Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Editors Revolt, Vote "No Confidence" In Newest Board Member (arstechnica.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-outta-here dept.

An anonymous reader writes with news about an editor revolt at Wikimedia to remove Arnnon Geshuri from the foundation's board. Ars reports: "Nearly 200 Wikipedia editors have taken the unprecedented step of calling for a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors to be tossed out. The Wikimedia Foundation, which governs both the massive Wikipedia online encyclopedia and related projects, appointed Arnnon Geshuri to its board earlier this month. His appointment wasn't well received by the Wikipedia community of volunteer editors, however. And last week, an editor called for a 'vote of no confidence on Arnnon Geshuri.' The voting, which has no legally binding effect on the Wikimedia Foundation, is now underway. As of press time, 187 editors had voted in favor of this proposition: 'In the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, Arnnon Geshuri must be removed from his appointment as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board.' Just 13 editors have voted against, including Wikimedia board member Guy Kawasaki.

24 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. No Context by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the context given by the wikipedia article on this guy is: "The appointment sparked controversy among Wikipedia editors due to Geshuri's role enforcing a no-poach agreement between several large tech companies."

    So people are a little butt hurt. I don't see what this has to do at all with anything.

    1. Re:No Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No-poach agreements only hurt employees.

    2. Re:No Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Id guess that:
      A - A lot of wiki-bureaucrats and wiki-lawyers are of the tech-professional persuasion
      B - This guy masterminded a deal that probably had the net effect of suppressing high tier tech-professional wages significantly.

      I imagine there's significant core of senior editors who have yet to succumb to the temptations of paid and / or political editing and are still operating under the delusion that wikimedia should be operated as a non-profit for the benefit of all mankind. Appointing a certified corporate slimeball to the board is going to make maintaining that fantasy through the medium of selective ignorance just a little bit harder.

    3. Re:No Context by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The guy was involved with big money and for big corporations. He might not have the best mindset sit at the board of a charity. Some time ago the Mozilla foundation sold itself to the advertisers. Nobody wants another disaster like that with the WMF, which is so much more relevant to everybody. I have no opinion on the guy but I find it great that the editors check that the board of trustees is actually composed of people who can be trusted.

      I used to try to contribute edits to Wikipedia complete with sources only to find that people that spend an inordinate amount of time on the site roll-back my edits for reasons that were never justified. So while on the one hand I may not like people that look at no-poach agreements favorably, on the other hand, screw those involved with Wikipedia that have overinflated opinions of themselves and their position.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:No Context by Luthair · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have mixed feelings. Our society is supposed to believe that people can improve themselves and we should (eventually) forgive people. More importantly the people responsible for this are really Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, how many of these wikipedia voters are running macs and iphones?

    5. Re:No Context by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So people are a little butt hurt. I don't see what this has to do at all with anything.

      Employees of those major companies were blacklisted from seeking work at other major companies.

      They would still get through the hiring and interviewing process, but then they would get automatically and systematically rejected with no reason given.

      The least we can do is to blacklist him from positions of importance. This guy is a criminal. You don't put criminals in charge of organizations that you care about.

    6. Re:No Context by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our society is supposed to believe that people can improve themselves and we should (eventually) forgive people.

      Sure. They guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder can cut my lawn. He can manage the local Wal-Mart. He can teach English-as-a-Second-Language classes to orphan refugees. Just... maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him.

      Point I'm trying to make is that while second chances are a Good Thing, it's also very reasonable that some bridges are forever burned, and a different way to cross the gorge needs be found.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    7. Re:No Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Unless the organization is the United States of America?

    8. Re:No Context by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What makes it petty squabbling nonsense is that it has nothing to do with his role at wikipedia. It is just base attack on an employee because people dislike them personally.

      If what he did was illegal, they should be writing letters to the government, not trying to prevent him from ever working again.

      Wikipedia needs to ban all these editors, because it is illegal to try to blackball somebody from an industry because you don't like what they did in a prior job somewhere else. They're attempting to overstep the authority of their roles in a way that violates the rights of the person they're trying to have cast out. Their removal is necessary to restore wikipedias reputation, because their actions are blatantly biased in a way that is caustic to open participation.

      Maybe the guy is a [bad person], I don't know. I do know in this case that other [bad people] are attempting to violate his rights.

    9. Re:No Context by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If he hasn't been convicted of a crime, it violates his employment rights to try to blackball him based on unproven accusations.

      Doesn't it bother you that you're proposing to clearly violate employment rights in order to punish unproven accusations of violating employment rights?

    10. Re:No Context by Kneo24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikipedia needs to ban all these editors, because it is illegal to try to blackball somebody from an industry because you don't like what they did in a prior job somewhere else.

      And how are they trying to blackball someone from an entire industry? From what I can tell they're just trying to get him removed from what is essentially an executive board. The guy still holds a job at Tesla Motors anyway.

      They're attempting to overstep the authority of their roles in a way that violates the rights of the person they're trying to have cast out.

      Do what now? What rights are being violated? Had you read anything and not jumped to a knee jerk reaction, you'd see that they clearly understand what they're doing has zero legal weight. If you had a "bad" boss and the "majority" of the "workforce" got together to go above his head to have him removed, or at the very least their concerns heard, I'd say that's a great thing. This doesn't mean anyone has to do as they ask, you know.

      Maybe the guy is a [bad person], I don't know.

      Yes, that much is obvious. You just don't know anything.

      I do know in this case that other [bad people] are attempting to violate his rights.

      Do you know that? It seems to me that it's already been pointed out that they have no power to violate his rights in this context. I also wonder why you feel that people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion of dissent uniformly.

    11. Re:No Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Employees of those major companies were blacklisted from seeking work at other major companies.

      [citation needed]

      They would still get through the hiring and interviewing process, but then they would get automatically and systematically rejected with no reason given.

      [citation needed]

      The least we can do is to blacklist him from positions of importance.

      Based on the word of a single former employee. No further evidence. No criminal investigation. No conviction. Purely on the *allegation alone*.

      This guy is a criminal.

      Got a conviction record? Oh, there was no trial and he wasn't convicted of anything? Gee, this sounds a lot like libel.

      You don't put criminals in charge of organizations that you care about.

      Yeah, clearly people jumping to conclusions and making false statements in public like you should be in charge, right?

  2. What would they expect him to do? by Hussman32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 'no-poaching' compact was an agreement among chief executives. I know someone will drag this down to Godwin's Law in a minute, but he was doing as he was ordered. Are people expecting him to go to Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs and tell them that he wouldn't follow direction? If he did, he'd get the opportunity to join the keyboard punchers at Wikipedia Editorial.

    Are there any other reasons that he shouldn't offer advice on a board of a non-profit company?

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:What would they expect him to do? by timrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with that statement is that HR professionals are usually required to have some knowledge of employment law. For this person, this means one of two things:

      Either he saw the agreement and had no idea it could be in violation of employment law, which means he was incompetent at his own job;
      or he saw the agreement, knew it could be a violation and instead decided to ignore that and willfully proceed to fire these people without reporting it.

      Given the level of training most companies do these days to ensure that no one violates antitrust or other employment laws, it's likely that the second one is the case.

    2. Re:What would they expect him to do? by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry - the argument that he can't be held to account for breaking the law because he was just trying to keep his (very well paid) job is about as weak a case as you could possibly make.

      A top executive position is not some office flunky who only does what he is told, an HR Vice President has the legal and fiduciary responsibility to tell his boss he is committing a crime and to cut it out - not facilitate it. If he can't stand up to Schmidt, he can't stand up to Wales.

      I would say that any other reasons for not employing him are superfluous.

      BTW, do we know what his salary at that "non-profit" company is?

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    3. Re:What would they expect him to do? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he was doing as he was ordered

      Telling people what they want to hear is not "advice".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:What would they expect him to do? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know someone will drag this down to Godwin's Law in a minute, but he was doing as he was ordered.

      So wait, you're saying "he was just following orders" and then literally quote the strongest source for why "just following orders" isn't an excuse. You literally rebutted your own argument.

      Are people expecting him to go to Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs and tell them that he wouldn't follow direction?

      Are people expecting him to have a fucking backbone?

      I believe the answer to that is "yes".

      If he did, he'd get the opportunity to join the keyboard punchers at Wikipedia Editorial.

      ooooh so he did it for *money*. Well that certainly is an excellent excuse.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:What would they expect him to do? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to agree with this. The Board of Directors is supposed to keep a check on the management and make sure they maintain the best interests of the corporation. If this guy can't do it in one job of responsibility, I don't see why he gets to do it in another job which is theoretically an even more responsible oversight role.

      I don't know this guy from Adam, but if he did what they say he did, then he at least has some explaining to do. If he blames it all on "just following orders", then he's the type of person I wouldn't want in any position of power.

      Of course, this is probably exactly why he *is* in a position of power now. He's decided to not fight the fights that exclude him from the top floor offices.

      That said, I don't even get a non-binding vote on this, but if I did, I'd like to have him explain to me why this should not disqualify him.

    6. Re:What would they expect him to do? by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BTW, do we know what his salary at that "non-profit" company is?

      Just that the Wikimedia Foundation is swimming in more money than they can spend. Part of that is due to really stupid non-profit laws that prevent setting up a trust account (which can be done by donors... just not the non-profit) to save the money for a rainy day...

      Say what? Then how is that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting to set up an endowment this year if such a thing is impossible?

      The endowment which they are just now creating is being funded with $5 million, after burning through almost $300 million in the last several years, and it is just 7% of their projected fundraising revenue this year. And if their problem is that they are "swimming in money" why the aggressive year-after-year fundraising goals of 10-20% growth every single year? That is the growth plan of an aggressive for-profit start-up, not a non-profit.

      The fact is, Wikimedia could have easily funded an endowment long ago that would keep Wikipedia on-line forever without requiring another dollar in fundraising.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  3. More re-arranging of deck chairs on the Titanic by bretts · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wikipedia's big weakness is that it is unreliable because it is consistently gamed by special interest groups, much like most of the media. As a result, its staff loves an opportunity to demonstrate publicly their commitment to fairness, because in reality, they have a lot to hide.

  4. Befehl ist Befehl by mschaffer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since you mentioned Godwin's Law and chief execs, simply following orders is not a justifiable. To paraphrase the exchange between Google and Apple: Wikipedia's editors needs someone to be very careful to make sure this does not happen again. Wikipedia's board needs to make a public example of this termination with the group.

  5. Re:Wikipedia has many problems this one is minor by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...the fact that they are useless for any topic with even a whiff of controversy

    Is Britannica better? Wall Street Journal? People Magazine? Please advise.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  6. Just the social "justice" mentality at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This fits all of the traits of a typical social "justice" angerfest:

    1. Somebody does something that's actually quite minor. (Somebody gets appointed to a position of power. Or somebody mentions the word "dongle" to a friend. Or a police officer defends himself against a violent attacker who happens to have a different skin color.)

    2. A small number of vocal opponents from the social "justice" movement object for whatever reason.

    3. This small handful of vocal opponents from the social "justice" movement starts some non-binding petition or other useless bureaucratic construction.

    4. Social media is used to rile up a bunch of other people who normally wouldn't give a fuck about what's going on, but who still want to feel that they're "making a difference" or "changing the world".

    5. Despite claiming that it's wrong to single out a person and direct animosity toward this person, since doing so would be bullying, we see these social "justice" supporters single out the person and direct animosity toward them repeatedly. Yet they pretend it's not the bullying they're supposedly so very much against.

    6. Typically within a few days, some new minor and pointless incident will catch the attention of the social "justice" supporters. They'll forget about everything they were angry about in the past, and they'll focus on this new issue for a day or two, until the next outrage comes along.

    7. Their petition has no impact at all.

    8. Slashdot reports on this pathetically irrelevant issue that nobody sensible actually cares about, well after the people who were originally outraged have forgotten that they were angry.

  7. silence is not golden by epine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without a personal statement from Mr Geshuri about how he views the ethics of his own past behaviour on which to base my judgement, I can't see how this appointment can reasonably move forward.

    I sure hope the employee severed for failing to break the law as directed worked this into a fat severance settlement.