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.


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.

1) "As usual, the format is completely open"
2) Wikimedia Foundation Fellow?

More about the Community Fellowship scam.

Also, Friday 2010-11-05 22:00 UTC (local times) Philippe Beaudette and the fundraising staff Open format

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.

That's not what I said . 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.

Cool. Party on!

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.

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.

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


I can agree with this.

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.

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.

Not so fast, Buster !!!

Not until we get our jollies dragging you through 14 or 15 AfD proceedings …

Jon

Moulton's media ethicist colleague has weighed in (on Barry's Facebook page), and the ruling is...

IT WAS A HATCHET JOB!

Therefore, a new version of the article is now published on Examiner!

Now, the ethical question is... what to do with all the comments that referenced the old version of the article?

If it was my article, I'd can the comments and close commenting. You modified the article heavily in response to the comments, so they are now commenting on something that's not there any more. You noted that in the story, so you're done. Move on to your next scoop.

If there's any consolation, at least you are being compared to Sherlock Holmes (albeit in a blog post that quotes him as a 'high-functioning sociopath').

I've deleted the comments and replies that focused criticism on the original article, but I am not one to "close comments" on an article. Examiner's comment monitoring application is nice, in that I can see the most recent comment left on any of my articles, regardless of when it was published. So, if the tone gets nasty again on this article (or any), I will still see it, even if it's months down the road.

This is why you're not a troll. Trolls don't have ethics, or listen to critics. Trolls never admit to error of any sort.

Ottava, take note of the difference.

It's curious, because when I published the original piece about Moellenberndt, I had a gut feeling that I had gone too far in casting her in a bad light. Based on my subsequent readings of her LiveJournal blog, I feel quite strongly that she is a particularly bad choice for working with the Wikimedia "community" as we see it, but there wasn't a need to turn that personal opinion into a news piece.

I do apologize for my actions to those I hurt or offended.

I continue to believe that Philippe Beaudette is ill-suited for any role that manages other people, because he is not honest or open about his accountable actions.

What about those who were annoyed or slightly disappointed?

Yup.

Did you know that JoshuaZ has a twin?

Moellenberndt is starting to earn her keep.

A couple of weeks ago, our old pal Calton Bolick (or someone impersonating him) was mouthing off on a news blog, as follows:



Note that Calton isn't actually a Wikipedia administrator (saints be praised).

So, Christine decided to ask Calton to clarify his status:



Moellenberndt is also working on suicide intervention techniques, one by one.