147:. (I am assuming that Hisham and the other applicants that you were referring to in your explanations originally applied for the National Director job opening - if I'm wrong about that and there was indeed a job opening published for the position in its current form, please correct me.) I had planned to ask you for comment about this, but I wasn't able to attend the IRC office hour on the topic, and didn't get around to contact you directly before writing the story. I'll try to do so next time in a similar situation. In the meantime, considering that we
29:
131:. Sorry about not replying earlier and thanks for the useful clarification. The sentence in the story that you are referring to (which was clearly marked as an educated guess) was not just about the consultant vs. employee question, but also about dropping "the Wikimedia Foundation's chief representative in India" language.
92:
Jimbo didn't "overturn" anything. He reverted the action as a normal editor. The essay was and remains a pointy rant about a single content dispute, and in no way encapsulates a meaningful debate on a bigger picture issue. The definition of "hardcore" used is contrived so as to only include images
254:
Thank you. This is as good a place as any to make my point: "At the lunch, we talked with them about our gender gap. We knew it would stimulate a big, public conversation. And it did: immediately after the story was published, we were flooded with media inquiries and offers of help." Sounds like it
56:
The graph on the history of the
Swedish article on Michael Jackson is quite striking, but for a graph to be useful, people need to have a key, or some way of understanding what the graph means. After a bit of searching, I can now guess that the colors represent the amount of content contributed by
112:
Please note that the decision regarding the appointment of a consultant rather than an employee was unrelated to the discussion about legal liabilities on the IRC chat. WMF didn't change our position on consultant vs. employee due to a heighten concern over legal liability. We have always been
180:
What proportion of
Usernames are visibly gender related (possibly also comparing different languages) - and what is the equivalent for other areas of the Wikiverse? WP is not an obvious first choice for looking for adult material per se (as distinct from 'what does this weird term mean?).
151:
the
Foundation's India expansion in the Signpost, and that such legal risks are relevant for the whole community (which could soon be faced with the new situation that editorial decisions on Knowledge might expose someone like Hisham to a personal risk), a question about your recent
134:
There is of course nothing wrong with the
Foundation changing job descriptions between putting out the ad and doing the actual hire. However, in previous cases where this happened, the original job description was mentioned and the change was explained (examples include
156:
that "I have had some informal conversations about legal questions and WMF's new
General Counsel Geoff Brigham has this as a priority as he gets started": Was the original job description from August vetted and endorsed by the then General
113:
concerned about legal liability. We decided that the activities that we need fulfilled at the moment are best done via a consultancy. We might change this perspective as we move forward as we are still learning.Barry
Newstead --
235:
Still, you are raising an interesting point, but there might be more appropriate venues to seek and publish such a clarification (Signpost articles should not be modified significantly after publication without a pressing
200:
This really demands more explanation or another reference. Was it really "off-the-record"? Or was it "background" or "not for attribution"? There are differences among all these categories. It would certainly be news if
136:
331:
If you want to attract neophytes to edit, don't put them off with in-groupish jargon, that's all I am saying. (It even puts me off, and I have been around for years.) Sincerely,
325:
140:
248:
81:
72:
Um, didn't the note say "representing each revision by a vertical line and distinguishing the amount of text contributed by each author with different colors"? Regards,
122:
34:
169:
102:
272:
218:
232:. As a former journalist who has worked many years for a major news organization, she should be expected to be familiar with the precise meaning of these terms.
28:
340:
311:
190:
66:
148:
143:
recently). It was a bit surprising to see neither here, despite a lot of other information about this hire and the new position, and other were
295:
294:
which has absolutely no meaning in the
English language. The internal link provided does not even go to a definition: Rather it goes
206:
317:
It is fairly common in
Knowledge parlance, though I think it should well have been parenthesised or linked. The correct link is
107:
87:
17:
195:
129:
277:
153:
175:
51:
144:
209:) I hope to see this explained within this article as soon as possible. Sincerely, your friend,
207:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/with-off-the-record-lunch-obama-extends-a-hand/
205:
acceded to an off-the-record lunch for a
Knowledge person but not for one with President Obama (
336:
307:
268:
229:
214:
186:
62:
8:
118:
332:
318:
303:
283:
264:
210:
182:
57:
an individual editor, with the x-axis representing different versions over time.
58:
322:
244:
165:
98:
77:
45:
114:
225:
240:
161:
94:
73:
128:
302:, but I remain sincerely yours, a friend to all,
255:was "not for attribution." Many journalists
259:don't know the distinction, even after
14:
23:
145:left guessing about the reason too
24:
351:
18:Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost
27:
282:Certainly one would not expect
298:. I am a bit incensed at this
224:This is a verbatim quote from
108:Consultant for Indian programs
13:
1:
341:20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
326:10:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
312:22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
273:20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
249:04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
219:22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
191:21:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
123:10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
103:22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
82:19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
67:19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
93:of bukkake and little else.
7:
290:. I refer here to the word
10:
356:
170:20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
261:All the President's Men.
141:hiring Asaf and Moushira
137:your own hire last year
196:Off-the-record lunch
88:The "hardcore" essay
203:The New York Times
46:Discuss this story
347:
319:Knowledge:USERFY
278:Don't use jargon
176:Gender breakdown
149:frequently cover
52:Graph key needed
38:
31:
355:
354:
350:
349:
348:
346:
345:
344:
280:
198:
178:
110:
90:
54:
49:
48:
43:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
353:
329:
328:
288:News and notes
286:to be used in
279:
276:
252:
251:
237:
233:
197:
194:
177:
174:
173:
172:
158:
132:
109:
106:
89:
86:
85:
84:
53:
50:
47:
44:
40:News and notes
33:
32:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
352:
343:
342:
338:
334:
327:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
193:
192:
188:
184:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
120:
116:
105:
104:
100:
96:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
69:
68:
64:
60:
42:
41:
30:
19:
330:
299:
291:
287:
281:
260:
256:
253:
202:
199:
179:
111:
91:
55:
39:
333:GeorgeLouis
304:GeorgeLouis
300:in-groupism
265:GeorgeLouis
263:Sincerely,
226:Sue Gardner
211:GeorgeLouis
183:Jackiespeel
139:, and you
59:Smallbones
323:Jarry1250
292:userfied,
284:wp:jargon
239:Regards,
230:statement
160:Regards,
157:Counsel?
115:BazaNews
154:comment
37:Back to
236:need).
257:still
16:<
337:talk
321:. -
308:talk
296:here
269:talk
245:talk
241:HaeB
215:talk
187:talk
166:talk
162:HaeB
119:talk
99:talk
95:Gigs
78:talk
74:HaeB
63:talk
228:'s
339:)
310:)
271:)
247:)
217:)
189:)
168:)
121:)
101:)
80:)
65:)
35:←
335:(
306:(
267:(
243:(
213:(
185:(
164:(
117:(
97:(
76:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
