Nathan writes:
The community assumes that the Board operates in good faith, but that faith must be upheld by the Board through disclosure of information material to the community.
I agree that the Board should generally disclose as much as it is legally able to do so.
And assuming that the Board believed that the community did not need to be involved in this situation, surely the interview between the Register and Mike Godwin alerted them to the fact that press coverage was inevitable in the near future. If it were me, I would have wanted to get out in front of that story.
Speaking as journalist and an editor as well as a lawyer known to specialize in freedom of expression issues, I think we did fine. Now, you may disagree about this, and I respect your disagreement, but please understand that even a community-oriented, volunteer-driven enterprise can't always share all the information it has regarding a personnel matter. There are legal constraints that apply to the Board, to staff, and to anyone acting formally on the Foundation's behalf.
Now I were you, I'd Assume Good Faith on the part of the Foundation (and on my part too, I hope) and ask instead what event or person gave this (oddly speculative and disconnected) story to our good friends at the Register.
And that is pretty much all I'm going to say on this list about the Register story or its subject matter.
--Mike
No disrespect intended, and I hope and believe that you and the Board work with the interests of the organization foremost in your mind. I do disagree, however, with the judgment seemingly displayed on this issue. It seems as though it would have benefited the organization to have simply stated at the time of separation between WMF and Ms. Doran that there were personnel issues which the Board was bound to disclose.
Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the story would be published. At this point, the appearance is that the Board withheld information from the community about a material failure of due diligence in hiring - and then commented publicly to a glorified newsblog known to attack Wikipedia without providing the community fair warning of yet another assault on our credibility.
Now, I may be reading the situation in exactly the wrong way - but I would like a more elaborate description of why this might be so, and I imagine I am not alone. There are still many unknowns regarding the truth here, and the Foundation can only benefit from providing clarity. If the WMF is unable to comment any further because of continuing legal constraints (which is completely possible) that too would be pertinent information. If you intended to convey this in your response below, it isn't clear to me.
Nathan
On Dec 13, 2007 11:58 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nathan writes:
The community assumes that the Board operates in good faith, but that faith must be upheld by the Board through disclosure of information material to the community.
I agree that the Board should generally disclose as much as it is legally able to do so.
And assuming that the Board believed that the community did not need to be involved in this situation, surely the interview between the Register and Mike Godwin alerted them to the fact that press coverage was inevitable in the near future. If it were me, I would have wanted to get out in front of that story.
Speaking as journalist and an editor as well as a lawyer known to specialize in freedom of expression issues, I think we did fine. Now, you may disagree about this, and I respect your disagreement, but please understand that even a community-oriented, volunteer-driven enterprise can't always share all the information it has regarding a personnel matter. There are legal constraints that apply to the Board, to staff, and to anyone acting formally on the Foundation's behalf.
Now I were you, I'd Assume Good Faith on the part of the Foundation (and on my part too, I hope) and ask instead what event or person gave this (oddly speculative and disconnected) story to our good friends at the Register.
And that is pretty much all I'm going to say on this list about the Register story or its subject matter.
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As someone pointed out, Wikinews has started an article on this. I've no intention of contributing to the article, but have carried out some of the checks I would expect the Foundation to do.
This http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ is the U.S. court system, there is no mention of criminal cases against her, although I am not certain that is reliable. I have been given two other names for Carolyn which, again, turned up nothing.
I am told records exist in LexisNexis, but I don't have access to that and believe since there are onerous access requirements it is an inappropriate source for Wikinews.
Brian McNeil
On Dec 14, 2007 9:12 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I am told records exist in LexisNexis, but I don't have access to that and believe since there are onerous access requirements it is an inappropriate source for Wikinews.
I couldn't find anything in Lexis, searching in criminal databases for Florida as well as ones for Maryland, Texas and Virginia.
Hoi, For someone who is not from the United States, can you please explain how you come to be able to access these databases? Are they public? And do you really think that this is appropriate ?
When you are able to do so as a consequence of your occupation, what does your employer think of it? Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 14, 2007 12:55 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 9:12 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I am told records exist in LexisNexis, but I don't have access to that
and
believe since there are onerous access requirements it is an
inappropriate
source for Wikinews.
I couldn't find anything in Lexis, searching in criminal databases for Florida as well as ones for Maryland, Texas and Virginia.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 14, 2007 1:09 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For someone who is not from the United States, can you please explain how you come to be able to access these databases? Are they public? And do you really think that this is appropriate ?
In many states, criminal records are public information and can be accessed by anyone.
Sebastian
Hoi, Thank you for answering the first question ... Are these records public information in the states where you inquired ? Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 14, 2007 1:25 PM, Sebastian Moleski sebmol@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 1:09 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For someone who is not from the United States, can you please explain
how
you come to be able to access these databases? Are they public? And do
you
really think that this is appropriate ?
In many states, criminal records are public information and can be accessed by anyone.
Sebastian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For someone who is not from the United States, can you please explain how you come to be able to access these databases? Are they public? And do you really think that this is appropriate ?
When you are able to do so as a consequence of your occupation, what does your employer think of it?
LexisNexis have a variety of legal-related databases, including a database of criminal case reports for each US state. I have access through my university. These are not police records or anything, just public reports of court proceedings, which can be found in any library with a legal collection.
Lexis also has other, more confidential personnel records on people, that are available to certain subsets of the Lexis population (for example, students do not get access to some of the advanced PersonnelTrac features, but some private investigation accounts do). Some of these features have limitations on how their data are allowed to be released.
-Dan On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For someone who is not from the United States, can you please explain how you come to be able to access these databases? Are they public? And do you really think that this is appropriate ?
When you are able to do so as a consequence of your occupation, what does your employer think of it?
LexisNexis have a variety of legal-related databases, including a database of criminal case reports for each US state. I have access through my university. These are not police records or anything, just public reports of court proceedings, which can be found in any library with a legal collection.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Now, I may be reading the situation in exactly the wrong way - but I would like a more elaborate description of why this might be so, and I imagine I am not alone. There are still many unknowns regarding the truth here, and the Foundation can only benefit from providing clarity.
I am afraid you are reading it exactly the wrong way.
The Register story contained allegations that were completely unknown to me and the rest of the board. I want to completely dispel the notion that the board might have known all about this in the past and tried to hide it... that's completely not true.
On the day that the story was coming out, we got a phone call from The Register darkly hinting about the story they were going to publish. After a quick consulation about what the heck they might be talking about, we decided that Mike should talk to them to find out what was going on.
In that interview, Mike spoke plainly of the simple truth... as of the time of that phone call, we had nothing to go on but the word of The Register itself, which hardly constitutes proof of anything. And the allegations were... shocking to say the least.
To address the primary concern that many people would naturally have on hearing this: there is no evidence so far that there has been any theft of any Wikimedia Foundation money.
As the founder of Wikipedia and spiritual leader of the project from day one, I make this promise to you: if the currently underway audit turns up any stolen money, I will personally make a donation out of my own pocket to cover the loss. (However, knowing the current state of things, I am reasonably confident that this promise costs me nothing to make: I make it to reassure you, reader, that I stand behind this organization 100%.)
--Jimbo
On Dec 14, 2007 10:58 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Now, I may be reading the situation in exactly the wrong way - but I would like a more elaborate description of why this might be so, and I imagine I am not alone. There are still many unknowns regarding the truth here, and the Foundation can only benefit from providing clarity.
I am afraid you are reading it exactly the wrong way.
The Register story contained allegations that were completely unknown to me and the rest of the board. I want to completely dispel the notion that the board might have known all about this in the past and tried to hide it... that's completely not true.
On the day that the story was coming out, we got a phone call from The Register darkly hinting about the story they were going to publish. After a quick consulation about what the heck they might be talking about, we decided that Mike should talk to them to find out what was going on.
In that interview, Mike spoke plainly of the simple truth... as of the time of that phone call, we had nothing to go on but the word of The Register itself, which hardly constitutes proof of anything. And the allegations were... shocking to say the least.
To address the primary concern that many people would naturally have on hearing this: there is no evidence so far that there has been any theft of any Wikimedia Foundation money.
As the founder of Wikipedia and spiritual leader of the project from day one, I make this promise to you: if the currently underway audit turns up any stolen money, I will personally make a donation out of my own pocket to cover the loss. (However, knowing the current state of things, I am reasonably confident that this promise costs me nothing to make: I make it to reassure you, reader, that I stand behind this organization 100%.)
--Jimbo
Thank you for these clear and open comments.
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
[many messages]
I'd like to reiterate Jimmy's sentiments of the past several messages. We were all taken by surprise when we heard about Carolyn's history; we've sought professional advice on the best way to proceed, and have followed it even where it is difficult. And it is difficult, not to be able to answer all the questions that people want answered, and not to be completely open about everything, and to know that even in the best case people were going to be left upset by the outcome.
Mike's work handling this has been invaluable, and I'm glad yet again to have him aboard. I can't add much to his statements or Jimmy's, and can only say that I will be relieved when the audit concludes; this is a top priority for us.
-Kat
On 15/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
As the founder of Wikipedia and spiritual leader of the project from day one,
Careful, Seth F. will quote this as evidence it's all a cult again.
- d.
On 14/12/2007, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
I agree that the Board should generally disclose as much as it is legally able to do so.
Unfortunately, the Board (or, at least, certain individuals on the board) does not seem to agree. There are numerous instances of the board refusing to reveal certain information for non-legal reasons, and that's just the cases where member's of the community have known enough to know there was a question to ask.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is no law against stating that there a legal reasons for not disclosing something. The board could have said "There are certain issues regarding Carolyn Doran and her departure which we cannot discuss for legal reasons." That way the board remains transparent while still obeying the law.
On Dec 14, 2007 11:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is no law against stating that there a legal reasons for not disclosing something. The board could have said "There are certain issues regarding Carolyn Doran and her departure which we cannot discuss for legal reasons." That way the board remains transparent while still obeying the law.
Ant has already stated that a confidentiality agreement was signed at the time of Carolyn's departure.
On 14/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is no law against stating that there a legal reasons for not disclosing something. The board could have said "There are certain issues regarding Carolyn Doran and her departure which we cannot discuss for legal reasons." That way the board remains transparent while still obeying the law.
Ant has already stated that a confidentiality agreement was signed at the time of Carolyn's departure.
Could you point me towards that statement?
There is, however, no law forcing the foundation to sign confidentiality agreements (to my knowledge - it would be a pretty pointless law if it existed, since it would be equivalent to a law requiring the confidentiality itself, which would be much easier). "We promised not to tell you" is not a good reason for not telling us, they should never have made such promises in the first place. If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
On Dec 14, 2007 12:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is no law against stating that there a legal reasons for not disclosing something. The board could have said "There are certain issues regarding Carolyn Doran and her departure which we cannot discuss for legal reasons." That way the board remains transparent while still obeying the law.
Ant has already stated that a confidentiality agreement was signed at the time of Carolyn's departure.
Could you point me towards that statement?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-September/081166.html
(Whether or not the confidentiality agreement was signed "at the time of Carolyn's departure" is, I suppose, something I read into it.)
There is, however, no law forcing the foundation to sign confidentiality agreements (to my knowledge - it would be a pretty pointless law if it existed, since it would be equivalent to a law requiring the confidentiality itself, which would be much easier).
No, there isn't, and I'm pretty sure I said at the time (September) that it was improper for the Foundation to make such an agreement in the first place.
"We promised not to tell you" is not a good reason for not telling us, they should never have made such promises in the first place. If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
Looking at the email, I guess the time that the agreement was signed was not made clear. What's even stranger is that the agreement apparently bars the Foundation from saying anything, but not Carolyn herself. "Carolyn has the full right of talking to you, but we, as an organization, can not give details."
Could you point me towards that statement?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-September/081166.html
Thanks.
(Whether or not the confidentiality agreement was signed "at the time of Carolyn's departure" is, I suppose, something I read into it.)
At first glance, that's how I would read it too. It's possible it was signed when she got the job and Ant's email is just oddly worded (remember, she's not a native English speaker), but that doesn't explain why such an agreement was made.
No, there isn't, and I'm pretty sure I said at the time (September) that it was improper for the Foundation to make such an agreement in the first place.
Without knowing the details, it's difficult to even guess why they signed it. I struggle to think of a good reason, though.
"We promised not to tell you" is not a good reason for not telling us, they should never have made such promises in the first place. If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
Looking at the email, I guess the time that the agreement was signed was not made clear. What's even stranger is that the agreement apparently bars the Foundation from saying anything, but not Carolyn herself. "Carolyn has the full right of talking to you, but we, as an organization, can not give details."
That's not so odd. When you agree to respect someone else's privacy it doesn't usually preclude them revealing the information themselves. What's odd is that they agreed to it at all.
Hoi, I think that is a bit naive. A confidentiality agreement when someone leaves may assure that both parties indicate to the rest of the world that the parture of ways was amicable. The alternative can be quite costly and unproductive. If anything, the only thing I wish the WMF would have done differently is make a public statement at the time that "Carolyn has left her position, and that we thank her for the services rendered". This would be an adequate and honest statement as long as it is true. It is true as long as no criminal offences have happened. When there were, and to the best opinion of the WMF this is the best way of ending the relation, it should still be true as far as the rest of the world is concerned. And, I am happy to say, we, the community of volunteers of the WMF projects, qualify as such. Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 14, 2007 6:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is no law against stating that there a legal reasons for not disclosing something. The board could have said "There are certain issues regarding Carolyn Doran and her departure which we cannot discuss for legal reasons." That way the board remains transparent while still obeying the law.
Ant has already stated that a confidentiality agreement was signed at the time of Carolyn's departure.
Could you point me towards that statement?
There is, however, no law forcing the foundation to sign confidentiality agreements (to my knowledge - it would be a pretty pointless law if it existed, since it would be equivalent to a law requiring the confidentiality itself, which would be much easier). "We promised not to tell you" is not a good reason for not telling us, they should never have made such promises in the first place. If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To answer whoever asked about me above:
I left for the reasons stated in my [[letter of resignation]] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick. I'm back practicing law in a private firm a few miles away from the former WMF office. I've been around lurking. I have had extensive communication with the current WMF staff over the past 9 months. I will miss Sue in San Francisco, as she is a great lunch date.
What's your point?
Brad
On Dec 14, 2007 12:39 PM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
To answer whoever asked about me above:
I left for the reasons stated in my [[letter of resignation]] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick.
I don't see any reasons in that letter.
On 14/12/2007, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
To answer whoever asked about me above:
I left for the reasons stated in my [[letter of resignation]] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick. I'm back practicing law in a private firm a few miles away from the former WMF office. I've been around lurking. I have had extensive communication with the current WMF staff over the past 9 months. I will miss Sue in San Francisco, as she is a great lunch date.
What's your point?
Indeed. When you resigned you publicly announced the fact and your reasons (yes, you waited until things were sorted out behind the scenes before going public, but I can't see anyone complaining too much about that). That was the right thing to do, and I thank you for it. I wish other people would also do the right thing...
On 12/14/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
To answer whoever asked about me above:
I left for the reasons stated in my [[letter of resignation]] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick.
Let's look at the timeline.
Essjay posts on February 2 2007 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick but does not say when this occurred.
The next day February 3 Florence Devouard makes a Foundation Annoucement that Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."
Six weeks later Brad announces his resignation which was tendered "some weeks ago."
So it appears the Foundation Annoucement to "address a backlog of complex legal question the Foundation faces moving forward" were all addressed in a period of a few weeks.
On Dec 14, 2007 1:11 PM, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
To answer whoever asked about me above:
I left for the reasons stated in my [[letter of resignation]] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick.
Let's look at the timeline.
Essjay posts on February 2 2007 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick but does not say when this occurred.
The next day February 3 Florence Devouard makes a Foundation Annoucement that Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."
Six weeks later Brad announces his resignation which was tendered "some weeks ago."
My question was about Brad's removal as ED, not about his resignation as GC.
On Dec 14, 2007 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My question was about Brad's removal as ED, not about his resignation as GC.
Well, that's easy. He was only ever *interim*-ED, it was never intended to be a long term appointment. It's, therefore, not surprising that it came to an end.
Well, I guess it's all easy then, since it's not surprising he'd resign as GC soon after getting removed as ED.
On 14/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My question was about Brad's removal as ED, not about his resignation as GC.
Well, that's easy. He was only ever *interim*-ED, it was never intended to be a long term appointment. It's, therefore, not surprising that it came to an end.
Well, I guess it's all easy then, since it's not surprising he'd resign as GC soon after getting removed as ED.
I don't see how that follows. Are you suggesting he was removed from the ED position against his will? I've seen no evidence of that.
On Dec 14, 2007 1:43 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My question was about Brad's removal as ED, not about his resignation as GC.
Well, that's easy. He was only ever *interim*-ED, it was never intended to be a long term appointment. It's, therefore, not surprising that it came to an end.
Well, I guess it's all easy then, since it's not surprising he'd resign as GC soon after getting removed as ED.
I don't see how that follows. Are you suggesting he was removed from the ED position against his will? I've seen no evidence of that.
I have.
Can you guys PLEASE stop the gossiping and rumour-sharing? It is extremely annoying and counter-productive. If you have nothing better than to gossip about these things, go do it somewhere else. The rest of us aren't interested.
2007/12/14, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 14, 2007 1:43 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
My question was about Brad's removal as ED, not about his
resignation as GC.
Well, that's easy. He was only ever *interim*-ED, it was never intended to be a long term appointment. It's, therefore, not surprising that it came to an end.
Well, I guess it's all easy then, since it's not surprising he'd resign as GC soon after getting removed as ED.
I don't see how that follows. Are you suggesting he was removed from the ED position against his will? I've seen no evidence of that.
I have.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 14, 2007 1:51 PM, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
Can you guys PLEASE stop the gossiping and rumour-sharing? It is extremely annoying and counter-productive. If you have nothing better than to gossip about these things, go do it somewhere else. The rest of us aren't interested.
Fine with me. I have no intentions of gossiping or sharing rumours. I just hoped for some answers to my questions.
Anyway, if Brad or the board want to clarify the circumstances of his departure, it'd be greatly appreciated. But this isn't the right thread for that anyway.
On Dec 14, 2007 7:51 PM, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
Can you guys PLEASE stop the gossiping and rumour-sharing? It is extremely annoying and counter-productive. If you have nothing better than to gossip about these things, go do it somewhere else. The rest of us aren't interested.
Fully echoed. I was very reluctant to make any restrictions on this topic, for fear of "Wikimedia censors discussions of etc etc." but if this degrades even more into "I think I know why Brad left...Why do you know...I just know...But I have another guess....Nah, I don't believe that" threat, well, then I will take measures to stop this. This is high school lunch break niveau, or even worse.
Michael List moderator.
On 14/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I think that is a bit naive. A confidentiality agreement when someone leaves may assure that both parties indicate to the rest of the world that the parture of ways was amicable. The alternative can be quite costly and unproductive. If anything, the only thing I wish the WMF would have done differently is make a public statement at the time that "Carolyn has left her position, and that we thank her for the services rendered". This would be an adequate and honest statement as long as it is true. It is true as long as no criminal offences have happened. When there were, and to the best opinion of the WMF this is the best way of ending the relation, it should still be true as far as the rest of the world is concerned. And, I am happy to say, we, the community of volunteers of the WMF projects, qualify as such.
While such an agreement may seem like a good idea at the time, I think the current situation shows why that thinking is flawed. Had the WMF been open about the whole situation at the time, we wouldn't now be in the situation of having our credibility ripped to shreds in the tabloids. It's not a fun thing to do, but generally when something bad has happened it's best to admit it and face the music, trying to keep it hidden just results in more trouble in the long run.
Hoi, Tabloids have an infinite capability of spin. the assumption that you can prevent them from misrepresenting "truth" is precarious, borderline insane. So it is a situation where you only lose anyway. Given our communities abilty to rub salt in wounds, we do not even need others to inflict damage. Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 14, 2007 6:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I think that is a bit naive. A confidentiality agreement when someone
leaves
may assure that both parties indicate to the rest of the world that the parture of ways was amicable. The alternative can be quite costly and unproductive. If anything, the only thing I wish the WMF would have done differently is make a public statement at the time that "Carolyn has
left
her position, and that we thank her for the services rendered". This
would
be an adequate and honest statement as long as it is true. It is true as long as no criminal offences have happened. When there were, and to the
best
opinion of the WMF this is the best way of ending the relation, it
should
still be true as far as the rest of the world is concerned. And, I am
happy
to say, we, the community of volunteers of the WMF projects, qualify as such.
While such an agreement may seem like a good idea at the time, I think the current situation shows why that thinking is flawed. Had the WMF been open about the whole situation at the time, we wouldn't now be in the situation of having our credibility ripped to shreds in the tabloids. It's not a fun thing to do, but generally when something bad has happened it's best to admit it and face the music, trying to keep it hidden just results in more trouble in the long run.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Tabloids have an infinite capability of spin. the assumption that you can prevent them from misrepresenting "truth" is precarious, borderline insane. So it is a situation where you only lose anyway. Given our communities abilty to rub salt in wounds, we do not even need others to inflict damage.
Tabloids like scoops. If you go public yourself, they loose the opportunity for a scoop and then don't really care.
Also, what do you mean by 'misrepresenting "truth"'? No-one has denied any of the allegations made in the The Register article. As far as I can tell, they were reasonably accurate in their reporting (unusual, I know, but it seems this story doesn't need much in the way of spin).
On 12/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While such an agreement may seem like a good idea at the time, I think the current situation shows why that thinking is flawed. Had the WMF been open about the whole situation at the time, we wouldn't now be in the situation of having our credibility ripped to shreds in the tabloids. It's not a fun thing to do, but generally when something bad has happened it's best to admit it and face the music, trying to keep it hidden just results in more trouble in the long run.
Our credibility is not ripped to shreds. Tabloids don't have the mojo to accomplish that. Our very tendency to assume good faith, which may have been part of the naivety in operations that led to this unhappy pass, is also the reason for our great strength and resilience when faced with these kind of shocking news. Sure, people will talk, that is only natural. But when all is said and done, we accumulate the lessons learned and go forward. "The dogs bark, the caravan goes forth."
What should be crystal clear though, is that The Register isn't going after wikipedia merely because it is "there". They really, really, really; really love us.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
What should be crystal clear though, is that The Register isn't going after wikipedia merely because it is "there". They really, really, really; really love us.
Actually, being there is as good a reason as any to use something to get ad banner hits.
- d.
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While such an agreement may seem like a good idea at the time, I think the current situation shows why that thinking is flawed. Had the WMF been open about the whole situation at the time, we wouldn't now be in the situation of having our credibility ripped to shreds in the tabloids. It's not a fun thing to do, but generally when something bad has happened it's best to admit it and face the music, trying to keep it hidden just results in more trouble in the long run.
Our credibility is not ripped to shreds. Tabloids don't have the mojo to accomplish that.
Do you know how many people read tabloids? It's a very big number.
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While such an agreement may seem like a good idea at the time, I think the current situation shows why that thinking is flawed. Had the WMF been open about the whole situation at the time, we wouldn't now be in the situation of having our credibility ripped to shreds in the tabloids. It's not a fun thing to do, but generally when something bad has happened it's best to admit it and face the music, trying to keep it hidden just results in more trouble in the long run.
Our credibility is not ripped to shreds. Tabloids don't have the mojo to accomplish that.
Do you know how many people read tabloids? It's a very big number.
The Register? A very big number. Yes, their readership, of course. I can clearly see how these variables and values are connected...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
The Register? A very big number. Yes, their readership, of course. I can clearly see how these variables and values are connected...
You think this will stop at The Register? If so, then we are very lucky, and the damage should be minimal. I expect other tabloids (which much greater readership) will find the story soon now that it's out there.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
I fear that your knowledge of personnel law and corporate practice is seriously deficient.
--Jimbo
On 15/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
I fear that your knowledge of personnel law and corporate practice is seriously deficient.
If it's common practice to make agreements which don't benefit you in any way, then it's not me that is seriously deficient...
On Dec 15, 2007 8:08 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
I fear that your knowledge of personnel law and corporate practice is seriously deficient.
If it's common practice to make agreements which don't benefit you in any way, then it's not me that is seriously deficient...
Not having to potentially go through an unemployment hearing and/or an ADA/wrongful termination trial is a benefit (and remember, we don't know how much they knew at the time).
I'm not sure what the standard is for non-profit officers, though. I'd think the need for transparency is much greater in the non-profit world.
On 15/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 8:08 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the agreement was made when Carolyn *left*, then I can't see any good reason for signing it - you sign confidentiality agreements when you form a relationship with someone (because if you didn't, they would refuse to work with you), not when you end it.
I fear that your knowledge of personnel law and corporate practice is seriously deficient.
If it's common practice to make agreements which don't benefit you in any way, then it's not me that is seriously deficient...
Not having to potentially go through an unemployment hearing and/or an ADA/wrongful termination trial is a benefit (and remember, we don't know how much they knew at the time).
I'm not sure what the standard is for non-profit officers, though. I'd think the need for transparency is much greater in the non-profit world.
Apparently they knew nothing, so I'm assuming she wasn't fired. (If she'd done something worthy of being fired it would have been a pretty big clue that she wasn't entirely trustworthy and honest.)
On Dec 15, 2007 8:34 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Not having to potentially go through an unemployment hearing and/or an ADA/wrongful termination trial is a benefit (and remember, we don't know how much they knew at the time).
Apparently they knew nothing, so I'm assuming she wasn't fired. (If she'd done something worthy of being fired it would have been a pretty big clue that she wasn't entirely trustworthy and honest.)
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
On 15/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 8:34 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Not having to potentially go through an unemployment hearing and/or an ADA/wrongful termination trial is a benefit (and remember, we don't know how much they knew at the time).
Apparently they knew nothing, so I'm assuming she wasn't fired. (If she'd done something worthy of being fired it would have been a pretty big clue that she wasn't entirely trustworthy and honest.)
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
PPOR, or kindly shut up.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
PPOR, or kindly shut up.
You're subscribed to this mailing list... try reading it.
On 12/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
PPOR, or kindly shut up.
You're subscribed to this mailing list... try reading it.
Try not being vague but being specific instead.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
PPOR, or kindly shut up.
You're subscribed to this mailing list... try reading it.
Try not being vague but being specific instead.
Just go through the emails on this subject from members of the board and from Mike, and many of them say, very explicitly, that they did not know about this under hearing from The Register. I'm not going to search through archives for you for emails that were sent over the last couple of days when any one of numerous emails will answer your question. If you haven't been reading the emails carefully enough, stop contributing to the thread.
On 12/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
PPOR, or kindly shut up.
You're subscribed to this mailing list... try reading it.
Try not being vague but being specific instead.
Just go through the emails on this subject from members of the board and from Mike, and many of them say, very explicitly, that they did not know about this under hearing from The Register. I'm not going to search through archives for you for emails that were sent over the last couple of days when any one of numerous emails will answer your question. If you haven't been reading the emails carefully enough, stop contributing to the thread.
I suppose it was too much to ask that you comply with a reasonable request under the circumstances, but since you feel compelled to post rubbish that further clouds the issue without bringing any more clarity...
... "many of them say, very explicitly, that they did not know about this under hearing from The Register."
: This is very simply bullshit. Nothing of the kind has been said by many or even a good number of people (unless you have definitions of many and explicit that I have not heard of so far, in my studies), or imputed It has been stated by a number of foundation officials who are tasked with checking into the legalities of what can legally be stated or not stated, that there was none and is none factual evidence that was at the possession of said officials of the foundation. This is entirely in line with what I would personally not only wish, but in fact require of any functionary working for the benefit of the foundation.
This is nowhere near to saying "knew nothing". That is what a prudent person in a responsible situation would say, and I hope will say for ever more, despite silly trolling attempts.
Do not for one moment think you can get away with conflating this prudent approach with your original ridiculous claim of a blanket denial of knowledge.
No such denial has been issued. And if it had, I would want their head on a platter. Nobody gets off scot-free by pissing on the people in the same boat.
There are individuals who have stated they personally did not know anything, such as Jimbo, (who, surprisingly generously for those who haven't got a clue about what Jimbo is about, offered to pay out of his pocket any unlikely money lost due to hiring Carolyn) but that does in no way form a logical substitute for: "Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members".
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
There are individuals who have stated they personally did not know anything, such as Jimbo, (who, surprisingly generously for those who haven't got a clue about what Jimbo is about, offered to pay out of his pocket any unlikely money lost due to hiring Carolyn) but that does in no way form a logical substitute for: "Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members".
Actually I did not say that I did not know anything. I said that the Register story contained allegations that shocked me. The rest of your analysis is right on target.
No one is saying that the board was 100% satisfied with everything, but there is a very very very long distance indeed between an employee and organization choosing to part company, and the kind of astounding things in the Register story (shooting people? fraud? fugitive from justice? yow!).
Mostly, I think arguing with Thomas any further is a waste of time for any of us. An employee chooses to resign under difficult circumstances. Both parties agree (for better or worse, and one can second guess one way or the other, but I am confident that the correct decision was made) that there is benefit to both in mutual non-disparagement. There is no reason at the time to think there is anything more to it at all. Later, allegations surface about the employee that were new, disturbing, shocking, etc.
One can take all that and demand to know absolutely everything down to the last email, or look at the whole thing sensibly and realize that, well, that whole situation sucked, some things went wrong, lessons better have been learned, etc.
And that's about where it has to end.
AMEN to that!
Waerth
Jimmy wrote:
One can take all that and demand to know absolutely everything down to the last email, or look at the whole thing sensibly and realize that, well, that whole situation sucked, some things went wrong, lessons better have been learned, etc.
And that's about where it has to end.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
One can take all that and demand to know absolutely everything down to the last email, or look at the whole thing sensibly and realize that, well, that whole situation sucked, some things went wrong, lessons better have been learned, etc.
And that's about where it has to end.
That sounds reasonable to me. Considering that there has been *zero* evidence of any actual wrongdoing, such as theft of Wikimedia Foundation money---despite The Register's strange/unsupported insinuations that the matter somehow is related to the audit of Foundation books---I don't see this matter as anything more than a minor embarrassment. The person in question no longer works for Wikimedia and the hiring process has been changed so it won't happen again, so it sounds like the matter ought to be closed?
-Mark
Working from the actual facts, she was questioned after returning from a Board Meeting in the Netherlands that ended on June 3, and was removed from the WM staff page on July 10. There presumably was a reason. It was either connected with the questioning at the immigration and thus presumably some at least of the criminal matters, or it was unrelated altogether. If it was unrelated, then at this point it is reasonable for the WMF to keep the details confidential. If not, they knew some at least of the criminal concerns.
My working hypothesis, from the crimes you said you did not know about, is that the DUI and hit-and-run were in fact known to you. In this case, I can understand perfectly both why you would have wanted to terminate the employment, and also why you would have wanted to keep it confidential at the time. Most employers would. I would have also.
Or are you prepared to state that it was wholly unrelated? In which case did none of you at WMF know of the immigration stop, or did you fail to pursue the details adequately?
(shooting people? fraud? fugitive from justice? yow!).
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
The Foundation has repeatedly stated that it can not and will not reveal details about this. What, then, is the use of this speculation? As I've said to others, it accomplishes nothing. We have encyclopædias to write, let's focus on that instead.
2007/12/16, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Working from the actual facts, she was questioned after returning from a Board Meeting in the Netherlands that ended on June 3, and was removed from the WM staff page on July 10. There presumably was a reason. It was either connected with the questioning at the immigration and thus presumably some at least of the criminal matters, or it was unrelated altogether. If it was unrelated, then at this point it is reasonable for the WMF to keep the details confidential. If not, they knew some at least of the criminal concerns.
My working hypothesis, from the crimes you said you did not know about, is that the DUI and hit-and-run were in fact known to you. In this case, I can understand perfectly both why you would have wanted to terminate the employment, and also why you would have wanted to keep it confidential at the time. Most employers would. I would have also.
Or are you prepared to state that it was wholly unrelated? In which case did none of you at WMF know of the immigration stop, or did you fail to pursue the details adequately?
(shooting people? fraud? fugitive from justice? yow!).
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 16, 2007 8:23 AM, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation has repeatedly stated that it can not and will not reveal details about this. What, then, is the use of this speculation? As I've said to others, it accomplishes nothing. We have encyclopædias to write, let's focus on that instead.
... and a freely-licensed image collection to build, libraries to collect, books to write, dictionaries to work on, quote collections to gather, species data references to create, news articles to publish, learning materials to prepare... ;)
-- Ayelie (Editor at Large)
David Goodman wrote:
My working hypothesis, from the crimes you said you did not know about, is that the DUI and hit-and-run were in fact known to you. In this case, I can understand perfectly both why you would have wanted to terminate the employment, and also why you would have wanted to keep it confidential at the time. Most employers would. I would have also.
I knew nothing of any hit-and-run and nothing of any immigration stop.
--Jimbo
On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anywhere they say they knew "nothing".
Pretty much every email from Mike and the board members that have commented thus far have said almost exactly that...
PPOR, or kindly shut up.
You're subscribed to this mailing list... try reading it.
Try not being vague but being specific instead.
Okay, folks, back on topic please and save the personal battles for private emails.
Thomas Dalton: Please, if you have substantiated allegations, bring them with references. Guessing and vague unspecified remarkes are, as Cimon Avaro pointed out correctly, not really useful.
Michael
On Dec 15, 2007 11:51 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, folks, back on topic please and save the personal battles for private emails.
Thomas Dalton: Please, if you have substantiated allegations, bring them with references. Guessing and vague unspecified remarkes are, as Cimon Avaro pointed out correctly, not really useful.
Ahem. This last of course applies to everybody, not only to Thomas.
Okay, folks, back on topic please and save the personal battles for private emails.
Thomas Dalton: Please, if you have substantiated allegations, bring them with references. Guessing and vague unspecified remarkes are, as Cimon Avaro pointed out correctly, not really useful.
I'm not making allegations, I'm just repeating what Mike and the board have said. I'm not going to go through the entire thread and list the emails, if people haven't been reading them properly, that's their problem. I know they are there since I read them all of a few hours ago...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org