Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of time I was even a bit depressed.
I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately. After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly. Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues, those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I hope that we won't go that way.
I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters. In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF, but it would be good to have a common international body which would audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are able to realize when those things become public. I've already mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which could help.
Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So, *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or hire a professional in international relations.
WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists. Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that they are safe of it.
Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, although we have problems here."
This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between those with money (and/or connections) and them.
This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world looks like.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of time I was even a bit depressed.
I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately. After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly. Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues, those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I hope that we won't go that way.
I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters. In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF, but it would be good to have a common international body which would audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are able to realize when those things become public. I've already mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which could help.
Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So, *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or hire a professional in international relations.
WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists. Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that they are safe of it.
Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, although we have problems here."
This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between those with money (and/or connections) and them.
This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world looks like.
With any group of people there is always the difficulty of bridging the "in group" and everyone else. It's worth pointing out that to many people, the ability to go to Wikimania is one of the characteristics that separates the "in group" from the rest of us. It's interesting that even among attendees, you noticed a divide.
One thing that perpetuates such divisions is withholding of somehow privileged information (i.e. choosing that something widely known among a certain group of people should stay "private" from those not already in the know). As an example I'll mention two of the problems you listed: firstly, the concerns about the WMF and its connection to US business interests, and secondly the notion of confirmed corruption within Wikimedia chapters. Perhaps these are common knowledge among subscribers to internal-l, but I don't miss many threads on this list and I haven't seen either issue mentioned as a significant problem. For me what you've written are facts of first impression, and you didn't include much specific information that would allow me to grasp their real importance.
Nathan
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
within Wikimedia chapters. Perhaps these are common knowledge among subscribers to internal-l, but I don't miss many threads on this list
Actually, not. Internal-l is just a non-public (which doesn't mean that it is a private one) fork of foundation-l. It is often used instead of foundation-l, as well as for information of tactical importance which shouldn't be exposed publicly in a particular time frame. And chapters list is a kind of bureaucratic place without many interesting things to read there.
Hoi, Our community is not perfect. That is good. There are people who spend an inordinate amount of time on Wiki related subjects; I am one of them. There are people who go to Wikimania, I have been to all of them. There are people with a large amount of influence; when you heared Jimmy speak I am one of them. I am not perfect.
There are many people with loads of influence and as I have been there from quite early it was relatively easy for me to cut out a niche. I am not on influential-l or secret-l or cabal-l.
Like yourself I have heard of incompetence, money grabbing, power plays. I have seen some. However for me it does not matter. Many of these people have their own agenda and if it the time of the items of such an agenda are in the here and now, they shape our world. Many of the items of my agenda are in the agenda and I could not be more happy about that. I also know that it upsets others.
The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that have the possibility to force the issue.
From my perspective, I hate it when there are half formulated accusations. I
am sure that I will work well with Milos in our little committee and like pinky and the brain, we will conquer the world. <grin> we even have a mandate to do so in our strategy plan </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 00:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of time I was even a bit depressed.
I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately. After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly. Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues, those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I hope that we won't go that way.
I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters. In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF, but it would be good to have a common international body which would audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are able to realize when those things become public. I've already mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which could help.
Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So, *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or hire a professional in international relations.
WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists. Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that they are safe of it.
Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, although we have problems here."
This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between those with money (and/or connections) and them.
This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world looks like.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The problem with general accusations that hit nobody in particular is that it's rather hard to follow up on them. I'm sure there is probably at least one corrupt or biased employee of the foundation or chapter somewhere in the world - it's a human weakness. Nothing can really be done about it unless, as gerard says, it hits the fan.
From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:28:33 +0200 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
Hoi, Our community is not perfect. That is good. There are people who spend an inordinate amount of time on Wiki related subjects; I am one of them. There are people who go to Wikimania, I have been to all of them. There are people with a large amount of influence; when you heared Jimmy speak I am one of them. I am not perfect.
There are many people with loads of influence and as I have been there from quite early it was relatively easy for me to cut out a niche. I am not on influential-l or secret-l or cabal-l.
Like yourself I have heard of incompetence, money grabbing, power plays. I have seen some. However for me it does not matter. Many of these people have their own agenda and if it the time of the items of such an agenda are in the here and now, they shape our world. Many of the items of my agenda are in the agenda and I could not be more happy about that. I also know that it upsets others.
The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that have the possibility to force the issue.
From my perspective, I hate it when there are half formulated accusations. I am sure that I will work well with Milos in our little committee and like pinky and the brain, we will conquer the world. <grin> we even have a mandate to do so in our strategy plan </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 00:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of time I was even a bit depressed.
I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately. After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly. Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues, those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I hope that we won't go that way.
I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters. In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF, but it would be good to have a common international body which would audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are able to realize when those things become public. I've already mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which could help.
Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So, *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or hire a professional in international relations.
WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists. Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that they are safe of it.
Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, although we have problems here."
This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between those with money (and/or connections) and them.
This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world looks like.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Corruption is a deep concern because it's a transformative and invasive force/process. It's not just a stain, it's rather like an oil spill: growing bigger, with consequences on every level. The more a community let the corruption in, the more the community is out of its own business. I understand the worries of Milos, though I have no clue about the specifics. In its current allusive form, only a few in-the-know can understand the alarm signal of Milos and judge if the danger is real. I hope they will have a deep thought about it.
Enucleation, parasiting and phagocyting are known processes in the biological world. The same happens with institutions, ideas and social processes. Except that because we are part of those processes, we usually realize what is happening to us once it is too late.
I don't think that the wikimedian community is so special that corruption won't occur, therefore justifying a lack of worry or effort against it. I don't think that corruption is unavoidable either.
Mankind has never before been able to communicate and think massively about its common problems. We're living a new era. No solution is out of reach until someone tries to find if it is. No human had the opportunity before to share with 1 000 000 of his/her peers so we don't know anymore what we cannot do about *any* problem.
If auditing is found to be a good solution, then maybe we can obtain help from the side of AVINA[1], an latino-american organization, originally founded in 1994 by Stephan Schmidheiny[2], that has experience and knowledge about trust, self-evaluation and corruption. They also have an impressive list of hundreds of independent of organizations capable of auditing.
[1]: http://www.avina.net/web/siteavina.nsf/page?openform&Sistema=1&idiom... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Schmidheiny
On 14/07/2010 14:06, oliver keyes wrote:
The problem with general accusations that hit nobody in particular is that it's rather hard to follow up on them. I'm sure there is probably at least one corrupt or biased employee of the foundation or chapter somewhere in the world - it's a human weakness. Nothing can really be done about it unless, as gerard says, it hits the fan.
From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:28:33 +0200 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
Hoi, Our community is not perfect. That is good. There are people who spend an inordinate amount of time on Wiki related subjects; I am one of them. There are people who go to Wikimania, I have been to all of them. There are people with a large amount of influence; when you heared Jimmy speak I am one of them. I am not perfect.
There are many people with loads of influence and as I have been there from quite early it was relatively easy for me to cut out a niche. I am not on influential-l or secret-l or cabal-l.
Like yourself I have heard of incompetence, money grabbing, power plays. I have seen some. However for me it does not matter. Many of these people have their own agenda and if it the time of the items of such an agenda are in the here and now, they shape our world. Many of the items of my agenda are in the agenda and I could not be more happy about that. I also know that it upsets others.
The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that have the possibility to force the issue.
From my perspective, I hate it when there are half formulated accusations. I am sure that I will work well with Milos in our little committee and like pinky and the brain, we will conquer the world. <grin> we even have a mandate to do so in our strategy plan </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 00:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of time I was even a bit depressed.
I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately. After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly. Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues, those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I hope that we won't go that way.
I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters. In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF, but it would be good to have a common international body which would audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are able to realize when those things become public. I've already mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which could help.
Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So, *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or hire a professional in international relations.
WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists. Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that they are safe of it.
Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, although we have problems here."
This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between those with money (and/or connections) and them.
This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world looks like.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I did like the general principle of the original statement that there should be some formal interplay between the foundation and chapters. Where I come from, charitable organisations are required to send a yearly report (or two, if a charitable company). This contains financial information, auditing info, and suchlike. Would it be possible to (or is it already done) require that chapters also forward these reports to the foundation? I assume a similar regulatory process exists in most countries. _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
On 7/14/2010 12:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
I am thankful that Gerard thinks well of me, but to disclaim a bit of the context, let me say that I can't imagine that either money or corruption had any impact whatsoever on the process. Politics? Sure, but only in the sense that human interactions in any institutional setting are necessarily political. I prefer his subsequent description of Phoebe as a wonderful person who I expect will be a fine board member.
In more general terms, speaking not just of the board selection, I think a highly charged and inflammatory concept like "corruption" is not well-suited to describing the situation. It's fair to be concerned about it, and the potential distorting influences of money, but the problems I have heard about usually do not fit that description. Both the chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation occasionally must resist undue influences from outside; both could work to improve their relationship with each other; and both still need to mature as organizations. The foundation may be a bit further along on the last point, and hopefully the chapters can learn from those experiences.
I know the chapters have sometimes faced their own internal challenges, but they seem typical of young organizations that are just learning how to function appropriately. While I agree with the other comments that whistle-blowing should be protected, from my experience it seems like the need for it is relatively low in this case - by that I mean I've been aware of chapter leaders discussing internal concerns that arise and seeking advice when they need it, rather than dismissing the idea. As the movement grows and develops, we may find better ways of auditing that kind of performance. For now, it seems like the right thing for chapters to focus on figuring out what they should be doing, and learning from mistakes as they come up.
--Michael Snow
On 13 July 2010 23:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
Unfortunately, we can't really talk about problems without establishing whether there is a problem. Some vague comments about some vague rumours of corruption in some unspecified chapters doesn't really count as establishing that a problem exists. If you have evidence of corruption within the Wikimedia movement, then you need to present it. You can choose to present it to us or to the relevant authorities, but you shouldn't just hint at it.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 July 2010 23:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
Unfortunately, we can't really talk about problems without establishing whether there is a problem. Some vague comments about some vague rumours of corruption in some unspecified chapters doesn't really count as establishing that a problem exists. If you have evidence of corruption within the Wikimedia movement, then you need to present it. You can choose to present it to us or to the relevant authorities, but you shouldn't just hint at it.
(This is the reply to all of you who complained about not mentioning names.)
First of all, I am not able to talk about people who complained me. Second, if I become more precise about chapters, I would again expose my informants. Third, I am not able to talk publicly about particular chapters based on private talks because I don't have any document, just words of a couple of persons to whom I trust.
At last, I've suggested reasonable measures for every mentioned problem. For example, in the case of corruption, making a proper audit process should help and it is fully uncontroversial measure.
It should be noted that I am not a member of any kind of audit body which is able mark particular problems publicly. I've just got enough information to feel responsible to expose them carefully in public, with taking care not to hurt anyone.
I am also open for *private* discussion with all relevant people who are able to fix those problems.
An audit of what exactly? You mean a financial audit of monies passing through the hands of the WMF ? That kind of audit?
Will
-----Original Message----- From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 14, 2010 7:13 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 July 2010 23:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise
enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and
organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much
more important than making witch hunts.
Unfortunately, we can't really talk about problems without
establishing whether there is a problem. Some vague comments about
some vague rumours of corruption in some unspecified chapters doesn't
really count as establishing that a problem exists. If you have
evidence of corruption within the Wikimedia movement, then you need to
present it. You can choose to present it to us or to the relevant
authorities, but you shouldn't just hint at it.
(This is the reply to all of you who complained about not mentioning names.)
First of all, I am not able to talk about people who complained me.
Second, if I become more precise about chapters, I would again expose
my informants. Third, I am not able to talk publicly about particular
chapters based on private talks because I don't have any document,
just words of a couple of persons to whom I trust.
At last, I've suggested reasonable measures for every mentioned
problem. For example, in the case of corruption, making a proper audit
process should help and it is fully uncontroversial measure.
It should be noted that I am not a member of any kind of audit body
which is able mark particular problems publicly. I've just got enough
information to feel responsible to expose them carefully in public,
with taking care not to hurt anyone.
I am also open for *private* discussion with all relevant people who
are able to fix those problems.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
[...] First of all, I am not able to talk about people who complained me. Second, if I become more precise about chapters, I would again expose my informants. Third, I am not able to talk publicly about particular chapters based on private talks because I don't have any document, just words of a couple of persons to whom I trust. [...]
So your "informants" weigh their personal interest much higher than that of the foundation - aren't they then part of the problem?
Tim
Sounds like it. If these people are so reliable and trustworthy, why exactly haven't they contacted the Foundation?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.dewrote:
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
[...] First of all, I am not able to talk about people who complained me. Second, if I become more precise about chapters, I would again expose my informants. Third, I am not able to talk publicly about particular chapters based on private talks because I don't have any document, just words of a couple of persons to whom I trust. [...]
So your "informants" weigh their personal interest much higher than that of the foundation - aren't they then part of the problem?
Tim
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, A question.. how does your reply help ? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 21:11, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
[...] First of all, I am not able to talk about people who complained me. Second, if I become more precise about chapters, I would again expose my informants. Third, I am not able to talk publicly about particular chapters based on private talks because I don't have any document, just words of a couple of persons to whom I trust. [...]
So your "informants" weigh their personal interest much higher than that of the foundation - aren't they then part of the problem?
Tim
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Err. Who's reply?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, A question.. how does your reply help ? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 21:11, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
[...] First of all, I am not able to talk about people who complained me. Second, if I become more precise about chapters, I would again expose my informants. Third, I am not able to talk publicly about particular chapters based on private talks because I don't have any document, just words of a couple of persons to whom I trust. [...]
So your "informants" weigh their personal interest much higher than that of the foundation - aren't they then part of the problem?
Tim
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Holy lord people just stop. If we have real issues we want to get back to and address/talk about then by all means but this has just devolved into sniping at each other which doesn't help a damn thing. I have a feeling a good portion of that is because we've sort of come to a point with less to talk about. We've heard form sue and while I would personally like to know some of the specifics I can totally understand why Milos (or others) would want to keep them private and it appears that he is being contacted by someone from the Board to take this further.
I'm not totally sure it was helpful to have the vague accusations at the start because it led us to this point ( and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who saw that as a likely conclusion) but getting some of this in the open does have it's benefits. Sitting here bickering after we've gotten to a natural conclusion doesn't have any benefits.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
Just to make clear about which problems are, because I didn't structure text clearly. Problems are:
1. Corruption among two chapters. 2. US business interests influence WMF strategy. 3. Gap between those who are coming between poor and rich countries. 4. All decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now a matter of international politics. 5. Careerists around WMF and chapters. 6. Alienation.
On 14 July 2010 15:17, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Just to make clear about which problems are, because I didn't structure text clearly. Problems are:
- Corruption among two chapters.
- US business interests influence WMF strategy.
- Gap between those who are coming between poor and rich countries.
- All decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now a matter of
international politics. 5. Careerists around WMF and chapters. 6. Alienation.
I'm not convinced those problems exist, so I'm not convinced that the costs (in terms of time, money, effort, etc.) of the solution you propose are worth it. The first thing you need to do is establish that the problem exists, which means presenting evidence. I understand your desire not to reveal your sources, but that doesn't mean you can avoid presenting evidence.
You claim that the Foundation is tied in with US business interests. Heard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? so far, I've seen none. If the two people you trust are inside say, the Foundation, surely they can do something about it? If not, how is this any more than third-party hearsay? _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:48 PM, oliver keyes thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
You claim that the Foundation is tied in with US business interests. Heard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? so far, I've seen none. If the two people you trust are inside say, the Foundation, surely they can do something about it? If not, how is this any more than third-party hearsay?
While this a kind of semi-public issue, I won't talk about details publicly. Try to find another source.
And I am completely fine with treating my points as unfounded.
On 14 July 2010 16:13, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
And I am completely fine with treating my points as unfounded.
Ok, then this discussion is over. There is no point us wasting our time discussing unfounded accusations.
I agree with Tom that there isn't really much to discuss, although I support the idea of having chapters copy the foundation in to any legally required audits or yearly reports. Tom, you're more intimately involved; what is the situation with chapters and their responsibilities to the foundation at the moment? _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
On 14 July 2010 16:26, oliver keyes thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I agree with Tom that there isn't really much to discuss, although I support the idea of having chapters copy the foundation in to any legally required audits or yearly reports. Tom, you're more intimately involved; what is the situation with chapters and their responsibilities to the foundation at the moment?
The UK's chapter agreement (different chapters have slightly different agreements, and I believe WMDE doesn't have an agreement at all and just operates under tradition and convention) includes the clauses:
"1. The Chapter shall supply a written activity and financial report in English at least once a year to the Foundation, within four months of each Chapter year-end. 2. The Foundation shall supply a written activity and financial report from the Foundation Board in English to the Chapter within four months of each Foundation year-end."
I'm not sure how good chapters are at actually sending those reports. I know the UK isn't as good as it ought to be with activity reports. The UK has only just finished its first financial year and is in the process of sorting out the report, which will be send to the Foundation when it is ready.
Hoi, Thomas that is too easy. Even when there is no corruption .... the notion that this idea lives among our people is upsetting. It is well worth it to be careful this in our communication. I will argue that we are not good at getting our message out. It could get more of a priority.
Regular reporting is hard. Ask Sue for instance why she does not find the time to provide us with monthly updates.. I am convinced that she just does not find the time. That does not mean that it is sad that there is so little coming out of the office in the way of information. I believe that with more information we will not make this feeling go away; I do believe that our proceedings become less opaque. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 17:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 July 2010 16:13, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
And I am completely fine with treating my points as unfounded.
Ok, then this discussion is over. There is no point us wasting our time discussing unfounded accusations.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14 July 2010 16:27, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thomas that is too easy. Even when there is no corruption .... the notion that this idea lives among our people is upsetting. It is well worth it to be careful this in our communication. I will argue that we are not good at getting our message out. It could get more of a priority.
We have one person expressing concerns. We have no evidence that those concerns are widespread. There will always be the odd conspiracy theorist. There isn't anything we can do to stop that.
"Sue doesn't send out a monthly report" - Sue is the Executive Director of the fastest growing non-profit foundation in the United States, a foundation which has just announced a doubling of its staff, trial direct expansion to two more nations and the gradual relocation of server resources. You think she has the time for a monthly report? _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, oliver keyes thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
You think she has the time for a monthly report?
I do, actually, because she does send them out. :-) Things have gotten busy and they've gotten a little behind, but sending out reports is definitely something she considers a priority and often does. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Reports_to_the_Board
Anyway, I'm not sure you understood the meaning behind that e-mail quote. Gerard was just pointing out something, he wasn't criticizing anyone for not reporting.
Hoi, She started producing monthly reports. I know she feels strongly that it is important to do so. She has in the past worked hard to fill in missing reports. I would not be surprised that she will find the time to do so again and I am not surprised that it is a lack of time that prevents them from being timely.
My argument is that such reporting does not get the priority that ensures a clockwork appearance of such reports and that such reporting is important to stimulate interest in our movement and deflate conspiracy theories. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 18:12, oliver keyes thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
"Sue doesn't send out a monthly report" - Sue is the Executive Director of the fastest growing non-profit foundation in the United States, a foundation which has just announced a doubling of its staff, trial direct expansion to two more nations and the gradual relocation of server resources. You think she has the time for a monthly report?
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's true; sorry, I misunderstood your message. It would be helpful to prevent claims that unspecified employees in unspecified chapters are being corrupted in an unspecified way based on unspecified evidence from unspecified sources :P _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
I _try_ to create a monthly report, but we do fall behind. Nobody at the Foundation is happy about that, but they are a pain to produce. We'll probably try to figure out a better, easier way to do it, this year.
(And hello Oliver, and welcome to foundation-l!)
Just to be clear, I have no idea what Milos is talking about, either with regard to the chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation. I believe one of the board members plans to follow up with him offline.
A couple more bits of information:
* We don't currently have good audit procedures confirming that the chapters have met their commitments. That's normal, because Wikimedia is still pretty young. But what I believe Thomas said is also true: most organizations have pretty strong audit procedures, plus procedures for what to do when commitments aren't being met. For example, I believe the (U.S.) Corporation For Public Broadcasting publishes the results of its (third-party) audits of compliance at NPR and PBS stations. For example, it tracks how many minutes of sponsorship are broadcast per hour, in order to assess whether stations are complying with agreed-upon maximums. If a station exceeds its sponsorship maximums, there are repercussions -- although I don't know what they are.
* Anyone who has information about malfeasance or misfeasance inside Wikimedia should take a look at our Whistleblower Policy, which lays out process for escalation to authorities. The policy is intended to cover serious and actual problems (rather than for example rumour or worries), but it's probably better to overreport than underreport. And it is good to have a confidential avenue. I can tell you our Whistleblower Policy has worked well for us in the past: I'm glad it exists.
* For those interested in the scholarships, here's a quote from mail Sara sent me the other day:
"1) As of tonight, we have 70 Wikimania Scholarship recipients from 39 countries (6 continents). Each scholarship covers roundtrip travel, registration, and accommodations for one recipient.Approximate funding on travel, registration, and accommodations for these 70 people is $110,000.* The program is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2010. The recipients were selected by a committee of volunteers, out of about 2,500 applicantions. They were selected primarily on the basis of their participation in the Wikimedia projects or other free knowledge and educational initiatives, and also on their efforts to help grow community in underrepresented regions.This is compared to 58 recipients in 2009 whose travel and registration cost ~$93,000, and was funded by four funders.*As we are processing last-minute refunded tickets, and accommodations and registration still need to be charged back to us, $110K is only an approximate number at this time.2) Thanks to the scholarships committee and Gdansk team who dedicated so much time and attention to this program.3) Thanks to chapters that offered direct support for Wikimedians to attend Wikimedia. (I don't know which ones specifically, just that some have supported their members).4) Thanks to the Open Society Institute and the Soros Foundations, which are sponsoring several Wikimedians from Central Asia, the Caucuses, and the Balkans."
Sorry for the formatting on that note from Sara -- it's just a copy-and-paste out of my Blackberry. I'm at the airport in Newark: just about home :-)
Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: oliver keyes thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:12:53 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
"Sue doesn't send out a monthly report" - Sue is the Executive Director of the fastest growing non-profit foundation in the United States, a foundation which has just announced a doubling of its staff, trial direct expansion to two more nations and the gradual relocation of server resources. You think she has the time for a monthly report? _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sue Gardner, 14/07/2010 18:33:
- Anyone who has information about malfeasance or misfeasance inside Wikimedia should take a look at our Whistleblower Policy, which lays out process for escalation to authorities. The policy is intended to cover serious and actual problems (rather than for example rumour or worries), but it's probably better to overreport than underreport. And it is good to have a confidential avenue. I can tell you our Whistleblower Policy has worked well for us in the past: I'm glad it exists.
Anyone? Looks like it applies only to employees. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Policy "entity with whom Wikimedia Foundation Inc has a business relationship" includes chapters?
Nemo
On 14 July 2010 23:00, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sue Gardner, 14/07/2010 18:33:
- Anyone who has information about malfeasance or misfeasance inside Wikimedia should take a look at our Whistleblower Policy, which lays out process for escalation to authorities. The policy is intended to cover serious and actual problems (rather than for example rumour or worries), but it's probably better to overreport than underreport. And it is good to have a confidential avenue. I can tell you our Whistleblower Policy has worked well for us in the past: I'm glad it exists.
Anyone? Looks like it applies only to employees. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Policy "entity with whom Wikimedia Foundation Inc has a business relationship" includes chapters?
Indeed. I'm not sure why Sue mentioned the Whistleblower Policy. Whistleblower policies are about what an employee needs to do to make sure they don't get fired for reporting things to the authorities. It's irrelevant for anyone else. The general idea that it's good to report things to the ED, Chair of the Board or Chair of the Audit Committee (as appropriate) is a good one, but that isn't because it says so in the Whistleblower Policy. It's just because it's a good way to get the problem solved.
To be honest, anyone "whistleblowing" from outside the organisation.. well, it's rather hard to be punished by the foundation employment-wise when you don't work for them.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 14 July 2010 23:00, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sue Gardner, 14/07/2010 18:33:
- Anyone who has information about malfeasance or misfeasance inside
Wikimedia should take a look at our Whistleblower Policy, which lays out process for escalation to authorities. The policy is intended to cover serious and actual problems (rather than for example rumour or worries), but it's probably better to overreport than underreport. And it is good to have a confidential avenue. I can tell you our Whistleblower Policy has worked well for us in the past: I'm glad it exists.
Anyone? Looks like it applies only to employees. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Policy "entity with whom Wikimedia Foundation Inc has a business relationship" includes chapters?
Indeed. I'm not sure why Sue mentioned the Whistleblower Policy. Whistleblower policies are about what an employee needs to do to make sure they don't get fired for reporting things to the authorities. It's irrelevant for anyone else. The general idea that it's good to report things to the ED, Chair of the Board or Chair of the Audit Committee (as appropriate) is a good one, but that isn't because it says so in the Whistleblower Policy. It's just because it's a good way to get the problem solved.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14 July 2010 23:54, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest, anyone "whistleblowing" from outside the organisation.. well, it's rather hard to be punished by the foundation employment-wise when you don't work for them.
Well, yes, that was my point.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone? Looks like it applies only to employees. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Policy "entity with whom Wikimedia Foundation Inc has a business relationship" includes chapters?
I'm sure she was mentioning it in spirit -- basically "you can see we're interested in whistleblowers and have this protection/policy already in place for our employees; anyone else should feel free to report any issues they think exist as well".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, oliver keyes wrote:
Sue is the Executive Director of the fastest growing non-profit foundation in the United States, a foundation which has just announced a doubling of its staff, trial direct expansion to two more nations and the gradual relocation of server resources. You think she has the time for a monthly report?
Is there a press release for any of this? Alternatively, do we have a timeline for when her talk will be available for viewing?
- -Mike
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, oliver keyes wrote:
Sue is the Executive Director of the fastest growing non-profit foundation in the United States, a foundation which has just
The characterization of the Wikimedia Foundation as the "fastest growing non-profit" was from something done by Charity Navigator, IIRC, and was mentioned in Sue's report at Wikimania.
announced a doubling of its staff, trial direct expansion to two more nations and the gradual relocation of server resources. You think she has the time for a monthly report?
The doubling of staff and other announcements can be found in the Annual Plan. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2010-2011_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers I don't think the "general relocation" is accurate -- aren't we just planning to setup more datacenters?
I'm pretty sure the "direct expansion" bit is also mentioned in the Annual Plan as "boots-on-the-ground"/"BOTG" initiatives in India and Brazil.
Is there a press release for any of this? Alternatively, do we have a timeline for when her talk will be available for viewing?
It was streamed while the conference was going on, but if you missed that, the presentations should be imported to Commons by either Rob or Roan within the next few weeks. (It's a ton of content. Last I heard, they were mailing Rob a DVD with all the content and he'd be importing it when he got it.)
Even if there is no corruption, there will be.
Just look at it dispassionately. Wikimedia has how many chapters? And aims to have how many more? All self-organized, boot-strapped operations operating under different systems, in different cultures with varying tolerances for mixing self-interest with duty. The odds dictate that some of these organizations will fail. And there will be some level self-interest involved in failure or the floundering of chapters. This should be expected. The question is what sort of process we should have for dealing with chapters that exceed our tolerance for this sort of thing. Ideally we should have such a process in place with clear expectations before there is ever any need to use it.
But pretending corruption is something that won't happen or can be prevented on a absolute level is silly. I haven't a clue what anyone is referring to as current examples. I don't really care for politics and gossip, so I personally don't even want to know. But it is worth talking about what sort of process we should develop to deal with such things for its own sake. We can't simply depend on people being better than human. Given a large enough sample, people will do what they do; what they have always done. It shouldn't be controversial to ask for a system to be put in place to mitigate the harm from people behaving in such a reliably predictable fashion as becoming corrupted by money or power.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 7/14/10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:27 AM Hoi, Thomas that is too easy. Even when there is no corruption .... the notion that this idea lives among our people is upsetting. It is well worth it to be careful this in our communication. I will argue that we are not good at getting our message out. It could get more of a priority.
Regular reporting is hard. Ask Sue for instance why she does not find the time to provide us with monthly updates.. I am convinced that she just does not find the time. That does not mean that it is sad that there is so little coming out of the office in the way of information. I believe that with more information we will not make this feeling go away; I do believe that our proceedings become less opaque. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 17:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 July 2010 16:13, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
And I am completely fine with treating my points
as unfounded.
Ok, then this discussion is over. There is no point us
wasting our
time discussing unfounded accusations.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just look at it dispassionately. Wikimedia has how many chapters? And aims to have how many more? All self-organized, boot-strapped operations operating under different systems, in different cultures with varying tolerances for mixing self-interest with duty. The odds dictate that some of these organizations will fail. And there will be some level self-interest involved in failure or the floundering of chapters. This should be expected. The question is what sort of process we should have for dealing with chapters that exceed our tolerance for this sort of thing. Ideally we should have such a process in place with clear expectations before there is ever any need to use it.
But pretending corruption is something that won't happen or can be prevented on a absolute level is silly. I haven't a clue what anyone is referring to as current examples. I don't really care for politics and gossip, so I personally don't even want to know. But it is worth talking about what sort of process we should develop to deal with such things for its own sake. We can't simply depend on people being better than human. Given a large enough sample, people will do what they do; what they have always done. It shouldn't be controversial to ask for a system to be put in place to mitigate the harm from people behaving in such a reliably predictable fashion as becoming corrupted by money or power.
Birgitte SB
I think it will be very difficult to meaningfully mitigate the risks of waste, fraud and abuse in national chapters. Ideally the WMF can place restraints on its funding by demanding careful vetting of officers and strong internal risk controls -- but this places a large burden on organizations still in their infancy, and may be a stifling factor during a crucial period of expansion. The process for requesting funds is not what I would call robust, and the annual fund-raising drive (where donors can donate directly to national chapters through the WMF front door) seems to be a vector that is particularly vulnerable to misuse of funds, but addressing these concerns should be balanced with the need for a strong relationship with chapters that supports continued growth.
The best prophylaxis against corruption is transparency. The more we ask the WMF and the chapters to operate in the open, the less likely it is that problems will go long unnoticed. By accepting that chapter finances and operations are "private issues", and that corruption or accusations of corruption should be handled quietly and internally, we leave ourselves open to those who would (through malice or incompetence) take advantage of us.
Gerard wrote:
The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some
stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is
certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that have the possibility to force the issue.
Gerard, can you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not sure I understand what you meant to convey. You mention Essjay, problematic behavior, problematic credentials... and then refer to Michael Snow. Is there some connection here that I'm completely missing, or is the apparent implication unintended?
Nathan
Hoi, The fact that a person that I am completely positive about can lose an election means that nothing is a given. Our community is able and willing to make choices. Choices that have a perfect gentleman being replaced by a perfect lady.
As to Essjay, when it became clear that his credibility was lost, he moved away / his continued presence became untenable. This was a sad afair on many levels, but it also showed that such things happen and that appropriate results were the consequence.
When we learn that certain people, certain practices are damaging our community, our movement I am consequently sanguine that measures will be either silently or openly be taken. It is my hope that we will be both clear and resolute while not losing our compassion at the same time. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 July 2010 19:45, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Just look at it dispassionately. Wikimedia has how many chapters? And
aims to have how many more? All self-organized, boot-strapped operations operating under different systems, in different cultures with varying tolerances for mixing self-interest with duty. The odds dictate that some of these organizations will fail. And there will be some level self-interest involved in failure or the floundering of chapters. This should be expected. The question is what sort of process we should have for dealing with chapters that exceed our tolerance for this sort of thing. Ideally we should have such a process in place with clear expectations before there is ever any need to use it.
But pretending corruption is something that won't happen or can be
prevented on a absolute level is silly. I haven't a clue what anyone is referring to as current examples. I don't really care for politics and gossip, so I personally don't even want to know. But it is worth talking about what sort of process we should develop to deal with such things for its own sake. We can't simply depend on people being better than human. Given a large enough sample, people will do what they do; what they have always done. It shouldn't be controversial to ask for a system to be put in place to mitigate the harm from people behaving in such a reliably predictable fashion as becoming corrupted by money or power.
Birgitte SB
I think it will be very difficult to meaningfully mitigate the risks of waste, fraud and abuse in national chapters. Ideally the WMF can place restraints on its funding by demanding careful vetting of officers and strong internal risk controls -- but this places a large burden on organizations still in their infancy, and may be a stifling factor during a crucial period of expansion. The process for requesting funds is not what I would call robust, and the annual fund-raising drive (where donors can donate directly to national chapters through the WMF front door) seems to be a vector that is particularly vulnerable to misuse of funds, but addressing these concerns should be balanced with the need for a strong relationship with chapters that supports continued growth.
The best prophylaxis against corruption is transparency. The more we ask the WMF and the chapters to operate in the open, the less likely it is that problems will go long unnoticed. By accepting that chapter finances and operations are "private issues", and that corruption or accusations of corruption should be handled quietly and internally, we leave ourselves open to those who would (through malice or incompetence) take advantage of us.
Gerard wrote:
The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some
stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is
certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that have the possibility to force the issue.
Gerard, can you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not sure I understand what you meant to convey. You mention Essjay, problematic behavior, problematic credentials... and then refer to Michael Snow. Is there some connection here that I'm completely missing, or is the apparent implication unintended?
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ok... I dont see how these problems, if they exist, can ever relate to each other, to cause you to treat them in one email post other than "OMG OMG everything is breaking down". At the same time, I just dont understand what you mean. I'll put some questions down, and hope you can treat them in seperate threads when not related.
2010/7/14 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
Just to make clear about which problems are, because I didn't structure text clearly. Problems are:
- Corruption among two chapters.
what is your definition of corruption here? Bribing to vote for something? Espionage?
- US business interests influence WMF strategy.
What is influence here? Harmful influence? What kind of interests - specific or general?
- Gap between those who are coming between poor and rich countries.
OK, this is a wikimania problem and I understand this problem. However, I think already everything reasonable is being done here to resolve them. Could someone from the organization or WMF please reiterate how many scholarships have been given out?
- All decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now a matter of
international politics.
I dont see how you can ever draw such a general discussion without talking to all chapters. Even I have not been able to talk with all of them recently, so please share your communication methods with me - I would love to be as efficient! Seriously however, sure the climate gets more political as organizations get more professional and have different short time interests.
- Careerists around WMF and chapters.
Yeah, if you mean here that there are volunteers who would like to make a job out of their hobby - that is not very unlikely indeed, and not very unexpected either. That might, if targeted and treated correctly, even be beneficial. So can you perhaps explain in which way it is harmful, at which scale you are talking about etc?
- Alienation.
This is very very vague, and a complaint I hear since I joined Wikipedia in 2005. What has changed here, how has it become worse, what magical solution is there now that we never thought of in the last six yeat at the least?
although I sound very critical now, I do thank you for bringing up discussion. However, discussion is more easy if you are a little more clear onto what is related, what not - if you treat seperated problems seperately. Or otherwise explain the problem lying behind them.
best, lodewijk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just a quick follow-up on this thread. On the Wikimedia Foundation's Board I currently serve as the Chair of the Audit Committee ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_committee). One of the Audit Committee's duties is to ensure appropriate review of fraud, abuse, waste, or other wrongdoing. I encourage anyone with specific concerns to reach out to me directly. I would of course respect the wishes of anyone who wants to remain anonymous. Thanks.
-s
================== Stu West User:Stu stu <at> wikimedia.org
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of time I was even a bit depressed.
I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately. After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly. Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues, those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much more important than making witch hunts.
It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I hope that we won't go that way.
I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters. In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF, but it would be good to have a common international body which would audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are able to realize when those things become public. I've already mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which could help.
Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So, *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or hire a professional in international relations.
WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists. Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that they are safe of it.
Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, although we have problems here."
This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between those with money (and/or connections) and them.
This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world looks like.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org