Posted to the WMF and WM UK blogs a few moments ago.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati... http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
---
*Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK * Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was effectively managed.
To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest.
The review will consider Wikimedia UK’s current governance arrangements, current internal policies, such as the Trustee Code of Conduct, the Nolan Committee Requirements, the Conflicts of Interest policy, the Representing Wikimedia UK policy, any other relevant policies of Wikimedia UK, and best ethical practices.
Considering specifically the conflict of interest, we will ask the expert advisor to identify any gaps between how the conflict of interest situation within Wikimedia UK would ideally have been handled and how it actually was handled, and to recommend how situations such as this should be managed in the future. The review will also touch on any activities that may have blurred work as a paid consultant with work as a Wikipedia editor, but recommendations for changes to Wikipedia’s policies and practices will be outside its scope: we leave the broader topic of reviewing Wikipedia’s editorial policies to the community.
Once the review is completed, it will be reviewed by both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK and then published.
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
Wikimedia UK has the benefit of legal and professional advice to assist in understanding and handling conflicts of interests. The goal of both organizations in carrying out this review, and Wikimedia UK’s in deciding to absent itself from the 2012 fundraising campaign as a payment processor, is to demonstrate that we mutually recognize the importance of handling conflicts well beyond simple requirements of the law. We understand our responsibilities to you: the members of Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia movement, its donors, editors, and readers.
_______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
On 28 September 2012 21:18, Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
This being the meat.
- d.
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this serious. What does giving up the next fundraiser due to the WM-UK budget? Does this change reflect a lack of trust between the WMF and the current WM-UK leadership?
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:18, Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
This being the meat.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sep 28, 2012 9:45 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this serious.
The conflict wasn't that bad, but the very poor handling of it casts serious doubts on how well Wikimedia UK leadership understands its responsibilities and its ability to carry them out. I suspect that is why the wmf has insisted on this.
On 28 September 2012 22:39, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 9:45 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this serious.
The conflict wasn't that bad, but the very poor handling of it casts serious doubts on how well Wikimedia UK leadership understands its responsibilities and its ability to carry them out. I suspect that is why the wmf has insisted on this.
I respectfully disagree. As I see it, the crux of the problem comes not from the WMUK leadership's handling of the situation, but the continuous hounding by outsiders against the Wikimedians involved in the conflict, which from my point of view made it largely impossible for the WMUK board to navigate through the conflict unscathed.
Perhaps that means I do agree there's doubt on how much ability WMUK's leadership can deal with the conflict; but I simply don't see how it could've been better handled given the situation WMUK was in.
Over the last two years WMF has become increasingly conservative over how payment-processing should work, so much as to cause constant decry from the local chapters, though it still comes as a surprise that WMF is retracting payment-processing from WMUK. I can but guess that WMF is now becoming so overly conservative that they would rather stop supporting local groups altogether than risk the local groups bringing WMF into any trouble, a move which I understand but am very disappointed to see.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this serious. What does giving up the next fundraiser due to the WM-UK budget? Does this change reflect a lack of trust between the WMF and the current WM-UK leadership?
Hi Nathan,
Just on the fundraiser point -- the idea of the new FDC (funds dissemination committee) process is that chapter budget allocations would be totally independent of how much they do or don't raise via payment-processing -- on the principle that funds should be allocated according to need/impact, rather than tied to or based on in-country fundraising stats. So WMUK's budget planning process shouldn't be changed, aside from maybe how they plan for the fundraiser, since they would prepare a project budget for review either way.
-- Phoebe (not speaking for anyone!)
Phoebe,
(please note I am no longer a board member of WMUK so speak with no particular knowledge of the situation other than what is publicly known)
In practice I think the impact of this decision is more significant than you make out. WMUK, as with all chapters, is established as a legally and operationally independent organisation and as such has significant fiduciary duties to its members and donors. One of the key risks that the chapter has had to manage for a number of years now relates to the dependency on the Foundation as the sole source of funding. If you look, for instance, at the draft five year plan that was written months ago, it includes the following section:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Five_Year_Plan#Fundraising
<quote>
Fundraising
Wikimedia UK is a young and rapidly growing charity. At the moment, we are reliant almost entirely on the WMF annual fundraiser for our operating funds. We do not consider this to be a sustainable situation, since it involves a significant concentration of risk. We therefore need to diversify our revenue....
Three year target
- ... To have no more than 70% of our revenue coming from the WMF annual fundraiser, or any other single source
Five year target
- For our core committed expenditures to be financially independent of the annual fundraiser...
<quote/>
It was bad enough when it was the annual fundraiser that was the course of concentration risk, which could, at any time, be withdrawn by the Foundation, albeit within a multilateral framework. To turn this into an FDC grant would be to exacerbate this risk.
I hope, when the chapter comes to quantify the amount of their FDC grant application they seriously consider scaling back the amount requested and redoubling efforts to source alternative funding routes.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:33 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this serious. What does giving up the next fundraiser due to the WM-UK budget? Does this change reflect a lack of trust between the WMF and the current WM-UK leadership?
Hi Nathan,
Just on the fundraiser point -- the idea of the new FDC (funds dissemination committee) process is that chapter budget allocations would be totally independent of how much they do or don't raise via payment-processing -- on the principle that funds should be allocated according to need/impact, rather than tied to or based on in-country fundraising stats. So WMUK's budget planning process shouldn't be changed, aside from maybe how they plan for the fundraiser, since they would prepare a project budget for review either way.
-- Phoebe (not speaking for anyone!)
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 28 September 2012 16:20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:18, Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation
that
the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
This being the meat.
- d.
David, just a little technical issue. The header of this message
indicates that the text by Jay Walsh was sent to this list, but it's not in the archives, and I've not seen it on this list (it appears that it's only on announce-L). I will cut and paste the whole thing below.
Risker
Posted to the WMF and WM UK blogs a few moments ago. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
---
*Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK * Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was effectively managed.
To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest.
The review will consider Wikimedia UK’s current governance arrangements, current internal policies, such as the Trustee Code of Conduct, the Nolan Committee Requirements, the Conflicts of Interest policy, the Representing Wikimedia UK policy, any other relevant policies of Wikimedia UK, and best ethical practices.
Considering specifically the conflict of interest, we will ask the expert advisor to identify any gaps between how the conflict of interest situation within Wikimedia UK would ideally have been handled and how it actually was handled, and to recommend how situations such as this should be managed in the future. The review will also touch on any activities that may have blurred work as a paid consultant with work as a Wikipedia editor, but recommendations for changes to Wikipedia’s policies and practices will be outside its scope: we leave the broader topic of reviewing Wikipedia’s editorial policies to the community.
Once the review is completed, it will be reviewed by both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK and then published.
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
Wikimedia UK has the benefit of legal and professional advice to assist in understanding and handling conflicts of interests. The goal of both organizations in carrying out this review, and Wikimedia UK’s in deciding to absent itself from the 2012 fundraising campaign as a payment processor, is to demonstrate that we mutually recognize the importance of handling conflicts well beyond simple requirements of the law. We understand our responsibilities to you: the members of Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia movement, its donors, editors, and readers.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:18, Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
This being the meat.
The selection criteria for payment processors should have been defined and used to evaluate whether each chapter is 'fit' for the purpose. e.g.
1. technical capability, 2. fundraising know-how, 3. dedication to the donor's bill of rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor%27s_Bill_of_Rights
Note that the donor's bill of rights includes more than just privacy, which is what is required by the fundraising agreement.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Fundraising_Agreement_%28Master%29
Anyway, most chapters have decided to adopt the donor's bill of rights, including WMUK.
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Donor_Privacy_Policy
Please note that I have been requesting an urgent correction to this statement since 21:17 today (it is now 23:00), without receiving any response from the WMF.
Thanks, Mike
On 28 Sep 2012, at 21:18, Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
Posted to the WMF and WM UK blogs a few moments ago.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati... http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK
Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was effectively managed.
To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest.
The review will consider Wikimedia UK’s current governance arrangements, current internal policies, such as the Trustee Code of Conduct, the Nolan Committee Requirements, the Conflicts of Interest policy, the Representing Wikimedia UK policy, any other relevant policies of Wikimedia UK, and best ethical practices.
Considering specifically the conflict of interest, we will ask the expert advisor to identify any gaps between how the conflict of interest situation within Wikimedia UK would ideally have been handled and how it actually was handled, and to recommend how situations such as this should be managed in the future. The review will also touch on any activities that may have blurred work as a paid consultant with work as a Wikipedia editor, but recommendations for changes to Wikipedia’s policies and practices will be outside its scope: we leave the broader topic of reviewing Wikipedia’s editorial policies to the community.
Once the review is completed, it will be reviewed by both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK and then published.
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during this year’s fundraiser.
Wikimedia UK has the benefit of legal and professional advice to assist in understanding and handling conflicts of interests. The goal of both organizations in carrying out this review, and Wikimedia UK’s in deciding to absent itself from the 2012 fundraising campaign as a payment processor, is to demonstrate that we mutually recognize the importance of handling conflicts well beyond simple requirements of the law. We understand our responsibilities to you: the members of Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia movement, its donors, editors, and readers. _______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Blog mailing list Wikimedia-Blog@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-blog
On 9/28/2012 3:00 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
Please note that I have been requesting an urgent correction to this statement since 21:17 today (it is now 23:00), without receiving any response from the WMF.
I think it's only fair to point out that your request is not for a "correction", at most it could be called a change or clarification. I wasn't involved in preparing the statement, but in reviewing it there's nothing that appears incorrect to me.
--Michael Snow
On 28 September 2012 23:00, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Please note that I have been requesting an urgent correction to this statement since 21:17 today (it is now 23:00), without receiving any response from the WMF.
Correcting what, exactly?
On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:17, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:00, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Please note that I have been requesting an urgent correction to this statement since 21:17 today (it is now 23:00), without receiving any response from the WMF.
Correcting what, exactly?
The first sentence of the statement. Sadly, I have yet to receive a response regarding my request for the last 2 hours. :-(
Mike
How about you shake your addiction to secrecy and tell us what the problem is? On Sep 28, 2012 11:20 PM, "Michael Peel" michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:17, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:00, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
Please note that I have been requesting an urgent correction to this
statement since 21:17 today (it is now 23:00), without receiving any response from the WMF.
Correcting what, exactly?
The first sentence of the statement. Sadly, I have yet to receive a response regarding my request for the last 2 hours. :-(
Mike
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org