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]

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' dishing 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 it 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. 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)

Thank you for your compliment about some of my excellent journalism, Alison. I will agree that this current story is not my best work, but it was absolutely newsworthy to a citizen journalist whose "beat" includes wikis, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation. If I weren't covering every hire and fire at the world's largest organization devoted to wikis, I wouldn't be doing my job as the National Wiki Edits Examiner.

How is Moellenberndt's past documented and factual history as expressed -- by her -- to the mainstream media suddenly "dirt" when I organize it into a news story?

My questions, if they were to be answered by the Wikimedia Foundation (which they would not), would be...

• "How did Philippe Beaudette determine Moellenberndt was the best candidate for the job?"
• "How many applicants were interviewed for this position?"
• "Why was multitasking on two projects considered too much for Beaudette?"
• "Why is the head of Reader Relations (what I would interpret as a content area -- readers read content, don't they?) leading the 2010 fundraising campaign, anyway? Why wasn't someone with more responsibility for financial development like Moeller, or Exley, or Newstead, or Wadhwa, or Handler, or Crouse handling this?"
• "What will Moellenberndt actually be doing for the WMF, in plain English?"
• "If Moellenberndt is a non-notable, low-level WMF contractor/employee, why did Beaudette feel the need to announce her temporary hire to the public?"
• "Why is it appropriate for Wikimedians to publicly document my activity on sites like Freelancer.com -- while prohibiting my response in their same forum; but it is inappropriate for me to publicly document a Wikimedian's activity on sites like Facebook.com -- even while welcoming and inviting them to respond? Why do I have to walk on eggshells?"

Okay, that last question is just a jab, but it does point to how ridiculous some of you are being about a 33-year-old adult's "helplessness" against my "dirt digging". Have any of you -- any single one -- contacted her to see what she would like done with my article?

But, the fact of the matter is that if the Wikimedia Foundation weren't so damn secretive about how they go about internal matters, none of these questions would even be of interest. Or, conversely, if they weren't so public about every minor new hire into a short-term position, it would also be of little interest. As it stands, about 100 unique visitors (so far) were interested enough in this story to open the page it's on, and Google's News reviewers accepted it into their feed as newsworthy. (I am told that is a human-reviewed process at Google.) If this weren't newsworthy, shouldn't Google News have rejected it the way they've rejected the majority of my Examiner stories?

You wanted to make a comparison with Wikipedia?

Well, congratulations, you just compared yourself with the worst of them and came our on bottom.


"Physician, heal thyself."

I offered my "opt out by subject of article" proposal. Where is Wikipedia's? I'm waiting to hear from Moellenberndt herself, thank you.

[Doc glasgow]

You wanted to make a comparison with Wikipedia?

Well, congratulations, you just compared yourself with the worst of them and came our on bottom.


"Physician, heal thyself."

I offered my "opt out by subject of article" proposal. Where is Wikipedia's? I'm waiting to hear from Moellenberndt herself, thank you.

Greg, have you any idea what a $*%%*$& £%^&"£ you look like now?


Words fail me.


To quote Alison (out of context) F*** you.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[thekohser]

Words fail me.

Doc, have you ever promoted or recommended or suggested one of my "good" Examiner articles to anyone, anywhere?

[Doc glasgow]

Words fail me.

Doc, have you ever promoted or recommended or suggested one of my "good" Examiner articles to anyone, anywhere?

WTF?

[thekohser]

Words fail me.

Doc, have you ever promoted or recommended or suggested one of my "good" Examiner articles to anyone, anywhere?

WTF?

Just wondering if you're actually a friend of the cause, or whether you're just bitching and moaning about things.