Lila, and all,
I am glad to hear this will be revived. I read your message with interest and appreciation, up to the final paragraph: in this instance, WMF is in a very poor position to chide anybody for snark. Nemo's "snark" was lighthearted and minimal, and doesn't even register next to the WMF's damaging and disrespectful actions on this issue now spanning more than three years. Let me be direct, though -- I'll take care to lay things out in a snark-free manner here.
Last spring, WMF found itself in a bit of a bind, of its own making: this list, the blogosphere, etc. were making a lot of noise about how the WMF had actively undermined the efforts of Wikipedians to guide organizations in ethical engagement with the project. One action above all others served to quiet that noise: the announcement of specific reforms quoted by Nemo above.
Now, many months overdue and apparently forgotten, it appears that the announcement was made *for the purpose* of quieting the noise, as opposed to being made out of actual concern for how universities interact with Wikipedia, or how the WMF interacts with knowledgeable members of the Wikimedia movement. An oversight, in general, is understandable and human. But overlooking something that was *specifically undertaken to correct past mistakes* is something different. That kind of oversight, I contend, provides a clear view of the level of interest the organization actually has in addressing the problems under discussion. The WMF is clearly not very interested in undoing the damage it wrought.
The Wikimedia movement, and English Wikipedia, have worked hard over many years to establish guidelines and policies that frame an ethical approach and guide volunteers toward producing high quality and consistent content. The GLAM sub-movement in particular has worked to bridge that framework and the operations of mission-aligned organizations like museums and universities. But that work -- which the WMF enjoys talking about in its annual reports, etc. -- was ignored by the WMF the moment it became inconvenient. The moment it interfered with a grant. At precisely the moment when the WMF had a chance to positively influence a leading university, it instead gave that university license to disregard the relevant ethical concerns.
Making all of that right, the WMF told us last year, was a priority. But apparently it was not.
I am glad to learn that the remedies then under discussion will be picked back up. The WMF will be a healthier organization because of it. But I emphatically request that you refrain from scolding those of us who are frustrated by the need for non-WMF staff to repeatedly, over a span of over three years, remind the WMF that important things need doing.
A little snark, in this case, should be the very least of your concerns. Pete -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Nemo,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are correct -- this did not make my "to do" list, but I believe honoring commitments made by the WMF is important and therefor I've been looking this issue. Here is what I found and what we will do:
- This issue was a clear oversight error.
- To prevent issues like these in the future two paths are important:
- ability to highlight issues through escalation 2. improved clarity on which programs or grants qualify for funding (through training) and the process by which that is done
- The first point will be addressed this quarter by HR in the employee
handbook through the modified escalation policy and escalation channel.
- The second will be addressed through changes to grantmaking program,
which we proposed to open for discussion this spring/summer (Q4/Q1) starting with the FDC-level grants < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Adv...
.
In short, we are looking to be very clear on goals, parameters, and focus of grants we distribute to ensure they are handled and validated consistently and accurately.
The two aspects together should help avoid these types of issues. I am also asking to include some "'guardrail" items in employee training. No system is perfect however, and we will continue to tune it to avoid problems.
Finally, while I sincerely appreciate you bringing up the issue, I would also appreciate if this is done without snark or disparagement in the future. This would ensure everyone is more productive in their solutions. We will respond in kind.
Thank you, Lila
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sue Gardner, 01/04/2014 05:23:
On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We will update the wiki page at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_ Residence/Harvard_University_assessment with more information and details. I encourage others to participate in this as a collaborative process.
Thanks Erik.
For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link from Erik above.
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_ Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program#Decisions_made said:
The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014.
I think we're well past the deadline–unless "2014" was a typo for "2015", or "ED" a typo for "Sue Gardner in her spare time". Any updates?
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe