[Wikimedia-l] Belfer report - analysis from Russavia

After reading Tomasz's (Odder) blog post[1] on the Wikipedian-in-Residence (WiR) at Harvard in 2012 and in response to Fae's and Pine's questions to the WMF on this list, I thought I would post my thoughts/report on this issue, as it touches on a few areas of which I have both professional (HRM and IR) and "wiki" (International relations articles on English Wikipedia) expertise.[2] I have broken this into sections covering each of the players in what is a major fiasco for the Wikimedia Foundation. I do apologise that some of the reference numbering is out of order. == Stanton Foundation == The Stanton Foundation has been a long-term donor to the Wikimedia Foundation,[3] and their 990 for the year 2012 indicates that it has some US$221,311,214 in assets.[4] Stanton has no website, and apart from several high-profile grants to the Wikimedia Foundation, it has made grants to the Council on Foreign Relations,[5] MIT's Department of Political Science,[6] the Rand Corporation,[7] and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,[8] in addition to the Belfer Center.[9] All of these organisations operate in the arena of international relations. These grants are aligned with Frank Stanton's history on input on US nuclear security policy.[10] Other grants which aren't clear as to how they are in Stanton's mission include the US$3 million grant to the Animal Rescue League of Boston.[11] That little is known about Stanton isn't uncommon, given it is a private foundation where donations are more often made via personal connections and in areas of their interest. The trustee of Stanton and contact point for the Wikimedia Foundation is Elisabeth (Liz) K. Allison, who was a long-time friend of Frank Stanton.[12] Liz was key to the creation of the WMF Public Policy Initiative (PPI),[13] and has attended several sessions of PPI events.[14] Her apparent LinkedIn profile[15] states that she is a business negotiator at the Harvard Business School; having previously been a director of the MSPCA,[16] which could explain Stanton's grant to the Animal Rescue League of Boston. Other information on Liz is scarce, but it is evident from the 2010,[17] 2011,[18] and 2012[4] 990 filings for Stanton, that Liz is one of only two trustees; the other being a financial adviser/lawyer, so it would be fair to assume that Liz determines how Stanton Funds are spent, whilst the financial adviser/lawyer makes sure everything is legal, etc. married to Graham Allison (Belfer).[12] Whilst this may on the surface raise eyebrows as to an obvious conflict of interest, this could be discounted when analysing why Stanton decided to fund this WiR position. The likely reasoning is a combination of Liz's involvement in the WMF Public Policy Initiative program and a desire to want to expand Stanton's involvement in Wikipedia in areas of its interest -- namely nuclear security. As mentioned above, Liz was instrumental in the creation of the PPI, and in November 2010 the PPI team met with Liz for a "mid-point stagegate meeting" and on the project she stated: "This is exactly what we expected from the initiative. This is what we wanted. Keep going."[23] Given Liz's involvement and enthusiasm for the PPI, and given Stanton's grants to organisations involved in international relations/nuclear security and policy, it isn't surprising that Liz/Stanton would want to look at getting a WiR into organisations that it has given grants to. In all likelihood, the Belfer WiR position was part of a concept program which was being driven by Liz herself to do exactly that. == Belfer Center == As noted in Tomasz's blog post, Belfer is a research centre within the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Named after Robert A. Belfer, the research centre in its online bio of the oil magnate[19] neglects to mention that he was a director of Enron, and was quite possibly one of the biggest financial losers[20] in the Enron scandal[21]. Wikipedia has an article about the Belfer Center, but not about its namesake. The current, and long-time, director of Belfer is Graham Allison[22], the "Founding Dean" of the Kennedy School, who has held advisory roles in the Reagan and Clinton governments, and been on the board of a multitude of corporations, notably in the oil and banking industries. Given the abovementioned grant by Stanton to Belfer, nuclear security is also an area which interests Belfer. == Timothy Sandole == As noted on Tomasz's blog, Timothy Sandole only registered on 10 July 2012; the day applications closed. His first edit to Wikipedia was to an article written about his grandfather.[39] On 30 July 2012, Sandole cemented his "credentials" for the job in edits to the nuclear terrorism article, in which he heavily uses materials written/co-authored by Graham Allison.[40] Prior to his successful application for the position, this is basically the gist of his editing "career" on Wikipedia. However, his LinkedIn profile[41] does show that Sandole has a history of interning at organisations which promote/push US national interests; the Department of State, the OSCE, and the US Congress. (cna.org), in which he produced a report on Azerbaijan's energy sector, in particular the Sangchal Terminal. I can't find a copy of this report online, but given Sandole's previous experience, I would expect it to toe the US national interest line; particularly given the subject, and the foreign policy issues surrounding it (i.e. the US's desire to counter Russia's dominance of the energy supply market in Europe). On 27 August 2012, Sandole officially joined the Wikimedia Foundation as a contractor,[33] in what was advertised as a FULL-TIME Wikipedian-in-Residence at Belfer, so from this time on what he does reflects not only on Belfer, but also on the Wikimedia Foundation. When the Belfer Center announced the recruitment of Sandole[48], they stated: "Timothy Sandole is the first Campus Wikipedian and an associate at the Belfer Center. His primary task is to author and edit international security-related Wikipedia articles with the goal of improving their scholastic content and accuracy. He also leads seminars for the HKS community on various Wikipedia editing methods." This was reinforced by Belfer's bio profile of Sandole.[49] But as of 14 September, the only thing that is publicly linked to Sandole's full-time WMF-endorsed/paid, and publicly stated, WiR role at Belfer is an opinion piece on a divisive US political issue. In November 2012, the US presidential election was held, contested by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. On 21 September 2012, the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs posted to their Facebook timeline the following announcement:[42] "Timothy Sandole from Harvard's Belfer Center breaks down why Obama a better bet than Romney when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Check it out!" The article of our full-time WiR, dated 20 September 2012,[43] indeed does present arguments on why Obama is a better choice than Romney when it comes to US foreign policy. The byline of the article states: "Timothy Sandole is an associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University." It neglects to state that he is in fact a full-time Wikipedian-in-Residence (promoted as a Campus Wikipedian) at Belfer --- that is the publicly stated role of his WMF-endorsed position. It is fair to say that in the public eye his comments could easily be seen as being endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Georgetown Journal of International Affairs is a peer-reviewed publication, but they also have GJIA Online[44], where they state: "Articles appearing online are not subject to the same standards of peer-review as those appearing in the printed editions of the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. The articles reflect the views of the author alone and not necessarily those of the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, or Georgetown University." Peer-reviewed articles often take months from the time they are submitted to the time they are published. Sandole's article does not appear in the peer-reviewed edition of the journal, and it is evident that the article was authored by Sandole in September 2012 from the sources he uses --- the Politico article was published on 14 September 2012,[45] the BBC article on 8 September 2012,[46] and the Christian Science Monitor article on 1 September 2012.[47] Whilst it is possible that Sandole did this article in his own time, it is now publicly linked to his WMF-endorsed WiR position at the Belfer Center which was endorsed by. On 15 September 2012, Sandole made his first edit as WiR to the Cuban missile crisis article[50], in which inserts large amounts of material referencing the Director of the Belfer Center, Graham Allison. It was not until 19 September 2012, that Sandole created his userpage.[51] As noted on this mailing list, it neglects to mention that this was a paid position. I haven't had time to go through all of Sandole's edits, but the edit pointed out by Tomasz in his blog post[52] is extremely problematic, and is clear evidence that publicly stated role of WiR was secondary to pushing views of those at the Belfer Center into contentious article, and is also evidence that Sandole was not experienced in editing on our projects before joining Belfer as a full-time WiR. Firstly, there is the issue of copyright violations. This[53] comparison of parts of the text demonstrates that what was inserted into the article is basically a copyright violation of the source material. There are other copyright violations, but this alone should demonstrate the problem. Secondly, there is the issue of POV-pushing, and in this instance it is quite subtle. For the layperson to understand it, one needs to look at Sandole's LinkedIn profile[41] in which Sandole on the position states: "Improving understanding of international security issues by authoring, editing, and HTML coding scholarly and encyclopedic articles related to nuclear strategy, terrorism, energy security, intelligence, U.S. grand strategy, and international relations theory." In the "Russian National Interests" section, it is presented from a "US" POV and how it affects US foreign policy, with scant regard for presenting the Russian POV towards its own foreign policy. That the article is skewed in such a way readers to this article since November 2012 are greeted with an overtly US point of view as background. Given the ongoing issues surrounding Crimea, that an article is blatantly skewed towards the US POV is not acceptable. As an editor who has heavily edited on articles relating to Russian foreign policy in the past, this is not acceptable. Additionally, it presents challenges to editors in this area knowing that the WMF has publicly entwined with U.S. POV being inserted into English Wikipedia. When we look at the $53,690 budget for the role, including whatever "stipend" Sandole received, and correlate it to his edits on Wikipedia,[54] he made a total of 176 mainspace edits and 32 non-mainspace edits to Wikipedia up to and over the duration of his tenure as WiR, meaning that each mainspace edit (of which many were minor fixes, etc) has a value of US$305. I will leave it up to others in the community to judge whether this was value-for-money. Another role of the full-time WiR position at Belfer, as noted by Sandole on his userpage was to "teach the students, faculty, and fellows how to edit Wikipedia articles though seminars." After an extensive search, I can find only one such seminar which was publicised as being held on 20 August 2013[55] -- right at the end of his WiR term. I do not know if the seminar was held, and what the impressions of those who attended were. I can also find no evidence of Sandole having blogged about the WiR role, which was another requirement in the Job Description Form (JDF). Given the issues surrounding Sandole's lack of Wikipedia experience, and the problematic issues I have found in his editing, I am not sure whether Sandole was the right person to be holding such seminars in the first place. At the end of the day, Sandole should not be judged for his role in this fiasco. He has applied for a position that he obviously saw could advance his career. As an associate at Belfer, he probably did a lot of useful work for them, which resulted in his being kept on at Belfer as a research assistance, but in terms of the role he was employed for, that being a Wikipedian-in-Residence, he did not fit the bill. The shortcomings raised here lay firmly at the feet of those in the WMF who sat by and allowed this situation to occur in the first place. == Wikimedia Foundation role == Why the Wikimedia Foundation has taken on what is traditionally a community role and have chosen to endorse a WiR for Belfer, when Belfer does not fit into a typical GLAM institutional category is something that needs to be seriously questioned. Additionally unclear is why the WMF has chosen to publicly endorse a paid editing role, when it has been vocal against paid editing in general. The first notice that I can find of this position was on 16 April 2012, when an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation added notification to the WiR page on the Outreach Wiki that they were "looking for one".[35] This was removed just a little over an hour later by LoriLee, who stated "Removing position until JD can be discussed further".[36] I can't find anything public where anything was discussed, so one has to assume that discussion was done behind the scenes; but with whom one can't tell. Unfortunately, Jobvite does not allow Wayback Machine to crawl its content, so one can't see via that method what differences there were in the JDF as of 16 April 2012 and 26 April 2012 when the announcement was made on the WMF blog.[37] Perhaps LoriLee could publish the initial JDF so that the wider community can see precisely where the issues were at that time, and so that the community can see what, if anything, was done by the WMF to address the issues that long-time and experienced GLAM people saw. === Human Resources === As noted on Odder's blog, the position was advertised on both the WMF blog and on Jobvite. A copy of the advertisement posted on Facebook includes a closing date of 10 July 2012, a start date of 27 August 2012, and asks that all applications be sent to jobs(a)wikimedia.org.[24] It isn't clear where applications sent via Jobvite were directed to, but naturally one would expect them to go jobs(a)wikimedia.org as well. In the real world, the Human Resource Department of a reputable organisation would be involved in the selection process at every step, ostensibly to ensure that the selection process is fair to all applicants, and also to ensure that all applicable employment laws and organisational policies are adhered too. Once the application process is complete, a "gopher" would typically compile all applications together, and a human resource professional, in consultation with the department head for the position to be filled, would then go through the applications, and create a shortlist of suitable applicants whom would be interviewed. The Job Description Form for this position had several essential criteria. Sandole does not appear to meet several of them, including: 1. Experience editing the English Wikipedia. 2. The ability to effectively introduce those new to Wikipedia to its practices, policy and culture. 3. An aptitude for facilitating healthy collaboration, especially between experts and the Wikipedia community. 4. An interest in promoting improved access to free information for all. The only essential criteria he seemed to have met are: 1. Strong interest in and prior academic work or other research experience in international relations, international security, foreign policy, and public policy issues. 2. An undergraduate and/or graduate degree in a relevant subject is preferred. On the blog post announcing the position, Steven Walling, in response to a question in the comments section by "T", stated:[25] "I would not encourage anyone without substantial Wikipedia editing experience to apply, as the position requires a detailed knowledge of how the community that builds the content works." In my own experience, recruitment of personnel has largely been guided by government-mandated employment standards.[26] Any reputable organisation, and especially one which prides itself on transparency as the Wikimedia Foundation does, would use these same basic HRM principles. That Sandole managed not only to get past the "cut" when he doesn't met the most important parts of the core criteria, but actually landed himself the position, shows that the WMF does not apply industry-standard HRM principles, and someone within the HR area at the WMF allowed this to occur on their watch. Or course, there is another possibility--a worse possibility--that being that there was no HR involvement in the process at all; apart from the writing up of a PDF, the posting of the advertisement, and receiving the applications. If this is the case, who at the WMF was responsible for overseeing the selection process for this WMF endorsed paid position? We now know that Belfer was responsible for the process,[38] and from a HRM standpoint this does not bode well for how HRM is managed at the WMF. === Fundraising === I have found enough evidence that would indicate Lisa Seitz-Gruwell[27] of the Fundraising team at the WMF is knee-deep involved in this debacle. But to what extent needs some clarification. Seitz-Gruwell joined the WMF in September 2011 as the Development Director in the, then-called, Community Department.[28] The JDF for the Development Director position[29] makes it clear that Seitz-Gruwell would be responsible for the relationship between the WMF and Liz Allison. Given Seitz-Gruwell's history of employment in politics and political philanthropy,[30][31] she would be well aware that when it comes to fundraising, you need to keep your donors happy, and also that donations also often can come with an expectation from the donor that the organisation receiving the donation will do something for them -- a quid pro quo, if you will. As Pine mentioned in his email, Sandole joined the WMF as a contractor attached to the Fundraising department. This was announced by the WMF in its August 2012 report.[32] According to the WMF organisation chart from November 2012, Sandole officially joined the WMF as a contractor on 27 August 2012, and was reporting to Seitz-Gruwell.[33] Seitz-Gruwell is the common link between the players in this fiasco, and is therefore the key in helping the community to understand what occurred. On 29 July 2013, Seitz-Gruwell was promoted to the position of Chief Revenue Officer (basically the Fundraising Department head) by Sue Gardner. In her blog on this, Sue stated:[34] "Zack is leaving the WMF fundraising team in terrific shape, and I'm very happy to announce I'll be promoting into the position of Chief Revenue Officer the deputy head of the department, Lisa Seitz Gruwell. Since Lisa joined in 2011, both Zack and I have come to heavily rely on her leadership, managerial and strategic abilities. Lisa has been responsible for foundations and major donors as well as being Zack's deputy, and over the past two years she and her team have significantly grown revenues without increasing the costs to the organization. This is a big deal: Most non-profits need their non-fundraising staff to participate in fundraising efforts, and it's to Lisa's credit that her team has figured out how to raise money without that. Lisa is widely respected and trusted. I look forward to her leadership and am confident she will continue Fundraising's track record of success." This is a very strong public endorsement of Seitz-Gruwell by Gardner. === Executive Director === In the JDF for Seitz-Gruwell's then position of Development Director[29], one will note that collaborate with the Chief Community Officer (at the time Zack Exley) and the Executive Director (ED) (Sue Gardner) to "develop a systematic fundraising plan that includes both individual (community and major gift) and institutional (business and foundation) targets." Additionally, the JDF also sees the Development Director "undertake direct individual donor solicitations as appropriate, engaging the Executive Director, other Foundation staff, members of the Board or other community members when necessary. Given Seitz-Gruwell's history in political fundraising and "philanthropy", and given comments by herself on this list,[38] it is evident that she is probably not attuned to how political fundraising differs from fundraising as it pertains to the Wikimedia Foundation and the ethical considerations that go along with it. Given her JDF, I would have expected her to consult with her own supervisors at the WMF, and I would expect that she approached both Exley and Gardner for guidance. Even if Seitz-Gruwell did not approach Gardner, as ED one would also expect Gardner to have as least been aware of the role, given the creation of JDFs (that should require some sort of approval), the adding of the position to WMF accounts, and given that more than just Seitz-Gruwell knew of the position, it is unimaginable that she was oblivious to the position. At the very least, when Gardner promoted Seitz-Gruwell to the Chief Revenue Officer position, surely this would have been brought to her attention during any interview that was conducted. As a "seasoned journalist at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation",[56] and having 4-5 years experience at the helm of the WMF, it is hard for me to fathom how Gardner could be oblivious to both the background of this position, and the issues that I am touching on here and which have since been raised on the wikimedia-l mailing list. As ED of the WMF, the buck ultimately stops with Gardner, and it needs to be determined when she became aware of the WiR position. ==Comments== In 2010 Liam Wyatt gained the distinction of being the first person to fill a Wikipedian-in-Residence position.[57] Since then, the concept has taken off,[58] and there have been a multitude of GLAM institutions to have hosted a WiR.[59] Many of these WiR are well known in the Wikimedia community, and WiR have generally been community or Wikimedia chapter initiatives. The traditional WiR role has been to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution",[60] and to be a WiR is to hold a prestigious position within the Wikimedia community. As noted by Tomasz in his blog post, when Geoff Burling first introduced the concept of a WiR, he stated:[61] "the reputation of anyone who called himself a "Wikipedian-in-residence" would reflect on the reputation of the entire project." This couldn't be more true than right now, and it doesn't help when the first WiR, Liam Wyatt, is so publicly critical of the way that the WMF has handled itself on this issue.[62] At the time of the $3.5 million grant that Stanton extended to the WMF, Sue Gardner commented:[63] "The Stanton Foundation is a long-time funder of the Wikimedia Foundation, and I am thrilled they're increasing their investment in us. The Stanton Foundation was one of the first institutions to recognize that Wikipedia is a serious educational endeavour that's having a significant impact on people around the world. I will always be grateful to them for taking a risk in first funding us, many years ago." In March 2013 on Quora, member of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees Jimmy Wales, why Bill Gates doesn't donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. In response Wales stated:[64] "This is true of many very wealthy people, but for me, I don't think that's really what we should want for Wikipedia. Dependence on any one donor, no matter how wonderful, has all kinds of risks." Wales went on to say: "For one thing, we'd lose any need to be responsive to the needs and interests of our broad donor base. That wouldn't be a good thing. As it is now, the real "bosses" of the Wikimedia Foundation are the small donors. That's a good thing." Whilst true that Stanton took a risk when investing in the Wikimedia Foundation, it is conversely true that the Wikimedia Foundation also took a risk when accepting Stanton's substantial investment, as the risk of a "quid pro quo" is always prevalent. One has to accept that people and organisations have their own reasons for wanting to engage with the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is the Wikimedia Foundation's responsibility to ensure that when it not only engages with external entities but also actively endorses them, that the Foundation, and by extension all Wikimedia projects, do not have their integrity called into question by allowing the endorsed party to be the one calling the shots. As it stands now, the integrity of all involved parties (including the innocent party -- Timothy Sandole) is shot, and the real loser in this is the vast army of volunteer editors who have had the very principles we believe in sold by the WMF to its biggest donor for a grand total of $53,690. == Where to from here == There will be a lot of spin from the WMF to counter the very frank, and very logical, conclusions I have drawn in my report. The spin has already begun on the mailing list, but if we are to progress any as a community, we need to leave the spin at the door, and some very hard admissions will need to be made by all of those concerned. Russavia ==References== [1] http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/ [2] I have long edited on international relations articles and examples of my work are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Russia_relations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93South_Ossetia_relations [3] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20081204-176094/Wik… [4] http://www.webcitation.org/6MzmljPqd [5] http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/fellowships/StantonFellowship.html [6] http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/frank-stanton-0529.html [7] http://www.rand.org/about/edu_op/fellowships/stanton-nuclear.html [8] http://carnegieendowment.iapplicants.com/ViewJob-262511.html [9] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fellowships/stanton.html [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stanton_(executive) [11] http://web.archive.org/web/20080420151314/http://www.arlboston.org/site/Pag… [12] http://www.webcitation.org/6MaSjbpN3 [13] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_July_2011#Glob… [15] http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=60291746&authType=name&auth… (PDF snapshot at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymTW92WkhuRXhmalU/edit?usp=shari…) [16] http://www.webcitation.org/6Mytse0YA (page 8) [17] http://www.webcitation.org/6MzvEBFCK [18] http://www.webcitation.org/6MzvGnEV6 [19] http://www.webcitation.org/6MaYXIEN9 [20] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/05/business/enron-s-collapse-losers-with-bil… [21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal [22] http://www.webcitation.org/6MadA5QJj [23] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_November_2010#… [24] http://archive.is/oE9Bd [25] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w… [26] http://www.publicsector.wa.gov.au/publications-resources/instructions-stand… [27] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Lgruwell [28] http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Staff_and_contrac… [29] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Development_Director [30] http://www.webcitation.org/6OCMIxrZI [31] http://archive.is/iZAlc [32] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/17/wikimedia-foundation-report-august-20… [33] http://www.webcitation.org/6OD8X99o6 - this report may be read in a semi-readable format at http://www.webcitation.org/6MZfMAY96 - if one searches for Sandole and looks in the "supervisor" column they will see his supervisor is "4fee231002ceaa451a000004", which is Seitz-Gruwell. [34] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/29/changes-wikimedia-foundation-fundrais… [35] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedian_in_Residence&am… - the IP used belongs to the WMF as per http://tools.whois.net/whoisbyip/?host=216.38.130.163 [36] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedian_in_Residence&am… [37] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-w… [38] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070640.html [39] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Sandole&diff=prev&… [40] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_terrorism&diff=50482… [41] http://www.webcitation.org/6MZer83Lu [42] http://archive.is/ufK0F [43] http://journal.georgetown.edu/2012/09/20/president-obama-the-new-guardian-o… (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1g0MoPbcPf6JXytbr26ys6yALCBEDJZTglujKBRdwrYe…) [44] http://journal.georgetown.edu/submissions/online/ [45] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81232.html?hp=r10 [46] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19528463 [47] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0901/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-4-wa… [48] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEfe1Sqs [49] http://archive.is/kmTVw (http://web.archive.org/web/20130627232726/belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/expe…) [50] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuban_missile_crisis&diff=pr… [51] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timothysandole&oldid=51… [52] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEifCara [53] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEivBItE [54] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Timothysandole&proj… [55] http://www.webcitation.org/6OEjvqEwe [56] http://www.webcitation.org/6OF1GpqgU [57] http://wittylama.com/2010/02/07/wikipedian-in-residence [58] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/how-wikipedians-in-re… [59] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence [60] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian_in_Resi… [61] http://original-research.blogspot.com/2006/12/wikipedian-in-residence-propo… [62] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070649.html [63] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/05/wikimedia-receives-3-5million-usd-gra… [64] http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Why-doesnt-Bill-Gates-donate-to-Wikipedia-i-… (a PDF of this is available to view at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8j_w_yHF5ymTXd2dzhQZTJfUXc/edit)