Sue Gardner creating articles Options

[Theanima]

Stumbled across this excuse of an article. Was shocked to discover that it was authored by the executive of the Wikimedia Foundation. Like Jimmy Wales, she seems incapable of using basic manual of style, such as bolding the subject text, using inline references and using sections in the article. Also, no category.

Here's another. Does it surprise anybody here that the most senior person in the foundation is unable to even create an article without someone needing to cleanup afterward?

[Ottava]

Where is horse with a comment along the line of "Its about time we had some moderately hot women putting up some free content".

[Eva Destruction]

Stumbled across this excuse of an article. Was shocked to discover that it was authored by the executive of the Wikimedia Foundation. Like Jimmy Wales, she seems incapable of using basic manual of style, such as bolding the subject text, using inline references and using sections in the article. Also, no category.

Here's another. Does it surprise anybody here that the most senior person in the foundation is unable to even create an article without someone needing to cleanup afterward?

Much as I dislike the WMF I'm not sure that's fair. I doubt the chief executive of HarperCollins knows how to work a linotype machine, or that the board of United Airlines could fly a plane. Whether someone who doesn't know what they're doing should be trying, given the potential for looking stupid, is another matter.

[Somey]

Stumbled across this excuse of an article. Was shocked to discover that it was authored by the executive of the Wikimedia Foundation.

She's absolutely not supposed to be doing that, needless to say - she's beginning to show some signs of serious poor judgement, beyond her simply having taken the job in the first place.

What's more, her version of the Noticiero Digital (T-H-L-K-D) article is basically a right-wing political hatchet-job, something she shouldn't go near in a million years.

Maybe she just needs a nice vacation...?

[Theanima]

Stumbled across this excuse of an article. Was shocked to discover that it was authored by the executive of the Wikimedia Foundation. Like Jimmy Wales, she seems incapable of using basic manual of style, such as bolding the subject text, using inline references and using sections in the article. Also, no category.

Here's another. Does it surprise anybody here that the most senior person in the foundation is unable to even create an article without someone needing to cleanup afterward?

Much as I dislike the WMF I'm not sure that's fair. I doubt the chief executive of HarperCollins knows how to work a linotype machine, or that the board of United Airlines could fly a plane. Whether someone who doesn't know what they're doing should be trying, given the potential for looking stupid, is another matter.

I see your point, but it's not quite like that. Not just any person can fly a plane or whatever. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and create articles - and it's not difficult to get the basics right.

[Ottava]

Anyone consider the possibility she is doing this for an episode of Undercover Boss and botched the whole "undercover" part? : )

[Somey]

And how about this edit to Margaret Moth (T-H-L-K-D):

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice.

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice that, she said, left her sounding perpetually drunk.

WTF? This is the Executive Director?

Unbelievable.

[Eva Destruction]

And how about this edit to Margaret Moth (T-H-L-K-D):

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice.

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice that, she said, left her sounding perpetually drunk.

WTF? This is the Executive Director?

Unbelievable.

That is from her obituary at CNN, so it's maybe not quite as bad as it looks.

[Ottava]

And how about this edit to Margaret Moth (T-H-L-K-D):

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice.

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice that, she said, left her sounding perpetually drunk.

WTF? This is the Executive Director?

Unbelievable.

Wait, you didn't know that "sounding perpetually drunk" was the proper scientific phrasing of "slurred speech"?

[Milton Roe]

Stumbled across this excuse of an article. Was shocked to discover that it was authored by the executive of the Wikimedia Foundation. Like Jimmy Wales, she seems incapable of using basic manual of style, such as bolding the subject text, using inline references and using sections in the article. Also, no category.

Here's another. Does it surprise anybody here that the most senior person in the foundation is unable to even create an article without someone needing to cleanup afterward?

Damn. Saw this thread and hoped it was Sue, doing bios of her predecessors. Like a nice BLP of Carolyn Doran, to replace the one that got lost somehow.

No luck.

Oh, I know, you'll claim that Sue is ED and Doran was COO. Well, actually, Doran was so traumatic they deleted her job title, so far as I can tell. It's now split between ED and FCOO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedi...ation_chart.svg

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

And how about this edit to Margaret Moth (T-H-L-K-D):

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice.

She underwent multiple surgeries that saved her life, but was left with permanent damage to her face and voice that, she said, left her sounding perpetually drunk.

WTF? This is the Executive Director?

Unbelievable.

Wait, you didn't know that "sounding perpetually drunk" was the proper scientific phrasing of "slurred speech"?

I'm afraid that just because someone sounds drunk and inferring they must have WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and the fact that my buddy sings showtunes when he's drunk.

[Malleus]

Stumbled across this excuse of an article. Was shocked to discover that it was authored by the executive of the Wikimedia Foundation. Like Jimmy Wales, she seems incapable of using basic manual of style, such as bolding the subject text, using inline references and using sections in the article. Also, no category.

It's not that bad for a first effort IMO, nobody gets it right first time. As for the category, well, who gives a fuck?

[EricBarbour]

What's more, her version of the Noticiero Digital (T-H-L-K-D) article is basically a right-wing political hatchet-job, something she shouldn't go near in a million years.

Not only is it a terrible pile of shit calling itself an "encyclopedia article".....
It looks like an anti-Hugo Chávez rant, written by a CIA disinformation expert.

Noticiero Digital is a Venezuelan news and opinion site headquartered in Caracas, with a particular slant towards right-wing opposition to the Venezuelan government. It is known for its open and unmoderated forums where participants sometimes express extremist political positions, mostly in opposition to the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In summer 2007, Noticiero Digital editor Roger Santodomingo resigned after purported threats were made against his son, who was seven years old at the time. A few days following his resignation, his car exploded and was destroyed outside his home.

In May 2008, Noticiero Digital employees, along with colleagues from RCTV and Globovision, were accused of being employed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to destabilize the Chavez government. The accusations, made by writer Eva Golinger, were based on records showing that the journalists had received grants and scholarships from international cooperation agencies based in the United States.

In March 2010, Chávez accused Noticiero Digital of falsely publishing that two of Chavez's political allies had been assassinated. Calling the publication a crime, Chavez called for regulation of the Internet, and for Venezuela's attorney general to take action against Noticiero Digital. "The Internet can't be something free where anything can be done and said. No, every country has to impose its rules and regulations," Chavez said in a televised speech.

I'd love to ask Ms. Gardner point-blank:
is the CIA paying you to write Wikipedia content?

And of course, she couldn't possibly insert this stuff into Hugo Chávez, because that article is a constant battleground, especially well-watched by editors having a left-wing pro-Chávez bent....there's no mention of Noticiero Digital in that or any other Venezuela-related article that I can find.

Nor is Noticiero Digital mentioned at all, anywhere else in WP, except for this talkpage....containing yet another (trivial) Chávez dispute, between perpetual pro-Chávez squabbler Odalcet (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and Racconish (T-C-L-K-R-D) , an apparent Charvet (costly men's shirt company) employee who fell afoul of the Chávez Gang.

If you're ever interested in looking for right-wing or left-wing bias on WP, the Chávez talkpage is a good place to start.
Oh looky, SandyGeorgia is bending over backwards to source anti-Chávez references.....

Good ol' Wikipedia. Find a scandal and peek below the surface, and whoops, there's 2 or 3 unrelated scandals.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 11th April 2010, 2:19am

[Kelly Martin]

She's absolutely not supposed to be doing that, needless to say - she's beginning to show some signs of serious poor judgement, beyond her simply having taken the job in the first place.

What's more, her version of the Noticiero Digital (T-H-L-K-D) article is basically a right-wing political hatchet-job, something she shouldn't go near in a million years.

Maybe she just needs a nice vacation...?

Mike Godwin should fire her immediately for so blatantly puncturing their §230 immunity like that. That article is certainly arguably libellous, and as she is an agent of the Foundation her edits do not fall within §230's protective shield. She's opened them up for a giant lawsuit, no question about it.

[anthony]

Does it surprise anybody here that the most senior person in the foundation is unable to even create an article without someone needing to cleanup afterward?

Much as I dislike the WMF I'm not sure that's fair. I doubt the chief executive of HarperCollins knows how to work a linotype machine, or that the board of United Airlines could fly a plane. Whether someone who doesn't know what they're doing should be trying, given the potential for looking stupid, is another matter.

I see your point, but it's not quite like that. Not just any person can fly a plane or whatever. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and create articles - and it's not difficult to get the basics right.

Well, it's not at the level of flying a plane, but writing articles for Wikipedia that don't "need someone to cleanup afterward" is a skill which takes quite a bit of practice. I probably couldn't do it myself at this point, and I've got thousands of edits (albeit most of them prior to 2006).

And why bother? Getting other people to format your text for you is one of the things wikis are actually good at.

[Somey]

Mike Godwin should fire her immediately for so blatantly puncturing their §230 immunity like that. That article is certainly arguably libellous, and as she is an agent of the Foundation her edits do not fall within §230's protective shield. She's opened them up for a giant lawsuit, no question about it.

No doubt her defense will be, "but I wasn't wearing my Wikimedia hat when I posted that material!" She was wearing her "Suzy Q" hat! She's two completely different people - everyone knows that.

Can Mike Godwin fire her, though? I thought she was his supervisor, for all intents and purposes. Maybe he could recommend it to the Board of Trustees, though...

[Milton Roe]

Mike Godwin should fire her immediately for so blatantly puncturing their §230 immunity like that. That article is certainly arguably libellous, and as she is an agent of the Foundation her edits do not fall within §230's protective shield. She's opened them up for a giant lawsuit, no question about it.

No doubt her defense will be, "but I wasn't wearing my Wikimedia hat when I posted that material!" She was wearing her "Suzy Q" hat! She's two completely different people - everyone knows that.

Can Mike Godwin fire her, though? I thought she was his supervisor, for all intents and purposes. Maybe he could recommend it to the Board of Trustees, though...

Not without her firing HIM if it doesn't work!

[CharlotteWebb]

Mike Godwin should fire her immediately for so blatantly puncturing their §230 immunity like that. That article is certainly arguably libellous, and as she is an agent of the Foundation her edits do not fall within §230's protective shield. She's opened them up for a giant lawsuit, no question about it.

No doubt her defense will be, "but I wasn't wearing my Wikimedia hat when I posted that material!" She was wearing her "Suzy Q" hat! She's two completely different people - everyone knows that.

I thought that was her defense already:

Please note: I am the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and I also occasionally edit articles here on the English Wikipedia. My Wikipedia editing is opportunistic and reactive: while using Wikipedia, if I see a mistake or problem, I sometimes try to fix it. When I edit, I am not acting as an official representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, and my edits should be treated like anyone else's.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Sun 11th April 2010, 2:49am

[Ottava]

I'd love to ask Ms. Gardner point-blank:
is the CIA paying you to write Wikipedia content?

Are you suggesting that Sue Gardner is the real name of Slim Virgin?

[EricBarbour]

Are you suggesting that Sue Gardner is the real name of Slim Virgin?

Ugh...I wish you hadn't said that.

The result was an idle daydream of what a three-way with SV and Sue would be like.
Oh the horror.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 11th April 2010, 3:15am