Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/News and notes


 * There have often been questions about board relationships with Google. For example Jimmy Wales strong support, that ran to serving on a seven member Google advisory committee, over the European privacy laws.1
 * We can disagree, as a community, over these laws, but it is not good for a board member to become a spokesman for a third party, even, or perhaps especially when that third party has donated millions to the WMF.2
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Yes, this kind of thing gives politicians board members a bad name. Happy New Year!  Paine   17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What ilk, these. Not as though they realize it yet, but the current trustees will be best known for defaming the WMF. I can't wait for more grandiose ridiculosity in the years to come. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The blame seems rather more to attach to Schmidt than to underlings who were doing what they presumed was a legal act. Trying to insert this as an argument against a new trustee appears to be one more example of "what dirt can we find" "celebrity gossip-mongering" than anything else.  The proper issue should be "if faced with any conflict between proper goals of the WMF and Google, how would he act."   For what it is worth, I suggest that the "Caesar's wife" standard is more often suggested than followed. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I would expect a "Senior Director of Human Resources and Staffing" to have a better understanding of the legal issues surrounding employment than Eric Schmidt, whose background is in software development. the wub "?!"  14:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrariwise - most "at will" employees who disobey a direct order from their boss will not say "I know more than you do on this" and expect to keep their own job. Might I ask if you have ever disputed a direct order from you boss when he had the power to fire you "at will"?  Collect (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the (extremely unlikely IMO) event that my manager asked me to do something illegal, you can bet I would dispute it, and take advantage of our whistleblower policy. the wub "?!"  11:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So he's just a spineless lackey? And why is that any qualification for a board post? And yes, I did dispute orders from my direct boss, that's something usual, if you know better. And if he insist on illegal stuff, he should sign it himself. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dispute"? Or specifically say "No way in hell will I do this"?  Bear in mind he was an "at will" employee, not protected as such. Collect (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If he was not protected, he probably got more than enough money to compensate for that. He should have gone to the work council and made this illegal stuff internal public, may be, if he knew enough, even go the court. And I wonder what labour court would have kept such a layoff legal, if he had contested it there with the support of his union.
 * Regarding dispute vs. no way: Did he know it was illegal and was complicit anyway? So he has no moral. Or was he not aware of the illegality? Than he was not fit for the job, and definitely not made from the wood needed to be a board member of a humanitarian, ethical, educational, non-profit organisation. He may fit into something like Google, a ruthless privacy raping data hydra, but not to Wikimedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He may well not have known of any illegality - your first assumption thus fails.  That you think Google is evil incarnate has no bearing on this at all.  Going to "the work council" does not show an indication of knowledge of American law about "at will" employees, who generally have no such "work council" to go to - in fact executives are not union members as a general rule.  Collect (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If he was someone working on minimum wage and had to fear for his next warm meal if he disobeyed, I would have some pity with him. But he was probably someone earning enough money not to have to care for the next year, so no pity here. And as two side notes: the first company I worked for, a energy company, was 98% unionised, with all directors members, and yes, I think a hire and fire mentality is antisocial. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an article on this defense, although it is not kind: superior orders. The key for good internal control is a board which sets a tone at the top of ethical integrity. And when I say ethics, I mean it: board members should ideally not skirt on the the grey line, much less cross over into illegal acts. He may not have known it was illegal? Hard to believe, but speaks to competence. When you're that successful, you can afford to make ethical choices. II  | (t - c) 17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, the Wikimedia trustees trusted GOOGLE search results about a former GOOGLE employee that participated in GOOGLE illegal operations that GOOGLE obviously doesn't want to show?? Aren't our trustees experts in technology?--MisterSanderson (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence for Arnnon Geshuri
A vote of no confidence has been raised centrally at m:Vote of confidence:Arnnon Geshuri. Please vote or add comments there.

If someone has a good idea for where best to notify the English Wikipedia community these days, perhaps Jimmy's talk page remains the most politically active, I'd welcome the link being shared on. --Fæ (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking your request seriously, I added the link to the community vote at Mr. Geshuri's article but was quickly reverted which seemed, well, a bit dark. I have asked for comments at the Arnnon Geshuri article Talk page. Jus  da  fax   21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are people saying that, maybe, some members of the Board of Trustees were stupid enough for not searching Google about Arnnon Geshuri before voting for him. To avoid such a setback, let us search Wikimedia about the launcher of the present initiative. Among the results, we get:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ3
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ4
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(2015)
 * Who is telling us that Trustee Arnnon Geshuri, unanimously elected by the three community selected Trustees (and the seven others) should have been more vocal about potential clouds ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A cat can look at a king. I'm not running to be a WMF trustee, so not expected to meet the same high ethical standards or have any remarkably rare talents. You are missing out quite a bit in your summary, my achievements in my time as a trustee and Chair of WMUK and Chair of the Chapters Association when we improved and evolved those organizations would be worth a mention surely, and maybe you could put effort into reading between the lines? Thanks for your interest. --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)