That's a very interesting blog post, and at first glance situation looks bad in a number of ways. I'm bothered by the lack of reporting as well as the COI issues involved.
Anasuya, at I don't think the $53,690 number is the right one, but regardless of how much money was involved, can you look at this issue, figure out what happened from start to finish, and respond to the other questions raised in this discussion? Can you confirm what the amount of money involved was, clarify why Sandole was listed as a WMF Fundraiser contractor which implied that he raised money for WMF instead of being a grantee receiving money from WMF, that the money came entirely from Stanton, how it was accounted for in the financial statements referenced by Tomasz, and what reports were produced that may have been sent back to Stanton or WMF about what the outcomes of the grant were?
I would also be interested in knowing what COI rules were established as conditions of this grant, by Stanton, Harvard, and/or WMF. It would be interesting to get full copies of any contracts or grant award documents although that may be appropriate for review by the Board in private.
I'm also CCing this to Garfield and WMF Legal. It looks like something went very wrong here.
Thanks,
Pine
Hey
So while I do not know the background of this case I am a little concerned by the tone of the email (and similar emails in the past)
Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :)
In this case: thank you both for pointing out this post and someone within the Foundation will undoubtedly come back with some response in the coming period.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:59, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
That's a very interesting blog post, and at first glance situation looks bad in a number of ways. I'm bothered by the lack of reporting as well as the COI issues involved.
Anasuya, at I don't think the $53,690 number is the right one, but regardless of how much money was involved, can you look at this issue, figure out what happened from start to finish, and respond to the other questions raised in this discussion? Can you confirm what the amount of money involved was, clarify why Sandole was listed as a WMF Fundraiser contractor which implied that he raised money for WMF instead of being a grantee receiving money from WMF, that the money came entirely from Stanton, how it was accounted for in the financial statements referenced by Tomasz, and what reports were produced that may have been sent back to Stanton or WMF about what the outcomes of the grant were?
I would also be interested in knowing what COI rules were established as conditions of this grant, by Stanton, Harvard, and/or WMF. It would be interesting to get full copies of any contracts or grant award documents although that may be appropriate for review by the Board in private.
I'm also CCing this to Garfield and WMF Legal. It looks like something went very wrong here.
Thanks,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :)
Hi Jan-Bart,
Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise.
Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability.
PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-)
Fae
I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted supporter of ours for many years, had asked us to do so. This was reported to the community here. [1] The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements. Harvard University is now considering similar positions for other centers.[2] WMF was not asked to fiscally sponsor for this new project at Harvard.
Best,
Lisa Gruwell
*[1] **https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w... https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ * *[2] **http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-res... http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-residence-20140313,0,5003509.story#axzz2wWQo2cXX*
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae's) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager :)
Hi Jan-Bart,
Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise.
Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability.
PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-)
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted
...
Hi Lisa,
Could you link me to the report of outcomes for the 2012 position, or if they exist the regular project reports? The blog post mentions expectations but I have yet to find the reports that explain what was later delivered for the investment.
I am aware that the WMF required public reporting for all sponsored projects back in 2012. Having been a Chapter trustee myself that year, I recall how rigorous the requirements for accountability and reporting were. :-)
Thanks, Fae
Hi all,
Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so.
thanks, Anasuya
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted supporter of ours for many years, had asked us to do so. This was reported to the community here. [1] The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements. Harvard University is now considering similar positions for other centers.[2] WMF was not asked to fiscally sponsor for this new project at Harvard.
Best,
Lisa Gruwell
*[1] ** https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w... < https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w...
*[2] ** http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-res... < http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-res...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae's) seems to imply that they
work
directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really
only
need one person to be their manager :)
Hi Jan-Bart,
Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise.
Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability.
PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-)
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Anasuya and Lisa,
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by fiscal sponsor here. I'd have thought that would mean that the funding to the sponsored organisation is analogous to a grant provided by the WMF, even thought the money is actually provided (directly?) by another organisation. Wouldn't that mean that the same duty of care should be present here as is the case for WMF grants?
Either way, if the WMF (as the largest Wikimedia organisation) choses to do this sort of endorsement of a project, then it should really follow it through to the end and ensure that it has had the best possible impact on the WIkimedia projects, rather than just providing initial support and advertising, and then leaving things dangling in doubt, as seems to have happened here... That really doesn't set a good example for other Wikimedia organisations that might consider doing similar work...
(I'm rather worried about similar project/positions taking place at other Harvard centres without any sort of Wikimedia organisation or community support - that sounds like a recipe for disaster...)
Thanks, Mike
On 20 Mar 2014, at 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengupta@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so.
thanks, Anasuya
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted supporter of ours for many years, had asked us to do so. This was reported to the community here. [1] The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements. Harvard University is now considering similar positions for other centers.[2] WMF was not asked to fiscally sponsor for this new project at Harvard.
Best,
Lisa Gruwell
*[1] ** https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w... < https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w...
*[2] ** http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-res... < http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-harvard-job-wikipedian-in-res...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae's) seems to imply that they
work
directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really
only
need one person to be their manager :)
Hi Jan-Bart,
Unless you are joking, you have put me in a position of feeling obliged to defend myself for raising basic questions. My email was directed to this list as an open request about where I could find information. For all I knew the information was published but hard for me to find. It was directed at the Wikimedia Community, not employees of the WMF. There was no implication otherwise.
Thanks for replying so quickly with your personal commitment on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that there will be official responses to the detailed questions in raised here and in the original blog post. I have no doubt that as further information is published, the community will have more questions, I hope you will continue to fulfil your track record for insisting on reasonable transparency and full accountability.
PS If the board of trustees believes that I should be directing employees, then this is flattering, though please do consider paying me for it. I'm always good value. ;-)
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
*Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation*
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengupta@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so.
I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In particular it informed the community that: "... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We’re seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year," There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or responsible for the recruitment.
Further, Stephen Walling states in a comment that: ".... when we say we’re looking for a Wikipedian, that means we are looking for someone experienced as a volunteer editor of the free encyclopedia." This statement can only be read as the WMF running the recruitment, there can be no other interpretation of "we" when this is on the WMF blog and written by a WMF employee.
The post does state that "This position is funded by a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation This philanthropic institution has supported ... the Wikimedia Foundation in the past.." However there is no implication that the Stanton Foundation were doing anything other than providing a grant to the WMF and that the WMF were responsible for .
There is no doubt that the WMF provided its name against this post and officially promoted and endorsed it, putting the reputation of the WMF firmly against this project. I hope that someone can provide a report of the beneficial outcomes of this project for Wikimedia and open knowledge showing exactly what was purchased for this generous grant that was claimed to be provided to the WMF or for the benefit of WMF projects.
Links: 1. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w...
Fae
Myself and several other community members who are heavily involved in the development of 'Wikipedian in Residence' and GLAM-WIKI became aware of this project in early 2012, just before the job description was published. I will let them speak for themselves if they wish to weigh-in. But the TL;DR version is "we told them so".
We tried, oh how we tried, to tell the relevant WMF staff that this was a terribly designed project, but the best we got in response was that we could help edit the job description *after* it had already been published! Some WMF staff 'got it' and tried to help but the process (Thank you to those staff) was apparently already in motion and had too much momentum to change. We did get to dilute the worst of the original job description so it wasn't so blatant a paid editing role but our suggestions that the position be 'paused' until the community could help was rejected because of a deadline that had been set by Stanton/Harvard apparently. Other concerns about reporting outcomes and where the money came from/to have already been raised. The odd financial and organisational relationship of Stanton-Harvard-WMF is just one of them.
The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8&c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that "Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian...." with the first task of the position being "Researching relevant topics and improving the articles".Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does "Wikipedia" hire people?
Some of the issues that we were arguing about at the time included why, when the GLAM-focused Wikimedians have tried to ensure that WiR roles are about facilitating a relationship between the community and an organisation's academics/researchers/curators/etc, does this position focus on editing articles directly, for money. Even if that wasn't the actual primary purpose it certainly LOOKED that way according to the job description and you'd think that of ALL groups in the community the WMF would see the 'red flag' of posting a job on its OWN contractors page asking for a paid editor. Furthermore, the WMF have in the past frequently refused to directly support WiR roles on the basis that this kind of direct outreach was not its role but more a role of the Chapters (this is before the current 'affiliation' system and before the 'Individual engagement grants' etc. and in that situation their position was fair enough). And yet, this position was a direct contradiction - the WMF ITSELF advertising for a WiR and administering the payment of the person. At the very least that made it feel like a double standard for the rest of us. There was no transparency with the people in the community that could have helped facilitate the successful 'birth' of the project - what should have been a great recognition of our projects' value - but instead felt like a betrayal of our hard-earned trust with the cultural/education sectors.
The WMF dug themselves into this hole despite the frantic attempts, which were largely rebuffed, of several of the GLAM-WIKI community help them fix it - or at least reduce the number of problems. Now, it's up to the WMF to dig themselves out again. Ironic given the current attention being given by the WMF to paid editing...
-Liam/Wittylama
On 21 March 2014 09:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengupta@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process
did
not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so.
I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In particular it informed the community that: "... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We're seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year," There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or responsible for the recruitment.
Further, Stephen Walling states in a comment that: ".... when we say we're looking for a Wikipedian, that means we are looking for someone experienced as a volunteer editor of the free encyclopedia." This statement can only be read as the WMF running the recruitment, there can be no other interpretation of "we" when this is on the WMF blog and written by a WMF employee.
The post does state that "This position is funded by a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation This philanthropic institution has supported ... the Wikimedia Foundation in the past.." However there is no implication that the Stanton Foundation were doing anything other than providing a grant to the WMF and that the WMF were responsible for .
There is no doubt that the WMF provided its name against this post and officially promoted and endorsed it, putting the reputation of the WMF firmly against this project. I hope that someone can provide a report of the beneficial outcomes of this project for Wikimedia and open knowledge showing exactly what was purchased for this generous grant that was claimed to be provided to the WMF or for the benefit of WMF projects.
Links:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w...
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'd like to confirm that I am one of the community members Liam considerately declined to name; I agree with Liam's account of what happened; and I agree with Fae's proposed solution (a detailed, public report from the WMF, the Belfer Center, and/or the Stanton Foundation). The report should explicitly address the structural and ethical issues raised on this list and on Odder's blog post.
I do have a bit more to say about this, but will leave it at that for now. I'll probably post on my blog in the next 24 hours.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Myself and several other community members who are heavily involved in the development of 'Wikipedian in Residence' and GLAM-WIKI became aware of this project in early 2012, just before the job description was published. I will let them speak for themselves if they wish to weigh-in. But the TL;DR version is "we told them so".
We tried, oh how we tried, to tell the relevant WMF staff that this was a terribly designed project, but the best we got in response was that we could help edit the job description *after* it had already been published! Some WMF staff 'got it' and tried to help but the process (Thank you to those staff) was apparently already in motion and had too much momentum to change. We did get to dilute the worst of the original job description so it wasn't so blatant a paid editing role but our suggestions that the position be 'paused' until the community could help was rejected because of a deadline that had been set by Stanton/Harvard apparently. Other concerns about reporting outcomes and where the money came from/to have already been raised. The odd financial and organisational relationship of Stanton-Harvard-WMF is just one of them.
The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8&c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that "Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian...." with the first task of the position being "Researching relevant topics and improving the articles". Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does "Wikipedia" hire people?
Some of the issues that we were arguing about at the time included why, when the GLAM-focused Wikimedians have tried to ensure that WiR roles are about facilitating a relationship between the community and an organisation's academics/researchers/curators/etc, does this position focus on editing articles directly, for money. Even if that wasn't the actual primary purpose it certainly LOOKED that way according to the job description and you'd think that of ALL groups in the community the WMF would see the 'red flag' of posting a job on its OWN contractors page asking for a paid editor. Furthermore, the WMF have in the past frequently refused to directly support WiR roles on the basis that this kind of direct outreach was not its role but more a role of the Chapters (this is before the current 'affiliation' system and before the 'Individual engagement grants' etc. and in that situation their position was fair enough). And yet, this position was a direct contradiction - the WMF ITSELF advertising for a WiR and administering the payment of the person. At the very least that made it feel like a double standard for the rest of us. There was no transparency with the people in the community that could have helped facilitate the successful 'birth' of the project - what should have been a great recognition of our projects' value - but instead felt like a betrayal of our hard-earned trust with the cultural/education sectors.
The WMF dug themselves into this hole despite the frantic attempts, which were largely rebuffed, of several of the GLAM-WIKI community help them fix it - or at least reduce the number of problems. Now, it's up to the WMF to dig themselves out again. Ironic given the current attention being given by the WMF to paid editing...
-Liam/Wittylama
On 21 March 2014 09:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengupta@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process
did
not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began recruiting and to inform the community as they did so.
I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In particular it informed the community that: "... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We're seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year," There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or responsible for the recruitment.
Further, Stephen Walling states in a comment that: ".... when we say we're looking for a Wikipedian, that means we are looking for someone experienced as a volunteer editor of the free encyclopedia." This statement can only be read as the WMF running the recruitment, there can be no other interpretation of "we" when this is on the WMF blog and written by a WMF employee.
The post does state that "This position is funded by a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation This philanthropic institution has supported ... the Wikimedia Foundation in the past.." However there is no implication that the Stanton Foundation were doing anything other than providing a grant to the WMF and that the WMF were responsible for .
There is no doubt that the WMF provided its name against this post and officially promoted and endorsed it, putting the reputation of the WMF firmly against this project. I hope that someone can provide a report of the beneficial outcomes of this project for Wikimedia and open knowledge showing exactly what was purchased for this generous grant that was claimed to be provided to the WMF or for the benefit of WMF projects.
Links:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w...
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8&c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that "Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian...." with the first task of the position being "Researching relevant topics and improving the articles".Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does "Wikipedia" hire people?
Disclaimer - I had no involvement in the project and am unaware of the details. As far as I can tell, this was a pretty opportunistic one-off agreement primarily supporting a funder's desire to boost the Wikipedians in Residence model. The frustration by Liam and Pete expressed in this thread does suggest that we erred on the side of moving too quickly - I respect their engagement in the field highly and appreciate all the efforts they've made to help develop clear models and practices for this type of work.
I'll note that Timothy Sandole disclosed his affiliation with Harvard on his user page, and stated that he was "tasked to author, edit and improve Wikipedia articles". Given that any substantial influence on what he did clearly came from Harvard rather than WMF, I think from an ethical standpoint, that's the most important part. However, I agree that if we ever engage in such projects again, we should aim for the highest standard of disclosure, including any pass-through agreements. That's especially true in light of the disclosure requirements currently under discussion.
I'd love to see more visibility into the project's outcomes as well. We ask people to write detailed reports even as part of travel grants [1], so if there's no public report of any kind, that's a bit disheartening. This project was not funded through the individual donations of the general public but rather through a third party foundation that had an interest in seeing this happen, so from an ethical perspective, it's reasonable that the standards of accountability differ -- but if we have the ability to obtain any kind of public report after the fact, I think as a matter of good practice, it would be a good thing to do so.
I saw SJ already left a question on Timothy's talk page. I also just pinged him via the email feature in case he has time to comment here a bit more about the nature of his work. Without such visibility, it's hard to see how much Timothy's work deviated from the community-developed WiR guidelines [2], which don't say that WiRs shouldn't edit, but which emphasize the issue of conflicts-of-interest and the idea that a WiR shouldn't be an in-house editor.
Erik
[1] e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Daniel_Mietchen/58th_Annual_Meeti... [2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence
On 21 March 2014 00:56, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
This project was not funded through the individual donations of the general public but rather through a third party foundation that had an interest in seeing this happen, so from an ethical perspective, it's reasonable that the standards of accountability differ
...
There may be a massive cultural gap between Europe and North America, but no, no, no.
The WMF officially endorsed this project in the same year that the WMF was stomping down with its hobnail boots on Wikimedia UK so hard on matters of ethics and accountability, that it threatened to destroy the organization (literally, based on my personal experience). Just because a well known second party organization is providing funds for the project does not obviate the WMF from ensuring that programmes that it officially endorses meet precisely the same ethical standards that it enforces so firmly on all other Wikimedia organizations.
Eric, in this thread you are officially speaking for the WMF. Does the WMF really want to say it is "ethical" to have different accountability rules for funding organizations that want to use the Wikimedia brand because there are different rules for the rich? On that basis, WMUK should be free to do a deal to offer the Wikimedia brand to officially endorse (or be a "fiscal sponsor") for a Conservative Party or Catholic Church programme of paid editing directed to "fix" Wikipedia to match their world view, and the WMF would have nothing to criticise as the Chapter could wash its hands as it did not directly handle the payments.
The Wikimedia brand value was not spontaneously created by the Foundation, but by unpaid volunteers like me that create the content of our projects. If the WMF wants to retain the hearts and minds of the community of volunteers, it cannot afford to have fluid ethics that conveniently shift to cover up any embarrassingly bad decisions it makes.
Fae
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Eric, in this thread you are officially speaking for the WMF. Does the WMF really want to say it is "ethical" to have different accountability rules for funding organizations that want to use the Wikimedia brand because there are different rules for the rich?
No, that's not the point. The point is that a grant given to us goes through a different process than, say, a grant from us to WMFR, and that necessarily leads to different practices -- the grant-giver has their own expectations on how to do accounting, reporting, etc.
The project was publicly announced through a blog post, the responsibilities for the Wikipedian in Residence were publicly posted, and the user in question publicly disclosed their affiliation (that disclosure didn't, but should have, included more details including the WMF sponsorship). The edits are, as any, a matter of public record and easily scrutinized, criticized, and corrected or reverted if needed, to fully expose Harvard's evil agenda and the secret workings of the reptilian order which most WMF senior staff are part of.
Timothy noted [1] hat there's a report which he compiled as part of his residency. I've reached out to Lisa, and we're looking into publishing the report at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully this will make it possible to collectively draw some more conclusions about the project. I've added [2] the residency to the public directory and also created a holding space for capturing observations and conclusions. [3] Contributions welcome, and I hope we can avoid personalizing things as I'm sure Timothy worked in good faith and did his best to meet the expectations of the project. :)
Cheers, Erik
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timothysandole&diff... [2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedian_in_Residence&... [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_Universi...
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
[3] Contributions welcome, and I hope we can avoid personalizing things as I'm sure Timothy worked in good faith and did his best to meet the expectations of the project. :)
On this I do agree, that Sandole was used as a tool by Stanton/Belfer, and was not given any support by the WMF (his employer) should not be held against him in any way shape or form.
It's not his fault that the WMF is a mickey mouse organisation.
Russavia
On 21 March 2014 07:37, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
needed, to fully expose Harvard's evil agenda and the secret workings of the reptilian order which most WMF senior staff are part of.
...
Erik, you are a senior manager within the WMF. If you cannot resist offensive schoolboy sarcasm in your responses in a thread about what now seems to be an admitted serious failure of governance within the WMF, then you are doing a disservice for the WMF and the Wikimedia movement. I do not think Russavia's use of "mickey mouse" in his email is helpful either, but it almost seems fitting if you are making official statement for the Foundation with these "jokes".
I am pleased to read that Lisa is now working on an official investigation. I hope this report will be published for the benefit of the Wikimedia community within days rather than weeks and will be written in a detailed and frank way, that reflects how seriously the majority of the Wikimedia Community, especially those of us working hard with Chapters and GLAM partners, see this breach of our trust in you.
Fae
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, you are a senior manager within the WMF. If you cannot resist offensive schoolboy sarcasm in your responses
Just after talking about "stomping down with its hobnail boots on Wikimedia UK", huh? :-) I'm sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. These kinds of things always warrant scrutiny, iteration and improvement, but excessive hyperbole is rarely helpful. You tend to add a drama factor of 10x to any discussion I've ever seen you participate in, and it gets tiresome after a while. Give it a rest.
Cheers, Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
You tend to add a drama factor of 10x to any discussion I've ever seen you participate in, and it gets tiresome after a while. Give it a rest.
Why are you making this issue unnecessarily personal, Erik? This isn't about Fae, you, or even Timothy Sandole -- so give it a rest, okay?
Tomasz
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
You tend to add a drama factor of 10x to any discussion I've ever seen
you participate in, and it gets tiresome after a while. Give it a rest.
Why are you making this issue unnecessarily personal, Erik? This isn't about Fae, you, or even Timothy Sandole -- so give it a rest, okay?
Tomasz
Erik is right, and anyone who regularly reads this list (or especially the WMUK list) knows that he is right. Fae's legitimate points (of which there are many) tend to be obscured by the massively off-putting way in which he makes them.
That said, Fae's points (which are really your [Tomasz'] points, and better said by you in the blog post) are perfectly legit. You pointed out a couple of edits where it looks like Sandole was promoting the director of the Belfer Center. While many other edits seem useful and additive, those are concerning and point up the risks generally of paid editors (including WiRs). Sandole's disclosure of his link to the Belfer Center on his userpage does not solve the problem, though it does mostly satisfy the disclosure requirements of the ToU -- as it seems to have been the Belfer Center directing his actions and not the WMF.
Since Sandole says he wrote a comprehensive report on his WiR and submitted it to the WMF, when Erik gets that report publicized I'm sure things will become much more clear. Meanwhile, use of an accusatory or interrogatory tone towards WMF employees is probably not helpful, as it rarely is in professional communication.
~Nathan
On 21 March 2014 11:31, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote: ...
it seems to have been the Belfer Center directing his actions and not the WMF.
If Sandole is a reliable source for his employment during 2012-13, then we must take into account his recent statement which indicates that the WMF had some defined responsibility for directing his actions, presumably as they were acting as his line manager even if they were not controlling grant payment: "... Sara Lasner at the Wikimedia Foundation, as she was my direct boss during my one-year stint as Wikipedian"[1][2]
Links: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timothysandole&diff... 2. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Slasner
Fae
Thanks Erik, for looking into it constructively. Looking forward to the report and the learnings from the assessment.
Best regards, Bence
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Eric, in this thread you are officially speaking for the WMF. Does the WMF really want to say it is "ethical" to have different accountability rules for funding organizations that want to use the Wikimedia brand because there are different rules for the rich?
No, that's not the point. The point is that a grant given to us goes through a different process than, say, a grant from us to WMFR, and that necessarily leads to different practices -- the grant-giver has their own expectations on how to do accounting, reporting, etc.
The project was publicly announced through a blog post, the responsibilities for the Wikipedian in Residence were publicly posted, and the user in question publicly disclosed their affiliation (that disclosure didn't, but should have, included more details including the WMF sponsorship). The edits are, as any, a matter of public record and easily scrutinized, criticized, and corrected or reverted if needed, to fully expose Harvard's evil agenda and the secret workings of the reptilian order which most WMF senior staff are part of.
Timothy noted [1] hat there's a report which he compiled as part of his residency. I've reached out to Lisa, and we're looking into publishing the report at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully this will make it possible to collectively draw some more conclusions about the project. I've added [2] the residency to the public directory and also created a holding space for capturing observations and conclusions. [3] Contributions welcome, and I hope we can avoid personalizing things as I'm sure Timothy worked in good faith and did his best to meet the expectations of the project. :)
Cheers, Erik
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timothysandole&diff... [2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedian_in_Residence&... [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_Universi... -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Erik Moeller, 21/03/2014 08:37:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ wrote:
Eric, in this thread you are officially speaking for the WMF. Does the WMF really want to say it is "ethical" to have different accountability rules for funding organizations that want to use the Wikimedia brand because there are different rules for the rich?
No, that's not the point. The point is that a grant given to us goes through a different process than, say, a grant from us to WMFR, and that necessarily leads to different practices -- the grant-giver has their own expectations on how to do accounting, reporting, etc.
True. But I'd go further: the problem here is not that WMF has not been "ethical" enough, rather that it wasn't smart enough to properly wash its hands of a possibly (possibly) "unethical" affair. From the looks of it, this is just the boring story of a rather standard academical trick: A and B are connected and want to hire C; X is introduced as middle man, receives money from A and opportunity from B, blindly transfers them (and nothing more, or something less) to C; formally nobody has any responsibility or knowledge of what's going on and magically everyone is happy. However, X either earns something or doesn't want any responsibility on the choice of C, taking only care of the financial part as a mere clearing account (if that's the term in English)/gift. The responsibility is put on either A or B, usually the one who benefits more from the operation.
Nemo
Thanks Erik for your email which was full of spin, and which will be discussed later.
But for now, I need to present something that needs clarification from Timothy.
In reference to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Timothy_Sandole_-_Belfer_Center_Repo...
On Page 2 of his report he states the following:
"Articles I helped to create: Two Wikipedia articles, "AirSea Battle" and "Operation Olympic Games," were stubs before I contributed to them. A "stub" is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. I was inspired to add content to "AirSea Battle" and "Operation Olympic Games" because they are popular in international relations scholarship. The two leading voices on these issues, Andrew Krepinevich and David E. Sanger, happen to be Harvard graduates and affiliates of the Belfer Center"
Why is it when I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirSea_Battle&action=history do I not see Sandole in the edit history.
There is an edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirSea_Battle&diff=564567483&... did add a lot of content.
Is it true that Sandole is in fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcobbwho according to his user page divides his time between Pacheco, Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacheco,_California and Pune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune, has a website at http://www.hcobb.com/, is into fan fiction and feedbooks.
Or is there something else to it?
Cheers
Russavia
Erik,
As you are in contact with Sandole, can you please ask him to fix the article in his report to AirLand Battle, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirLand_Battle&diff=515849256... he has written AirSea Battle, and this is obviously not correct. But I guess it goes to show that no-one at the WMF really read the report or gave it anymore than a quick glance, otherwise this error would have been picked up by the appropriate person.
There are obviously other issues in his report which need addressing at the appropriate time.
Erik, whilst you are at it, can you please also have Sandole email permission-commons@wikimedia.org to confirm that he agrees to licence the report under the licence you uploaded it under -- this is required for all files where the uploader is not the copyright holder. If you like, let me know when he does this, and I can attend to it so that the file isn't inadvertently deleted in 7 days.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks Erik for your email which was full of spin, and which will be discussed later.
But for now, I need to present something that needs clarification from Timothy.
In reference to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Timothy_Sandole_-_Belfer_Center_Repo...
On Page 2 of his report he states the following:
"Articles I helped to create: Two Wikipedia articles, "AirSea Battle" and "Operation Olympic Games," were stubs before I contributed to them. A "stub" is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. I was inspired to add content to "AirSea Battle" and "Operation Olympic Games" because they are popular in international relations scholarship. The two leading voices on these issues, Andrew Krepinevich and David E. Sanger, happen to be Harvard graduates and affiliates of the Belfer Center"
Why is it when I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirSea_Battle&action=historyd... I not see Sandole in the edit history.
There is an edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirSea_Battle&diff=564567483&... did add a lot of content.
Is it true that Sandole is in fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcobb who according to his user page divides his time between Pacheco, Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacheco,_California and Pune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune, has a website at http://www.hcobb.com/, is into fan fiction and feedbooks.
Or is there something else to it?
Cheers
Russavia
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
... The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is customary in fiscal sponsorship arrangements.
...
Hi Lisa,
I have been re-reading your statement and I feel there is some ambiguity over how this is being explained here versus how it might have been declared to others by the Stanton Foundation.
To be clear, could you please confirm that the WMF has officially stated that:
A. No grant or other money was ever taken or managed by the WMF for Sandole's project/job. B. The Stanton Foundation has never declared this as a grant for the WMF or for WMF projects. C. The WMF did not authorize or otherwise approve Sandole's project or appointment and has never employed Sandole. D. The WMF Fundraising department managed Sandole's contract[1] E. The WMF has neither paid tax nor claimed tax relief as a result of Sandole's project/job. F. No financial benefit has been gained by any organization due to the WMF claiming to be a "fiscal sponsor" of Sandole's appointment as no money has changed hands.
I am aware that the statements may be contradictory, where this is the case is would be great if the position could be unambiguously clarified and the Wikimedia community could be pointed to what WMF legal consider official and final public reports, noting that what should be an official past report linked below has changed during this discussion.
Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_Au...
Fae
Jan-Bart de Vreede, 20/03/2014 18:49:
work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really only need one person to be their manager
Nice one, can be reused with profit. Next time someone (e.g. WMF) asks a question to a volunteer editor, board member or anything I'll suggest to reply "I'm a volunteer so I don't work directly for you and I have only one manager, that is myself".
Nemo
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:59 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
clarify why Sandole was listed as a WMF Fundraiser contractor
Presumably because the fiscal sponsorship was handled through fundraising, and HR simply tallies the contracts per department and didn't have the backstory. I've corrected the report, pointing out the error in the earlier version.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_Au...
Erik
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org