Philippe Beaudette hires a helper Options

[thekohser]

Philippe Beaudette, whom most of you know as the guy who wired the no-bid research contract to Q2 Consulting (his previous employer) has hired a right-hand gal on a temp basis, Christine Moellenberndt.

Christine Moellenberndt’s Summary

I am currently attending San Jose State University, in pursuit of a Master's degree in Applied Anthropology. My thesis research focuses around stakeholder relations in Web 2.0. My research analyzes relations between the owners of LiveJournal, a blogging website, and their users through posts made by the company to communicate to the community, the community's response in replies and messages on other LiveJournal communities, as well as interviews with LJ employees and users and anonymous surveys.

This research will answer questions surrounding formation of online communities and the feelings of ownership around those communities. My other areas of interest include identity in online communities, categories of insider and outsider as they pertain to online communities, self-identification, acceptance into these communities, and also into the broader category of "geek."

After graduation, I plan to take my new-found knowledge (and my 12 years of experience in the tech industry, with 10 years of experience with online communities) into the tech sector to assist companies with their understanding and usage of their online customer/user base.
Christine Moellenberndt’s Specialties:

Unique knowledge of online communities, both as a researcher and as a member of several, understanding of the "geek" mindset, ability to translate from "geek" to "non-geek"

[Alison]

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' digging 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 is 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 - especially around WMF fundraising shenanigans. 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)

[thekohser]

...just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well...

Wow, so you're calling her a "nobody" in her defense, and you're assuming she's so much of a nitwit that she wouldn't do any background research on the organization (or the boss) that's about to hire her for the next four months, even though she's getting her master's degree in Internet anthropology?

That is really streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, Alison.

[jayvdb]

...just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well...

Wow, so you're calling her a "nobody" in her defense, and you're assuming she's so much of a nitwit that she wouldn't do any background research on the organization (or the boss) that's about to hire her for the next four months, even though she's getting her master's degree in Internet anthropology?

That is really streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, Alison.

How is this relevant? Whether or not she has a good grasp on the WMF, she just started an extremely short contract while doing postgrad, and has done nothing to warrant any media attention, and it is inappropriate to run an indepth piece on a person without their permission or some strong message that hinges on that person. If your story was about 'too much info' on the Internet, your article has a sample size of one. If your story is 'WMF is OMGFBAD', she isn't your target, and shouldn't be the focus. Either way, she is just convenient, and this article only reflects badly on you.

Consider this: how does your article influence the subjects worldview, or the worldview of anyone in your target audience?

[thekohser]

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

[jayvdb]

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

[thekohser]

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?

[Doc glasgow]

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?

I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.

No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.

With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].

[thekohser]

I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.

No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.

With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].

I trust that your logic fails to consider that I sign my pieces on Examiner with my real name, such that attorneys for my subjects can contact me with any potential libel torts. They would also be able to contact Examiner itself, as I've been professionally vetted by their human resources process.

Let me know the day that a Wikipedia article is ever attributed to one person who signs their real name to the article, such that an attorney would have a clear path for legal action. Also, let me know when the Wikimedia Foundation assumes liability for the content its vetted writers choose to publish.

Doc, are you just trying to sound like a nitwit for giggles, or are you really this incapable of making apt comparisons?