the company, in order to not get blindsided by a newspaper story about that former employee.

There are several hidden assumptions in that comment that are simply wrong. While I am not at liberty to spell them out for you (because doing so might disclose things I am not at liberty to disclose), I think anyone else here (besides Foundation board members and staff and agents) can certainly do so.

Thomas and I were both clearly talking about the period of time between the interview and the publishing of the story.

About two hours, then? Do you want a minute-by-minute accounting of how I spent the two hours between the time of the interview and the time the story appeared, because in your wisdom you know you could have spent those minutes much better than I did? I think that would be a ridiculous exercise.

...

...

As soon as Mike was asked that question the foundation should have done their own investigation and then broken the story. It would have taken a couple of hours to get enough information together to spoil The Register's scoop.

Criminal background checks take at least a day, and possibly a few days, to do properly, at least in the United States. The allegations made in the Register story would have taken significant time for us to confirm or refute.

You seem to be under the impression that Cade Metz hinted in his interview with me about all the criminal acts alleged to have been committed, in all the states he listed. Or else you have forgotten that Florida county records were not exactly the heart of the story.

Thomas Dalton writes:

Precisely. Judging by the quotes in the article, Mike must have known The Register was intending to publish a story about Carolyn Doran having a criminal record. That's pretty much all the information the Wikinews people needed to do their research in a matter of hours, so I see no reason why the WMF couldn't have done the same.

Wikinews had the Register story to work from when they wrote their story. The Foundation staff did not. See the difference?

--Mike