Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
That's a very interesting blog post, and at first glance situation looks bad in a number of ways. I'm bothered by the lack of reporting as well as the COI issues involved. Anasuya, at I don't think the $53,690 number is the right one, but regardless of how much money was involved, can you look at this issue, figure out what happened from start to finish, and respond to the other questions raised in this discussion? Can you confirm what the amount of money involved was, clarify why Sandole was listed as a WMF Fundraiser contractor which implied that he raised money for WMF instead of being a grantee receiving money from WMF, that the money came entirely from Stanton, how it was accounted for in the financial statements referenced by Tomasz, and what reports were produced that may have been sent back to Stanton or WMF about what the outcomes of the grant were? I would also be interested in knowing what COI rules were established as conditions of this grant, by Stanton, Harvard, and/or WMF. It would be interesting to get full copies of any contracts or grant award documents although that may be appropriate for review by the Board in private. I'm also CCing this to Garfield and WMF Legal. It looks like something went very wrong here. 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Hey So while I do not know the background of this case I am a little concerned by the tone of the email (and similar emails in the past) Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :) In this case: thank you both for pointing out this post and someone within the Foundation will undoubtedly come back with some response in the coming period. Jan-Bart de Vreede On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:59, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: That's a very interesting blog post, and at first glance situation looks bad in a number of ways. I'm bothered by the lack of reporting as well as the COI issues involved. Anasuya, at I don't think the $53,690 number is the right one, but regardless of how much money was involved, can you look at this issue, figure out what happened from start to finish, and respond to the other questions raised in this discussion? Can you confirm what the amount of money involved was, clarify why Sandole was listed as a WMF Fundraiser contractor which implied that he raised money for WMF instead of being a grantee receiving money from WMF, that the money came entirely from Stanton, how it was accounted for in the financial statements referenced by Tomasz, and what reports were produced that may have been sent back to Stanton or WMF about what the outcomes of the grant were? I would also be interested in knowing what COI rules were established as conditions of this grant, by Stanton, Harvard, and/or WMF. It would be interesting to get full copies of any contracts or grant award documents although that may be appropriate for review by the Board in private. I'm also CCing this to Garfield and WMF Legal. It looks like something went very wrong here. 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 ___ 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 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :) Hi Jan-Bart, Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise. Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability. PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-) 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
Hi Jan-Bart, I'm saying that this looks bad and asking what happened. I directed my email to the people who I think are in the best positions to respond or would want to look at this for themselves. There is a point at which asking questions becomes trolling or wasting resources but I think the consensus here is that this situation should be investigated. Please assume good faith (: 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted ... Hi Lisa, Could you link me to the report of outcomes for the 2012 position, or if they exist the regular project reports? The blog post mentions expectations but I have yet to find the reports that explain what was later delivered for the investment. I am aware that the WMF required public reporting for all sponsored projects back in 2012. Having been a Chapter trustee myself that year, I recall how rigorous the requirements for accountability and reporting were. :-) Thanks, 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
Hi all, Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so. thanks, Anasuya On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.orgwrote: I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted supporter of ours for many years, had asked us to do so. This was reported to the community here. [1] The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements. Harvard University is now considering similar positions for other centers.[2] WMF was not asked to fiscally sponsor for this new project at Harvard. Best, Lisa Gruwell *[1] ** https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ * *[2] ** http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-residence-20140313,0,5003509.story#axzz2wWQo2cXX http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-residence-20140313,0,5003509.story#axzz2wWQo2cXX * On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae's) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :) Hi Jan-Bart, Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise. Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability. PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-) 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 ___ 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 -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.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
Hi Anasuya and Lisa, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by fiscal sponsor here. I'd have thought that would mean that the funding to the sponsored organisation is analogous to a grant provided by the WMF, even thought the money is actually provided (directly?) by another organisation. Wouldn't that mean that the same duty of care should be present here as is the case for WMF grants? Either way, if the WMF (as the largest Wikimedia organisation) choses to do this sort of endorsement of a project, then it should really follow it through to the end and ensure that it has had the best possible impact on the WIkimedia projects, rather than just providing initial support and advertising, and then leaving things dangling in doubt, as seems to have happened here... That really doesn't set a good example for other Wikimedia organisations that might consider doing similar work... (I'm rather worried about similar project/positions taking place at other Harvard centres without any sort of Wikimedia organisation or community support - that sounds like a recipe for disaster...) Thanks, Mike On 20 Mar 2014, at 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so. thanks, Anasuya On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.orgwrote: I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted supporter of ours for many years, had asked us to do so. This was reported to the community here. [1] The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements. Harvard University is now considering similar positions for other centers.[2] WMF was not asked to fiscally sponsor for this new project at Harvard. Best, Lisa Gruwell *[1] ** https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ * *[2] ** http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-residence-20140313,0,5003509.story#axzz2wWQo2cXX http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-residence-20140313,0,5003509.story#axzz2wWQo2cXX * On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae's) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :) Hi Jan-Bart, Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise. Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability. PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-) 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 ___ 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 -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so. I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In particular it informed the community that: ... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We’re seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year, There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or responsible for the recruitment. Further, Stephen Walling states in a comment that: when we say we’re looking for a Wikipedian, that means we are looking for someone experienced as a volunteer editor of the free encyclopedia. This statement can only be read as the WMF running the recruitment, there can be no other interpretation of we when this is on the WMF blog and written by a WMF employee. The post does state that This position is funded by a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation This philanthropic institution has supported ... the Wikimedia Foundation in the past.. However there is no implication that the Stanton Foundation were doing anything other than providing a grant to the WMF and that the WMF were responsible for . There is no doubt that the WMF provided its name against this post and officially promoted and endorsed it, putting the reputation of the WMF firmly against this project. I hope that someone can provide a report of the beneficial outcomes of this project for Wikimedia and open knowledge showing exactly what was purchased for this generous grant that was claimed to be provided to the WMF or for the benefit of WMF projects. Links: 1. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ 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
[Wikimedia-l] Hotmail fatal bounces
Hotmail has bounced many connections with a 'fatal' error code: 550 SC-004. This happened at about 0015 on 19 March (UTC). Looking at Hotmail's error page at: http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors says it was rejected for Policy reasons The result is many (all?) hotmail users have been 'disabled' in the mailing list. List users can reactivate themselves at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/options/wikimedia-l Regards, Richard. ___ 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] Hotmail fatal bounces
For those interested it looks like this happened for at least a couple days and was resolved yesterday (at least so much as we were removed from the blacklist), the bug ( there was some discussion with ops prior to it trying to track down the issue as well) is at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62838. James James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Richard Ames rich...@ames.id.au wrote: Hotmail has bounced many connections with a 'fatal' error code: 550 SC-004. This happened at about 0015 on 19 March (UTC). Looking at Hotmail's error page at: http://mail.live.com/mail/ troubleshooting.aspx#errors says it was rejected for Policy reasons The result is many (all?) hotmail users have been 'disabled' in the mailing list. List users can reactivate themselves at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/options/wikimedia-l Regards, Richard. ___ 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
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:59 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: clarify why Sandole was listed as a WMF Fundraiser contractor Presumably because the fiscal sponsorship was handled through fundraising, and HR simply tallies the contracts per department and didn't have the backstory. I've corrected the report, pointing out the error in the earlier version. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_August_2012diff=7907453oldid=5390952 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
Myself and several other community members who are heavily involved in the development of 'Wikipedian in Residence' and GLAM-WIKI became aware of this project in early 2012, just before the job description was published. I will let them speak for themselves if they wish to weigh-in. But the TL;DR version is we told them so. We tried, oh how we tried, to tell the relevant WMF staff that this was a terribly designed project, but the best we got in response was that we could help edit the job description *after* it had already been published! Some WMF staff 'got it' and tried to help but the process (Thank you to those staff) was apparently already in motion and had too much momentum to change. We did get to dilute the worst of the original job description so it wasn't so blatant a paid editing role but our suggestions that the position be 'paused' until the community could help was rejected because of a deadline that had been set by Stanton/Harvard apparently. Other concerns about reporting outcomes and where the money came from/to have already been raised. The odd financial and organisational relationship of Stanton-Harvard-WMF is just one of them. The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian with the first task of the position being Researching relevant topics and improving the articles.Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does Wikipedia hire people? Some of the issues that we were arguing about at the time included why, when the GLAM-focused Wikimedians have tried to ensure that WiR roles are about facilitating a relationship between the community and an organisation's academics/researchers/curators/etc, does this position focus on editing articles directly, for money. Even if that wasn't the actual primary purpose it certainly LOOKED that way according to the job description and you'd think that of ALL groups in the community the WMF would see the 'red flag' of posting a job on its OWN contractors page asking for a paid editor. Furthermore, the WMF have in the past frequently refused to directly support WiR roles on the basis that this kind of direct outreach was not its role but more a role of the Chapters (this is before the current 'affiliation' system and before the 'Individual engagement grants' etc. and in that situation their position was fair enough). And yet, this position was a direct contradiction - the WMF ITSELF advertising for a WiR and administering the payment of the person. At the very least that made it feel like a double standard for the rest of us. There was no transparency with the people in the community that could have helped facilitate the successful 'birth' of the project - what should have been a great recognition of our projects' value - but instead felt like a betrayal of our hard-earned trust with the cultural/education sectors. The WMF dug themselves into this hole despite the frantic attempts, which were largely rebuffed, of several of the GLAM-WIKI community help them fix it - or at least reduce the number of problems. Now, it's up to the WMF to dig themselves out again. Ironic given the current attention being given by the WMF to paid editing... -Liam/Wittylama On 21 March 2014 09:23, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so. I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In particular it informed the community that: ... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We're seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year, There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or responsible for the recruitment. Further, Stephen Walling states in a comment that: when we say we're looking for a Wikipedian, that means we are looking for someone experienced as a volunteer editor of the free encyclopedia. This statement can only be read as the WMF running the recruitment, there can be no other interpretation of we when this is on the WMF blog and written by a WMF employee. The post does state that This position is funded by a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation This philanthropic institution has supported ... the Wikimedia Foundation in the past.. However there is no implication that the Stanton Foundation were doing anything other than providing a grant to the WMF and that the WMF
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... ... The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements. ... Hi Lisa, I have been re-reading your statement and I feel there is some ambiguity over how this is being explained here versus how it might have been declared to others by the Stanton Foundation. To be clear, could you please confirm that the WMF has officially stated that: A. No grant or other money was ever taken or managed by the WMF for Sandole's project/job. B. The Stanton Foundation has never declared this as a grant for the WMF or for WMF projects. C. The WMF did not authorize or otherwise approve Sandole's project or appointment and has never employed Sandole. D. The WMF Fundraising department managed Sandole's contract[1] E. The WMF has neither paid tax nor claimed tax relief as a result of Sandole's project/job. F. No financial benefit has been gained by any organization due to the WMF claiming to be a fiscal sponsor of Sandole's appointment as no money has changed hands. I am aware that the statements may be contradictory, where this is the case is would be great if the position could be unambiguously clarified and the Wikimedia community could be pointed to what WMF legal consider official and final public reports, noting that what should be an official past report linked below has changed during this discussion. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_August_2012diff=7907453oldid=5390952 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
I'd like to confirm that I am one of the community members Liam considerately declined to name; I agree with Liam's account of what happened; and I agree with Fae's proposed solution (a detailed, public report from the WMF, the Belfer Center, and/or the Stanton Foundation). The report should explicitly address the structural and ethical issues raised on this list and on Odder's blog post. I do have a bit more to say about this, but will leave it at that for now. I'll probably post on my blog in the next 24 hours. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Myself and several other community members who are heavily involved in the development of 'Wikipedian in Residence' and GLAM-WIKI became aware of this project in early 2012, just before the job description was published. I will let them speak for themselves if they wish to weigh-in. But the TL;DR version is we told them so. We tried, oh how we tried, to tell the relevant WMF staff that this was a terribly designed project, but the best we got in response was that we could help edit the job description *after* it had already been published! Some WMF staff 'got it' and tried to help but the process (Thank you to those staff) was apparently already in motion and had too much momentum to change. We did get to dilute the worst of the original job description so it wasn't so blatant a paid editing role but our suggestions that the position be 'paused' until the community could help was rejected because of a deadline that had been set by Stanton/Harvard apparently. Other concerns about reporting outcomes and where the money came from/to have already been raised. The odd financial and organisational relationship of Stanton-Harvard-WMF is just one of them. The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian with the first task of the position being Researching relevant topics and improving the articles. Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does Wikipedia hire people? Some of the issues that we were arguing about at the time included why, when the GLAM-focused Wikimedians have tried to ensure that WiR roles are about facilitating a relationship between the community and an organisation's academics/researchers/curators/etc, does this position focus on editing articles directly, for money. Even if that wasn't the actual primary purpose it certainly LOOKED that way according to the job description and you'd think that of ALL groups in the community the WMF would see the 'red flag' of posting a job on its OWN contractors page asking for a paid editor. Furthermore, the WMF have in the past frequently refused to directly support WiR roles on the basis that this kind of direct outreach was not its role but more a role of the Chapters (this is before the current 'affiliation' system and before the 'Individual engagement grants' etc. and in that situation their position was fair enough). And yet, this position was a direct contradiction - the WMF ITSELF advertising for a WiR and administering the payment of the person. At the very least that made it feel like a double standard for the rest of us. There was no transparency with the people in the community that could have helped facilitate the successful 'birth' of the project - what should have been a great recognition of our projects' value - but instead felt like a betrayal of our hard-earned trust with the cultural/education sectors. The WMF dug themselves into this hole despite the frantic attempts, which were largely rebuffed, of several of the GLAM-WIKI community help them fix it - or at least reduce the number of problems. Now, it's up to the WMF to dig themselves out again. Ironic given the current attention being given by the WMF to paid editing... -Liam/Wittylama On 21 March 2014 09:23, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so. I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In particular it informed the community that: ... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We're seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year, There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or responsible for the recruitment. Further, Stephen Walling
Re: [Wikimedia-l] UC Berkeley hires Wikipedian in Residence
Hi Russavia - I'll copyedit it for clarity later, but I see absolutely no contradiction between what I wrote and what I've said since. Your last email contained a pretty substantial suggestion that doesn't seem to be backed up by anything I've written anywhere. Honestly, from your last email, I'm not entirely certain you actually *read* the statement about paid editing that I have on my talk page. As I say in it, I believe that most collaborations between cultural institutions and Wikipedia are likely to be quite fruitful, that current 'corporate' paid editing should be greeted with a grain of salt, and that most current 'corporate' paid editing is inconsistent. I've said nowhere that all WiR positions result in awesomeness, and have equally said nowhere that all 'corporate' paid editing is bad - just suggested that we approach traditional WiR collaborations with initial good faith because our missions line up quite well most of the time, and approach 'corporate' paid editing with a grain (or ten) of salt because we're much less likely to have congruent mission. I'd love to see a full report about what happened at Belfer, and I suspect that what happened there falls in to the portion of collaborations with cultural institutions that are *not* quite fruitful. The details I've gathered of what hapened at Belfer suggest that it was significantly more ethical than Wiki-PR or most of the other 'corporate' paid editing I run in to, but certainly suggest that it fell short of what we should aspire to. I know a couple dozen current WMF employees, but so does most of this list - that doesn't really make me part of any 'in-crowd'. If you can explain how you somehow thought that the snippet of my paid editing post you quoted indicated '''in context''' that I support unethical practices on the part of WiR's, please let me know, so I can clarify the wording so no one else encounters the same confusion. Best, Kevin Gorman On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I am intrigued by your comments in relation to Belfer. Whilst your paid position at Berkeley is a great opportunity, and congrats on that, I can't help but think that you haven't been exactly forthcoming with the media. Or you are in denial about numerous things. I see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kevin_Gormanoldid=595779595#My_position_on_paid_editing you present your views on paid editing, with an interesting caveat at the bottom: Nothing in this section is intended to apply to Wikipedian in Residence-type programs, and similar collaborations between Wikipedia and cultural and educational institutions. I think that our missions match up with cultural institutions quite well, and I think that collaborations between us and them are likely to be quite fruitful. I, and many in the community, couldn't disagree more. If anything, the ethical standards for a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence are higher than a commercial outfit. The very reputation of the WiR program depends on it. Unfortunately, the Belfer Wikipedian in Residence was anything but ethical, and since Odder's blog post I have done some research on this, and I am gob-smacked at what I have found. Kevin, you are part of the in-crowd of the WMF, perhaps you could ask them for their report on the Belfer position. It is required for all grants I believe. As someone who is so vocal on the ethics of paid editing (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/wikipedia-editors-locked-in-battle-with-pr-firm-delete-250-accounts/) you will surely want to see the report. Perhaps it will answer why, in your words, the position, and everything surrounding it, was so under the radar. Cheers Russavia On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Tomasz is right that Belfer was first... but Belfer was done so under the radar that I actually had never even realized that someone had been hired for the position until I stumbled across Tomasz's blog about it, some time after the initial announcement of my position at Berkeley. I had a conversation about the matter afterwards with Berkeley's news people and with most of the journalists who have contacted me about it since the initial NewsCenter posting, and the general feeling has pretty much been that Belfer's practices were different enough from the norm of what a Wikipedian-in-Residence is that people have been comfortable running the story without a bunch of caveats to explain Belfer. There's also Arild Vågen's previous position at SLU, which is why most places are going with first US university rather than first university. ___ 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 Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian with the first task of the position being Researching relevant topics and improving the articles.Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does Wikipedia hire people? Disclaimer - I had no involvement in the project and am unaware of the details. As far as I can tell, this was a pretty opportunistic one-off agreement primarily supporting a funder's desire to boost the Wikipedians in Residence model. The frustration by Liam and Pete expressed in this thread does suggest that we erred on the side of moving too quickly - I respect their engagement in the field highly and appreciate all the efforts they've made to help develop clear models and practices for this type of work. I'll note that Timothy Sandole disclosed his affiliation with Harvard on his user page, and stated that he was tasked to author, edit and improve Wikipedia articles. Given that any substantial influence on what he did clearly came from Harvard rather than WMF, I think from an ethical standpoint, that's the most important part. However, I agree that if we ever engage in such projects again, we should aim for the highest standard of disclosure, including any pass-through agreements. That's especially true in light of the disclosure requirements currently under discussion. I'd love to see more visibility into the project's outcomes as well. We ask people to write detailed reports even as part of travel grants [1], so if there's no public report of any kind, that's a bit disheartening. This project was not funded through the individual donations of the general public but rather through a third party foundation that had an interest in seeing this happen, so from an ethical perspective, it's reasonable that the standards of accountability differ -- but if we have the ability to obtain any kind of public report after the fact, I think as a matter of good practice, it would be a good thing to do so. I saw SJ already left a question on Timothy's talk page. I also just pinged him via the email feature in case he has time to comment here a bit more about the nature of his work. Without such visibility, it's hard to see how much Timothy's work deviated from the community-developed WiR guidelines [2], which don't say that WiRs shouldn't edit, but which emphasize the issue of conflicts-of-interest and the idea that a WiR shouldn't be an in-house editor. Erik [1] e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Daniel_Mietchen/58th_Annual_Meeting_of_the_Biophysical_Society/Report [2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence -- 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
