Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Editors Revolt, Vote "No Confidence" In Newest Board Member (arstechnica.com)
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.
No-poach agreements only hurt employees.
I wouldn't want to have someone complicit in illegal anti-trust activities put in a leadership role in an organization I had anything to do with either. I don't put this in the category of "butthurt", which is a word, if I must call it that, typically reserved for petty, squabbling nonsense. Not that this doesn't apply to Wikipedia editors in general, at least from what I've heard, but this appears to have some merit at first blush.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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.
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
...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.
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.
Actually, the board of directors for a non-profit is arguably the most critical component, and having a bad director can have major consequences. Board members have fiduciary duties, usually summarized as the "three Ds". A quick summary is as follows:
Duty of care: Board members are expected to actively participate in organizational planning and decision-making and to make sound and informed judgments.
Duty of loyalty: When acting on behalf of the organization, board members must put the interests of the nonprofit before any personal or professional concerns and avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Duty of obedience: Board members must ensure that the organization complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and that it remains committed to its established mission.
(Source)
In this particular case, the "duty of obedience" is a real concern given the new board memeber's history of violating anti-trust laws through non-poaching policies. For example, while those tech companies involved in the non-compete scandle had enough cash on hand to pay for the settlement, the impact to Wikipedia could have been much more substantial.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Same here. I also found that articles not being squatted on, I don't need to add references to make a simple edit; nobody checks them anyways.
It is vastly more likely that an edit is rolled back because somebody wants to control an article's message than that it is rolled back for being incorrect, biased, etc. Those all do also happen, no mistake about it. But they're less common than just mindless "no, I already re-wrote that section last year you can't reword it so that it matches the more authoritative article."
So now my policy is, I check the talk page; if there is any discussion in the last couple years, I put in my two cents there (or not) and don't try to actually edit anything. If an article is such a backwater that there is little or no talk text, then I just boldly correct whatever it is, and that correction will likely persist for years.
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
I think the issue is more about trust. He has been shown to be complicit in immoral decision making when put into a position of power.
As a member of a Board of Trustees he'd be in a position of power involving potential moral decisions and the vote shows that he has yet to regain that trust.
It's not like the guy will be out of a day job and I'm sure there are plenty of other people that the Wikipedia editors would support.
It doesn't hurt that it's just deserts without any lives actually being harmed. From what I have read, he has disrupted other lives far more significantly than this will impact his own.
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.