Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
Directory:Philippe Beaudette (view source)
Revision as of 19:33, 10 April 2013
, 19:33, 10 April 2013→Beaudette's past mistakes
::''The Wikimedia Foundation will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.''
::''The Wikimedia Foundation will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.''
==Photo gallery==
==Photo gallery==
==Wiring a project to past employer==
==Wiring a project to past employer==
In October 2010, Beaudette was caught in a "[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wired%20deal wired deal]", where a research project was awarded to his former employer, without a competitive request for proposal (RFP) being issued. This may have been a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's own policy on purchasing and disbursements. The news media wrote about [http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-wires-biased-study-of-donors this scandal].
In October 2010, Beaudette was caught in a "[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wired%20deal wired deal]", where a research project was awarded to his former employer, without a competitive request for proposal (RFP) being issued. This may have been a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's own [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Purchasing_%26_Disbursements_Procedures policy on purchasing and disbursements]. The news media wrote about [http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-wires-biased-study-of-donors this scandal].
Soon after, several Wikimedia volunteers [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061529.html asked] to know [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061534.html more] about the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061536.html award] of the research contract to '''Q2 Consulting, LLC'''.
Soon after, several Wikimedia volunteers [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061529.html asked] to know [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061534.html more] about the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061536.html award] of the research contract to '''Q2 Consulting, LLC'''.
<sgardner> (Which means it was not a very, very large amount of money.)<br></blockquote>
<sgardner> (Which means it was not a very, very large amount of money.)<br></blockquote>
All of the above, just to protect young Philippe Beaudette's mistake of awarding a contract to his former employer, without an iota of competitive bidding.
All of the above, just to protect young Philippe Beaudette's trying to award a contract to his former employer, without an iota of competitive bidding, without anybody noticing. Sorry, '''''we noticed'''''!
==Beaudette's past mistakes==
Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board&oldid=54466 said]:
::''We've interviewed 65 people, including Board and Advisory Board members, staff, editors, onlookers, '''critics''', supporters, and external subject-matter-experts...''
One noteworthy critic of the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to know which of the [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews 65 people] interviewed were identified as "critics" of the Wikimedia Foundation. So, when asked this question on the Discussion page, if someone could enlighten us as to which "critics" were interviewed...
Philippe Beaudette's two-step cowardly response:
::*[http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser2 17:40, 20 January 2010] Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) '''<font color="red">blocked</font color="red">''' Thekohser2 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked)
<br>
::*[http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board&lqt_method=talkpage_history#Background_report_2970 18:03, 20 January 2010] Critics? Which one(s)? Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) '''<font color="red">Deleted</font color="red">''' (content was: 'The letter says that "critics" were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project. I'd like to know which one(s) in particular. Considering ho...' (and the only contributor was 'Thekohser2'))
<br>
Has it really come to the point that simply asking which critic(s) were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation's ''Strategic Planning'' group is an offense that draws censorship and blocking as the only form of response?
Unable to suppress his weaselly, sycophantic, and undying support of the Foundation that sustains his livelihood, Beaudette has [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&type=block&user=Philippe+%28WMF%29&month=&year= blocked nearly 100 entities] from participating in the Foundation's strategic planning process, rather than letting them engage in dialog as mature adults. The result? Counter-point pages such as this one that you are reading now.
<br>
<br>
[[Keyword:=Bureaucrat]]
[[Keyword:=Bureaucrat]]
[[Keyword:=Brown noser]]
[[Keyword:=Brown noser]]
[[Keyword:=Cheater]]
[[Keyword:=Wired deal]]
[[Keyword:=Q2 Consulting]]
[[Keyword:=Sue Gardner]]
[[Person_First_Name:=Philippe]]
[[Person_First_Name:=Philippe]]
[[Person_Last_Name:=Beaudette]]
[[Person_Last_Name:=Beaudette]]
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>