The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Philippe Beaudette hires a helper
thekohser
post Wed 27th October 2010, 10:48am
Post #41


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Doc glasgow
post Wed 27th October 2010, 12:41pm
Post #42


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:48am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...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]].
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Wed 27th October 2010, 1:54pm
Post #43


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 25th October 2010, 1:37am) *
Message:: I'm a Past Worthy Advisor of my Rainbow assembly, and Master of the Grand Cross of Color. I'm doing a research paper on Masonry, and am doing my own research, as my father is considering becoming a mason.

That is the same lot SarekOfVulcan and his partner hang out with ... International Order of the Rainbow for Girls.

It basically prepares girls to be the wives of masons or go on to co-masonic orders and those such as the Order of the Eastern Star. It really probably is not a Satanic conspiracy, and they definitely do not have sex with vampires, but it does profile the people actually getting involved with the project these days; from scout masters to freemasons ... it is not exactly the kewl, geek, skaterboi crew.

They must be pretty pissed that the gay movement adopted their flag, they did get there first. Seemingly, that had to change it just because of the darn sodomites. But, dont mock these people, we need more like them involved ... "all Advisory Board members are required to complete a background check form in order to work with the Rainbow Girls". Those are the kind of standards we need for all Wikipedia admins.

I don't suppose they will have her counting penises on the Wikipedia, or monitoring all the hard core porn uploads in her first week there.

Are NSFW photos suitable if you work for the Wikimedia?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Wed 27th October 2010, 2:03pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 27th October 2010, 2:00pm
Post #44


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 8:41am) *

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]].


Oops, you're in the wrong part of the library again — you're in Reference — Ephemerals are in the basement.

You really gotta learn where to shelve it …

Jon tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 27th October 2010, 2:12pm
Post #45


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:54am) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 25th October 2010, 1:37am) *
Message:: I'm a Past Worthy Advisor of my Rainbow assembly, and Master of the Grand Cross of Color. I'm doing a research paper on Masonry, and am doing my own research, as my father is considering becoming a mason.

That is the same lot SarekOfVulcan and his partner hang out with ... International Order of the Rainbow for Girls.

It basically prepares girls to be the wives of masons or go on to co-masonic orders and those such as the Order of the Eastern Star. It really probably is not a Satanic conspiracy, and they definitely do not have sex with vampires, but it does profile the people actually getting involved with the project these days; from scout masters to freemasons ... it is not exactly the kewl, geek, skaterboi crew.

I commented on the blog yesterday, but her resume looks quite good for the job.

Greg looks very silly begging her to comment there. The Godwin/Sue article looked like a step in the direction of "legitimizing" Greg's work, and a few more like that would have only made the foundation look worse for keeping all the blocks and bans in place.

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Wed 27th October 2010, 3:20pm
Post #46


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
Oops, you're in the wrong part of the library again — you're in Reference — Ephemerals are in the basement.

You really gotta learn where to shelve it …


Examiner isn't a reference source. Wikipedia isn't a reference source.

Examiner allows content about living people. Wikipedia allows content about living people.

Examiner hosts content about people that can't be altered once it's written, without possibly obtaining the permission of the author. Wikipedia allows content about living people that can be altered by anyone.

Examiner isn't popular among the common Joes. Wikipedia is popular among the common Joes.

Examiner can potentially spread libel against real people. Wikipedia can potentially spread libel against real people at a greater magnitude.

Examiner isn't relevant to common Joe due to lower ranks on searches. Wikipedia is relevant to common Joe due to higher ranks on searches, and the content gets copied by scrapers.

Common Joe uses wikipedia as a source, so he believes what's written there. Well, too bad, of course. If he donates without even looking around to know the system better, then double bad!

noooo.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 27th October 2010, 3:47pm
Post #47


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 8:41am) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 27th October 2010, 3:57pm
Post #48


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:12am) *

I commented on the blog yesterday, but her resume looks quite good for the job.

Greg looks very silly begging her to comment there. The Godwin/Sue article looked like a step in the direction of "legitimizing" Greg's work, and a few more like that would have only made the foundation look worse for keeping all the blocks and bans in place.

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

What exactly is her job? How do you know what her work would detail, to draw the conclusion about whether or not her resume is a good fit? I'd love to know -- I'm not being facetious. Beaudette only elaborated that she would be "beginning with internal protocols, and building out scalable support systems". What does that mean?

Sorry that I look silly asking for the subject of a news article to feel welcome to participate in the discussion, and even offering to modify or even potentially delete content that they feel is unfair. Do you really think that my articles on Godwin and about Gardner were putting me on the verge of being accepted back into various Wikimedia communities as a "legitimate" journalist? Wow! I didn't know I was so close. Too bad I really blew it with this one.

She is 33 years old. She'll be 34 in a couple of weeks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
powercorrupts
post Wed 27th October 2010, 4:06pm
Post #49


.
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined: Fri 27th Jun 2008, 10:27pm
Member No.: 6,776



Perhaps it's a new Chapter in Wikimedia's development? Only time will tell.

They can win, but they can't hide.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Wed 27th October 2010, 4:12pm
Post #50


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



Let's pretend that the situation was something like this:

a. Greg doesn't use his real name in his byline, but is known as "SlimVirgin" or some such silly screen name, and is next to impossible to track down. Moreover, he has the unquestioning support of the "founder" of examiner.com the way that SlimVirgin had the support of Jimbo in 2005.

b. About 10 friends of Greg/Slim/Jimbo jump on the article and dig up all sorts of stuff, and add it to the article.

c. The subject of the article makes it known that she wasn't asked to comment on the article and discovered it by accident, and would like the article deleted.

d. Once this happens, another 10 nerds add even more obscure stuff to the article to teach her a lesson, going back to incidents that happened 40 years ago. They all use screen names and are difficult to track down.

e. Dozens of "made for AdSense" sites begin scraping the article regularly, insuring that every little piece of information ever added lives forever, somewhere on the web.

f. Examiner.com changes it's name to Encyclopedia Examiner, and is one of the top sites on the web. Most mainstream commentators consider it the best thing to happen since peanut butter.

If you assume all of the above, then you can compare Greg's article to the BLP situation on Wikipedia.

Having said that, I think there is a real problem with this woman joining the Foundation. The problem is that she has absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the privacy issues that are presented by social networking, or the accountability issues raised by allowing top admins at Wikipedia to use screen names. The Foundation needs to wake up to this issue. Since her name is so unusual, Greg's piece about her and this thread on WR will help to educate her.

That's a good thing, because she sure as hell won't get any education from her co-workers at the Foundation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Wed 27th October 2010, 4:23pm
Post #51


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:48am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...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]].

Since when is the Examiner.com in the same position as Wikipedia simply because both appear online? This is like saying it is appropriate to feed an African elephant the same diet that would serve for a marmoset simply because both happen to be mammals. That being said, I am of the same mind as Somey here. It seems to me that Greg probably erred here in terms of emphasis, not basic propriety.

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:12am) *

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

This is all true enough, but overlooks the fact that the Frei Kultur Kinder expect to held to a higher standard of protection than ordinary mortals because they perceive themselves engaged in a holy mission to deliver "the sum of all human knowledge" to "every single person on the planet". This is yet another manifestation of the wikipediot hypocrisy that we have been observing for years.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 27th October 2010, 6:07pm
Post #52


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Steven Walling <swalling@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today Wikimedia Foundation Exec. Director Sue Gardner will be in this
> week's installment of IRC office hours at 23:00 UTC. As usual, the
> format is completely open, so bring any burning questions you might have
> to the #wikimedia-office channel on irc.freenode.net. Local times and
> instructions for accessing the chat, including for those without an IRC
> client, can be found on Meta at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours. The log of the
> discussion will be publicly posted on that page afterwards for those
> cannot attend.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> --
> Steven Walling
> Wikimedia Foundation Fellow
> (wikimediafoundation.org)


1) "As usual, the format is completely open" laugh.gif
2) Wikimedia Foundation Fellow?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 27th October 2010, 6:10pm
Post #53


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:07pm) *

2) Wikimedia Foundation Fellow?

More about the Community Fellowship scam.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 27th October 2010, 6:14pm
Post #54


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



Also, Friday 2010-11-05 22:00 UTC (local times) Philippe Beaudette and the fundraising staff Open format
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 27th October 2010, 7:01pm
Post #55


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:57am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:12am) *

I commented on the blog yesterday, but her resume looks quite good for the job.

Greg looks very silly begging her to comment there. The Godwin/Sue article looked like a step in the direction of "legitimizing" Greg's work, and a few more like that would have only made the foundation look worse for keeping all the blocks and bans in place.

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

What exactly is her job? How do you know what her work would detail, to draw the conclusion about whether or not her resume is a good fit? I'd love to know -- I'm not being facetious. Beaudette only elaborated that she would be "beginning with internal protocols, and building out scalable support systems". What does that mean?

I could be wrong, but I got the impression she was in the community organizing dept. That actually makes several modicums of sense if you've ever worked in that field.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:57am) *

Sorry that I look silly asking for the subject of a news article to feel welcome to participate in the discussion, and even offering to modify or even potentially delete content that they feel is unfair. Do you really think that my articles on Godwin and about Gardner were putting me on the verge of being accepted back into various Wikimedia communities as a "legitimate" journalist? Wow! I didn't know I was so close. Too bad I really blew it with this one.

That's not what I said rolleyes.gif. The Wikimedia communities will almost certainly just keep banning you, but my hope was that they'd look even sillier for doing so.

Again, I don't think you've done a horrible thing or anything, it just looks a bit petty. And the reason you look silly is because she probably just doesn't care.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:57am) *

She is 33 years old. She'll be 34 in a couple of weeks.

Cool. Party on!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 27th October 2010, 10:43pm
Post #56


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



I think it's perfectly legitimate to publicly question the propriety of any staff hire at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's fairly obvious that they hire people because they like them, and find jobs for them after they've been hired (or at least pretend to). So it's perfectly reasonable to question how this woman got this job, what exactly she's supposed to be do, and even why Baudette needs an assistant.

Greg's approach may be less than ideal, but the idea that this woman is, or ought to be, exempt from scrutiny is absurd. This is all part and parcel of working for a charitable organization.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
powercorrupts
post Wed 27th October 2010, 11:35pm
Post #57


.
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined: Fri 27th Jun 2008, 10:27pm
Member No.: 6,776



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:43pm) *

It's fairly obvious that they hire people because they like them, and find jobs for them after they've been hired (or at least pretend to).


Why not? It's how they fill their admin ranks. Upwardly mobile and ethically challenged people have a kind of aura which they can mutually sense. You can take it for granted that no WFoundation employee will come from a genuinely charitable background. Genuinely good people wouldn't quite fit their particular corporate ethos.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Wed 27th October 2010, 11:36pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Thu 28th October 2010, 1:03am
Post #58


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:48am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...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?

It appears that she was willingly interviewed by the CNN reporter. It is obvious that she was not a willing focus of your piece.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:43pm) *

I think it's perfectly legitimate to publicly question the propriety of any staff hire at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's fairly obvious that they hire people because they like them, and find jobs for them after they've been hired (or at least pretend to). So it's perfectly reasonable to question how this woman got this job, what exactly she's supposed to be do, and even why Baudette needs an assistant.

Greg's approach may be less than ideal, but the idea that this woman is, or ought to be, exempt from scrutiny is absurd. This is all part and parcel of working for a charitable organization.

I can agree with this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 28th October 2010, 1:15am
Post #59


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:03pm) *

It appears that she was willingly interviewed by the CNN reporter. It is obvious that she was not a willing focus of your piece.


If that's the new standard for media inclusion, then I'm sure folks like Tony Hayward will appreciate that. After all, he just wanted to return home and get his life back.

Now that the WMF and all its staff are apparently instructed not to engage me, I guess that means (by the Jayvdb Rule) I am disallowed from writing about any of them, ever. I suppose I'll go ask Examiner to shut down my account.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 28th October 2010, 1:17am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Thu 28th October 2010, 2:03am
Post #60


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 7:01pm) *

Again, I don't think you've done a horrible thing or anything, it just looks a bit petty. And the reason you look silly is because she probably just doesn't care.


After reading the CNN story (about the prudent saver) and Googling "average student loan debt" ($23,186 among graduating seniors), I finally figured out why I thought he looked silly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th 12 17, 1:33am