[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion on Personnel Matters

Mike Godwin mnemonic at gmail.com
Sun Dec 16 01:18:24 UTC 2007

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?


More information about the foundation-l mailing list