Sue Gardner creating articles Options

[Milton Roe]

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.

Okay, I'll give you ONE bag. Where do you use it?

Yes! On SV's dog so it doesn't howl.

[Somey]

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.

If there's one piece of obvious hypocrisy that I would really, really like to see tested in a court of law, it's that piece right there. Not leastwise because a statement like that would be laughed at hysterically by even the most sympathetic judge imaginable.

Just how much self-entitlement do these people really feel, anyway? How much "we're just going to have our cake and eat it too, nyaah nyaah" can they get away with?

I mean, yeah, if it were just the occasional typo or missing punctuation, then sure, nobody would care all that much, but that's obviously not what she's up to. Heck, if I didn't know any better, and I don't, I'd say it was almost like a "breaching experiment" to see how far the WMF staff can go before they lose their Section 230 immunity.

[CharlotteWebb]

If there's one piece of obvious hypocrisy that I would really, really like to see tested in a court of law, it's that piece right there. Not leastwise because a statement like that would be laughed at hysterically by even the most sympathetic judge imaginable.

Just how much self-entitlement do these people really feel, anyway? How much "we're just going to have our cake and eat it too, nyaah nyaah" can they get away with?

I mean, yeah, if it were just the occasional typo or missing punctuation, then sure, nobody would care all that much, but that's obviously not what she's up to. Heck, if I didn't know any better, and I don't, I'd say it was almost like a "breaching experiment" to see how far the WMF staff can go before they lose their Section 230 immunity.

I guess the real question is whether editing as a secret account (which vehemently denies being Sue Gardner if/when asked that kind of question) would be better or worse, and for whom.

[anthony]

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.

If there's one piece of obvious hypocrisy that I would really, really like to see tested in a court of law, it's that piece right there. Not leastwise because a statement like that would be laughed at hysterically by even the most sympathetic judge imaginable.

Just how much self-entitlement do these people really feel, anyway? How much "we're just going to have our cake and eat it too, nyaah nyaah" can they get away with?

I mean, yeah, if it were just the occasional typo or missing punctuation, then sure, nobody would care all that much, but that's obviously not what she's up to. Heck, if I didn't know any better, and I don't, I'd say it was almost like a "breaching experiment" to see how far the WMF staff can go before they lose their Section 230 immunity.

Section 230 immunity isn't necessarily a yes/no situation. It's certainly possible for the WMF to lose immunity with respect to some content (e.g. that content added by Sue Gardner) but not for other content (e.g. everything else).

Even in the Roommates.com case, one of the few cases where a court rejected Section 230 immunity, the court upheld immunity for some content (the dropdown menu items) and rejected immunity for other content (the "additional comments" sections).

[Moulton]

This is hardly the first time someone from WMF has jeopardized Section 230 immunity. To my mind, Jimbo breached that defense two years ago, the first time he intervened in Wikiversity to declare selected course materials "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects.

[the fieryangel]

This is hardly the first time someone from WMF has jeopardized Section 230 immunity. To my mind, Jimbo breached that defense two years ago, the first time he intervened in Wikiversity to declare selected course materials "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects.

Well, even though she probably deserves to have this little edit summary. stay on their servers, somebody with oversight should probably do something about it...since what's good for the goose etc...but maybe it should be brought to her attention first so that she maybe understands a bit more about BLP problems up close and personal...

In a further interesting development, Sue's article on Noticiero Digital gets nominated for deletion....

Delete as an attempt at political demonization. Despite the fact that it was written by the executive director of the WMF, it seems that she is not familiar with our policy on attack pages. The page was written with an incredibly apparent bias, namely against the Venezuelan government and the democratically-elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. It was, intentionally or not, a politically charged attack on the government of Venezuela and an attempt to promote an extreme right-wing sector of the Venezuelan population, the "Venezuelan opposition". Additionally, it promoted the view that Chávez was censoring the Internet (or, in the article's original terminology, "regulating" it) and violates the civil rights of Venezuelans. As pointed out by the nominator, the article also does not demonstrate the notability of Noticiero Digital; there is no evidence that it even has any to assert. --MohammadMosaddeq 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

....you couldn't make this stuff up...

[the fieryangel]

The Noticiero Digital article talkpage is quite entertaining as well :

This is not encyclopedic

The article corresponding to this page is an awful piece of propaganda, and it looks like an attack page against Chávez written by a staunch opponent of his régime, one of the "Venezuelan opposition" supported heavily by the United States in an effort to thwart the popularly-supported Bolivarian Revolution and destabilize the entire country. It is appalling to know that a person chosen as executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation would write such an attack page, blatantly accusing Chávez of censorship, and supporting the "opposition". The text of the page appears to be a right-wing screed against strong democracy that is scared, and rightfully so some would say, of the consequences of an extreme right-wing movement, supported by the United States (a global superpower), to take power over the Venezuelan people. Latin American history is marked by such disastrous events. The administration of Chávez capitulates to no one except the population, which has aided the poor population in the health care, literacy, education, and media/information areas, largely due to the Bolivarian Missions. The Bolivarian Revolution is not Chávez's project, but a worldwide movement towards social change in Latin America, transcending borders, that happens to be supported by Chávez because it is his duty as a democratically-elected leader to serve the wishes of his people and nothing else. There is no doubt at all that an independent effort exists to destabilize the country and the popular movement led by none but the people of Latin America. Latin Americans have realized for all too long that they have been held under the oppression of racism, poverty, and the paucity of social justice, and have stood up to the holders of old power to bring power to the people and an end to these things.

Sue Gardner's writing of this article is an act of which the Wikimedia Foundation should be ashamed. Claims that the government is repressive of free speech, censoring the "opposition", or is hurtful to "democracy" in Venezuela, are made by those who are, in actuality, opposed to democracy. The Chávez government was elected democratically, and twice, despite attempts by U.S. mainstream media propagandists who knowingly conflate the abolition of term limits with him being "president for life". The people who are confused and targeted by the media are usually making cries of censorship when the country they love most, the United States, would have done much more than 99% of anything characterized as "repression" on the part of Venezuela's government. There are people looking for any excuse to demonize a popular social movement that is supported across Latin America by the majority of the population, for the reason that the Chávez government fulfills the demands of Venezuela's population, rather than those of USA-based companies. Venezuela is rich in oil, and nothing would please Washington more than a return to the predictable, usual cycle of AD and COPEI gaining control of the presidency. Additionally pleasing would be a US puppet who would, in essence, sell the country's natural resources to foreign oil companies that pollute the world (of the type that spilled oil at Lago Agrio in Ecuador), the environmentally-destructive logging industry, and economic globalization, as the country would plummet into destitute conditions. This article only exemplifies the same demonization, and it is of such low quality that it need not be in any kind of encyclopedia. MohammadMosaddeq 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy, he doesn't sound happy about this...

Does anybody have any info about this MohammadMosaddeq  (T-C-L-K-R-D) person?

[Eva Destruction]

Does anybody have any info about this MohammadMosaddeq  (T-C-L-K-R-D) person?

Looks like a Mattisse sock, but that may just be editing-in-a-similar-way. He doesn't like our very own Tarc, either. And do you suppose the Phil Hall he's berating here is that Phil Hall?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I see the topic is up for deletion nominated by "Peter Ian Staker" ... not wanting to be the one to spoil the fun but is that 'Peter Ian Staker' as in Piss-taker?

[thekohser]

I see the topic is up for deletion nominated by "Peter Ian Staker" ... not wanting to be the one to spoil the fun but is that 'Peter Ian Staker' as in Piss-taker?

Peter Ian created an article about a living person, which is still not tagged with "LP" category, three days after its creation.

[thekohser]

Anyway, back to Sue Gardner.

I did some snooping around on the Internet to find information about other Executive Directors and CEOs, to see what some of them do in their spare time, and how they might account for it. Here's what I was able to find so far.

Please note: I am the Executive Director of the Red Cross, and I also occasionally draw blood from donors during emergency blood drives. My blood drawing is opportunistic and reactive: while using needles and syringes, if I see a vein or artery, I sometimes try to draw blood from it. When I draw blood, I am not acting as an official representative of the Red Cross, and my blood vials should be treated like anyone else's.

Please note: I am the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, and I also occasionally picket in front of municipal buildings. My picket line work is opportunistic and reactive: while picketing, if I see a legislature effecting new gun-carrying laws, I sometimes try to protest it. When I picket, I am not acting as an official representative of the National Rifle Association, and my picketing should be treated like anyone else's.

Please note: I am the Executive Director of Greenpeace, and I also occasionally operate the bullhorn from a Zodiac boat. My boat riding is opportunistic and reactive: while following whaling ships, if I see a harpooned whale or a netted porpoise, I sometimes try to save it. When I ride in the Zodiac, I am not acting as an official representative of Greenpeace, and my yelling through the bullhorn should be treated like anyone else's.

Please note: I am the Executive Director of the United Auto Workers, and I also occasionally negotiate wage and benefits conflicts with the Big Three automakers. My negotiations are opportunistic and reactive: while traveling through Michigan, if I see a distraught auto worker, I sometimes try to help him. When I negotiate, I am not acting as an official representative of the United Auto Workers, and my negotiations should be treated like anyone else's.

(These are like Mad Libs. Feel free to search for and republish some of your own! I think I have convinced myself that Sue Gardner is no different than any of these other Executive Directors who frequently wear two hats.)



This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 11th April 2010, 12:27pm

[Moulton]

Greg, who fancies himself an amateur detective, only wears one hat, but it's a deerstalker.

[Ottava]

Greg, who fancies himself an amateur detective, only wears one hat, but it's a deerstalker.

Are you saying that Kohs served in Vietnam? Or are you saying that he should be played by Robert DiNero?

[Moulton]

Mu.

[Ottava]

Mu.

Oh, I'm sorry. That was a deer hunter. I just figured that Kohs was more appropriately Michael Vronsky than Sherlock Holmes. After all, Vronsky was from Pennsylvania and the personalities match. : )

[Moulton]

Speaking of Janus and deerstalkers, what's this scuttlebut about behind-the-scenes decisions being made in #wikiversity-en-admin rather than out in the open, on-wiki?

[MZMcBride]

Another section 230 circle jerk? Surely you all are close to sore by now.

[thekohser]

Another section 230 circle jerk? Surely you all are close to sore by now.

Well, I thought my bit was amusing.

[Milton Roe]

Another section 230 circle jerk? Surely you all are close to sore by now.

It's a law which encourages angry, nearly continuous, and somewhat disbelieving protest behavior. I suppose you'll call it circle-jerking until somebody finally does file a suit, and then you'll call it barratry?

Or perhaps we're all supposed to just ignore it? Well, be my guest and do the demo on that. Start by getting off this thread.

[CharlotteWebb]

And do you suppose the Phil Hall he's berating here is that Phil Hall?

Is that a rhetorical question or did you sleep through ∃entialism 101?

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Sun 11th April 2010, 8:49pm