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 that other priorities get neglected. For example I heard that WMF is very close to finally appointing a new ED and they're also working on VE, Flow, mobile, grants, legal issues, the Annual Plan, and a million other things that we also care about.
I may have more to say about the Sandole situation after I hear back from Arbcom.
Pine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jan B <antofosm(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Subject: [OSM-talk] iD usability study: Looking for test persons
To: talk(a)openstreetmap.org
Hi,
I want to inform you of a usability study of the iD editor that I'm
currently planning to execute for my Master's thesis in cartography at
TU Vienna.
The goal is to test the usability of iD by having volunteer test persons
complete a number of beginner tasks on it. From the tests I will draw
conclusions that will hopefully help improving the usability of iD.
I'm looking for test persons who are not familiar with editing with iD
yet. The test is supposed to take place in or around Hamburg, Germany.
So if you'll happen to be around Hamburg in April by any chance, you are
invited to take part in the test.
If you're interested, please take a look at the pre-test online survey,
in which I ask you a few questions and in which the procedure is
explained in more detail, too.
http://cartography.tuwien.ac.at/limesurvey/index.php/216311/lang-en
Of course I will make the results available to the community as soon as
the research is completed.
Feel free to ask me any questions you have; looking forward to exciting
test sessions.
Cheers
jan
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk(a)openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
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
:)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ellie Young <eyoung(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:13 PM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2015 Bids to host are in
To: open subscription <wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
This is to let the community know that the deadline for receiving bids to
host Wikimania in 2015 has passed.
There are 6 bids at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015_bids
Between now and April 1st the jury committee and community at large has an
opportunity to reach out to the proposers with feedback and questions.
This can be done via the proposal's talk page, holding a public meeting
with a bidder on IRC (#wikimaniaconnect channel on Freenode); or via other
personal means as you see fit. We also
After April 1, the jury committee will further evaluate and deliberate,
with a decision and recommendation made by mid-April to the WMF and
Wikimania Steering Committee.
Thanks again to all the bidding teams for all the hard work in preparing
the bid to host.
Ellie
Ellie Young
Conference Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
p. 415 839 6885 x6862
c. 510 701 8649
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
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
After reading Tomasz's (Odder) blog post[1] on the
Wikipedian-in-Residence (WiR) at Harvard in 2012 and in response to
Fae's and Pine's questions to the WMF on this list, I thought I would
post my thoughts/report on this issue, as it touches on a few areas of
which I have both professional (HRM and IR) and "wiki" (International
relations articles on English Wikipedia) expertise.[2]
I have broken this into sections covering each of the players in what
is a major fiasco for the Wikimedia Foundation. I do apologise that
some of the reference numbering is out of order.
== Stanton Foundation ==
The Stanton Foundation has been a long-term donor to the Wikimedia
Foundation,[3] and their 990 for the year 2012 indicates that it has
some US$221,311,214 in assets.[4] Stanton has no website, and apart
from several high-profile grants to the Wikimedia Foundation, it has
made grants to the Council on Foreign Relations,[5] MIT's Department
of Political Science,[6] the Rand Corporation,[7] and Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace,[8] in addition to the Belfer
Center.[9] All of these organisations operate in the arena of
international relations. These grants are aligned with Frank Stanton's
history on input on US nuclear security policy.[10] Other grants which
aren't clear as to how they are in Stanton's mission include the US$3
million grant to the Animal Rescue League of Boston.[11] That little
is known about Stanton isn't uncommon, given it is a private
foundation where donations are more often made via personal
connections and in areas of their interest.
The trustee of Stanton and contact point for the Wikimedia Foundation
is Elisabeth (Liz) K. Allison, who was a long-time friend of Frank
Stanton.[12] Liz was key to the creation of the WMF Public Policy
Initiative (PPI),[13] and has attended several sessions of PPI
events.[14] Her apparent LinkedIn profile[15] states that she is a
business negotiator at the Harvard Business School; having previously
been a director of the MSPCA,[16] which could explain Stanton's grant
to the Animal Rescue League of Boston. Other information on Liz is
scarce, but it is evident from the 2010,[17] 2011,[18] and 2012[4] 990
filings for Stanton, that Liz is one of only two trustees; the other
being a financial adviser/lawyer, so it would be fair to assume that
Liz determines how Stanton Funds are spent, whilst the financial
adviser/lawyer makes sure everything is legal, etc.
>From the outset, it should be noted that Liz Allison (Stanton) is
married to Graham Allison (Belfer).[12] Whilst this may on the surface
raise eyebrows as to an obvious conflict of interest, this could be
discounted when analysing why Stanton decided to fund this WiR
position. The likely reasoning is a combination of Liz's involvement
in the WMF Public Policy Initiative program and a desire to want to
expand Stanton's involvement in Wikipedia in areas of its interest --
namely nuclear security.
As mentioned above, Liz was instrumental in the creation of the PPI,
and in November 2010 the PPI team met with Liz for a "mid-point
stagegate meeting" and on the project she stated:
"This is exactly what we expected from the initiative. This is what we
wanted. Keep going."[23]
Given Liz's involvement and enthusiasm for the PPI, and given
Stanton's grants to organisations involved in international
relations/nuclear security and policy, it isn't surprising that
Liz/Stanton would want to look at getting a WiR into organisations
that it has given grants to. In all likelihood, the Belfer WiR
position was part of a concept program which was being driven by Liz
herself to do exactly that.
== Belfer Center ==
As noted in Tomasz's blog post, Belfer is a research centre within the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Named
after Robert A. Belfer, the research centre in its online bio of the
oil magnate[19] neglects to mention that he was a director of Enron,
and was quite possibly one of the biggest financial losers[20] in the
Enron scandal[21]. Wikipedia has an article about the Belfer Center,
but not about its namesake.
The current, and long-time, director of Belfer is Graham Allison[22],
the "Founding Dean" of the Kennedy School, who has held advisory roles
in the Reagan and Clinton governments, and been on the board of a
multitude of corporations, notably in the oil and banking industries.
Given the abovementioned grant by Stanton to Belfer, nuclear security
is also an area which interests Belfer.
== Timothy Sandole ==
As noted on Tomasz's blog, Timothy Sandole only registered on 10 July
2012; the day applications closed. His first edit to Wikipedia was to
an article written about his grandfather.[39] On 30 July 2012, Sandole
cemented his "credentials" for the job in edits to the nuclear
terrorism article, in which he heavily uses materials
written/co-authored by Graham Allison.[40] Prior to his successful
application for the position, this is basically the gist of his
editing "career" on Wikipedia.
However, his LinkedIn profile[41] does show that Sandole has a history
of interning at organisations which promote/push US national
interests; the Department of State, the OSCE, and the US Congress.
>From January - May 2012, Sandole was a Capstone consultant at the CNA
(cna.org), in which he produced a report on Azerbaijan's energy
sector, in particular the Sangchal Terminal. I can't find a copy of
this report online, but given Sandole's previous experience, I would
expect it to toe the US national interest line; particularly given the
subject, and the foreign policy issues surrounding it (i.e. the US's
desire to counter Russia's dominance of the energy supply market in
Europe).
On 27 August 2012, Sandole officially joined the Wikimedia Foundation
as a contractor,[33] in what was advertised as a FULL-TIME
Wikipedian-in-Residence at Belfer, so from this time on what he does
reflects not only on Belfer, but also on the Wikimedia Foundation.
When the Belfer Center announced the recruitment of Sandole[48], they stated:
"Timothy Sandole is the first Campus Wikipedian and an associate at
the Belfer Center. His primary task is to author and edit
international security-related Wikipedia articles with the goal of
improving their scholastic content and accuracy. He also leads
seminars for the HKS community on various Wikipedia editing methods."
This was reinforced by Belfer's bio profile of Sandole.[49] But as of
14 September, the only thing that is publicly linked to Sandole's
full-time WMF-endorsed/paid, and publicly stated, WiR role at Belfer
is an opinion piece on a divisive US political issue.
In November 2012, the US presidential election was held, contested by
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. On 21 September 2012, the Georgetown
Journal of International Affairs posted to their Facebook timeline the
following announcement:[42]
"Timothy Sandole from Harvard's Belfer Center breaks down why Obama a
better bet than Romney when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Check it
out!"
The article of our full-time WiR, dated 20 September 2012,[43] indeed
does present arguments on why Obama is a better choice than Romney
when it comes to US foreign policy. The byline of the article states:
"Timothy Sandole is an associate at the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard University."
It neglects to state that he is in fact a full-time
Wikipedian-in-Residence (promoted as a Campus Wikipedian) at Belfer
--- that is the publicly stated role of his WMF-endorsed position. It
is fair to say that in the public eye his comments could easily be
seen as being endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
The Georgetown Journal of International Affairs is a peer-reviewed
publication, but they also have GJIA Online[44], where they state:
"Articles appearing online are not subject to the same standards of
peer-review as those appearing in the printed editions of the
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. The articles reflect the
views of the author alone and not necessarily those of the Georgetown
Journal of International Affairs, the Edmund A. Walsh School of
Foreign Service, or Georgetown University."
Peer-reviewed articles often take months from the time they are
submitted to the time they are published. Sandole's article does not
appear in the peer-reviewed edition of the journal, and it is evident
that the article was authored by Sandole in September 2012 from the
sources he uses --- the Politico article was published on 14 September
2012,[45] the BBC article on 8 September 2012,[46] and the Christian
Science Monitor article on 1 September 2012.[47]
Whilst it is possible that Sandole did this article in his own time,
it is now publicly linked to his WMF-endorsed WiR position at the
Belfer Center which was endorsed by.
On 15 September 2012, Sandole made his first edit as WiR to the Cuban
missile crisis article[50], in which inserts large amounts of material
referencing the Director of the Belfer Center, Graham Allison.
It was not until 19 September 2012, that Sandole created his
userpage.[51] As noted on this mailing list, it neglects to mention
that this was a paid position.
I haven't had time to go through all of Sandole's edits, but the edit
pointed out by Tomasz in his blog post[52] is extremely problematic,
and is clear evidence that publicly stated role of WiR was secondary
to pushing views of those at the Belfer Center into contentious
article, and is also evidence that Sandole was not experienced in
editing on our projects before joining Belfer as a full-time WiR.
Firstly, there is the issue of copyright violations. This[53]
comparison of parts of the text demonstrates that what was inserted
into the article is basically a copyright violation of the source
material. There are other copyright violations, but this alone should
demonstrate the problem.
Secondly, there is the issue of POV-pushing, and in this instance it
is quite subtle. For the layperson to understand it, one needs to look
at Sandole's LinkedIn profile[41] in which Sandole on the position
states:
"Improving understanding of international security issues by
authoring, editing, and HTML coding scholarly and encyclopedic
articles related to nuclear strategy, terrorism, energy security,
intelligence, U.S. grand strategy, and international relations
theory."
In the "Russian National Interests" section, it is presented from a
"US" POV and how it affects US foreign policy, with scant regard for
presenting the Russian POV towards its own foreign policy. That the
article is skewed in such a way readers to this article since November
2012 are greeted with an overtly US point of view as background. Given
the ongoing issues surrounding Crimea, that an article is blatantly
skewed towards the US POV is not acceptable. As an editor who has
heavily edited on articles relating to Russian foreign policy in the
past, this is not acceptable. Additionally, it presents challenges to
editors in this area knowing that the WMF has publicly entwined with
U.S. POV being inserted into English Wikipedia.
When we look at the $53,690 budget for the role, including whatever
"stipend" Sandole received, and correlate it to his edits on
Wikipedia,[54] he made a total of 176 mainspace edits and 32
non-mainspace edits to Wikipedia up to and over the duration of his
tenure as WiR, meaning that each mainspace edit (of which many were
minor fixes, etc) has a value of US$305. I will leave it up to others
in the community to judge whether this was value-for-money.
Another role of the full-time WiR position at Belfer, as noted by
Sandole on his userpage was to "teach the students, faculty, and
fellows how to edit Wikipedia articles though seminars." After an
extensive search, I can find only one such seminar which was
publicised as being held on 20 August 2013[55] -- right at the end of
his WiR term. I do not know if the seminar was held, and what the
impressions of those who attended were. I can also find no evidence of
Sandole having blogged about the WiR role, which was another
requirement in the Job Description Form (JDF).
Given the issues surrounding Sandole's lack of Wikipedia experience,
and the problematic issues I have found in his editing, I am not sure
whether Sandole was the right person to be holding such seminars in
the first place.
At the end of the day, Sandole should not be judged for his role in
this fiasco. He has applied for a position that he obviously saw could
advance his career. As an associate at Belfer, he probably did a lot
of useful work for them, which resulted in his being kept on at Belfer
as a research assistance, but in terms of the role he was employed
for, that being a Wikipedian-in-Residence, he did not fit the bill.
The shortcomings raised here lay firmly at the feet of those in the
WMF who sat by and allowed this situation to occur in the first place.
== Wikimedia Foundation role ==
Why the Wikimedia Foundation has taken on what is traditionally a
community role and have chosen to endorse a WiR for Belfer, when
Belfer does not fit into a typical GLAM institutional category is
something that needs to be seriously questioned. Additionally unclear
is why the WMF has chosen to publicly endorse a paid editing role,
when it has been vocal against paid editing in general.
The first notice that I can find of this position was on 16 April
2012, when an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation added notification
to the WiR page on the Outreach Wiki that they were "looking for
one".[35] This was removed just a little over an hour later by
LoriLee, who stated "Removing position until JD can be discussed
further".[36] I can't find anything public where anything was
discussed, so one has to assume that discussion was done behind the
scenes; but with whom one can't tell. Unfortunately, Jobvite does not
allow Wayback Machine to crawl its content, so one can't see via that
method what differences there were in the JDF as of 16 April 2012 and
26 April 2012 when the announcement was made on the WMF blog.[37]
Perhaps LoriLee could publish the initial JDF so that the wider
community can see precisely where the issues were at that time, and so
that the community can see what, if anything, was done by the WMF to
address the issues that long-time and experienced GLAM people saw.
=== Human Resources ===
As noted on Odder's blog, the position was advertised on both the WMF
blog and on Jobvite. A copy of the advertisement posted on Facebook
includes a closing date of 10 July 2012, a start date of 27 August
2012, and asks that all applications be sent to
jobs(a)wikimedia.org.[24] It isn't clear where applications sent via
Jobvite were directed to, but naturally one would expect them to go
jobs(a)wikimedia.org as well.
In the real world, the Human Resource Department of a reputable
organisation would be involved in the selection process at every step,
ostensibly to ensure that the selection process is fair to all
applicants, and also to ensure that all applicable employment laws and
organisational policies are adhered too. Once the application process
is complete, a "gopher" would typically compile all applications
together, and a human resource professional, in consultation with the
department head for the position to be filled, would then go through
the applications, and create a shortlist of suitable applicants whom
would be interviewed.
The Job Description Form for this position had several essential
criteria. Sandole does not appear to meet several of them, including:
1. Experience editing the English Wikipedia.
2. The ability to effectively introduce those new to Wikipedia to its
practices, policy and culture.
3. An aptitude for facilitating healthy collaboration, especially
between experts and the Wikipedia community.
4. An interest in promoting improved access to free information for all.
The only essential criteria he seemed to have met are:
1. Strong interest in and prior academic work or other research
experience in international relations, international security, foreign
policy, and public policy issues.
2. An undergraduate and/or graduate degree in a relevant subject is preferred.
On the blog post announcing the position, Steven Walling, in response
to a question in the comments section by "T", stated:[25]
"I would not encourage anyone without substantial Wikipedia editing
experience to apply, as the position requires a detailed knowledge of
how the community that builds the content works."
In my own experience, recruitment of personnel has largely been guided
by government-mandated employment standards.[26] Any reputable
organisation, and especially one which prides itself on transparency
as the Wikimedia Foundation does, would use these same basic HRM
principles.
That Sandole managed not only to get past the "cut" when he doesn't
met the most important parts of the core criteria, but actually landed
himself the position, shows that the WMF does not apply
industry-standard HRM principles, and someone within the HR area at
the WMF allowed this to occur on their watch.
Or course, there is another possibility--a worse possibility--that
being that there was no HR involvement in the process at all; apart
from the writing up of a PDF, the posting of the advertisement, and
receiving the applications. If this is the case, who at the WMF was
responsible for overseeing the selection process for this WMF endorsed
paid position? We now know that Belfer was responsible for the
process,[38] and from a HRM standpoint this does not bode well for how
HRM is managed at the WMF.
=== Fundraising ===
I have found enough evidence that would indicate Lisa
Seitz-Gruwell[27] of the Fundraising team at the WMF is knee-deep
involved in this debacle. But to what extent needs some clarification.
Seitz-Gruwell joined the WMF in September 2011 as the Development
Director in the, then-called, Community Department.[28] The JDF for
the Development Director position[29] makes it clear that
Seitz-Gruwell would be responsible for the relationship between the
WMF and Liz Allison. Given Seitz-Gruwell's history of employment in
politics and political philanthropy,[30][31] she would be well aware
that when it comes to fundraising, you need to keep your donors happy,
and also that donations also often can come with an expectation from
the donor that the organisation receiving the donation will do
something for them -- a quid pro quo, if you will.
As Pine mentioned in his email, Sandole joined the WMF as a contractor
attached to the Fundraising department. This was announced by the WMF
in its August 2012 report.[32] According to the WMF organisation chart
from November 2012, Sandole officially joined the WMF as a contractor
on 27 August 2012, and was reporting to Seitz-Gruwell.[33]
Seitz-Gruwell is the common link between the players in this fiasco,
and is therefore the key in helping the community to understand what
occurred.
On 29 July 2013, Seitz-Gruwell was promoted to the position of Chief
Revenue Officer (basically the Fundraising Department head) by Sue
Gardner. In her blog on this, Sue stated:[34]
"Zack is leaving the WMF fundraising team in terrific shape, and I'm
very happy to announce I'll be promoting into the position of Chief
Revenue Officer the deputy head of the department, Lisa Seitz Gruwell.
Since Lisa joined in 2011, both Zack and I have come to heavily rely
on her leadership, managerial and strategic abilities. Lisa has been
responsible for foundations and major donors as well as being Zack's
deputy, and over the past two years she and her team have
significantly grown revenues without increasing the costs to the
organization. This is a big deal: Most non-profits need their
non-fundraising staff to participate in fundraising efforts, and it's
to Lisa's credit that her team has figured out how to raise money
without that. Lisa is widely respected and trusted. I look forward to
her leadership and am confident she will continue Fundraising's track
record of success."
This is a very strong public endorsement of Seitz-Gruwell by Gardner.
=== Executive Director ===
In the JDF for Seitz-Gruwell's then position of Development
Director[29], one will note that collaborate with the Chief Community
Officer (at the time Zack Exley) and the Executive Director (ED) (Sue
Gardner) to "develop a systematic fundraising plan that includes both
individual (community and major gift) and institutional (business and
foundation) targets." Additionally, the JDF also sees the Development
Director "undertake direct individual donor solicitations as
appropriate, engaging the Executive Director, other Foundation staff,
members of the Board or other community members when necessary.
Given Seitz-Gruwell's history in political fundraising and
"philanthropy", and given comments by herself on this list,[38] it is
evident that she is probably not attuned to how political fundraising
differs from fundraising as it pertains to the Wikimedia Foundation
and the ethical considerations that go along with it. Given her JDF, I
would have expected her to consult with her own supervisors at the
WMF, and I would expect that she approached both Exley and Gardner for
guidance.
Even if Seitz-Gruwell did not approach Gardner, as ED one would also
expect Gardner to have as least been aware of the role, given the
creation of JDFs (that should require some sort of approval), the
adding of the position to WMF accounts, and given that more than just
Seitz-Gruwell knew of the position, it is unimaginable that she was
oblivious to the position. At the very least, when Gardner promoted
Seitz-Gruwell to the Chief Revenue Officer position, surely this would
have been brought to her attention during any interview that was
conducted.
As a "seasoned journalist at the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation",[56] and having 4-5 years experience at the helm of the
WMF, it is hard for me to fathom how Gardner could be oblivious to
both the background of this position, and the issues that I am
touching on here and which have since been raised on the wikimedia-l
mailing list.
As ED of the WMF, the buck ultimately stops with Gardner, and it needs
to be determined when she became aware of the WiR position.
==Comments==
In 2010 Liam Wyatt gained the distinction of being the first person to
fill a Wikipedian-in-Residence position.[57] Since then, the concept
has taken off,[58] and there have been a multitude of GLAM
institutions to have hosted a WiR.[59] Many of these WiR are well
known in the Wikimedia community, and WiR have generally been
community or Wikimedia chapter initiatives. The traditional WiR role
has been to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that
institution",[60] and to be a WiR is to hold a prestigious position
within the Wikimedia community.
As noted by Tomasz in his blog post, when Geoff Burling first
introduced the concept of a WiR, he stated:[61]
"the reputation of anyone who called himself a
"Wikipedian-in-residence" would reflect on the reputation of the
entire project."
This couldn't be more true than right now, and it doesn't help when
the first WiR, Liam Wyatt, is so publicly critical of the way that the
WMF has handled itself on this issue.[62]
At the time of the $3.5 million grant that Stanton extended to the
WMF, Sue Gardner commented:[63]
"The Stanton Foundation is a long-time funder of the Wikimedia
Foundation, and I am thrilled they're increasing their investment in
us. The Stanton Foundation was one of the first institutions to
recognize that Wikipedia is a serious educational endeavour that's
having a significant impact on people around the world. I will always
be grateful to them for taking a risk in first funding us, many years
ago."
In March 2013 on Quora, member of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees
Jimmy Wales, why Bill Gates doesn't donate to the Wikimedia
Foundation. In response Wales stated:[64]
"This is true of many very wealthy people, but for me, I don't think
that's really what we should want for Wikipedia. Dependence on any one
donor, no matter how wonderful, has all kinds of risks."
Wales went on to say:
"For one thing, we'd lose any need to be responsive to the needs and
interests of our broad donor base. That wouldn't be a good thing. As
it is now, the real "bosses" of the Wikimedia Foundation are the small
donors. That's a good thing."
Whilst true that Stanton took a risk when investing in the Wikimedia
Foundation, it is conversely true that the Wikimedia Foundation also
took a risk when accepting Stanton's substantial investment, as the
risk of a "quid pro quo" is always prevalent. One has to accept that
people and organisations have their own reasons for wanting to engage
with the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is the Wikimedia Foundation's
responsibility to ensure that when it not only engages with external
entities but also actively endorses them, that the Foundation, and by
extension all Wikimedia projects, do not have their integrity called
into question by allowing the endorsed party to be the one calling the
shots.
As it stands now, the integrity of all involved parties (including the
innocent party -- Timothy Sandole) is shot, and the real loser in this
is the vast army of volunteer editors who have had the very principles
we believe in sold by the WMF to its biggest donor for a grand total
of $53,690.
== Where to from here ==
There will be a lot of spin from the WMF to counter the very frank,
and very logical, conclusions I have drawn in my report. The spin has
already begun on the mailing list, but if we are to progress any as a
community, we need to leave the spin at the door, and some very hard
admissions will need to be made by all of those concerned.
Russavia
==References==
[1] http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/
[2] I have long edited on international relations articles and
examples of my work are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Russia_relations and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93South_Ossetia_relations
[3] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20081204-176094/Wik…
[4] http://www.webcitation.org/6MzmljPqd
[5] http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/fellowships/StantonFellowship.html
[6] http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/frank-stanton-0529.html
[7] http://www.rand.org/about/edu_op/fellowships/stanton-nuclear.html
[8] http://carnegieendowment.iapplicants.com/ViewJob-262511.html
[9] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fellowships/stanton.html
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stanton_(executive)
[11] http://web.archive.org/web/20080420151314/http://www.arlboston.org/site/Pag…
[12] http://www.webcitation.org/6MaSjbpN3
[13] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative
[14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_July_2011#Glob…
[15] http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=60291746&authType=name&authToken=S8…
(PDF snapshot at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymTW92WkhuRXhmalU/edit?usp=shari…)
[16] http://www.webcitation.org/6Mytse0YA (page 8)
[17] http://www.webcitation.org/6MzvEBFCK
[18] http://www.webcitation.org/6MzvGnEV6
[19] http://www.webcitation.org/6MaYXIEN9
[20] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/05/business/enron-s-collapse-losers-with-bil…
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
[22] http://www.webcitation.org/6MadA5QJj
[23] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_November_2010#…
[24] http://archive.is/oE9Bd
[25] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w…
[26] http://www.publicsector.wa.gov.au/publications-resources/instructions-stand…
[27] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Lgruwell
[28] http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Staff_and_contrac…
[29] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Development_Director
[30] http://www.webcitation.org/6OCMIxrZI
[31] http://archive.is/iZAlc
[32] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/17/wikimedia-foundation-report-august-20…
[33] http://www.webcitation.org/6OD8X99o6 - this report may be read in
a semi-readable format at http://www.webcitation.org/6MZfMAY96 - if
one searches for Sandole and looks in the "supervisor" column they
will see his supervisor is "4fee231002ceaa451a000004", which is
Seitz-Gruwell.
[34] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/29/changes-wikimedia-foundation-fundrais…
[35] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedian_in_Residence&di…
- the IP used belongs to the WMF as per
http://tools.whois.net/whoisbyip/?host=216.38.130.163
[36] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedian_in_Residence&di…
[37] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w…
[38] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070640.html
[39] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Sandole&diff=prev&oldid=5…
[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_terrorism&diff=504823345…
[41] http://www.webcitation.org/6MZer83Lu
[42] http://archive.is/ufK0F
[43] http://journal.georgetown.edu/2012/09/20/president-obama-the-new-guardian-o…
(https://docs.google.com/file/d/1g0MoPbcPf6JXytbr26ys6yALCBEDJZTglujKBRdwrYe…)
[44] http://journal.georgetown.edu/submissions/online/
[45] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81232.html?hp=r10
[46] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19528463
[47] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0901/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-4-wa…
[48] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEfe1Sqs
[49] http://archive.is/kmTVw
(http://web.archive.org/web/20130627232726/belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/expe…)
[50] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuban_missile_crisis&diff=prev&o…
[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timothysandole&oldid=513421…
[52] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEifCara
[53] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEivBItE
[54] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Timothysandole&project=…
[55] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEjvqEwe
[56] http://www.webcitation.org/6OF1GpqgU
[57] http://wittylama.com/2010/02/07/wikipedian-in-residence
[58] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/how-wikipedians-in-re…
[59] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence
[60] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian_in_Resi…
[61] http://original-research.blogspot.com/2006/12/wikipedian-in-residence-propo…
[62] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070649.html
[63] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/05/wikimedia-receives-3-5million-usd-gra…
[64] http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Why-doesnt-Bill-Gates-donate-to-Wikipedia-i-…
(a PDF of this is available to view at
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymTXd2dzhQZTJfUXc/edit)
On 21 March 2014 08:20, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
> Just after talking about "stomping down with its hobnail boots on
> Wikimedia UK", huh? :-) I'm sorry to have offended your delicate...
I apologise for the "hobnail boots" comment, it was unnecessarily dramatic.
This is a slight tangent, but for the sake of good governance and
transparency worth a minor clarification for those that do not
appreciate the history and what we have learned as a community:
I believe it is fair to say that the WMF directed the UK chapter to
take immediate corrective action in response to poor press coverage of
the UK chapter. As a trustee at the time who reviewed all
correspondence and had personal face to face conversations with all
the relevant WMF senior management, my understanding (I am not
speaking for Wikimedia UK charity) is that the UK board of trustees at
that time were faced with a Hobson's choice of precisely complying
with the WMF's specified actions, or ceasing to exist. It is unfair on
the WMF to for me to describe this as "hobnail boots".
The commitment of the Wikimedia Foundation to good governance practice
and its uncompromising management style was effective in this regard,
certainly the UK Chapter did need to improve, and it now is well on
its path to improvement. I have no doubt that the WMF board of
trustees intends to enforce the exactly same high standards of
governance over its own operations to assure the reputation of
Wikimedia is not put at unnecessary risk.
Thank you.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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.
Currently our policies do not allow the use of logos of organizations we
are collaborating with, even with permission from these organizations, in
the non mainspace areas of Wikipedia where we are collaborating.
As this use "with permission" is legal, it is not in mainspace, and it
promotes the development of Wikipedia I have started a RfC here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Logos_of_orga…
that we allow it. Thoughts?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com