01.03.09
Ron Hovsepian’s Approval Rating is Only 64%
More than 1 in 3 disapprove Novell’s CEO
A new survey has just been published.
-Glassdoor.com®, a career and workplace community bringing greater transparency to company cultures and compensation, today released its first annual Employees’ Choice Awards¹, listing the top 50 “Best Places to Work” based on surveys² collected from employees at more than 11,000 companies operating in the United States. General Mills had the highest rating from its employees, followed closely by Bain & Company, Netflix, Adobe, and Northwestern Mutual, which round out the top five companies on Glassdoor’s inaugural list.
Novell is not ranked particularly well and its CEO did not receive an impressive approval rating, perhaps due to the poor decisions that he makes with Microsoft. For those in Novell who are not popular, there is always the possibility of corrupting Wikipedia. From the news:
On top of it all, some critics are still jaded over incidents that surfaced earlier this year in relation to Wikipedia and Jimmy wales. Former Novell scientist and Wikipedia donor Jeff Merkey issued a statement earlier this year essentially accusing Wales of extortion—he claims Wales offered him “special protection” for his Wikipedia entry “in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.”
Novell is also rewriting history for Microsoft's gain. █
“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”
–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO
Ian said,
January 3, 2009 at 9:19 pm
For those in Novell who are not popular, there is always the possibility of corrupting Wikipedia
Are you suggesting that Novell should look for special protection on Wikipedia? You don’t think that’s bad? Moreover, are you suggesting that Wikipedia entries actually translate into anything tangible in the real world?
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 3, 2009 at 9:37 pm
What if everyone did the same thing to Wikipedia?
Ian said,
January 3, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Did what?
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 3, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Control Wikipedia using cash.
Jose_X said,
January 4, 2009 at 12:20 am
>> Moreover, are you suggesting that Wikipedia entries actually translate into anything tangible in the real world?
I’ve found very good summaries of material on wikipedia when googling. Sometimes I just wikipedia instead of google.
Not everything on it is hot of course, but wikipedia is very useful. Anyone thinking otherwise is free never to use it.
If information discovery (an additional source that sometimes has the information just right) doesn’t translate to anything in the real world where you live, I’ll keep that in mind when traveling. [so where do you live, again?]
Jose_X said,
January 4, 2009 at 12:21 am
I think I will try later on (maybe next week) to change the ACPI article and post why I’m changing it. I’ll see what kind of results I get.
Ian said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:11 am
Jose_X,
I too use wikipedia before using a search engine at times. It was late last night and I didn’t exactly get my point across well. What I really meant was that people shouldn’t solely base an opinion of any subject on a wikipedia article. Sorry for the confusion.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:29 am
The same can be said about newspapers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
twitter said,
January 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I was unaware of the Jeff Merkey Novell connection at the time but suspected the story was a fabrication and part of a wave of FUD aimed at Wikipedia. The Novell connection solidifies my opinion of the matter. Other attacks include entrapment, public flaming and similar accusations by Fox News personality Rachel Marsden. These stories attempt to turn Wikipedia editorial policy and troll busting into something negative. People who hate freedom hate Wikipedia and truth in general. Personal smears are all they have to combat both.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Wikipedia is only ‘correct’ when it says Nice Things©. See this for details.
David Gerard said,
January 4, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Jeff Merkey’s claims concerning Wikipedia should be taken with remarkable quantities of salt.
No-one gets to buy an article being any particular way. There are thousands of noisy and largely incorruptible editors watching closely.
That said, any given article could be FUDster-spun rubbish at any given moment. Much like the analyst-led technical press. So check those references on anything that surprises you.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Wikipedia got lots of flak for that Merkey episode. Many people are unhappy with the truth (about them) in Wikipedia, so they opportunistically use this incident to slam the messenger.
David Gerard said,
January 4, 2009 at 5:22 pm
There’s plenty of very real problems and flaws in Wikipedia, but Merkey is just delusional. I mean, what on earth.