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

2015-03-30 Thread Lila Tretikov
Wikimedians, Per my commitment, we have now added this escalation process/whistleblower policy to the WMF staff handbook to address the issues discussed in this thread: To serve the WMF Guiding Principles of shared power and stewardship, it's important that our work reflects community policies.

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

2015-03-04 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Just as a postscript to the Belfer Center affair, regular readers will remember that Russavia wrote in March 2014[1] that – *The Stanton Foundation has been a long-term donor to the Wikimedia Foundation [...] Stanton has no website, and apart from several high-profile grants to the Wikimedia

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

2015-01-26 Thread Lila Tretikov
Hi Nemo, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are correct -- this did not make my to do list, but I believe honoring commitments made by the WMF is important and therefor I've been looking this issue. Here is what I found and what we will do: - This issue was a clear oversight

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

2015-01-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Lila, and all, I am glad to hear this will be revived. I read your message with interest and appreciation, up to the final paragraph: in this instance, WMF is in a very poor position to chide anybody for snark. Nemo's snark was lighthearted and minimal, and doesn't even register next to the WMF's

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

2015-01-21 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
Sue Gardner, 01/04/2014 05:23: 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

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

2014-05-19 Thread David Gerard
On 19 May 2014 08:26, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: I'm giving this thread a poke because we're still waiting for answers to questions. The most recent email was from Srikanth on May 7. But Benghazi! - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,

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

2014-05-07 Thread Srikanth Ramakrishnan
Pine, I have another question to add to the initial question: Will the Foundation prohibit chapters and other thematic organizations from the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process as a condition of receiving WMF

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

2014-05-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, I think you raise some important questions below. Obviously there has been a lot going on in the last week, so I'd like to give this a bump and add a couple points: On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:17 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Will the Foundation prohibit chapters and other

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

2014-05-06 Thread Nathan
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I want to point out something that stands out to me. This is not an outright contradiction, but it's a puzzling contrast. In an unrelated thread on this email list, Executive Director Sue Gardner recently said:

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

2014-05-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I want to point out something that stands out to me. This is not an outright contradiction, but it's a puzzling contrast. In an unrelated thread on

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

2014-04-19 Thread Anthony Cole
The press release, signed by LiAnna Davis, Head of Communications and External Relations, that Andreas links to in his comment says, The program, in which students write Wikipedia articles in place of traditional term papers, created the equivalent of more than 7,000 printed pages of new,

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

2014-04-19 Thread Anthony Cole
Sorry. I just realised what the heading of this thread is. I'll email LiAnna directly. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: The press release, signed by LiAnna Davis, Head of Communications

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

2014-04-19 Thread Simon Knight
...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole Sent: 19 April 2014 15:15 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding Sorry. I just realised what the heading of this thread is. I'll

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

2014-04-19 Thread LiAnna Davis
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: Can anybody point to a source for the 7,000 printed pages of new, high-quality content during the fall term - particularly the evidence for the high quality of that content? Replying on-list since you asked

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

2014-04-16 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Article on the matter in The Daily Dot, April 14: http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/ Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by anybody, saying, The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know anything about Wikipedia.

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

2014-04-16 Thread
On 16 April 2014 15:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: ... Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by anybody, saying, The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know anything about Wikipedia. I believe it was clear from Sue's frank report and

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

2014-04-08 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Pete Forsyth wrote: I also published a response to the WMF report: http://wikistrategies.net/belfer1/ This is an absolutely fantastic blog post, and a must-read for anyone interested in making sure this... controversy never happens again. Thanks so much for taking the time to post that,

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

2014-04-08 Thread MZMcBride
Russavia wrote: Annd queue crickets. I believe you want cue here. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

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

2014-04-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
All: I have added my own timeline to the page set up to debrief the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence project: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment#Pete_Forsyth_notes I also published a response to the WMF report:

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

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
Annd queue crickets. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: All: I have added my own timeline to the page set up to debrief the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence project:

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

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

2014-04-02 Thread ENWP Pine
Although much of my original email to Arbcom about this situation is outdated, I can report that Arbcom is having a look at this situation. I don't think there is any action needed on their part at the moment. I am only relaying my personal views and not speaking on their behalf. While we wait

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

2014-04-02 Thread Risker
I'm still a bit confused as to why you reported this to Arbcom (Wikipedia in residence programs, paid editing, and general review of accounts are all outside of their purview), or what they're supposedly looking at. This is a community and WMF issue, and I do not see anything at all for Arbcom

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

2014-04-01 Thread ENWP Pine
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Craig Franklin
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.

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

2014-04-01 Thread
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,

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

2014-04-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Andreas Kolbe
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Erik Moeller
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Peter Southwood
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Erik Moeller
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Erik Moeller
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Russavia
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Russavia
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 04/01/2014 02:10 PM, Russavia wrote: Really, Marc? Really? Yes, Really. I can't recall having ever said that I never misbehave myself, nor that I ever reacted in anger before. Anyone who claims to is deluded or lying. With, perhaps, the pointed difference that this cannot be said to be my

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

2014-04-01 Thread Amy Vossbrinck
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

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

2014-04-01 Thread Richard Symonds
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.

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

2014-03-31 Thread Sue Gardner
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.

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

2014-03-31 Thread Liam Wyatt
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

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

2014-03-28 Thread
On 21 March 2014 20:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I have a copy of the weekly memos as well, and we've asked for his permission to release them. Hi Erik, A helpful visual table of the weekly reports is available at

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

2014-03-23 Thread Michael Snow
On 3/22/2014 2:04 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: As such, it seems clear that the donor in question is in the best position to evaluate whether the funds achieved their intended purpose. We don't really have good information in this case to do that for

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

2014-03-23 Thread
On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a

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

2014-03-23 Thread Michael Snow
On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide

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

2014-03-23 Thread Richard Symonds
Are charities in the UK prohibited from accepting donations to which any form of restriction is attached? No. It can be quite common. On 23 Mar 2014 08:33, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There

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

2014-03-23 Thread
On 23 March 2014 08:32, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we

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

2014-03-23 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote: It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in this article under the circumstances.

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

2014-03-23 Thread ENWP Pine
Before we start thinking about the implications for WiR in general or WMF's relationship with Stanton, I think we should focus on establishing the facts of what happened here. After we have a good understanding of the facts we can discuss the implications. I'm still waiting for Arbcom to get

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

2014-03-23 Thread David Goodman
With respect to Sandole's editing of the article on [[Opposition to military action against Iran]] The edit listed in this thread * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opposition_to_military_action_against_Irandiff=514822741oldid=514817891 by itself would seem to show undue emphasis on

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

2014-03-22 Thread ENWP Pine
Thanks Erik. I am going to be discussing this in private with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee before making further comments here. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l

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

2014-03-22 Thread Russavia
Thank you for this Erik, we look forward to receiving on Commons the other 25 weeks (half a years worth) of reports -- especially the reports from the weeks the 3 seminars were held. There will certainly be lots to look at, and I noted on one report:

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

2014-03-22 Thread
On 22 March 2014 09:40, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: ... Does anyone believe for one minute that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buck_passingdiff=551697085oldid=549480580took 6 hours to draft? And anywhere between 0 and 3 hours to research? ... Correction to link

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

2014-03-22 Thread Russavia
Erik, In Liam's email to the list he mentioned: 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

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

2014-03-22 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
Russavia, First, I write here in my capacity as a volunteer and a member of the community you claim to speak on behalf of, clearly not as a staffer of the Foundation (not that engineering has anything to do with programs like this anyways). On 03/22/2014 09:00 AM, Russavia wrote: I understand

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

2014-03-22 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Marc A. Pelletier wrote: Whether or not you have a point about that position having been badly considered or having a been a waste of money -- and I'd be inclined to think that it was at least a little of both -- you've squarely crossed the line between asking legitimate questions and pointless

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

2014-03-22 Thread MZMcBride
Marc A. Pelletier wrote: Russavia, [...] You've made your point and raised the issue, and now the information for informed judgment is being published. How about you let the /rest/ of the community examine it and reach its own conclusions? Because, right now, you seem more interested in

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

2014-03-22 Thread Michael Snow
On 3/22/2014 7:42 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote: Even if Timothy has been highly disruptive rather than just apparently very inefficient (which he wasn't), or if it has been donors' money that had been spent (which it wasn't), or if you had /actually/ been appointed to speak for the number one

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

2014-03-22 Thread ENWP Pine
As important as this issue is let's remember that the big picture mission is to have high quality content that is easy and free to access. WMF management has a lot to handle in addition to this investigation and the Sandole situation shouldn't consume such a large portion of management's time

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

2014-03-22 Thread Russavia
Coren / Marc (cc'ing to your personal email as well) Odder's blog post was posted 3 weeks ago, and my analysis was posted 24 hours ago, and many English Wikipedia admins have said they have seen either and/or both. Yet,

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

2014-03-22 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: Even if Timothy has been highly disruptive rather than just apparently very inefficient (which he wasn't), or if it has been donors' money that had been spent (which it wasn't), or if you had /actually/ been appointed to speak for the number one

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

2014-03-22 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote: It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in this article under the circumstances. It's unacceptable under /any/ circumstances, but I don't see an obvious

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

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 00:56, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... 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

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

2014-03-21 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
Jan-Bart de Vreede, 20/03/2014 18:49: 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 Nice one, can be reused with profit. Next time someone

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

2014-03-21 Thread Erik Moeller
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, in this thread you are officially speaking for the WMF. Does the WMF really want to say it is ethical to have different accountability rules for funding organizations that want to use the Wikimedia brand because there are

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

2014-03-21 Thread Russavia
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: [3] Contributions welcome, and I hope we can avoid personalizing things as I'm sure Timothy worked in good faith and did his best to meet the expectations of the project. :) On this I do agree, that Sandole was used as a

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

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 07:37, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... needed, to fully expose Harvard's evil agenda and the secret workings of the reptilian order which most WMF senior staff are part of. ... Erik, you are a senior manager within the WMF. If you cannot resist offensive schoolboy

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

2014-03-21 Thread Erik Moeller
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Erik, you are a senior manager within the WMF. If you cannot resist offensive schoolboy sarcasm in your responses Just after talking about stomping down with its hobnail boots on Wikimedia UK, huh? :-) I'm sorry to have offended your

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

2014-03-21 Thread Bence Damokos
Thanks Erik, for looking into it constructively. Looking forward to the report and the learnings from the assessment. Best regards, Bence On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, in this

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

2014-03-21 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Erik Moeller wrote: You tend to add a drama factor of 10x to any discussion I've ever seen you participate in, and it gets tiresome after a while. Give it a rest. Why are you making this issue unnecessarily personal, Erik? This isn't about Fae, you, or even Timothy Sandole -- so give it a

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

2014-03-21 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: You tend to add a drama factor of 10x to any discussion I've ever seen you participate in, and it gets tiresome after a while. Give it a rest. Why are you making this issue

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

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 11:31, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: ... it seems to have been the Belfer Center directing his actions and not the WMF. If Sandole is a reliable source for his employment during 2012-13, then we must take into account his recent statement which indicates that the WMF had some

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

2014-03-21 Thread ENWP Pine
Russiavia, thanks for your efforts to make a comprehensive report. It's certainly worth reading, although I am refraining from personally reaching major conclusions until after we have heard more details from WMF. Regarding Timothy Sandole's qualifications for the job, he could have been an

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

2014-03-21 Thread Erik Moeller
Hi all, I've just met with Lisa Gruwell and Sara Lasner about it to get more of a debrief of the situation. For the purpose of clarity, I'm looking into this on Sue's behalf while she's traveling; she should be able to look into it next week. As noted previously, this isn't a project I was

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

2014-03-21 Thread Anders Wennersten
Thanks Erik for this clear and, as far as I can see, rather comprehensive report There will always be mistakes done, both from us as individuals and as organizations. Critical, though, is that we treat these mistakes with openness and tranparancies and that we learn from our mistakes In

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

2014-03-21 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
Erik Moeller, 21/03/2014 08:37: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ wrote: Eric, in this thread you are officially speaking for the WMF. Does the WMF really want to say it is ethical to have different accountability rules for funding organizations that want to use the Wikimedia brand because

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

2014-03-21 Thread Russavia
Thanks Erik for your email which was full of spin, and which will be discussed later. But for now, I need to present something that needs clarification from Timothy. In reference to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Timothy_Sandole_-_Belfer_Center_Report.pdf On Page 2 of his report he

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

2014-03-21 Thread Russavia
Erik, As you are in contact with Sandole, can you please ask him to fix the article in his report to AirLand Battle, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirLand_Battlediff=515849256oldid=510840175-- he has written AirSea Battle, and this is obviously not correct. But I guess it goes

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

2014-03-20 Thread ENWP Pine
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread ENWP Pine
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread
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,

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

2014-03-20 Thread Anasuya Sengupta
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread Michael Peel
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.

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

2014-03-20 Thread
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread Erik Moeller
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.

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

2014-03-20 Thread Liam Wyatt
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread Pete Forsyth
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

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

2014-03-20 Thread Erik Moeller
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

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

2014-03-19 Thread
Re: http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/ Two questions: 1. Where can I find a response from either the WMF board or WMF funding/finance to the criticisms of a lack of transparency or the apparent failure of the project to deliver value for the donor's money as raised