Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Thanks Sue. I think there are ways WiRs could add valuable content directly such as doing mass uploads of archived documents to Commons, or add article content as happened here. However I don't think it's a good idea for WMF to involve itself so much with content generation, and the manner in which this project was started and managed had problems as you described. I think that WiRs need a higher level of training and supervision than happened here, especially if the WiR is not already an established Wikimedia contributor and familiar with the relevant policies for their work. Could WMF also discuss the copyright issues involved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timothysandole#Copyright_release_for_excerpts_from_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Recent_removal_of_apparent_copyright_violation:_context https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia%E2%80%93United_States_relationsdiff=601379035oldid=524953814 Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit. The notion that it is money from the public is not a license for everyone to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit condemnations. Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial. When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to ignore all rules when that gets the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in the movement things have gone wrong does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be you are sending a large delegation, why is that. It is not legitimate to say you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that. Thanks, GerardM Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com: Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. Might I make a point here. It is not their money, but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive. The movement, as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/ The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any. As a member of the movement, Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule from the grave? being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in the movement when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks. Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair that they answer them. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Thankyou from me as well, it's refreshing to see such a candid summary of the failings that occurred in this case, and to see the Foundation taking responsibility for those. I hope that the opportunity can be taken for all of us to learn from this so that it does not happen with future projects. Cheers, Craig On 1 April 2014 15:27, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 April 2014 16:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Sue Gardner wrote: For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link from Erik above. Suffice to say here that we implemented the Belfer Wikipedian-in-Residence project with editing as a core activity of the WIR role, despite internal and external voices strongly advising us not to. That was a mistake, and we shouldn't have done it. Thank you for taking the time to put the postmortem together. I've been very impressed with and appreciate the candor and thoughtfulness that have gone into the responses to this discussion. Growing pains are still pains, of course, but I'm hopefully optimistic that the Wikimedia Foundation is learning from its experiences, good and bad, as it matures. MZMcBride Let me second that sentiment. Thank you Sue, Erik et al. at the WMF. While I'm sure there will be ongoing discussions about this topic on the mailing lists and on-wiki, I too am heartened by the genuine concern, non-defensiveness (in the face of criticism - including mine), and willingness to investigate this issue. Sincerely, -Liam / Wittylama wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Hi Sue, Thank you for your report at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment. Could you please clarify if In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process should be read by the FDC that Chapters and Thorgs should not plan to use their funds for paid editing projects, and that we will not support partnerships with other organizations where this is an expected outcome? As well as the list of people that you thanked, I would like to add my thanks for Tomasz who took the time to research his original blog post, and to Russavia for his analysis, both invested significant unpaid volunteer time to do this research on behalf of the community. Without their work I would not have thought to ask my basic questions about the project on this list, nor would we have so much detailed evidence to support your report. I find it disappointing that when difficult governance questions like this are raised in public, that some leading members of our community default to treating the concerned whistle-blower as a troll, or press for the question and discussion to stay secret from the main body of our community by moving it to closed channels when there are no privacy or personal issues to justify that secrecy or confidentiality. This behaviour drives whistle-blowers underground or leaves them tediously sniping on certain soap-box forums and wiki-discussion pages using anonymous accounts. I may help for us to consider how valuable good faith whistle-blowing can be, and how we could avoid deriding or dismissing the questioner as troll or a 'drama queen' and damaging their standing within our community in the process. Thanks, Fae (troll, drama queen, speaking from the grave, etc.) -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 04/01/2014 07:43 AM, Fæ wrote: I find it disappointing that when difficult governance questions like this are raised in public, that some leading members of our community default to treating the concerned whistle-blower as a troll I think, Fæ, that you will find that it's not the subject matter that is the issue so much as the manner. It is perfectly possible to express concern - even outrage - without being provocative and offensive. That analysis and examination of that bad move would have been done just and quickly and effectively by polite inquiry than it would have with shrill cries. We're an extraordinarily transparent movement; we don't need whistleblowers -- we need vigilant participants. Compare MzMcBride's approach to... that of some others on this thread, and you will see the difference between raising an issue and being needlessly provocative. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 1 April 2014 14:23, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: ... That analysis and examination of that bad move would have been done just and quickly and effectively by polite inquiry than it would have with shrill cries. We're an extraordinarily transparent movement; we don't need whistleblowers -- we need vigilant participants. Compare MzMcBride's approach to... that of some others on this thread, and you will see the difference between raising an issue and being needlessly provocative. ... I am sure than the viewpoint is different for employees within the WMF like yourself, compared to unpaid volunteers outside, like me. This may be part of the reason we see this governance failure in a different light. The evidence of this case, as summarized in Sue's own published words, shows that there were multiple attempts to raise polite inquiry. These were consistently overlooked or ignored over an extremely long period. Yes, the movement certainly does need whilstle-blowers like Tomasz in order for serious failures to be opportunities to take action and learn from. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 04/01/2014 09:34 AM, Fæ wrote: I am sure than the viewpoint is different for employees within the WMF like yourself, compared to unpaid volunteers outside, like me. This may be part of the reason we see this governance failure in a different light. That's actually amusingly wrong, though I can see why you'd think that. I've been an unpaid volunteer outside for very many years before I've been within; and my job at the foundation is only technical and community-facing. I have *zero* to do with Governance, no stake in that project, and I don't even actually interact with any of the involved departments. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my comments on this thread would have been exactly the same 18 months ago. The evidence of this case, as summarized in Sue's own published words, shows that there were multiple attempts to raise polite inquiry. These were consistently overlooked or ignored over an extremely long period. Indeed. That was mostly a failure of oversight -- possibly combined with unjustified optimism. You know what they say: hindsight is 20/20. I still see no reason to believe that - given the same timing - a deliberate question would not have been just as effective as the less optimal way this matter was raised. It is *much* easier to get the stakeholders to collaborate when they don't have to go on the defensive. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: We will update the wiki page at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment with more information and details. I encourage others to participate in this as a collaborative process. Thanks Erik. For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link from Erik above. Suffice to say here that we implemented the Belfer Wikipedian-in-Residence project with editing as a core activity of the WIR role, despite internal and external voices strongly advising us not to. That was a mistake, and we shouldn't have done it. I want to apologize for it, particularly to Asaf Bartov, Siko Bouterse, LiAnna Davis, Frank Schulenburg, Pete Forsyth, Lori Phillips and Liam Wyatt, who tried to guide the project in the right direction and whose voices didn't get heard. We did advise the Belfer Center and the Wikipedian-in-Residence about conflict-of-interest policies on enWP, and so far we haven't seen any evidence to suggest major problems with Timothy's edits. That said, we didn't structure the program in a way that would've appropriately mitigated the risk of problematic edits, and we wish we had. We also wish we'd been better able to support our partner organizations in understanding and navigating community policies and best practices. Thanks, Sue Hi Sue et al, tl;dr: The underlying why did this happen still goes unanswered. Can we do better? It's great to see that the WMF put this post-mortem together, and identified the mistakes that were made in this project (or possibly that this entire project was a mistake), and especially what decisions were made. While reading the report, it strikes me somewhat as a concession to some aspects of this mailinglist (repent! publicly! now grovel! louder! like you mean it! again, but now on one leg!) which may be understandable, but not all that necessary, and possibly counter-productive in that it may create an atmosphere that mistakes are OK when you repent deeply afterwards - while in reality mistakes are to be expected, and investigating them an effective means for improvement of the movement. This is also where my concerns in the report are. I'll immediately concede that I don't have much experience in what is customary in these kinds of reports. The important part of lessons learned to me shouldn't stop at what went wrong, but why. The current Lessons learned section only identifies the mistakes made, but doesn't go in to the reasons these mistakes were made. It's possible that lessons learned is customary corporate-speak -which I am not fluent in- for mistakes made. This leaves out the underlying causes, which are somewhat addressed in the decisions made, but never made explicit, so I'm asking these questions here. (transparency never hurts the movement - though it can definitely sting the people involved at times, but let's rip off the band-aid completely) 1. At the point when it became clear that this project was not a simple pass-through grant but required programmatic work, the Executive Director should have transferred responsibility for it to a programmatic area. In general, it's a good practice to separate fundraising and programmatic work, because programmatic staff have programmatic expertise that fundraising staff lack. (For example in this instance, programmatic oversight would have likely resulted in regular public reporting.) Having programmatic work overseen by the fundraising department was a mistake. So how did it end up at the fundraising department, and why didn't it get transferred? Did the fundraising department regard it as their programme, or did they maybe fear deteriorating relations with the donor of they didn't handle the programme themselves? Were boundries between fundraising and programmatic activities too vague, or were they deliberately overstepped in the believe it would work out? Did the fundraising staff at any point feel they were doing something outside their expertese? If so, what were the causes they didn't solicit help? If not, do there need to be clearer guidelines what is and isn't within their remit? 2. [T]he WMF acceded to that request, replacing the job description with a new version provided by the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center. The WMF didn't give that new version enough scrutiny before agreeing to it, and didn't inform the people who'd been advising us. This was a mistake. So why did this happen? Were the people who accepted the replacement thinking people were being difficult and overstepping their boundaries? Was this discussed internally? If so, what was the outcome, and why? Did fundraising identify the concerns about the job description as an important problem, or did it get more or less dismissed as meddling
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
As far as I am concerned, what was wrong with this situation wasn't that the Wikimedia Foundation paid a trained academic to edit Wikipedia. I venture that most donors and members of the general public wouldn't have a problem with that at all. What was wrong? 1. The obvious appearance of impropriety given that the Stanton Foundation is probably the Foundation's single biggest donor, and the administrator of the Stanton Foundation's funds is married to the director of the Belfer Center (who according to the center's website has now taken on the former Wikipedian in Residence as a staff assistant). Whether this was the case or not, it *looks* like the WMF was simply used so that Mrs Harris could get Mr Harris another member of staff who would not show up on the Center's payroll. 2. The fact that the WMF appears to have departed from usual procedures (such as locating this Wikipedian in Residence in Fundraising, allowing the Belfer Center to write the job description, etc.) to please its biggest donor. 3. The fact that in his reports to the WMF the Wikipedian in Residence on more than one occasion billed three hours of research and *six hours* of drafting in MS Word for a 150-word insertion in a Wikipedia article that another Wikipedian could have drafted in a fraction of an hour, and that this apparently was not questioned. 4. The fact that the edits the Wikipedian in Residence made included conflict-of-interest and copyright violations, according to multiple Wikipedians. These, to me, are the real problems. I have no problem *at all* with the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation paid an academically qualified expert to make edits to Wikipedia. In fact, I find it disheartening that the Foundation now feels it has to state that nothing like this will ever happen again. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let's for a moment look at the practicality of the idea that a Wikipedian in Residence should not personally edit Wikipedia. If Graham Allison had physically made the edits that Tim Sandole made, would this have made any material difference whatsoever to the situation? Clearly, it would not. Saying that a Wikipedian in Residence will not physically click Edit, but will merely instruct experts at his institution in how to make and source edits (and perhaps even draft them for them in MS Word ...) is a very thin smokescreen. The material question is not whether a Wikipedian in Residence will physically edit. The question is whether the edits resulting from any WiR placement will be in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including neutral point of view, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism, verifiability, and so on, and whether they will improve project content - making it more accurate, more readable, more up to date. What is required here? It's that whichever person ultimately performs the edits receive proper training in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, editing methods, etc., so that their subject matter expertise can be leveraged to optimum effect. Standardised training courses to impart that Wikipedia-specific knowledge to subject matter experts are an area the Foundation could profitably invest in. Saying that Wikipedians in Residence won't edit doesn't address that. It merely absolves the Foundation from responsibility - a purely cosmetic exercise if the quantity and quality of the resulting edits is the same as it was in this case. What counts for the reading and donating public is the quality of the edits that result from a WiR placement, not who makes those edits. The Foundation should not shirk, but embrace its responsibility to use donated funds to optimum effect. Andreas On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 04/01/2014 09:34 AM, Fæ wrote: I am sure than the viewpoint is different for employees within the WMF like yourself, compared to unpaid volunteers outside, like me. This may be part of the reason we see this governance failure in a different light. That's actually amusingly wrong, though I can see why you'd think that. I've been an unpaid volunteer outside for very many years before I've been within; and my job at the foundation is only technical and community-facing. I have *zero* to do with Governance, no stake in that project, and I don't even actually interact with any of the involved departments. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my comments on this thread would have been exactly the same 18 months ago. The evidence of this case, as summarized in Sue's own published words, shows that there were multiple attempts to raise polite inquiry. These were consistently overlooked or ignored over an extremely long period. Indeed. That was mostly a failure of oversight -- possibly combined with unjustified optimism. You know what they say: hindsight is 20/20. I still see no reason to believe that - given the same timing - a deliberate question would not have been just as
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: * The Stanton Foundation does not have a financial interest in these topics. With that said, Liz Allison, who heads the Stanton Foundation, and Graham Allison, who heads the Belfer Center, are wife and husband, and the Stanton Foundation funds other programs related to international security. A little bit more detail: As per [1], the Allisons helped care for Dr. Stanton before his death in 2006. Frank Stanton was a member of the Harvard board and a long-time Harvard supporter. [1] [2] The Stanton Foundation was set up in Frank Stanton's name after his death and is a private foundation. We don't have reason to assume that there's anything untoward about the relationship between the Stanton Foundation and Graham Allison / the Belfer Center, and our assessment focuses solely on WMF's mistakes in taking on this project. Erik [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/business/media/26stanton.html?_r=0pagewanted=print [2] http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/02/ksg-community-pays-tribute-to-frank-stanton/ -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Good points. Peter - Original Message - From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53,690 of WMF funding As far as I am concerned, what was wrong with this situation wasn't that the Wikimedia Foundation paid a trained academic to edit Wikipedia. I venture that most donors and members of the general public wouldn't have a problem with that at all. What was wrong? 1. The obvious appearance of impropriety given that the Stanton Foundation is probably the Foundation's single biggest donor, and the administrator of the Stanton Foundation's funds is married to the director of the Belfer Center (who according to the center's website has now taken on the former Wikipedian in Residence as a staff assistant). Whether this was the case or not, it *looks* like the WMF was simply used so that Mrs Harris could get Mr Harris another member of staff who would not show up on the Center's payroll. 2. The fact that the WMF appears to have departed from usual procedures (such as locating this Wikipedian in Residence in Fundraising, allowing the Belfer Center to write the job description, etc.) to please its biggest donor. 3. The fact that in his reports to the WMF the Wikipedian in Residence on more than one occasion billed three hours of research and *six hours* of drafting in MS Word for a 150-word insertion in a Wikipedia article that another Wikipedian could have drafted in a fraction of an hour, and that this apparently was not questioned. 4. The fact that the edits the Wikipedian in Residence made included conflict-of-interest and copyright violations, according to multiple Wikipedians. These, to me, are the real problems. I have no problem *at all* with the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation paid an academically qualified expert to make edits to Wikipedia. In fact, I find it disheartening that the Foundation now feels it has to state that nothing like this will ever happen again. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let's for a moment look at the practicality of the idea that a Wikipedian in Residence should not personally edit Wikipedia. If Graham Allison had physically made the edits that Tim Sandole made, would this have made any material difference whatsoever to the situation? Clearly, it would not. Saying that a Wikipedian in Residence will not physically click Edit, but will merely instruct experts at his institution in how to make and source edits (and perhaps even draft them for them in MS Word ...) is a very thin smokescreen. The material question is not whether a Wikipedian in Residence will physically edit. The question is whether the edits resulting from any WiR placement will be in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including neutral point of view, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism, verifiability, and so on, and whether they will improve project content - making it more accurate, more readable, more up to date. What is required here? It's that whichever person ultimately performs the edits receive proper training in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, editing methods, etc., so that their subject matter expertise can be leveraged to optimum effect. Standardised training courses to impart that Wikipedia-specific knowledge to subject matter experts are an area the Foundation could profitably invest in. Saying that Wikipedians in Residence won't edit doesn't address that. It merely absolves the Foundation from responsibility - a purely cosmetic exercise if the quantity and quality of the resulting edits is the same as it was in this case. What counts for the reading and donating public is the quality of the edits that result from a WiR placement, not who makes those edits. The Foundation should not shirk, but embrace its responsibility to use donated funds to optimum effect. Andreas On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 04/01/2014 09:34 AM, Fæ wrote: I am sure than the viewpoint is different for employees within the WMF like yourself, compared to unpaid volunteers outside, like me. This may be part of the reason we see this governance failure in a different light. That's actually amusingly wrong, though I can see why you'd think that. I've been an unpaid volunteer outside for very many years before I've been within; and my job at the foundation is only technical and community-facing. I have *zero* to do with Governance, no stake in that project, and I don't even actually interact with any of the involved departments. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my comments on this thread would have been exactly the same 18 months ago. The evidence of this case, as summarized in Sue's own published words, shows that there were multiple attempts to raise polite inquiry. These were consistently overlooked or ignored over an extremely
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: Did the fundraising department regard it as their programme No, on the contrary, fundraising actively looped in other staff. Folks like Siko and Asaf were involved early on. That's how the advice to not turn this into a paid editing role and to re-craft the JD came into play in the first place (in turn Lori, Pete, Liam got looped in, who all articulated this very clearly). In fact for some time, it was considered to run this as equivalent to a fellowship. From my read of the situation, as the hiring process dragged on and Belfer turned down candidates with strong Wikipedia experience, the programmatic experts ultimately disengaged (seeing that Wikipedia expertise was not a required part of the job from Belfer's perspective, so the fellowship model didn't apply). Because the project had been held by fundraising in the first place, it ultimately ended up solely being managed by the fundraising staff. or did they maybe fear deteriorating relations with the donor If you're a professional fundraiser, it's your job to build and maintain good relationships with donors - there's nothing wrong with that. We've taken on restricted grants in the past, and while these are never a slam dunk and always a bit challenging, on all of these projects, there has always been a healthy tension between what the funder wants vs. what WMF thinks we should do, with programmatic experts providing direct pushback if needed. The issue here isn't that fundraising tried to maintain good relationships with a funder - the issue is that the project oversight and execution wasn't firewalled off to programs as it ordinarily should be. Were boundries between fundraising and programmatic activities too vague Yes. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I have no problem *at all* with the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation paid an academically qualified expert to make edits to Wikipedia. In fact, I find it disheartening that the Foundation now feels it has to state that nothing like this will ever happen again. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps. As I've said in the past, I think it'd be best for any such ethical paid editing work to be conducted within a completely different organizational context, with that org's sole focus being to support and enable it being done well. Organizations need focus, and this isn't ours for good reasons. In fact, nobody would stop you - or anyone - from setting up such an organization and seeking funding for it. I do think there's an inherent risk with situating paid editors within specific institutions, because there may be a tendency that comes with that to attach undue weight to that institution's work. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before. There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together! I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin! Best, Nicole On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit. The notion that it is money from the public is not a license for everyone to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit condemnations. Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial. When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to ignore all rules when that gets the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in the movement things have gone wrong does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be you are sending a large delegation, why is that. It is not legitimate to say you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that. Thanks, GerardM Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com: Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. Might I make a point here. It is not their money, but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive. The movement, as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/ The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any. As a member of the movement, Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule from the grave? being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in the movement when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks. Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair that they answer them. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Erik A quick question: was the legal department involved in this debacle prior to it becoming known? I'm just curious as to why Geoff Brigham was involved in the production of Sue's assessment. Was it because Legal was involved, or was he simply vetting what is already being called a candid assessment to make sure it wasn't too candid. Refer to Martijn Hoekstra's email and questions as to why this candid assessment isn't really that candid at all. Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Marc On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: I have *zero* to do with Governance, no stake in that project, and I don't even actually interact with any of the involved departments. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my comments on this thread would have been exactly the same 18 months ago. This is a pretty big statement to make, so I thought it would be a good idea to engage in a little research to see if your comment stands up to scrutiny. I like research.[1] We can see from your stats of postings to the mailing list[2], that 18 months ago you weren't active; you only really became active after you landed yourself a job with the WMF.[3] So I went back just a little further -- only by a few months, and I found this comment[4] from you to (at the time) Board member, Phoebe Ayers[5]: beginquote I think that the first thing that should be learned -- and indeed that should have been learned /before/ this farce -- is that begging the question in a referendum is fundamentally dishonest. I was oh so very pleased to learn that I get to give my opinion on insignificant implementation details of a feature that stands in opposition to everything Wikipedia stands for which is going to be committed against us whether we like it or not. endquote It is *much* easier to get the stakeholders to collaborate when they don't have to go on the defensive. Really, Marc? Really?[4] What is entirely ironic, and quite sad actually, is that we can all remember your diva rage quit of the English Wikipedia Arbcom in 2013[6], in which you accused the committee of being politicised. I call your attention to this statement by you: What I mean by 'politicized' was that decisions are not being argued around 'what is best for the project' but 'what will make [the committee] look good'. Add to that stonewalling, filibustering, and downright 'bullying' from those who aren't getting their way - to the point of having arbitrators being ... creative ... with ethics in order to get the upper hand. I see no difference between what you accused the en.wp Arbcom of doing, and the way that you are bullying and needlessly attacking community members who are presenting relevant information and asking relevant questions. To other list members, I am sorry that the above has had to be said on-list, but the way that Fae has been treated and attacked by numerous members of this list in this very thread is a disgrace, and I for one have had a gutful of it. Russavia [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070665.html [2] http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Marc_A._Pelletier.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coren/disclosure [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-August/067518.html [5] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Former_Board_of_Trustees_members#Phoebe_Ayers [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-03-18/News_and_notes ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Nederland monthly report for February
The WMNL monthly report for February is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Nederland/201402 It is also included as plain text below. *COMMUNITY: supporting and mobilising volunteers and editors*[ - ·*Education Extension*. The Wikipedia Education Extension has been installed on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This extension facilitates courses ranging from a single day to several months and gives trainers/teachers insight in the activities of students of these courses. The extension will be used for GLAM activities that involve training and might be used for projects with educational institutions. · *European Parliament in the picture* WMNL supported a member of the community to take part in a drive to make portrait photographs of Members of the European Parliament. Following the photo-drive, a project was started to provide articles on all MEP's on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This resulted in 179 new articles. · *Female artists on Wikipedia* A group of Wikipedians organised a writing event on female artists on February 1; this event was supported by WMNL. The event led to an article in a national newspaper. · *Meeting of OTRS group* The group of volunteers dealing with requests and questions for NL-Wikipedia OTRS met at the WMNL office to exchange ideas and experiences. They also gave a refresher course in working with OTRS for some of the other volunteers present at the office. *WORK: content, collaboration and activity development* · *WWII*. Preparations have begun for the WWII project. Goals of this project are: 1.To motivate people to share their knowledge about WWII by writing articles or by uploading images. 2.Contact GLAMs for contentdonations and organise activities. 3.Cooperate with other Wikimedia chapters to stimulate exchange of information between the different language versions of wikipedia. As a first activity, April will be focussed on motivating people to contribute images of all the war monuments in the Netherlands. This will not be a photo competition in view of the sensitive nature of topic. WMNL is cooperating with the Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei, the organisation in charge of official remembrance ceremonies. · *GLAM activities*. Several GLAM partners were visited to discuss new plans for activities in 2014. Plans are being worked out with Teylers Museum, Amsterdam Museum, Rijksmuseum, Museum Catharijneconvent, Universiteitsmuseum Utrecht and Centraal Museum. The activities discussed are increasingly tuned to the workflow of GLAMs: a content donation when a new exhibition opens, followed by an edit-a-thon or Wikipedia course at the GLAM to write articles and put the donated content to use. · *Wiki loves Earth.* WMNL has started work on Wiki Loves Earth: a project to put Dutch nature in the spotlight on Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons with text, images and sound. The formula for this contest is derived from Wiki Loves Monuments, which WMNL has organised from 2010 to 2013. Wiki Loves Earth was first organised by Wikimedia Ukraine. Several countries will participate in 2014. WMNL is cooperating with the Dutch association of National Parks. · *Education Program.* A kick-off meeting for an education program was held on the 1st of February for community members, staff and board. As a result, WMNL developed and has put out a call for tender for proposals to investigate the feasibility and potential of cooperation with educational institutions in the Netherlands. A decision on which proposal best meets the requirements of WMNL will be made in March. Several other chapters have set up programs with universities and other educational institutions. · *Wikipedians in Residence.* WMNL initiated a meeting between the managers of the Wikipedians in Residence on the 19th of February to discuss lessons learned and cooperation. The 6 Wikipedians in Residence in the Netherlands had a meeting on the 24th of Februari. The notes of this meeting are public (Dutch). *WMNL* · *Media*. A full overview of media coverage can be found herehttps://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Media-aandacht#februari . · *Newsletter.* The WMNL newsletter of February was sent out to the subscribers. *GLOBAL* · *meeting of executive directors* WMNL director Sandra Rientjes attended a meeting of Executive Directors of Wikimedia Chapters in Berlin on February 3 and 4. Focus of the meeting was on sharing experiences in programme development, FDC-process, management and governance. · *International meetings: Program Evaluation* Sebastiaan ter Burg attended the Program Evaluation hangout, it can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7iMVOPRKhQ. *GOVERNANCE* · The board had a skype meeting on February 7. *Upcoming*] · Wikidata/dbpedia workshop · GLAMwiki Toolset workshop at the Amsterdam Museum
[Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Hello All: I have been following this thread with great interest and a kind of deeply appreciative fascination. First to say that I am relatively new to WMF - having been on board for just a bit over a year. Previously the jobs that I had pretty much covered the entire waterfront: Summer jobs in high school Jobs while in college (didn't we all do that!) 4 years in a combination of corporations and small businesses 17 years as a volunteer as I raised my two sons 17 years in non-profits (helping to found 3 of them) 2 years in county government 2 years as a scheduler for a Presidential campaign and most recently, just before I came here, 6 years as a scheduler for a US Congressman. She must be 'old as dirt you are thinking - well not just yet - and among other things that set WMF apart - they do not discriminate on the basis of age :-) :-) :-) WMF is unique in so many ways from all the other places I have worked, just to name a few: Basic operating manual: Assume good faith! Look for the truth! Express your views in an unbiased way! (a slight rewording of the rules for editing). Everything is discussed in the open. Everyone is welcome to express their opinion. The leadership (all the way to the top) openly apologizes when mistakes are made. Rather than dig in and insist on continuing processes that don't work, people at WMF put their heads together and look for a different solution. Much like the point in the movie Apollo 13 when they discover that the air in the stranded capsule is slowly killing the astronauts. The team is told to bring everything to a meeting that the astronauts have available inside the capsule. They all come into the room shouting and pointing fingers at each other in an effort to lay blame regarding what went wrong. At some point Ed Harris, who plays the White Team Flight Director, yells, Let's just work the problem! WMF is good at working the problem. When I reflect on the above, I ask, what if the entire world worked this way, or even half the world, or even just enough people to get us to the tipping point. It would be powerful stuff. I don't intend to imply that we are looking at perfect - but then, life is not about perfection of action (we are after all human), it is about perfection of intention which is not that from assume good faith. Take good care, Amy -- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbri...@wikimedia.org avossbri...@wikimedia.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Nicely put! On 1 Apr 2014 22:29, Amy Vossbrinck avossbri...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello All: I have been following this thread with great interest and a kind of deeply appreciative fascination. First to say that I am relatively new to WMF - having been on board for just a bit over a year. Previously the jobs that I had pretty much covered the entire waterfront: Summer jobs in high school Jobs while in college (didn't we all do that!) 4 years in a combination of corporations and small businesses 17 years as a volunteer as I raised my two sons 17 years in non-profits (helping to found 3 of them) 2 years in county government 2 years as a scheduler for a Presidential campaign and most recently, just before I came here, 6 years as a scheduler for a US Congressman. She must be 'old as dirt you are thinking - well not just yet - and among other things that set WMF apart - they do not discriminate on the basis of age :-) :-) :-) WMF is unique in so many ways from all the other places I have worked, just to name a few: Basic operating manual: Assume good faith! Look for the truth! Express your views in an unbiased way! (a slight rewording of the rules for editing). Everything is discussed in the open. Everyone is welcome to express their opinion. The leadership (all the way to the top) openly apologizes when mistakes are made. Rather than dig in and insist on continuing processes that don't work, people at WMF put their heads together and look for a different solution. Much like the point in the movie Apollo 13 when they discover that the air in the stranded capsule is slowly killing the astronauts. The team is told to bring everything to a meeting that the astronauts have available inside the capsule. They all come into the room shouting and pointing fingers at each other in an effort to lay blame regarding what went wrong. At some point Ed Harris, who plays the White Team Flight Director, yells, Let's just work the problem! WMF is good at working the problem. When I reflect on the above, I ask, what if the entire world worked this way, or even half the world, or even just enough people to get us to the tipping point. It would be powerful stuff. I don't intend to imply that we are looking at perfect - but then, life is not about perfection of action (we are after all human), it is about perfection of intention which is not that from assume good faith. Take good care, Amy -- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbri...@wikimedia.org avossbri...@wikimedia.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the right to ask questions and raise concerns. We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent more then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting, but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know why this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it before. I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this rule of number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided to select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff and board was widely around, breaking the equality we are looking for, and asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference. WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo we been used to since the beginning so secretly. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.dewrote: I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before. There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together! I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin! Best, Nicole On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit. The notion that it is money from the public is not a license for everyone to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit condemnations. Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial. When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to ignore all rules when that gets the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in the movement things have gone wrong does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be you are sending a large delegation, why is that. It is not legitimate to say you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that. Thanks, GerardM Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com: Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. Might I make a point here. It is not their money, but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive. The movement, as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/ The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any. As a member of the movement, Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule from the grave? being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in the movement when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks. Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
The minutes and slides from Friday's quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/March_2014 . On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's VisualEditor team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor/March_2014 (A separate but related quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team took place today, those minutes should be up on Monday.) On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi folks, to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the Board [1]: - Visual Editor - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity I'm proposing the following initial schedule: January: - Editor Engagement Experiments February: - Visual Editor - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) March: - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) - Funds Dissemination Committee We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on their recent progress, which will help set some context that would otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here which we can use to discuss the concept further: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews The internal review will, at minimum, include: Sue Gardner myself Howie Fung Team members and relevant director(s) Designated minute-taker So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, compared with goals - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? - Review of challenges, blockers and successes - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other action items - Buffer time, debriefing Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in engineering. As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can help inform and support reviews across the organization. Feedback and questions are appreciated. All best, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Education] ANNOUNCEMENT: Anna Koval joins Wikipedia Education Program team
Congratulations Anna! Looking forward to work with you. Cheers, Mile Kiš Vikimedija Srbije - rs.wikimedia.org - 00381 (0)60 7 454 772 Zamislite svet u kome svaka osoba ima slobodan pristup celokupnom ljudskom znanju. To je ono na čemu mi radimo. 2014-04-02 1:26 GMT+02:00 Rodney Dunican rduni...@wikimedia.org: Hello everyone, I am happy to announce that Anna Koval is joining the Wikipedia Education Program team. Along with Tighe and Floor, Anna will be our third Global Education Program Manager and will work with our team to support education initiatives around the world. Anna's Serbian background will be helpful to our team's efforts to support education program leaders in Eastern Europe. She will also serve as our point person for outreach to Asian countries and secondary schools. She and Sage will work closely on Global Education technical support needs. For the past 8 months, Anna has worked at the Wikimedia Foundation as a Community Advocate, supporting several teams, including mine, as well as: * Siko Bouterse and the Grantmaking team on IEGs and gender gap work * Yana Welinder and the Legal team on the new Trademark policy * James Forrester and the Product team on the VisualEditor roll out and, of course, * Philippe Beaudette and the Community Advocacy team on a number of workflows, not the least of which is the wikis' emergency response system. Anna's transition from her Community Advocacy position and activities will be completed soon. Anna is an award-winning educator, with a master's degree in education and more than a decade of classroom teaching experience, ranging from middle school through graduate school. She was a Walt Disney Teacher of the Year nominee, an American Library Association Emerging Leader, and was even featured on the cover of *California Teacher http://issuu.com/cftpub/docs/calteach_sep-oct-2009?e=7269471/3308134* magazine. When Anna's not at work, she enjoys gardening at her home in Sonoma and spending time her husband and two dogs. She's also a mighty fine home distiller. Please join me in (re-)welcoming Anna Koval! Rod Dunican Director, Global Education Wikipedia Education Program Wikimedia Foundation ___ Education mailing list educat...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Education] ANNOUNCEMENT: Anna Koval joins Wikipedia Education Program team
Congratulations Anna Koval! Nurunnaby Chowdhury User: nhasive Member, IEG committee Sysop, Bengali Wikipedia On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Mile Kiš mil...@vikimedija.org wrote: Congratulations Anna! Looking forward to work with you. Cheers, Mile Kiš Vikimedija Srbije - rs.wikimedia.org - 00381 (0)60 7 454 772 Zamislite svet u kome svaka osoba ima slobodan pristup celokupnom ljudskom znanju. To je ono na čemu mi radimo. 2014-04-02 1:26 GMT+02:00 Rodney Dunican rduni...@wikimedia.org: Hello everyone, I am happy to announce that Anna Koval is joining the Wikipedia Education Program team. Along with Tighe and Floor, Anna will be our third Global Education Program Manager and will work with our team to support education initiatives around the world. Anna's Serbian background will be helpful to our team's efforts to support education program leaders in Eastern Europe. She will also serve as our point person for outreach to Asian countries and secondary schools. She and Sage will work closely on Global Education technical support needs. For the past 8 months, Anna has worked at the Wikimedia Foundation as a Community Advocate, supporting several teams, including mine, as well as: * Siko Bouterse and the Grantmaking team on IEGs and gender gap work * Yana Welinder and the Legal team on the new Trademark policy * James Forrester and the Product team on the VisualEditor roll out and, of course, * Philippe Beaudette and the Community Advocacy team on a number of workflows, not the least of which is the wikis' emergency response system. Anna's transition from her Community Advocacy position and activities will be completed soon. Anna is an award-winning educator, with a master's degree in education and more than a decade of classroom teaching experience, ranging from middle school through graduate school. She was a Walt Disney Teacher of the Year nominee, an American Library Association Emerging Leader, and was even featured on the cover of *California Teacher http://issuu.com/cftpub/docs/calteach_sep-oct-2009?e=7269471/3308134* magazine. When Anna's not at work, she enjoys gardening at her home in Sonoma and spending time her husband and two dogs. She's also a mighty fine home distiller. Please join me in (re-)welcoming Anna Koval! Rod Dunican Director, Global Education Wikipedia Education Program Wikimedia Foundation ___ Education mailing list educat...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Administrator | Bengali Wikipediahttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Social Media Interaction Expert Assignment Reporter | The Daily Prothom-Alo http://www.prothom-alo.com Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network http://www.okfn.org Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) http://www.bdosn.org Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh http://www.mozillabd.org fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
