QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:43pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
So here's an article posing as 'journalism' in which you, Greg, just dig up the dirt on a new WMF employee just in the door. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
Seriously - how is this any different from a so-called 'encyclopedia' dishing up the dirt on someone? Other than the fact that it's Greg Kohs that's doing the digging and that the target is just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well (but it likely rapidly discovering). As someone else pointed out, she's "non-notable" and a soft target.
I've seen some excellent journalism coming from you, Greg, and superb research. This? This is just garbage - sorry (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Especially coming
after this sorry WR thread that you started and saw no problem with. No wonder she didn't reply to your messages to 'engage'. I'm hardly surprised (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)
(cue some non-sequitur about ED sysops. Just dont)Thank you for your compliment about some of my excellent journalism, Alison. I will agree that this current story is not my best work, but it was absolutely newsworthy to a citizen journalist whose "beat" includes wikis, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation. If I weren't covering every hire and fire at the world's largest organization devoted to wikis, I wouldn't be doing my job as the National Wiki Edits Examiner.
How is Moellenberndt's past documented and factual history as expressed -- by her -- to the mainstream media suddenly "dirt" when I organize it into a news story?
My questions, if they were to be answered by the Wikimedia Foundation (which they would not), would be...
- "How did Philippe Beaudette determine Moellenberndt was the best candidate for the job?"
- "How many applicants were interviewed for this position?"
- "Why was multitasking on two projects considered too much for Beaudette?"
- "Why is the head of Reader Relations (what I would interpret as a content area -- readers read content, don't they?) leading the 2010 fundraising campaign, anyway? Why wasn't someone with more responsibility for financial development like Moeller, or Exley, or Newstead, or Wadhwa, or Handler, or Crouse handling this?"
- "What will Moellenberndt actually be doing for the WMF, in plain English?"
- "If Moellenberndt is a non-notable, low-level WMF contractor/employee, why did Beaudette feel the need to announce her temporary hire to the public?"
- "Why is it appropriate for Wikimedians to publicly document my activity on sites like Freelancer.com -- while prohibiting my response in their same forum; but it is inappropriate for me to publicly document a Wikimedian's activity on sites like Facebook.com -- even while welcoming and inviting them to respond? Why do I have to walk on eggshells?"
Okay, that last question is just a jab, but it does point to how ridiculous some of you are being about a 33-year-old adult's "helplessness" against my "dirt digging". Have any of you -- any single one -- contacted her to see what she would like done with my article?
But, the fact of the matter is that if the Wikimedia Foundation weren't so damn secretive about how they go about internal matters, none of these questions would even be of interest. Or, conversely, if they weren't so public about every minor new hire into a short-term position, it would also be of little interest. As it stands, about 100 unique visitors (so far) were interested enough in this story to open the page it's on, and Google's News reviewers accepted it into their feed as newsworthy. (I am told that is a human-reviewed process at Google.) If this weren't newsworthy, shouldn't Google News have rejected it the way they've rejected the majority of my Examiner stories?
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:00pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
You wanted to make a comparison with Wikipedia?
Well, congratulations, you just compared yourself with the worst of them and came our on bottom.
"Physician, heal thyself."
I offered my "opt out by subject of article" proposal. Where is Wikipedia's? I'm waiting to hear from Moellenberndt herself, thank you.