Anthony writes:
It took me about 10 minutes to search the Pinellas County court records and find the two DUIs and the fugitive warrant from Virginia, and that's without using her maiden name. That Jimbo says he was "stunned" when he read it suggests you didn't even know about that.
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?
You seem to be advising me to act in ways that make the Foundation more likely to be legally vulnerable. I'm sorry, but I must politely refuse.
Thomas Dalton writes:
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.
So the Wikinews volunteers are better at legal research than the WMF General Counsel? Great...
It has nothing to do with legal research or with my abilities to conduct it.
Perhaps you should do some research on your own regarding how corporations avoid liability when conducting background checks.
We're not talking about hiring and firing, we're talking about giving the community a heads-up rather than letting The Register be the one to break the story.
Thomas, I'm beginning to think you've gone a little nuts. You've confused two different things:
(1) a general background check on a WMF employee *before* the Register story was published, and
(2) a specific check of the Register's references *after* the story was published, which can be done a lot quicker.
If you are under the impression that Cade Metz called us and read to us the text of his story over the phone, you are entirely mistaken. He alluded vaguely to some issues when he called me after letting us know his story would be running in a couple of hours.
And, in any case, because I think the insanity has gotten out of hand, I want to underscore the fact that in no way was the Foundation going to rush to publication of a story about a personnel matter in order to beat the Register. Seriously. What a crazy idea.
The foundation seems to have a great deal of difficulty realising that they can say something without saying everything.
Oddly enough, I've been doing just that. The problem is that sometimes people aren't listening when you're saying something but not saying everything. Not that I'm pointing any fingers here.*
*Reminder: Americans aren't good at irony! We know sports!
--Mike
On Dec 15, 2007 12:07 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
It took me about 10 minutes to search the Pinellas County court records and find the two DUIs and the fugitive warrant from Virginia, and that's without using her maiden name. That Jimbo says he was "stunned" when he read it suggests you didn't even know about that.
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.
You seem to be advising me to act in ways that make the Foundation more likely to be legally vulnerable. I'm sorry, but I must politely refuse.
If you took what I said as advise of any type, let alone advise to break the law, then you're horribly mistaken.
[snip]
Thomas, I'm beginning to think you've gone a little nuts. You've confused two different things:
(1) a general background check on a WMF employee *before* the Register story was published, and
(2) a specific check of the Register's references *after* the story was published, which can be done a lot quicker.
Thomas and I were both clearly talking about the period of time between the interview and the publishing of the story.
Thomas, I'm beginning to think you've gone a little nuts. You've confused two different things:
(1) a general background check on a WMF employee *before* the Register story was published, and
(2) a specific check of the Register's references *after* the story was published, which can be done a lot quicker.
Thomas and I were both clearly talking about the period of time between the interview and the publishing of the story.
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. We're not talking about a full background check, we're talking about having enough information to break the story before The Register did and thus keep some level of dignity and credibility.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org