Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-04-05 Thread Russavia
Sue,

I, as well as others, are wondering whether you will be responding to the
questions and other concerns which have been raised on this list?

Members of the BoT,

I would like to enquire as to when the Board of Trustees became aware of
this issue for the first time. Could we get some statement from individual
board members, present and past (at the time of the issue) as to when they
became aware of it.

Given that this issue was basically common knowledge at the higher echelons
of the WMF, and it was actively ignored by not only the WMF but also the
wider community, I find it improbable that the Board, or at the very least
individual board members, were in the dark on the issue

Cheers,

Russavia






On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:23 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

 ___
 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] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paidvolunteers

2014-04-05 Thread Peter Southwood
Will you be expecting every supporter of a political party, every member of 
a religious group, every national of a country, every supporter of a 
football team and so on ad nauseam... to declare COI when editing  a related 
article? These groups are often more biased then grunt employees. Wikipedia 
content is largely contributed by enthusiasts with either a strong bias or 
partial information (leading to unintentional bias). It is the strength and 
the wakness of crowdsourcing. Live with it or lose many of your 
contributors. This whole pogrom against paid editors is a waste of effort as 
it is virtually unenforceable without an invasion of privacy that the NSA 
would reject as over the top. Judge the contributor by the quality of their 
work, not by who their connections may be, or require every contributor to 
register their true and validated identity and all affiliations, financial 
or otherwise.. I oppose double standards favouring unpaid fanatics against 
well intentioned professionals


Cheers,
Peter

- Original Message - 
From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com

To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia 
paidvolunteers



On 4 April 2014 14:05, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 
wrote:

...

It seems to me that the term 'paid volunteer' is an oxymoron.

...

Yes, it is oxymoronic, many common terms are, though I am open to an
alternative form of words. I understand that volunteers who are also
employees do not want to be required to always declare they are an
employee, it can be the equivalent of wearing a kick me sign, but
this is a community issue to solve, not an excuse for being opaque.
Sue's report into the Belfer case is leading us in this direction if
we want to avoid the same embarrassments occurring not just in the WMF
but in partnerships or chapter/thorg funded projects.

We need to cover the following real and current situations where there
is a lack of transparency (here employee includes contractors and
Wikimedia organizations includes the WMF, chapters, thorgs,
proto-chapter programmes, etc.):

(A) There are increasing numbers of Wikimedia self-identified
volunteers receiving expenses, scholarships, grants or supplied
equipment as part of projects funded or part-funded by Wikimedia
organizations. The most notable are Wikimedian in Residence projects,
however a variety of other projects exist with money or other
benefits, such as me being supplied a computer to support some
worthwhile Commons mass upload projects. There is currently no
consistent global requirement or procedure for volunteers to do any
more than declare their interest, which may remain on a special
sub-page of one of the Wikimedia projects, chapter wikis, or even
privately declared. There are plenty examples of 'paid volunteers' or
'supported volunteers' in this situation, who are advocating for
community support for their projects without it being clear or
transparent at the time of that advocacy that they are being supported
with funding, equipment or contracted payments. There is *absolutely*
nothing wrong with content creation advocacy, it is fulfilling the aim
of our projects, however if an interest is not transparent and not
easy to understand, it is not best practice.

(B) Significant numbers of Wikimedia/chapter employees are taking part
in community project discussions and !votes using pseudonymous
accounts. The resulting summary of community consensus does not take
account of the numbers of volunteers who are also employees
contributing, even when a !vote has direct implications for the
priority or future funding of projects that some of the same employees
may benefit from or their employer will benefit from.

(C) Full time Wikimedia organization employees are paid Wikimedia
volunteer scholarships to go to Wikimedia conferences where they may
attend without making it clear they are an employee as they are
attending as a volunteer. During the conference they are advocating
future projects and community policy changes that will benefit their
employer and may create future funded programmes for their employer
and potentially themselves as an employee.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-04-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/April_2014
.

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

___
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] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paidvolunteers

2014-04-05 Thread
On 5 April 2014 08:09, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:
 Will you be expecting every supporter of a political party, every member of
 a religious group, every national of a country, every supporter of a
 football team and so on ad nauseam... to declare COI when editing  a related
 article? These groups are often more biased then grunt employees. Wikipedia
 content is largely contributed by enthusiasts with either a strong bias or
 partial information (leading to unintentional bias). It is the strength and
 the wakness of crowdsourcing. Live with it or lose many of your
 contributors. This whole pogrom against paid editors is a waste of effort as
 it is virtually unenforceable without an invasion of privacy that the NSA
 would reject as over the top. Judge the contributor by the quality of their
 work, not by who their connections may be, or require every contributor to
 register their true and validated identity and all affiliations, financial
 or otherwise.. I oppose double standards favouring unpaid fanatics against
 well intentioned professionals

Hi Peter,

No, the groups you mention are not covered by this proposal.

As for invasion of privacy, this seems tangential. The proposal is
for Wikimedia employees and similar to be transparent about the fact
of their status. On the surface at least, this is not something one
would expect to be kept a secret on Wikimedia projects.

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] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimediapaidvolunteers

2014-04-05 Thread Peter Southwood

OK,
Cheers,
Peter

- Original Message - 
From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com

To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for 
Wikimediapaidvolunteers



On 5 April 2014 08:09, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net 
wrote:
Will you be expecting every supporter of a political party, every member 
of

a religious group, every national of a country, every supporter of a
football team and so on ad nauseam... to declare COI when editing  a 
related
article? These groups are often more biased then grunt employees. 
Wikipedia
content is largely contributed by enthusiasts with either a strong bias 
or
partial information (leading to unintentional bias). It is the strength 
and

the wakness of crowdsourcing. Live with it or lose many of your
contributors. This whole pogrom against paid editors is a waste of effort 
as

it is virtually unenforceable without an invasion of privacy that the NSA
would reject as over the top. Judge the contributor by the quality of 
their
work, not by who their connections may be, or require every contributor 
to
register their true and validated identity and all affiliations, 
financial
or otherwise.. I oppose double standards favouring unpaid fanatics 
against

well intentioned professionals


Hi Peter,

No, the groups you mention are not covered by this proposal.

As for invasion of privacy, this seems tangential. The proposal is
for Wikimedia employees and similar to be transparent about the fact
of their status. On the surface at least, this is not something one
would expect to be kept a secret on Wikimedia projects.

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 



___
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