Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
~Abbas.
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious.
It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place.
- d.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious.
It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place.
Yes, but it would be good if we would have "Social Contract", like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious.
It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place.
Yes, but it would be good if we would have "Social Contract", like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize? Citizendium created a charter, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Charter We could do the same, but it would be an exercise in affirming policies we have already adopted either by us or the wiki movement in general. (Some of which Citizendium rejects in the name of control by academic authority).
Fred Bauder
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious.
It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place.
Yes, but it would be good if we would have "Social Contract", like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize?
I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example:
"The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution." [1]
As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no "confidential" secret about where it ends, and how much, and why.
I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts.
[1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html
I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example:
"The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we wont talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance peoples online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution." [1]
As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no "confidential" secret about where it ends, and how much, and why.
I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts.
[1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html
I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate.
It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism.
Fred Bauder
I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example:
"The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we wont talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance peoples online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution." [1]
As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no "confidential" secret about where it ends, and how much, and why.
I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts.
[1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html
I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate.
It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism.
Fred Bauder
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 18:48, Fred Bauder wrote:
I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business.
By "I suspect" do you mean that you are speculating? I think we should stick to facts, since speculations about confidential deals could quickly lead to unwanted controversies.
The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues.
But the Foundation's money and resources are not, are they? Isn't the WMF linked to the WM community as if each editor was a moral shareholder, with a moral right to know, a moral right to have a say and a moral right to decide? Sorry if my question seems naive, but shouldn't it be that way?
We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate.
Though I understand your reasoning which is a valid one, I'd like to pinpoint that it doesn't flow in the same direction than the volunteer spirit which has been the main engine of the wikimedian projects. Payed persons should be the exception because we couldn't find a volunteer to do it as well. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that orienting the Foundation model towards money-based jobs, more paid jobs, better paid jobs and more fundraising would shift the current universal goals of WM towards monetary and possibly less universal concerns.
It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us.
I didn't suggest trashing anyone, so I don't know where this comes from.
Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism.
I'm sorry that you read my words as bad-willed criticism. All my good wishes go to Mike Godwin, to the Foundation and to the WM mission. I thank everybody, Mike included, for all the good work they've done and will keep doing.
My inquiry is not about a person or another, though. It's about the way things are done. I want to learn, understand and be informed. I'd just like to know if some extra money or reward were given (or promised), in this current case to Mike Godwin. It's healthy to know what the Foundation is doing with our donations and volunteering efforts, because it creates trust.
The phrasing of Sue Gardner about the severance [1] agreement were vague and left doubts about what it may be.
[1]: "The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that
we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. "
I don't think many people would want to work for the Foundation if their salary, severance, raises, etc were regularly published to the outside world. Maybe this is only true in the US, but employee salaries are generally considered to be private information. Asking people to give up basic expectations of privacy in order to work at the WMF would likely scare away most potential employees, especially since WMF employees work at below market rates.
Ryan Kaldari
On 11/19/10 3:37 PM, Noein wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 18:48, Fred Bauder wrote:
I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business.
By "I suspect" do you mean that you are speculating? I think we should stick to facts, since speculations about confidential deals could quickly lead to unwanted controversies.
The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues.
But the Foundation's money and resources are not, are they? Isn't the WMF linked to the WM community as if each editor was a moral shareholder, with a moral right to know, a moral right to have a say and a moral right to decide? Sorry if my question seems naive, but shouldn't it be that way?
We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate.
Though I understand your reasoning which is a valid one, I'd like to pinpoint that it doesn't flow in the same direction than the volunteer spirit which has been the main engine of the wikimedian projects. Payed persons should be the exception because we couldn't find a volunteer to do it as well. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that orienting the Foundation model towards money-based jobs, more paid jobs, better paid jobs and more fundraising would shift the current universal goals of WM towards monetary and possibly less universal concerns.
It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us.
I didn't suggest trashing anyone, so I don't know where this comes from.
Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism.
I'm sorry that you read my words as bad-willed criticism. All my good wishes go to Mike Godwin, to the Foundation and to the WM mission. I thank everybody, Mike included, for all the good work they've done and will keep doing.
My inquiry is not about a person or another, though. It's about the way things are done. I want to learn, understand and be informed. I'd just like to know if some extra money or reward were given (or promised), in this current case to Mike Godwin. It's healthy to know what the Foundation is doing with our donations and volunteering efforts, because it creates trust.
The phrasing of Sue Gardner about the severance [1] agreement were vague and left doubts about what it may be.
[1]: "The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that
we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. "
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5wogAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L6VsH/3dw7L8dzQ7InxfFSAVmR485 zg5tp+wkg5oXGQlqEp8W+oR/mOrrCNoq+sHvHMkiwZ6NPkPDGGAR1C0vDugFmNca M3RfjVhOMY8iyVGKLAfkzH8ITOhbwx17OWuFhjFwwGQjjm6pNHkqN7E64TgAGgmz ghCslW61+mAhO6b4tjdhGV/jv0DvWnGZkaENjXmwB6YQRDXt0/UFlrL9AI/W/WcJ QDE7ivInpaE3+hMh7Cbf8j1PKvEk+sJgSKFKQ++vZBaLBqjmnfigNaFO0ilZ82LW tXlVJWDob23BoyjUpDspZlv6ldEuuNjOFypPdgldFT5TQ6JjzRAcVIwVSFohLzk= =IM5o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Noein wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious.
It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place.
Yes, but it would be good if we would have "Social Contract", like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize?
I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example:
"The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution." [1]
As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no "confidential" secret about where it ends, and how much, and why.
I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts.
[1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5uyDAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LAHMH+gMJJzFG4+hyGhuzfTw1bLYz FW9NZiERaVArsMC6YA27ps0AK/ubX2/+qMGT/E11wlMX2ptBul82QQywZmQp+qSj fQ7+rbd5j4h1FAN/mYId2IlJ7g8JFwZ2jAD7UZyKfCIqKHWqBZQC8DiQ2W6DbTs2 iGGA8NDhlrUCO1YE8N/lz5cmGJ2mKGE/EcYwEvmQ+lsrXX99OsqHpEjx2a3VVRuq C4uM9XvrQWUb++h7nmO2/cTLxqJ1TdTiooEXIvzEHeEhjEUjbxBP3syJYaz6QFn6 ENYzV5aqhGVivB+u+zXq4mAFGYj1vaq0UAep5bInXdOKkL9kUbPGdEMQnp7Y/cs= =6q+Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just a few personal musings --
Noein, personally, I would think that a "duty of transparency about money" and publicizing information about a private employee's salary, benefits, or severance packages are two wildly different things. There is a certain point where things become a matter of personal privacy, after all. You say you have no clue about how you should understand a decision to "hide facts". Does that mean we should publicize his medical records too? Those are facts as well. How transparent would we need to be? Should we put his salary history for every job he's worked in his life on his article?
Corporate Social Responsibility applies just as much to transparency as it does to protecting the privacy of its employees.
-Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 19:22, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Noein, personally, I would think that a "duty of transparency about money" and publicizing information about a private employee's salary, benefits, or severance packages are two wildly different things. There is a certain point where things become a matter of personal privacy, after all.
It could be that we come from different horizons of thinking. For me it is natural that any non-profit organization, which owes its existence to the community it represents, should inform transparently what it is doing with the resources it is centralizing. For you it seems natural that people in charge have their private secrets about their managing of the public assets. Apparently we don't put the line between the right for privacy and the duty of transparency at the same level. I am naturally more demanding about a Foundation in charge of 80 000 volunteers. Is this attitude unfounded?
You say you have no clue about how you should understand a decision to
"hide facts". Does that mean we should publicize his medical records too? I think only pertinent facts about the WM mission, and the way WMF handles the mission, should be demanded. We're clearly not talking about a personal fact here, but about a Foundation fact.
As for the medical records: people should be fit to do their jobs, so if there were a serious doubt about it, the question about disclosing the health state should legitimately arise.
How transparent would we need to be? Should we put his salary history for every job he's worked in his life on his article?
I think the transparency must be enough to generate trust. Once again, if serious doubts were arising about the past of a person, they should be cleared not by censorship nor denial but by openness, honesty and sincerity. I admit I may be too naive. But I'd like to be refuted by solid arguments, though.
On 19 November 2010 18:39, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
<Several posts about disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees past and present of the WMF>
Noein, I believe you will find the answers you seek in the latest 503(c) filing that the WMF has published. The WMF met the legislated requirements for reporting of salaries of certain individuals as well as the overall payroll. I'm not personally going to go looking for that document, but it's on the WMF website and I'm pretty sure someone reading this can provide you with a direct link. I don't recall who was on that list, other than Sue Gardner.
I'm also not going to guess what the reporting requirements are for the US government without the documents in front of me, but I'll note that other jurisdictions require either disclosure of the individual salaries of X number of the highest paid employees or, in some cases, of each employee earning over Y amount. I've seen a fair number of these sorts of fiduciary declarations made under various local laws for non-profits and charities, and none of them require the public disclosure of each individual employee's salary.
I hope you will agree that the reporting made under the applicable government legislation and regulation should probably be the place where the personal privacy/public information line should be drawn, because it is consistent across the entire non-profit sector.
So...could someone please add a link to the latest filing? Thanks.
Risker/Anne
On Nov 19, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Risker wrote:
On 19 November 2010 18:39, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
<Several posts about disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees past and present of the WMF>
Noein, I believe you will find the answers you seek in the latest 503(c) filing that the WMF has published. The WMF met the legislated requirements for reporting of salaries of certain individuals as well as the overall payroll. I'm not personally going to go looking for that document, but it's on the WMF website and I'm pretty sure someone reading this can provide you with a direct link. I don't recall who was on that list, other than Sue Gardner.
I'm also not going to guess what the reporting requirements are for the US government without the documents in front of me, but I'll note that other jurisdictions require either disclosure of the individual salaries of X number of the highest paid employees or, in some cases, of each employee earning over Y amount. I've seen a fair number of these sorts of fiduciary declarations made under various local laws for non-profits and charities, and none of them require the public disclosure of each individual employee's salary.
I hope you will agree that the reporting made under the applicable government legislation and regulation should probably be the place where the personal privacy/public information line should be drawn, because it is consistent across the entire non-profit sector.
So...could someone please add a link to the latest filing? Thanks.
Risker/Anne
They should be on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, in the sidebar in the "Corporate" collapsible box.
-Dan
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious.
It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place.
- d.
From the article, "business would monitor and ensure its support to law,
ethical standards, and international norms"
Later down, there is a section:
"Crises and their consequences
Often it takes a crisis to precipitate attention to CSR."
That is nicely illustrated by how the Siegenthaler libel resulted in our development of the Biographies of living persons policy. This is a recurrent pattern: a scandal or row of some sort results in us developing policies and practices which avoid or ameliorate the problem.
But we don't need to wait for crises; we can proactively address social, environmental, and responsibility issues before they arise. Any suggestions?
Fred Bauder
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org