Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 14 December 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Is she *really* notable?

Don't shoot the messenger here, anyone who has edited with me knows that I am hardly censorious, but even I have a hard time coming up with a reason for Doran being notable. This ain't Wikinews, if you know what I mean - they're writing an article, and I have no problem with that. Usually, though, when someone becomes notable enough to be worthy of a Misplaced Pages article, there has to be some cause-and-effect. So far, we have a non-profit organization executive whose past caught up with her; nothing particularly notable there. Is there evidence she defrauded the Foundation? Was someone harmed materially? Has this had an effect on fundraising by the WMF? Right now, it is too early to tell any of these things. As of this writing, Carolyn Doran is not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Risker (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be absolutely correct. She certainly wasn't notable yesterday, and I'd submit that we should hold on to the article (at a minimum, to have some control by established users over information posted about this to Misplaced Pages) until the issue develops further. If it doesn't, or if it turns out that there is nothing at all behind it, then the article should be deleted. I'll point out, though, that Jimbo and Mike Godwin have both responded to mailing lists about this issue without refuting the basic facts. Avruch 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If this wasn't such a hot topic currently, I'd submit the AfD for it myself. I don't see how her being mentioned in a Register article qualifies as notability, and neither does being the COO. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article had 2 references showing non-trivial coverage. Notability asserted per WP:BIO. There was no obvious BLP violation. As such it wasn't speediable and I marked it as patrolled figuring someone would AfD it if they wanted it deleted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm trying to slight you in the least; I'm not saying this article is an A7, I'm just saying that I'm not sure being COO of WMF is notable enough. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheque fraud, shooting a boyfriend, and DUI are commonplace and hardly notable, and that is what the "references" are. The Register has been widely disparaged as an unreliable source in relation to several recent articles. I am having a hard time seeing that she is notable in any context. An official response from the Foundation is important here (it will be interesting to figure out how to reference it!), but I have a feeling that, at the end of the day, this article will have a title change similar to what happened with Essjay controversy - that is, the actual issue relates to hiring practices and/or fiscal management of the WMF rather than Carolyn Doran as an individual. In the interests of BLP, perhaps consideration should be given to this now. Risker (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there isn't sufficient reason to believe that the facts of the article are wrong to justify a hasty change based on BLP. I think we should maintain this page at least for a few days before deciding it should be burnt. It is likely that the notability issue will become clearer in relatively short order, so there is no real pressing need to make a decision about this article right away. Avruch 05:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The most likely outcome is a redirect to the foundation article with a brief well-sourced paragraph. That would save us from the drama of an AfD and the unavoidable DRV that will follow. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that if we do that tonight, someone will have a new article in its place by morning. Avruch 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we'll watchlist it and make sure that any speculation is promptly removed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Likely the best that can productively be attempted is to keep the article as short as possible. For the time being, that is. AFD later, when the dust settles. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I said "If this wasn't such a hot topic currently, I'd submit the AfD for it myself". :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite restoring this once for a possible AFD, people feel this is still a major BLP issue that requires immediate deletion. I suggest a DRV should be done ASAP. User:Zscout370 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect would of course save of from the drama that will surely follow from a DRV. Seems resolved now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

...though I'm not entirely sure that a giant "Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation was convicted felon" statement is really BLP-proof... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then tell Wikinews that. User:Zscout370 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews isn't subject to our policies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, what do you suggest? Having a red page will just invite people to create stuff. Unless just a redirect to here will work. User:Zscout370 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation and keep this talk page as evidence of how that decision was made. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just posted a question over there, asking if it could be renamed without it seeming like censorship, but EG's suggestion of a redirect works for me as well. Definitely semi-protect the redirect, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they have BLP over there? Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, though their requirements for sourcing are simultaneously more and less stringent than our own. I don't actually see the title being a problem for them, just that it's the only content for us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a redirect to the talk page might not be such a bad idea; redirecting it to the WMF page just means one more article to require protection of some sort and high level monitoring. Ultimately I agree that it will need to go to the Foundation article, but give it 24 hours or so beforehand just to keep the drama under control. Risker (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected to Wikimedia Foundation. Should have done that when I patrolled it. Would have saved us a lot of trouble. Lesson learned. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And protected again. User:Zscout370 07:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put a message on Talk:Wikimedia Foundation advising that discussion on this issue is taking place that this page, and requesting that it be continued here rather than at the WMF talk page. That will keep things more centralized when a decision needs to be made about deletion/blanking. Risker (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a note to that message. People hearing about this in the mainstream press will open wikipedia, search her name, end up on that page. And then what? Make a snap decision that the wikipedia is self-protecting and unreliable because the only mention of her there implies she is still CEO (at the time of this writing). Not everybody will go to the talk page.

An edit needs to be made to the foundation page ASAP, trying to push the discussion to this page will not serve that purpose. The discussion and edit should be made on the foundation main/talk pages since that is where the redirect goes.

Oh, and once the wikicritics get hold of this, she will be noteworthy enough for a article, if not about her as an individual, then about the affair as a whole. So why not bite the bullet and do it now? because that bullet will end up in the wikifoot otherwise.

EasyTarget (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The English Misplaced Pages is not here to answer the critics, or help people looking for the latest summary of breaking news. Information about people who are involved in the project are not automatically included within the "pages" of the English Misplaced Pages.

The Wikimedia Foundation is the appropriate contact point for anyone who is investigating this, and wikinews is the appropriate place for Wikimedians to do investigative journalism.

Until the facts of the matter have been independently verified by a number of news outlets, it is inappropriate to include it anywhere in an encyclopedia. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree a fully sourced and cited article cannot be put up until the dust settles, but the current situation paints Misplaced Pages in a very poor light, there should be something more than a redirect to a foundation article that doesn't even mention she has left, and a talk page that's full of wiki-bureaucrat acronyms and 'principles', but short of realism, and looks mostly like a discussion of how to spin this.

As for this being best covered on wikinews.. It's a good idea, but at this moment a search for her on Wikinews produces no results, and a suggestion you search for her on Misplaced Pages! It even gives a handy link.. EasyTarget (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

why not just get it over with?

This is going to be a big mess. The Wikinews article and talk page have a lot of sources all over on Doran and her other Bothwell name. People will go nuts if this isn't done by the book. An AfD is probably the only way to do this cleanly, and if it ends up being a semi-protected article because of demonstrated notability... as shitty as it is, we can't sacrifice the encyclopedia's integrity over one person. Lawrence Cohen 07:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional sources are at here and here unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect to Wikinews is a sensible measure until this story is properly investigated. Let them break the news, handle updates as it comes to hand. When the facts have been collated, a biography can be written if it meets our notability requirements that can be found at WP:BIO. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just tossing out options. AfD would probably keep it, based on the sourcing, but who knows. Lawrence Cohen 07:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That AfD will be just another WP:BIO vs. WP:BLP drama magnet. As long as we keep the talk page as evidence so we don't sweep anything under the carpet a redirect would work. This article is unlikely to grow much bigger anyway without definately violating BLP. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that an Afd right now, based on the sources provided so far, would end up as keep - the sources are hot of the press, making them spectacularly unreliable. Running an Afd over this would be rather silly, considering that new material would be arriving hot of the press during the period of the Afd, resulting in unnecessary confusion. It would also mean that anyone who came to wikipedia after searching on this term would be greeted with an AFD notice. As an encyclopedia, we do not need to have this biography right now. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, isn't this supposed to be a helpful point of reference? Put up a quick paragraph or two, cite whatever sources there are, protect it, open it up in a day or two. Then there should be enough calm to deal with an AfD. Seriously, I heard about her this through the grapevine, came here to see what WP had to say about itself, and find a self-referential link on the Wikimedia Foundation page. Not helpful at all and... a little un-encyclopedia (on top of blatantly opaque). Dookama (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(This responds to Avb's comment below as well) It isn't that simple. There was a nasty wheel war on the way here. It is not hard to conclude afterwards that this could have been handled differently from the beginning but really this was the only way to calm things down and I regret I didn't just redirect when I saw this to begin with rather than wait and see as some have suggested should be the approach here. Wait and see is what caused 3 deletions in something like 1 hour. I wasn't going to wait and see any longer after that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If she had worked for Big Brothers/Big Sisters or the United Way instead of the WMF, would anyone think she was notable enough for an article? Probably not. - Crockspot (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she is. But people would probably keep it anyway. Lawrence Cohen 07:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, Crockspot; heck, we're having a hard enough time deciding if the chair of the Foundation's Advisory Committee is notable, let alone a short term COO. Having said that, there is a definite advantage in keeping all of the information and discussion of this centralized as much as possible until we find out just how big a deal this is going to be. That should be the one lesson we learned from the Essjay situation. Risker (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikinews is the appropriate location at this time to cover it, and this talk page doesn't pose a problem for me. - Crockspot (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And we are still having issues with Angela's article, so it is almost gotten to a point that someone involved with Misplaced Pages at all will get some kind of article. User:Zscout370 07:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Assuming that the article really had to be speedied before recreating/directing, can someone please restore its history at least temporarily? Some arguments: (1) I think we need the transparency for non-sysops. (2) From a PR viewpoint a deletion at this point in time does not look too good I'm afraid. All the more so if this develops into an essjay-type controversy. And regardless of the actual content of the history: parties that are interested enough to really dig in will be able to find it anyway. Thank you. Avb 10:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS In case it does not transpire from the above: I'm shocked. Mostly by the foundation situation itself, but also by this deletion which seems to carry the seal of approval of those who contributed here without contesting it. Avb 11:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The content that was in this article does not need to be restored - the Wikinews article at n:Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation was convicted felon does a much better job of covering this (there is no "extra" information in our deleted article). I am also shocked, and I hope that the Foundation takes the time to find out how much was known, within their ranks, at each milestone in the series of events; I also hope that Wikinews keeps covering this. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis of what I wrote: I propose that the history be returned. For now I agree with the redirect. I think the arguments I gave are quite compelling and guess you may have missed them. Avb 12:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried that already; it was deleted again and I was told via email that my move wasn't wise and violated an arbcom decision. User:Zscout370 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Carolyn-WMF

As EVula says in the history: 'I've got a *really* bad feeling about this page...'

It's currently the 'I'm feeling lucky' google link for 'Carolyn Doran'. EasyTarget (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Im feeling lucky takes me to User:Carolyn-WMF. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics