Given that the Register was going to break the story, would it not have been appropriate to have broken it ourselves first--or given also an interview to some other publication? Or at least be prepared to do so simultaneously, by at least posting on slashdot. This was not a good way to handle negative information As well as making sure we are legal, we should have perhaps consulted someone who knows PR. ****** I wholeheartedly agree. With respect for the time pressures that undoubtedly applied in this case, a Register exclusive is not a good thing--particularly if the story turns out to be legitimate. Perception matters and that would lend credibility to notion that other recent things they've run are substantive. I write these words in the good faith hope that this publication is so seriously mistaken that no other press will pick up the story.
-Durova
Durova wrote:
Given that the Register was going to break the story, would it not have been appropriate to have broken it ourselves first--or given also an interview to some other publication? Or at least be prepared to do so simultaneously, by at least posting on slashdot. This was not a good way to handle negative information As well as making sure we are legal, we should have perhaps consulted someone who knows PR.
I wholeheartedly agree. With respect for the time pressures that undoubtedly applied in this case, a Register exclusive is not a good thing--particularly if the story turns out to be legitimate. Perception matters and that would lend credibility to notion that other recent things they've run are substantive. I write these words in the good faith hope that this publication is so seriously mistaken that no other press will pick up the story.
We did not have the information in the Register article until they actually ran the article. I was stunned when I read it. Therefore, it was impossible for us to "break the story" ourselves.
--Jimbo
We did not have the information in the Register article until they actually ran the article. I was stunned when I read it. Therefore, it was impossible for us to "break the story" ourselves.
They must have given you a general idea of the story when they were interviewing Mike. You can't ask "Were you aware of Mrs. Doran's criminal record?" without revealing the fact that she has a criminal record... 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.
Hoi, You have not been paying attention have you? As the WMF has a non-disclosure agreement, it was not at liberty to do such a thing. It is bad enough that Carolyn has to go through all this. It is bad enough that people cannot get it into their head that people are damaged in this way. It is not a zero sum game, people hurt as a consequence.
With Jimmy personally guaranteeing that there will be no ill effects for our precious organisation. With people imploring us to stop bitching because the pertinent details cannot and will not be made available you cannot stop. Why, what is your rationale to go on? What do you hope to achieve? Yes, this is a rhetorical question !
I am truly sorry for Carolyn, she worked hard when she worked for us. At the time I was told that it made a difference to have her. Now, with her sadly being in this stark spot light, I wish her well and hope that this episode will soon move into the obscurity where it belongs.
Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 15, 2007 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We did not have the information in the Register article until they actually ran the article. I was stunned when I read it. Therefore, it was impossible for us to "break the story" ourselves.
They must have given you a general idea of the story when they were interviewing Mike. You can't ask "Were you aware of Mrs. Doran's criminal record?" without revealing the fact that she has a criminal record... 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.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You have not been paying attention have you? As the WMF has a non-disclosure agreement, it was not at liberty to do such a thing. It is bad enough that Carolyn has to go through all this. It is bad enough that people cannot get it into their head that people are damaged in this way. It is not a zero sum game, people hurt as a consequence.
I've been paying attention, and I've not seen any reason given for signing an NDA that forbids you from revealing that your former COO was a convicted felon. As for someone that shot their boyfriend in the chest being harmed by all this, I'm sorry, but I really don't care.
With Jimmy personally guaranteeing that there will be no ill effects for our precious organisation.
He's personally guaranteed there will be no direct financial loss. That is not the same as guaranteeing there will be no ill effects.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org