Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: thekohser

Sue Garder http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-January/063568.html recently, "accompanied" by her male assistant.

She jetted all the way to London to meet a 12-year-old boy named Peter.

Later, in India, she coveted another woman's muffin.

That's what I got out of it, anyway.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Nice to know where the money goes …

Jon

Posted by: Milton Roe

Paying for separate rooms for herself and assistant? Adjoining or not? The world wants to know.

Any bets that she took a laptop? BUT, did she edit Wikipedia from India, like Weiss/Mantanmoreland did? Himself being a "true" Wikipedian? Any bets? Okay, I'll spare you. Her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sue_Gardner show she didn't edit from Sept 24 last year, to Jan 1 this year. Her trip was Nov. 20 to Dec. 6. So not only didn't she edit on her worldwide trip, but she didn't edit for 2 months before leaving, and for 3 weeks after getting back.

The irony here is very thick. Mantanmoreland, now banned, was a real addict about editing Wikipedia (for that matter, so is Kohs. ) Sue Gardner, the female CEO of the foundation responsible for it, couldn't care less about editing the thing.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Which goes to show that the Asshead Queen is smarter than all her Wiki-Pushees put together.

But you shoulda known that already, Flakey …

Jon

Posted by: RMHED

On that evidence Sue Gardner seems to be rather too good for the WMF, I expect her to be moving onward and upward very soon.

Posted by: Milton Roe

She's not as good as her present salary. I think it will keep her "stuck" for quite some time. Perhaps longer than is "good" for her, overall. But that's a happy problem few would avoid.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Now, now. Try to separate the content from the people who lord it over the content. Very little Good Stuff on WP actually gets oversighted out of existence. It's all there in the manure pile or tailings or placer deposit, just waiting for the grubbers of the future to take advantage of it. Even when overwritten, it's more accessable to the average person than a really good book of 30 years ago, that is now out of print and exists only in a few library basements (and not yet on Google Books).

Patience. This is a process. Even in sewage treatment there comes a point when the product is safe to drink, except you can't find anybody who wants to drink it. Yet progress is still undeniable. People in desperate circumstances COULD drink it, and remain healthy. It's not Evian but it's far better than nothing.

Posted by: Cla68

Shouldn't someone who leads an internet-based organization be trying to use technologies like video-teleconferencing instead sitting on so many airplanes? Anyway, I assume she and the assistant are flying in coach and staying in business hotels.

Posted by: Milton Roe

You see? Cynicism. A cynic not only has learned the bitter lessons of the past, but is prematurely disappointed with the future, too. Meanwhile, we tend to predict things better than people who see stuff through rose-colored glasses.

Raise arms, anybody, if you think Sue Gardner flies around the world whilst crammed into a coach seat. Anybody?

You know, somebody could ask her that on her TALK page. Politely. Not you, Cla68-- you should probably dig a hole someplace.

Posted by: Cla68

Also, ask her how she gets to the airport from her home. Does someone from the Wikimedia office drop her off, do they have a contract with a car service, does she and her assistant take separate taxis, even if they live way out in the suburbs, or does the Foundation reimburse them for parking at the airport? Since she flies so much, presumably she has free access to the airline's frequent flier lounge so she can plug in her laptop to edit Wikipedia, or does the Foundation purchase access for her? At their destinations, do they try to stay in hotels with free shuttle service to and from the airport, or do they take taxis again? Do they get per diem at each location? If so, how much? Those kind of expenses can add up and she is, presumably, using charitable donations to fund her travel.

Posted by: Somey

Moderators' note: Speculation regarding whether or not certain "personal" items in Ms. Gardner's wardrobe have been subsidized (or otherwise paid for) using Wikimedia Foundation funds were moved to this thread. We apologize for the incontinence inconvenience.



My guess would be the assistant picks her up in his car, pays for the parking at SFO (approx. $20 per day) using his credit card, and then the Foundation conveniently "misplaces" the expense report for several months until he's forced to undergo the humiliation of having to "ask someone in accounting" to find out where his check went. After that, Sue will fire the assistant for not being a "team player."

Luckily, parking at SFO http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/parking/!

Posted by: lilburne

Wasn't there some figures about $400,000 a year on travel expenses? Which is over $1000 a day and seems rather excessive.

Presumably they are charging for speaking engagements and interviews, and as they are employees that should be being paid to the foundation. So what is the actual net cost of the travel?

Posted by: Detective

What's the significance of being a female CEO? Or are we just saying that females can't edit WP?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Ah, Milton, the Snow-Blind Wonder, the Jimbo Jesuit, for whom no atrocity can take the shine off the Greater Glory Of Glop.

Jon

Posted by: anthony

In the US it's still quite a significant accomplishment. Women make up over half of the labor force, but are only CEOs of 2.5% the top 1000 US companies.

But somehow I doubt that's what MR was talking about.

Posted by: Milton Roe

No, Sue Gardner is the one COMPLAINING that females don't edit WP, when she doesn't edit significantly herself, even though she's CEO of the thing. You really are having a hard time understanding the irony of this, aren't you?

Posted by: thekohser

It may be that we realize Sue is smart enough to maintain a posture that she is above Wikipedia editors, male and female alike, and it would not be fitting of her office to be slogging away in the trenches with the gullible Wikipediots.

After all, if she really started editing frequently, how soon before it becomes clear to her and to those editing with her that Wikipedia is a messy, irresponsible battleground of opinions, not worthy of tax-exempt status? Then what would she be left to do?

Posted by: Cla68

At a minimum she could take some pictures of some of these places in Poland, India, and wherever else she travels to, upload them to Commons (or have her assistant do it after he finishes filling-out their travel reimbursement paperwork), and add the pictures to the appropriate articles.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Unlikely, as she didn't edit much for the significant time she was an editor BEFORE she became WMF's CEO. Basically she has no excuse. She has no reason for not editing WP that every other woman she wants to edit, doesn't also have. And Sue has many reasons and opportunities to edit that the average woman never will have, and yet she took advantage of them neither before becoming CEO, or after.

Lie to herself. But she's already doing that, apparently.

Of course it's possible that Sue is doing the "Undercover Boss" trick (a.k.a. the Harry le Roy trick from Henry V), by going about as an alternatve account with no special powers, to see what editing WP as an ordinary editor is REALLY like. And if that's the case, I take back everything I've said about her. We shall see.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Poland is looking more and more like the next WMF oursource after India. Wikia has long been there, and WMF has checked them out with a Wikimania in July, 2010. Now, Sue goes there again at the end of the year. That's a lot of attention.

Posted by: RMHED

If Jimmy has any say it'll be somewhere in Eastern Europe, where the booze is cheap and so are the hookers.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Sure, sure. If I have a different opinon about the value WP's content that you do, it must be because I'm a follower and religious fanatic. It couldn't ever be that I simply took a look at the same data, and came to a different and better conclusion. Because that would mean that in this case I'm just smarter than you are.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I guess I'll have to go with that first thing …

Jon

Posted by: Cla68

It probably would be cheaper for the Foundation to be based in Poland, as long as they didn't bear the cost of moving most of its San Francisco-based employees and their families over there, then paying to send their kids to private English-language schools in Warsaw or wherever. If the WMF isn't going to follow my advice and move to Fresno to save operating costs, then perhaps they will go to Poland.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Don't kid yourself. If Susie and her slaves ever move somewhere, it will be to NYC,
so they can hobnob with the Social Register crowd.

Moving the servers and support staff to Poland, now that's a winner....cheaper Polish
workers means more money for Susie and Erik.

What's really interesting to me: all these former employees who left under a "cloud"
or for some other not-happy reason. (other than Larry Sanger, who is in this http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32691
thread.) Godwin, Mike Snow, Brad Patrick, and probably several lower-down people that
I'm forgetting.
Not a single one of them has written a tell-all about the WMF's demented internal
operations. Why is that?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I couldn't find exactly the right icon, but maybe this will give you a clue:


Jon

Posted by: thekohser

Just a quick note: Sue Gardner http://gulfnews.com/business/media-marketing/connection-five-questions-to-sue-gardner-1.752627.

Posted by: anthony

"The iPad is like a TV or a radio, in that it's designed for consuming corporate-made media"

Huh? I've only used the iPad a few times, at my sister's house, so maybe I'm missing something.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Possiblities:

[1] Personal embarassment
[2] Unwillingness to throw good time after bad

Not even Jon Krakauer could turn the follies at WMF into the next Into Thin Air. And if he did, it wouldn't make much money anyway. If you want three stooges comedies about nitwits and toxic people doing lamebrain or nasty things to to each other, there's always reality TV, where it's even worse, and in color. And requires next to no effort from the consumer to understand.

I would like Godwin, Sanger, etc. to write up and post an official blog entry before they forget or die, just for history's sake. Maybe on Greg's site. But not, of course, with the expectation that they'll get anything from it but historical revenge.

Posted by: Alison

Then she's really going to hate the http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wikipedia-mobile/id324715238?mt=8 Srsly; "designed for consuming corporate-made media"?? Hardly

Posted by: Ottava

Sounds delicious.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Sue, you ignorant slut.

What about pirate radio? Have you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_North_America your own damn "encyclopedia" about it??

What about http://www.roguecom.com/rogueradio/finallinks.html?

What about http://www.hfunderground.com/wiki/Main_Page?

Posted by: anthony

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=87472. Or maybe just snubbed Wales, and Gardner is trying to play copycat.



Ah, probably something about the app store. (I mean, yeah, he's right, the app policy is why I have an Android phone, and why I'm holding out for an Android tablet, but Wales didn't seem to have any problem with it until recently.)



http://swns.com/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-apple-threatens-openness-of-internet-140918.html

Ah, that explains it, I guess. She must be taking the position that Assange is a journalist. Or maybe, giving her the benefit of the doubt, that if Apple can ban Wikileaks without a trial, then they could do it to real journalists - which, I suppose, is quite true.

Still, "like a TV or a radio, in that it's designed for consuming corporate-made media" is just ridiculous. To the extent the iPad was "designed for consuming corporate-made media", so was DSL, so was the cablemodem.

Unless I'm missing something.

Posted by: anthony

Maybe Sue remembers that http://wikipediabias.com/wikipedia-helps-nyt-cover-david-rohde-kidnapping.

In fact, considering the "reliable source" and "no original research" rules, and how they http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=277183326&oldid=277182873 by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=277182873&oldid=277165071, I guess it's 100% accurate to say that Wikipedia was quite literally "designed for consuming corporate-made media".

Posted by: Cedric

Posted by: Lar

Is that really necessary? I'm not sure either of those labels are fact, so why bother. It just brings the place down.

Let the facts stand for themselves without the gratutious insults. Eric, you can write with a very acid pen without copping out that way. So do it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I dood it! I dood it to get her attention.........

Posted by: Somey

Well... it definitely was an ignorant thing for her to say, and insulting to all the people who participate in community-based volunteer activities in TV and radio. Presumably Sue wants to make those people feel bad for not participating in what she wants them to participate in - namely, Wikimedia-owned products - and that makes her a selfish woman also. So, given selfish + ignorant, and some of the outfits we've seen her wearing, not to mention the whole Wikipedia CEO thing... Obviously there's an inappropriate sexist connotation to the word "slut," but let's not forget that women can be intelligent, witty, attractive, and highly competent professionally, and still have a tendency towards aggressive sexual behavior, not to mention a terrible fashion sense. It doesn't necessarily make those women bad people, though admittedly it might make them baaaad, baaaad, baaaaaaaad people.

I should, at least, say that my general opinion of Canadians has risen significantly over the last 6 months, for various reasons I'd prefer not to go into at the moment. So that's actually something in her favor, IMO.

Posted by: Alison

So, Somey, when exactly did Sue Gardner exhibit "a tendency towards aggressive sexual behavior"?

<facepalm>

Posted by: Somey

I didn't say she did - in fact, I have no idea. All I meant was that a sexist epithet like "slut," while offensive and generally inappropriate for most social gatherings, doesn't necessarily imply stupidity, incompetence, or ugliness. I'm not defending anyone's use of the term, though - certainly I wish people wouldn't use it here or anywhere else. I'm just saying it's a term with a fairly specific meaning, and I'm also saying that Sue Gardner has got to quit wearing those black thigh-high stockings.

Posted by: Gruntled

Oh, so you're the man having the steamy affair with Pamela Anderson.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

It varies inversely as his general opinion of British civil servants over the same time period.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I believe the word "slut" is used more by women about other women, than it is used by men. And generally, with some hint of envy, somewhere. When a woman wants to say something really nasty about another woman, it's likely to be "bitch." Which carries no connotation of envy whatsoever, however many T-shirts you might have read.