Where do I get a gig like that? I'll even supply my own pencils and executive toilet paper!

The irony of Wikipedia not checking the background of someone's history is just...delicious.

Maybe they had a wikipedian edit her CV? Sounds like their hiring standards match their information standards.

Oh the kool-aid is mighty juicy.

Already they're excusing this one as "why would you do a background check for an office job?" Responsible for auditting $400k? Chief Operating Officer? pffft.. why indeed? It's not as if she was going to be a religious literature academic or something....

Look, I hate Wikipedia as much as the next person, but what's the point of this article? To single out an individual for further harassment and abuse? To say that convicted felons should no longer be able to get jobs? To point out that Wikipedia's lawyer doesn't know how to run a background check? This is not newsworthy at all. Would you run the same story if you were notified of a similar scenario at IBM, Microsoft, or Mozilla? It sounds like the individual concerned is a scumbag, no doubt, but there really is no purpose for this article.

Judge not, and be not judged. The woman passed checks and drank...so, she's bad, and can't be trusted with anything. Right? And what about the organization that hired her? They're bad, and can't be trusted either, right? Hey, what is the point of this expose? That Wikipedia has a dark side, and can't be trusted? I think the point, really, is that Wikipedia pisses people off -- mostly, it pisses people off who don't like it that it's an open, free, and 99% reliable information source. Right?

Great scoop you dug up there. I particularly loved the quote from the Wikimedia attorney, in denial that they knew about her arrest records, "We have, in our records, no evidence of any such thing."

Guess what? Now they do. I searched up a couple of arrest records online at the Pinellas County Sherrifs Office (1 DUI and 1 DUI+Hit & Run arrests) and added them to the Wikinews story:

http://tinyurl.com/39flaj

This will be a test of Wikimedia. The links lead to incontrovertible facts. Will they stand, or will the links be removed under some lame pretext like NPOV?

>Judge not, and be not judged. The woman passed checks and drank...so, she's bad, and can't be trusted with anything. Right?

I wouldn't say "anything." Maybe we could just keep it to "hundreds of thousands of anonymously-donated dollars."

>And what about the organization that hired her? They're bad, and can't be trusted either, right?

Right! By Jove, I think you've got it!

>Hey, what is the point of this expose? That Wikipedia has a dark side, and can't be trusted?

Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

>I think the point, really, is that Wikipedia pisses people off -- mostly, it pisses people off who don't like it that it's an open, free, and 99% reliable information source. Right?

Wrong - if Wikipedia were any of those things, it wouldn't piss people off so much. It comes reasonably close to being "free," at least, but hey, you get what you pay for.

Ani,

If you think it is open, try posting this article there and see how long the record of your thought-crime persists:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/

Best,

Patrick M. Byrne

>If she had embezzled funds from Wikipedia, then that /would/ be a story ...

If she went from book-keeper to COO, who would know? They've obviously nobody else looking at the books...

Watch this space for the audit results...

Whats a check book?

I would've thought that any gunshot to the chest would count as attempted murder. "Honestly, your Honour, I made sure to miss his vital organs, I just wanted to teach him a lesson". Maybe it was a BB gun.

This is the funniest Wikipedia story I've seen yet - albeit the rest were mainly trying to edit [[Molehill]] into #REDIRECT [[Mountain]]. I wonder how I'd feel about it if I was still editing there.

"Whats a check book?"

It's something accountants use to keep a record of all of the cheques that they've written. The name comes from using it to "check" the amount you've spent against the amount you've got left.

Why on earth should someone who has convictions for "passing bad checks, theft, petty larceny" be prevented from having a job where they're in charge of a big wad of finance?

Oh, hang on...

I don't want to comment on rehabilitation or anything so complex. However the picture of the Wiki-wallies trying to do accounts is wonderful. Can you see them all editing the books and trying to remove access to the IRS because they don't like their edits?

Not all of us live in the USA.

I know it's a foreign concept, but some of us don't use the IRA registered charity list.

I know the writers get paid for words, so it's hard to blame Cade. That's what editors are for.

It's amateur-hour 24 fucking 7 at Wiki it seems. The place sounds like one of the circles of hell. Disfunctional? Bad management, bad concept, bad culture...

@Chris C:

I think the "Point" is that unlike "IBM, Microsoft and Mozilla", Wikipedia is financed from public donations, and regularly indulges in anything ranging from mild pan-handling to "we won't be here anymore if you don't pay" threats.

To be honest, I'd say the story holds a lot of interest to any poor saps who have actually handed over their hard-earned cash - wouldn't *you* like to know if your contributions to knowledge actually ended up (legally or, possibly otherwise) in the pockets of a murderer?

I think the point is more that a part of her role was

"her fiscal duties included ensuring effective audit trails, approving expenditures, providing proper fiscal record-keeping and reporting, and submitting monthly financial statements to the board of directors."

And

"Her record also included convictions for passing bad checks, theft, petty larceny,"

Now the drunkness and death by dangerous driving stuff doesn't matter much in terms of the job (well alcholism does effect your work but is a completly seperate matter.) But passing bad checks and theft when you're in charge of cash? That could be a problem.

But anyway that's life sometimes.

...according to Rich means getting caught after killing someone because of drunk driving. Interesting thought just before the holiday season.

Cheers (and remove those no good license plates).

'"It's very hard for us to give an exact ETA on it, but we expect it in a few weeks."'

How do you give an 'Exact ETA' anyway?

An estimate is, by definition, not precise.

/Pedant

Why on earth does the personal life of a Wikipedia official deserve this kind of scrutiny?

...should be called a 'scumbag' or not, she clearly isn't very well, and yes, they should have done a proper check before hiring her.

More to the point, though, thank you for writing a snark-free article about Wikipedia.

Nice to see that the airline checking system is bang on target - they managed to spot her in time to stop her leaving the airport the *second* time. A pity that it missed the first, which was the only offending one...

"In the summer of 2005, Doran went to prison for a DUI hit and run with a fatality, and when she was released in January of 2006, she was put on probation."

For a start WTF? you get 6 months for a fatal hit and run!?!?!?

Second anyone who does hit and run should not be trusted with a spoon let alone a cheque book.

Alternatively, "Judge, and hold yourself up to the same rules".

Killing someone because you're wasted is not a victimless crime. Deliberately causing losses to people or companies with rubber cheques and direct theft is not a victimless crime. Shooting your partner is not a victimless crime.

If I'd done any of these, I would reasonably expect my future job prospects to be affected. I would certainly expect companies to ask about my criminal record, in case this demonstrated a pattern of criminal behaviour which made me unfit for the job. I would DEFINITELY expect it in a job where I was responsible for managing $400,000 of finances!

And to misquote dearest Oscar, "To commit one crime might be an accident. To commit four DUIs, one shooting, multiple thefts and a parole violation looks like carelessness - or criminality."

Heart surgery.

>>> Look, I hate Wikipedia as much as the next person, but what's the point of this article? To single out an individual for further harassment and abuse? To say that convicted felons should no longer be able to get jobs? To point out that Wikipedia's lawyer doesn't know how to run a background check? This is not newsworthy at all.

It is exactly the last bit that IS newsworthy and, given the last two pieces El Reg ran, sheds further light on Wikipedia's inner proceedings.

I can't help being quite sarcastic here: Maybe they did run a background check on her and came to the conclusion that with that CV she has the exact requirements for the job.

Lawful wounding in the chest is when the cops fire a warning shot.....