| |
|
  |
 Associated Press discovers Carolyn Doran |
|
|
| the fieryangel |
 Fri 21st December 2007, 11:30pm
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st December 2007, 8:13pm)  Oh, dear. We're 30 minutes since this hit the wire, and already 37 publications have re-printed it on their websites. Should we add to the BADSITES list, the following? - San Diego Union Tribune
- CBS-4 Denver
- Brisbane Times, Australia
- Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
- Houston Chronicle
- Miami Herald
- The News & Observer (Raleigh-Durham, NC)
- Denver Post
- Newsday (New York)
- Orlando Sentinel
- Forbes
- International Herald Tribune (France)
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
Oh dear, oh dear. This doesn't look like a "non-story" any more, does it? Greg Added to the time line. The Wikien-l has picked this up too...All they seem to care about is "whether she's notable enough for a bio or not".... Sheez, they just don't get it, do they??? Jimbo weighs in here....saying that since another, entirely unrelated financial scandal doesn't have an article, then why should this be covered in Wikipedia??? Is he therefore suggesting that this IS therefore a financial scandal? What about that audit, Jimbo? Where are we at with that? The point should be "don't give money to Wikipedia: they can't be trusted".... And then we have this interesting "catch-22" discussion: If we make an exception for this "notable" but "sad story", then what does this mean in the longrun for bios of living persons??This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 21st December 2007, 11:47pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 3:50am
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 21st December 2007, 6:30pm) Jimbo weighs in here....saying that since another, entirely unrelated financial scandal doesn't have an article, then why should this be covered in Wikipedia??? Does anyone else notice that when Jimbo sez: QUOTE I am just arguing that there is absolutely no way in hell we would have
an article in the case of Carolyn Doran, were it not for Wikipedia
navel-gazing. There was no fraud (that we know of), nothing bad
happened to us (that we know of), it is just an embarassment and for
this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated
Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and
non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition. What he doesn't even realize he's saying is that he has turned Wikipedia into such a monster, anyone associated with its management is prone to intense public embarrassment for past events, or complete escalation of any otherwise obscure current events. If the ENVIRONMENT of Wikipedia hadn't been so poisoned by Jimbo over the past two years, do we think Essjay would be the (relatively) household name it is now? Would Carolyn Doran be emblazoned on over 80 publications now? Would Taner Akcam have been detained at an international airport? I sincerely doubt it. Instead, though, Jimbo paints Doran as an "embarassment" (sic) and a "poor woman" -- completely washing his hands of any responsibility for the problem. As a constructive critique, maybe anyone who is hired by the WMF should first go through a short video tutorial about the environment: 1) Welcome to the human resources Training Video for the Wikimedia Foundation. We hope you're enjoying your visit to beautiful San Francisco. 2) Our organization is run by a self-absorbed, truth-evading, globe-trotting weasel who makes a ton of mistakes but is never contrite about any of them. In fact, he blames everyone but himself for most every mistake for which he's responsible. 3) Because of the above point, there are scores of people out there who are hell-bent on finding anything wrong about anyone who works here, just to make our Thought Leader look bad. So, if you aren't about on par with a true Catholic saint, you probably want to fully disclose now any sordid events in your past, or even current personality traits, that may be seen as vulnerabilities for yourself or our organization. 4) This really is a horrible place to work. 5) If you're still itching to work here, please mark the "Yes" box on line 3 of your application, authorizing us to perform a background check on you. This is a brand-new line on the application form, so please remind your hiring counselor to actually do the background check! Would that be so difficult for them to do? Greg |
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 3:57am
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995
|
here is a very simple call of boolshit on jimmy.
if Carolyn did nothing wrong while employed at WP, why was she fired?
we at W-R know why, the press knows why, but jimmy is prattling on and on like this "poor woman" had hard times before WP, served nobly while there, then just happened to get in trouble after leaving WP.
But why was she dismissed, Jimbo, if she did nothing wrong at WP, and her employment at WP was not detrimental to WP?
Jimmy won't be answering that.
He doesn't answer a lot of questions lately about things that make you go "hmmmm".
Jimmy, Gerard, and JzG are the 3 Stooges of WP right now, and it is high comedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 4:44am
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 21st December 2007, 11:05pm) The AP story was carried in both the Washington Post and the NY Times. I thought David Gerard said this was just the media responding to every "fart and puff" that happens on Wikipedia? I guess the NYT's new slogan is "All the farts and puffs that're fit to print". The Essjay fiasco should have been their Big Chance to learn how NOT to react to valid criticisms of their organization. Instead, we got even worse responses to the Durova fiascos, and now even more denial of any "problems" with the Carolyn Doran fiasco. They just DO NOT LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 4:56am
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:57pm) It's later than I had promised, but it's finally here. Felon became COO of Wikipedia foundation by BRIAN BERGSTEIN, of the Associated Press I wonder how those "The Register is just a tabloid. This is a non-event." people on Wikien-l mailing list will still be singing that tune, as this story gets picked up by (I predict) 200+ mainstream media newspapers. Greg My favorite — QUOTE(Jimbo Wales)
Of course we are doing soul searching …
Picture Jimbo, jes lookin for a soul … QUOTE(Kristofferson/Joplin)
… and I hope he finds it …
Jonny  |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 3:37pm
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd December 2007, 3:30pm)
Remember, everyone -- this is a "tempest in a teapot" and really a "non-story".
Greg
Jimbo appears quite contrite now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim..._Bothwell_DoranQUOTE
There is no excuse for the Wikimedia Foundation having hired someone like Carolyn Doran; it was a major misstep for the organization without a doubt. But as you note, and especially since as far as we know, no money is missing, it is the sort of thing that most businesses have worries about... and it happens all the time of course that people are hired whose history is not what one might hope. For us, it ends up a major media story anyway. This just shows that going forward we have to be absurdly vigilant about such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"Absurdly vigilant"? Vaguely careful might have done the trick just as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 3:45pm
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 22nd December 2007, 10:37am) Jimbo appears quite contrite now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim..._Bothwell_DoranQUOTE
There is no excuse for the Wikimedia Foundation having hired someone like Carolyn Doran; it was a major misstep for the organization without a doubt. But as you note, and especially since as far as we know, no money is missing, it is the sort of thing that most businesses have worries about... and it happens all the time of course that people are hired whose history is not what one might hope. For us, it ends up a major media story anyway. This just shows that going forward we have to be absurdly vigilant about such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"Absurdly vigilant"? Vaguely careful might have done the trick just as well. Even when he's offering his mea culpa, there is always a "But...". For him, he thinks this all boils down to whether THE MONEY IS SAFE (never mind that the audit is months overdue, and the Form 990 from last year falsely indicates that none of the Trustees have "business relationships"). It's more than the money, Jimbo. It's that you boobs don't know how to run a Foundation properly, and that you should step aside and let take over a team that has experience running non-profits and publishing encyclopedias. WHO GAVE JIMBO THE AUTHORITY TO MANAGE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA? HE'S A FREAKIN' OPTIONS TRADER! Also, he suggests that this "happens all the time". Sure, I know lots of businesses who have a COO who shot someone, wore a wire to try to incriminate a roommate of a poisoning plot, kited checks, left the scene of a manslaughter DUI, had a dad and a husband in the CIA (the latter drowning on their honeymoon and the coroner not investigating the accident), rose to COO after four months as a temp, had another DUI, then was silly enough to leave the country in violation of probation, and all the while -- never told anyone any of this, and never had her background checked. Sure, THAT happens "all the time", Jimbo. It's time for him and all his Wikia cronies to leave the project altogether. MAYBE Sue Gardner can rebuild it before it's too late. Greg |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
Sat 22nd December 2007, 3:56pm
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
Deciders, Gubernators, and DonatorsQUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 22nd December 2007, 10:44am) Perhaps what he really means is that they need to be "absurdly vigilant" about maintaining a tight wall of secrecy so that none of the bad stuff leaks out to the "irresponsible reporters" or "attack sites". (That will do really great next time there's a scandal centering around the secrecy within an organization that claims to be among the openest in history.) Compare Jimbo's thoughts on the matter to Florence Devouard's reflections on transparency... QUOTE(Florence Devouard on foundation-l) Why should we care? Collectively, we are likely to mostly care because of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
