Wikimedia Foundation/Stanton Foundation sponsor paid editor

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:51 am

From this post made by Wikipediocracy member lilburne on reddit: link

The issue here is that JW and the WMF maintains that there is a 'Bright line rule' against this. When it occurs with PR agencies we get a huffing and a puffing of "Up with this we will not put" and they send out cease and desist letters. One employee was sack for paid editing. Yet the reality is that most of their major donors are doing the same. And according to current mailing list thread some one was paid $53K to edit WP with the blessing of the WMF. Though now they are all scurrying for cover, like rats as the barn door opens, claiming "Not me! I didn't know, etc"

http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the- ... media-way/

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 70637.html

Apparently on odder's blog he's dug a skeleton out of the Wikimedia Foundation's closet.

Less than two years ago, the WMF formally announced that it was looking for a full-time paid Wikipedian-in-Residence to work at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a research center within the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In August 2012, the WMF announced that Timothy Sandole was to fill the position. The Foundation’s financial statements for 2012/2013 indicate that US$53,690 was put aside as “temporarily restricted net assets” to fund the position; where exactly that money went is not immediately clear, as no report from the WMF, Stanton nor the Belfer Center has been published to date.

The Wikimedia UK Mailing list took up the trail from there, embarrassing the WMF.

Wed Mar 19 13:50:38 UTC 2014

Re: http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the- ... media-way/

Two questions:

1. Where can I find a response from either the WMF board or WMF
funding/finance to the criticisms of a lack of transparency or the
apparent failure of the project to deliver value for the donor's money
as raised in this blog post?

2. Where can I read an officially recognized report for the outcomes
of this project in terms of value for Wikimedia projects? Obviously we
do not want to rely on second-hand analysis when reports to the WMF
are a requirement for such projects.

Thanks,
Fae

The response from the WMF in subsequent mailing list posts was lackluster, confused, and defensive.

Sample:

Erik Moeller
Fri Mar 21 07:37:55 UTC 2014

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Fæ <faewik at 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?ti ... =600410517
[2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index. ... ldid=65414
[3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wik ... assessment
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

The entire chain is entertaining. Mistakes were made. Regrets were had. Douchery is afoot.

From Liam Wyatt (partial quote):

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!

Begin here to read all of it: link

Note: I removed some of the mailing list formatting and email addresses. Bolding is mine. An earlier Wikipediocracy topic on the mysterious Stanton Foundation is here: link

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:57 pm

Temporarily restricted net assets (from this accounting document: link

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:16 pm

Looks like Stanton Foundation will definitely be in focus in The Thin Bright Line III next week.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:38 pm

Russavia has just posted a lengthy analysis on Wikimedia-l.

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. [...]

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:46 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Russavia has just posted a lengthy analysis on Wikimedia-l.

Wow, wow, WOW! I had no idea that Liz Allison and Graham Allison were Stanton's deathbed caretakers, and that Graham runs the Belfer Center. Now I see the corruption! Graham and Liz are using their dead friend Stanton's money to featherbed Graham's own personal pursuits (which, granted, probably are politically in line with generally what Stanton would have supported anyway), and Liz got her $3 million for the dog shelter, which was probably her own personal interest. (Not sure that Stanton had any great fondness for pets.)

I have to hand it to Russavia -- this is top notch analysis.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:57 pm

thekohser wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Russavia has just posted a lengthy analysis on Wikimedia-l.
Wow, wow, WOW! I had no idea that Liz Allison and Graham Allison were Stanton's deathbed caretakers, and that Graham runs the Belfer Center. Now I see the corruption! Graham and Liz are using their dead friend Stanton's money to featherbed Graham's own personal pursuits (which, granted, probably are politically in line with generally what Stanton would have supported anyway), and Liz got her $3 million for the dog shelter, which was probably her own personal interest. (Not sure that Stanton had any great fondness for pets.)

I have to hand it to Russavia -- this is top notch analysis.

Yet more proof, if any was needed, that revenge is a dish best served cold. Point--Bibby.

The Gruesome Twosome rides again!

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:26 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Russavia has just posted a lengthy analysis on Wikimedia-l.
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. [...]

Someone needs to save a copy of this in case the WMF disappears it, although I assume Russavia has his own, personal copy. Is this the kind of thing that could cause the WMF to lose their charitable/non-profit legal status?

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:23 am

It is obvious, no?
"Paid editing" when it costs only 300 $ (also called the "Sarah-version") is strictly forbidden.
"Paid editing" when it costs 50,000+++ $ (also called the "Stanton-version") is welcomed with open arms.

Here is the husband of the chair of the Stanton Foundation: Graham T. Allison (T-H-L).
Lots of citations to him on WP, some inserted by Stanton Foundations paid advocate Timothysandole (T-C-L), like here.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:32 am

Cedric wrote:
thekohser wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Russavia has just posted a lengthy analysis on Wikimedia-l.
Wow, wow, WOW! I had no idea that Liz Allison and Graham Allison were Stanton's deathbed caretakers, and that Graham runs the Belfer Center. Now I see the corruption! Graham and Liz are using their dead friend Stanton's money to featherbed Graham's own personal pursuits (which, granted, probably are politically in line with generally what Stanton would have supported anyway), and Liz got her $3 million for the dog shelter, which was probably her own personal interest. (Not sure that Stanton had any great fondness for pets.)

I have to hand it to Russavia -- this is top notch analysis.
Yet more proof, if any was needed, that revenge is a dish best served cold. Point--Bibby.

The Gruesome Twosome rides again!

Lol.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:33 am

The Adversary wrote:It is obvious, no?
"Paid editing" when it costs only 300 $ (also called the "Sarah-version") is strictly forbidden.
"Paid editing" when it costs 50,000+++ $ (also called the "Stanton-version") is welcomed with open arms.

Here is the husband of the chair of the Stanton Foundation: Graham T. Allison (T-H-L); lots of citations to him on WP, some inserted by their paid advocate Timothy Sandole.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:52 am

Graham Allison is Director of the Belfer Center.

That little child in Africa needs hear about it!

And of the views of Graham Allison.

Yeah! Graham Allison is great!

...(his wife pays my job)

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:21 am

Interesting edit to Sandole's user page?

Before:

I have been tasked by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Belfer Center to author, edit, and improve Wikipedia articles related to international security using library resources at Harvard University.

After:

I have been tasked to author, edit, and improve Wikipedia articles related to international security using library resources at Harvard University.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:34 am

thekohser wrote:Looks like Stanton Foundation will definitely be in focus in The Thin Bright Line III next week.

Can we define just how thin and bright, if at all, the line is?

I think the batteries are burnt out or the filament blown.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:54 am

Timothysandole (T-C-L) report after a year (and 209 edits to wp) is here.

Imagine this: he has been teaching people about COI:
“Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers."

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:42 am

Virtually every edit he has made (that I have looked at) have some serious issues.

If it is not adding puffery, then its lots of copy-right issues: he mostly quotes verbatim, without indicating that he does.

According to his own report, these are the articles he has added most material to:
Grand strategy (T-H-L) (+17,405 bytes)
Targeted killing (T-H-L) (+16,105 bytes)
Nuclear terrorism (T-H-L) (+15,753 bytes)
Polarity (T-H-L) (+15,178 bytes)
East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration (T-H-L) (+11,306 bytes)
Opposition to military action against Iran (T-H-L) (+10,120 bytes)
Russia-United States relations (T-H-L) (+8,772 bytes)
Cold Start (T-H-L) (+6,041 bytes)
Sino-Japanese Relations (T-H-L) (+5,605 bytes)
Cuban missile crisis (T-H-L) (+4,593 bytes):
Eurozone crisis (T-H-L)(+4,261 bytes)
Potential superpowers (T-H-L) (+4,123 bytes)
Iran and weapons of mass destruction (T-H-L) (+4,000 bytes):

Quote: "Two Wikipedia articles, “AirSea Battle (T-H-L)” and “Operation Olympic Games (T-H-L)” were stubs before I contributed to them. [..] The two leading voices on these issues, Andrew Krepinevich and David E. Sanger, happen to be Harvard graduates and affiliates of the Belfer Center."

And, as Russavia correctly identified: it is the US viewpoint he is advocating.
Typically, he added this article to "Targeted killing". (Though our experienced Wikipedian didn´t add link to the web.archive, so the link on wp is already dead

) The article is extremely critical of the effect of US drones.
But this is not mentioned! Only background and general info on the legality on drones goes into the wp article.....

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:59 am

Moeller has now got listed the Belfer Center Campus Wikipedian Reports

And Russavia thinks Sandole hasn´t produced much for the money.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:10 am

Dammit, WE should have done this. Stanton's connections to the WMF have been mentioned before, both here and on WR, going back to 2010. I've made comments about Stanton's prominent status as a major WMF donor, in the book wiki. From our Sunlight Foundation article:

Major funders of the Foundation include:
Venture-capital firm Omidyar Network (see Pierre Omidyar, and see Matt Halprin below, they gave the WMF $2 million in August 2009)
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (which gave the WMF $500,000 in August 2009 and $800,000 in November 2010)
The Ford Foundation (which gave the WMF $300,000 in July 2009)
The Stanton Foundation (which gave the WMF $3.6 million in October 2011).

Also:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=570
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?sh ... ntry235084

Russavia is doing our job. Why?

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:21 am

EricBarbour wrote:Russavia is doing our job. Why?

Because of this?
I´m just glad someone is doing it ....there are plenty more donors to check

And I´m absolutely stunned by the level of incompetence: First in October mr Sandole learns "how I can better reference the same source without resorting to "ibid," which, unbeknownst to be until now, is not good to use on Wikipedia."

....this is the guy who is teaching others how to edit Wikipedia??

And I have no idea as to how it is practised in the US, but in my part of the world (=Scandinavia), sick days are for when you are sick. Normally, you are not even allowed to leave the country. Contrast this with "I will be using my sick days next week to travel to London."

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:25 am

EricBarbour wrote: Russavia is doing our job. Why?

Not sure:

Hatred. Because he thinks it will make Jimbo look bad, and he dislikes Jimbo intensely?
Jealousy. Because somebody managed to grift 50 grand, and it wasn't him?
Self aggrandisement. Because it comes with a whole load of "look at me" drama?
Opportunism. Because it was facilitated by Odder having done most of the work?

or

Pure altruism to defend the "movement" he always professes to love?

Take your pick.
I genuinely wouldn't rule out at least a bit of the last being in the mix.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:36 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (I´m emulating Vigilant here...)

Ok, so after spending one year as a Wikipedian in Residence, licking up to the Belfer Center and prof Allison, guess what new job he is applying for?
Yepp, Graham Allison’s next research assistant!

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:51 am

Russavia has been doing some none Russavia things lately:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30949611@N03/9272090094/

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:16 am

Look at this, from June 21st, near the end of his term. He spent 8 hours researching how "Turkish Prime Minister’s Erdogen’s policies are playing out in Brussels as far as EU accession talks are concerned.", and added the result to Accession of Turkey to the European Union (T-H-L).

Alas, what he added was one -1- article in the Financial Times.

All in a days work...

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:23 am

I am a little conflicted on this one. They got a trained academic, selected by Harvard's Belfer Center, to be their Wikipedian in Residence, rather than an unemployed Wikipedian.

That actually sounds like a good thing: it's what I have often suggested they do, especially in topic areas like medical, legal, etc. Pick a real-life expert. But it doesn't seem to have worked out very well, with Sandole being accused of having edited non-neutrally, and not done very much work at all compared to how much his job cost.

So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.

The apparent nepotism is the most unappealing aspect of this sorry mess: the fact that the administrator of the Stanton Foundation's fund is the wife of the guy who runs the Belfer Center, that they leaned on the Wikimedia Foundation to list and pay Sandole as one of their employees reather than the Belfer Center's (he was actually listed as a fundraiser rather than a paid editor on the Wikimedia Foundation's staff and contractors page), and that the Wikimedia Foundation felt they had to oblige, given the millions the Stanton Foundation had given them in the past. And there was no clear user page disclosure that this was a paid-editing job.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:24 pm

HRIP7 wrote:I am a little conflicted on this one. They got a trained academic, selected by Harvard's Belfer Center, to be their Wikipedian in Residence, rather than an unemployed Wikipedian.

That actually sounds like a good thing: it's what I have often suggested they do, especially in topic areas like medical, legal, etc. Pick a real-life expert. But it doesn't seem to have worked out very well, with Sandole being accused of having edited non-neutrally, and not done very much work at all compared to how much his job cost.

So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.

The apparent nepotism is the most unappealing aspect of this sorry mess: the fact that the administrator of the Stanton Foundation's fund is the wife of the guy who runs the Belfer Center, that they leaned on the Wikimedia Foundation to list and pay Sandole as one of their employees reather than the Belfer Center's (he was actually listed as a fundraiser rather than a paid editor on the Wikimedia Foundation's staff and contractors page), and that the Wikimedia Foundation felt they had to oblige, given the millions the Stanton Foundation had given them in the past. And there was no clear user page disclosure that this was a paid-editing job.

I think we're still saying they are grossly incompetent in everything they do, and it's Wikipedia that wants to have it all ways, no clear leadership, unprofessional, and expecting excellent results when favoritism trumps everything.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:49 pm

More from Russavia. He quotes a part of one of Sandole's reports:

Monday, April 22
- Researched offensive realism and the concept, 'buck passing' (3 hours).
- Wrote a draft on buck passing in MS Word. Coded/authored the stub, "Buck
passing," on
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing (6 hours).

Now, the diff representing the sum total of Sandole's work on the article is this. Russavia asks:

Does anyone believe for one minute that
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =549480580 took
6 hours to draft? And anywhere between 0 and 3 hours to research?

This would have taken one no more than 10 minutes to do -- research books
relating to buck passing and find one (5 minutes), copy and paste a quote
from the book (as was done here) (2 minutes), do wikimarkup/references (not
HTML) (2 minutes), hit save (1 minute). Voila!

Seriously, this is a disgrace, particularly given this was some 7 months
into the project.

There is no way that 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for an entire year was
spent on this full-time position, and the above is just plain evidence of
that.

Comment from anyone at the WMF welcome.

Russavia is not cherry-picking either. The very next day, it was just the same:

Tuesday, April 23
- Researched offensive realism and the concept, "bandwagoning" (3 hours).
- Wrote draft on bandwagoning in MS Word. Cleaned up citations in the Wikipedia stub,
“Bandwagoning” and coded/authored the majority of the article. Still needs added
citations in order to satisfy Wikipedia’s secondary sources guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagoning (6 hours).

This edit is the entire result of those claimed nine hours of work.

The quality of the content seems okay. I could even imagine spending three hours on research for each of these two articles if one were very, very painstaking about finding the best and most authoritative references. But 12 hours to draft those four edits? Pull the other one.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:46 pm

The Adversary wrote:And I have no idea as to how it is practised in the US, but in my part of the world (=Scandinavia), sick days are for when you are sick. Normally, you are not even allowed to leave the country. Contrast this with "I will be using my sick days next week to travel to London."

Many employers in the US permit what they call "flex days", which are supposed to be used for when you're sick, or you have a day of doctors' appointments lined up, or you have a kid sick at home. At many firms, they say they're not to be used to extend vacations (such as taking a flex day on Friday, then take vacation the whole next week), but since there isn't any requirement to verify how you used a flex day, there's not much that an employer who gives flex days can do to discourage "misuse".

Also, while some companies will "carry forward" some or all of your unused vacation days into the next calendar year, flex days are almost always a "use it or lose it" deal.

Personally, I wouldn't pin too much blame on Mr. Sandole using sick days for other purposes, because how easy would it have been for him to just say that he was using the days for "mental health recuperation", from all the psychological torment of his working for the Wikimedia Foundation, but not disclosing that on his Wikipedia pages?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:58 pm

Jim wrote:Opportunism. Because it was facilitated by Odder having done most of the work?

I don't think that one is very fair to Scott. Russavia's in-depth probe into the Stanton/Belfer relationship was just as extensive, if not more, than Odder's first exposé.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:41 pm

HRIP7 wrote:I am a little conflicted on this one. They got a trained academic, selected by Harvard's Belfer Center, to be their Wikipedian in Residence, rather than an unemployed Wikipedian.

That actually sounds like a good thing: it's what I have often suggested they do, especially in topic areas like medical, legal, etc. Pick a real-life expert. But it doesn't seem to have worked out very well, with Sandole being accused of having edited non-neutrally, and not done very much work at all compared to how much his job cost.

So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.

The apparent nepotism is the most unappealing aspect of this sorry mess: the fact that the administrator of the Stanton Foundation's fund is the wife of the guy who runs the Belfer Center, that they leaned on the Wikimedia Foundation to list and pay Sandole as one of their employees reather than the Belfer Center's (he was actually listed as a fundraiser rather than a paid editor on the Wikimedia Foundation's staff and contractors page), and that the Wikimedia Foundation felt they had to oblige, given the millions the Stanton Foundation had given them in the past. And there was no clear user page disclosure that this was a paid-editing job.

The problem is the lack of organizational oversight by the WMF to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. The WMF saw millions of dollars and was blinded by that, and either did not do their due diligence before accepting the donation, or did not establish sufficient organizational controls to ensure that something like this didn't happen. The fish rots from the head, of course.

The proper thing for the WMF to have done here was either to reject the Stanton Foundation's money, or to negotiate for different conditions that would have provided outside oversight of some sort, but the WMF is more interested in getting as much money as possible than it is in maintaining its reputation. At this point, they should probably return the balance of the Stanton Foundation grant, but I deem that an unlikely event.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:43 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:The problem is the lack of organizational oversight by the WMF to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. The WMF saw millions of dollars and was blinded by that, and either did not do their due diligence before accepting the donation, or did not establish sufficient organizational controls to ensure that something like this didn't happen. The fish rots from the head, of course.

Well ... hands off, wide open editing is what they have faith in. The WMF and Wikipedia community couldn't care less about conflicts of interest, despite the megabytes of personal essays, Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This is evident from the listings on the 'obvious paid editors are obvious' thread, where paid/CIO editors are clearly identified and nobody at Wikipedia gives a damn.

The only time Wikipediots take notice is if they are personally embarrassed or piqued. COI editing is not a problem unless the article is owned by a wikipedian, or unless the WMF is embarrassed by an unflattering news story, or unless the editor is an enemy of the state, in which case Jimbo may personally malign that editor during interviews around the world. This is a venal, myopic, childish, self-centered culture, lacking in self-awareness.

Kelly Martin wrote:The proper thing for the WMF to have done here was either to reject the Stanton Foundation's money, or to negotiate for different conditions that would have provided outside oversight of some sort, but the WMF is more interested in getting as much money as possible than it is in maintaining its reputation. At this point, they should probably return the balance of the Stanton Foundation grant, but I deem that an unlikely event.

Unlikely indeed, unless a major news outlet publishes it.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:46 pm

thekohser wrote:Many employers in the US permit what they call "flex days", which are supposed to be used for when you're sick, or you have a day of doctors' appointments lined up, or you have a kid sick at home. At many firms, they say they're not to be used to extend vacations (such as taking a flex day on Friday, then take vacation the whole next week), but since there isn't any requirement to verify how you used a flex day, there's not much that an employer who gives flex days can do to discourage "misuse".

Also, while some companies will "carry forward" some or all of your unused vacation days into the next calendar year, flex days are almost always a "use it or lose it" deal.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.
I am used to a different system; if you're sick, or you have a day of doctors' appointments lined up, or you have a kid sick at home .....then all those goes out of the "sick-leave" days (which can run up to a year). Our "flex-days" are moveable holidays, which a person can take when it suits them (after informing the employer.)

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:58 pm

thekohser wrote:
Jim wrote:Opportunism. Because it was facilitated by Odder having done most of the work?
I don't think that one is very fair to Scott. Russavia's in-depth probe into the Stanton/Belfer relationship was just as extensive, if not more, than Odder's first exposé.

Maybe. Hence the proliferation of question marks in my post, and my closing remark. When Russavia and his Commons pals are all singing from the same hymn sheet like this I'm never quite sure who wrote the tune, is all. That's the cynic in me, born of observation.

Doesn't matter quite as much when it's a rousing little number and I like the tune though - I'll confess. That's the opportunist in me, you see...

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:22 pm

HRIP7 wrote: So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.

Oh yes we can. The WMF are incapable of organizing, delivering, or being responsible for anything. All they do is shove a banner headline up every now and then saying "Give us money!", and they can't even do that without screwing up in one way or another. They can't manage an encyclopedia, they can't run a site with kids without mixing them in with perverts, they can't run a site that isn't full of lies and defamation, they can't write software that is useable by people.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:32 pm

Michael Snow writes here:

It was one single donor's money that was spent on this position, not
money from the general pool of donations, which I believe is the point
Marc was trying to make. Moreover, that donor specifically wanted the
money spent on this position. It's not like the Wikimedia Foundation had
the option to spend the money on other, better program opportunities.

As such, it seems clear that the donor in question is in the best
position to evaluate whether the funds achieved their intended purpose.
We don't really have good information in this case to do that for them,
and imposing our ideas of what should be done with someone else's money
is just wishful thinking.

(my bolding)

Lets get this clear: the more promotional material, and material aligned with the values of the Belfer institute Sandole manages to put onto Wikipedia, the better job he does, for his sponsors.
(And I presume they are very happy with him: he is now listed as employed by them)

And WMF has nothing to say about it.

Can somebody please explain to me how this is not paid editing?

Did Jimbo say: "Do not cross that bright line, ( unless you have a million dollars for us)?"

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:00 pm

HRIP7 wrote:I am a little conflicted on this one. They got a trained academic, selected by Harvard's Belfer Center, to be their Wikipedian in Residence, rather than an unemployed Wikipedian.

That actually sounds like a good thing: it's what I have often suggested they do, especially in topic areas like medical, legal, etc. Pick a real-life expert. But it doesn't seem to have worked out very well, with Sandole being accused of having edited non-neutrally, and not done very much work at all compared to how much his job cost.

It is remarkably difficult for a trained academic to avoid charges of POV and COI when editing in his (or her) area of expertise. That shows that there is something wrong wit the Wikipedia rules, or at least how they are often interpreted. But that will come as no surprise to people here.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:39 pm

The Adversary wrote:Michael Snow writes here:
It was one single donor's money that was spent on this position, not
money from the general pool of donations, which I believe is the point
Marc was trying to make. Moreover, that donor specifically wanted the
money spent on this position. It's not like the Wikimedia Foundation had
the option to spend the money on other, better program opportunities.

As such, it seems clear that the donor in question is in the best
position to evaluate whether the funds achieved their intended purpose.
We don't really have good information in this case to do that for them,
and imposing our ideas of what should be done with someone else's money
is just wishful thinking.
(my bolding)

Comment by Tim Landscheidt:

Eh, that is not the point in my mind. If A wants to assist
his relative B's work, and, "for administrative reasons",
they want to engage WMF as a middle man to make it appear as
if there is no direct financial flow, then it's not for A to
evaluate whether the funds "achieved their intended pur-
pose".

Organizations that distribute funds according to the deposi-
tors' wishes are called banks and they have to ensure their
compliance with relevant regulations. WMF should make it
very clear that it doesn't engage in any fishy transactions.

Tim

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:48 am

enwikibadscience wrote:So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.

If "we" are taking a vote, I've never had an issue with wikipedians getting these positions (in fact it seems nuts to have someone not familiar with WP being the "WIR"). My issue is only with the selection process, epitomized by the WMUK.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:07 am

And now, is anyone else wondering if this incident will slowly fade away and be "forgotten"?

Admittedly it's the weekend, and we all know that the WMF does as little as possible on weekends.

And BTW, that "Pine" person has submitted a complaint to Arbcom. Which will do nothing, I expect.

As important as this issue is let's remember that the big picture mission is to have high quality content that is easy and free to access. WMF management has a lot to handle in addition to this investigation and the Sandole situation shouldn't consume such a large portion of management's time that other priorities get neglected. For example I heard that WMF is very close to finally appointing a new ED and they're also working on VE, Flow, mobile, grants, legal issues, the Annual Plan, and a million other things that we also care about.

I may have more to say about the Sandole situation after I hear back from Arbcom.

Yeah, right, handling outright corruption on Wikipedia is "less important" than finding a replacement for Sue, and continuing to try to cram Visual Editor and Flow down the throats of the people who produce your content.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:02 pm

The Signpost has a report on the matter.

Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny

One of the first university Wikipedian in residence positions, hosted at Harvard University in 2012, has jumped back into the spotlight amid questions about its ethical integrity.

The position, advertised and promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation, was at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. They were looking for an "experienced Wikipedia editor" who would have a "unique role facilitating collaboration between the faculty, staff, and fellows at the Center and the Wikipedia volunteer community".

This chain of events was initially set in motion by the WMF's executive director Sue Gardner after an inquiry from Liz Allison of the Stanton Foundation, an organization that had donated several million dollars to the WMF (including $1.2 million in 2010 for the Public Policy Initiative and $3.6 million in 2011 for the troubled VisualEditor). While the Wikipedian-in-residence would be funded by the Stanton Foundation and work at the Belfer Center at Harvard, they asked the WMF to act as a fiscal sponsor for administrative reasons. The WMF also recruited candidates; their first choice, a long-time Wikipedian and former Harvard librarian, was rejected for not having enough experience in international security. The job description was sent to an email mailing list of academic international security programs; the WMF interviewed two candidates from the resulting applications. Timothy Sandole, who registered a Wikipedia account on the day applications closed, was selected by Belfer to fill the position on the basis of his previous academic experience with international security issues.

The offering of the position was not uncontroversial; the Foundation's deputy director, Erik Möller, has since written on the Wikimedia-l mailing list that Liam Wyatt, Pete Forsyth, Frank Schulenburg and LiAnna Davis were among those who either "noted the risks and issues early on" or "provided internal feedback and criticism ... pointing out the COI issues and the risks regarding the project." Left unstated was the strength of some of this feedback: "we told them so", Wyatt stated. "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! ... We did get to dilute the worst of the original job description so it wasn't so blatant a paid editing role ... 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."

[...]

Includes a copy of Sandole's final report.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:25 pm

The Adversary wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (I´m emulating Vigilant here...)

Ok, so after spending one year as a Wikipedian in Residence, licking up to the Belfer Center and prof Allison, guess what new job he is applying for?
Yepp, Graham Allison’s next research assistant!

Looks like Mr Sandole got the job.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:59 pm

...and he seems so happy!

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:21 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.
If "we" are taking a vote, I've never had an issue with wikipedians getting these positions (in fact it seems nuts to have someone not familiar with WP being the "WIR"). My issue is only with the selection process, epitomized by the WMUK.

You may need more plant secondary metabolites here. I think you missed what you are replying to. You also wrongly attributed this to me.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:46 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.
If "we" are taking a vote, I've never had an issue with wikipedians getting these positions (in fact it seems nuts to have someone not familiar with WP being the "WIR"). My issue is only with the selection process, epitomized by the WMUK.
You may need more plant secondary metabolites here. I think you missed what you are replying to. You also wrongly attributed this to me.

Yes. That is actually what HRIP7 said, not enwikibadscience.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:57 pm

Zoloft wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:So, are we now saying that hiring unemployed Wikipedians rather than Harvard academics as Wikipedians in Residence is what the Wikimedia Foundation really should be doing? We can't have it both ways.
If "we" are taking a vote, I've never had an issue with wikipedians getting these positions (in fact it seems nuts to have someone not familiar with WP being the "WIR"). My issue is only with the selection process, epitomized by the WMUK.
You may need more plant secondary metabolites here. I think you missed what you are replying to. You also wrongly attributed this to me.
Yes. That is actually what HRIP7 said, not enwikibadscience.

Ah sorry, I knew who I was replying to, just somehow ended up editing out the wrong quote tag.

The point is the same though: it makes more sense for "Wikipedians" to get these posts than academics who don't know enough about Wikipedia to navigate the swamp. In this case they seem to have gotten neither (not a wikipedian, not much of an academic).

Presumably the Stanton Foundation didn't want responsibility as an employer. The mental health workers' comp claims could have been too much of a risk.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:58 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:Ah sorry, I knew who I was replying to, just somehow ended up editing out the wrong quote tag.

The point is the same though: it makes more sense for "Wikipedians" to get these posts than academics who don't know enough about Wikipedia to navigate the swamp. In this case they seem to have gotten neither (not a wikipedian, not much of an academic).

I don't believe that knowledge of Wikipedia is more important than subject matter knowledge. Put another way, I believe that it is more realistic to teach a (medical, legal, scientific ...) expert Wikipedia than it is to teach a Wikipedian the expertise an academic has acquired through years of work and study. The former is possible; the latter is not.

Having said that, it's easy to underestimate the difficulty of teaching an expert Wikipedia. If there are any examples where it's been done successfully, I'd like to see them. Assuming that subject matter knowledge is all an expert needs to improve Wikipedia is a fallacy; this case may serve as a good example of that.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:07 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Ah sorry, I knew who I was replying to, just somehow ended up editing out the wrong quote tag.

The point is the same though: it makes more sense for "Wikipedians" to get these posts than academics who don't know enough about Wikipedia to navigate the swamp. In this case they seem to have gotten neither (not a wikipedian, not much of an academic).
I don't believe that knowledge of Wikipedia is more important than subject matter knowledge. Put another way, I believe that it is more realistic to teach a (medical, legal, scientific ...) expert Wikipedia than it is to teach a Wikipedian the expertise an academic has acquired through years of work and study. The former is possible; the latter is not.

Having said that, it's easy to underestimate the difficulty of teaching an expert Wikipedia. If there are any examples where it's been done successfully, I'd like to see them. Assuming that subject matter knowledge is all an expert needs to improve Wikipedia is a fallacy; this case may serve as a good example of that.

Teaching an expert how to "navigate the swamp", as SB_J says, is a nearly sure way to discourage them from the place.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:15 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Put another way, I believe that it is more realistic to teach a (medical, legal, scientific ...) expert Wikipedia than it is to teach a Wikipedian the expertise an academic has acquired through years of work and study. The former is possible; the latter is not.

That said, it is not easy to "learn" Wikipedia, since the real skill is not in learning the technical skills of using the editor, citing references, and so forth. Those skills any reasonably intelligent person can learn in fairly short order. The hard part is learning how to navigate Wikipedia's Byzantine culture so as to be an effective editor (that is, one whose edits "stick"). That part can take months or even years, and requires someone who is fairly adept at social engineering, and willing to engage in it at a level that even Machiavelli would blanch at. And it's an ongoing commitment, too, because the power centers in the community are constantly changing as individual fortunes rise and fall. Few true subject-matter experts will bother to take the time; they're better off starting their own website, or writing a traditional book or e-book.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on poor Timothy. If he was doing his job the way the Stanton Foundation wanted it, he would have had to commit a lot of time to influence brokering, especially since a lot of the articles he would likely have been expected to edit are likely either to be owned by influential Wikipedians, or to be the subject of active controversies. These are the landmines of Wikipedia's political landscape, and extreme caution is required to avoid having your editorial reputation blown to bits.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:05 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Ah sorry, I knew who I was replying to, just somehow ended up editing out the wrong quote tag.

The point is the same though: it makes more sense for "Wikipedians" to get these posts than academics who don't know enough about Wikipedia to navigate the swamp. In this case they seem to have gotten neither (not a wikipedian, not much of an academic).
I don't believe that knowledge of Wikipedia is more important than subject matter knowledge. Put another way, I believe that it is more realistic to teach a (medical, legal, scientific ...) expert Wikipedia than it is to teach a Wikipedian the expertise an academic has acquired through years of work and study. The former is possible; the latter is not.

Having said that, it's easy to underestimate the difficulty of teaching an expert Wikipedia. If there are any examples where it's been done successfully, I'd like to see them. Assuming that subject matter knowledge is all an expert needs to improve Wikipedia is a fallacy; this case may serve as a good example of that.
Teaching an expert how to "navigate the swamp", as SB_J says, is a nearly sure way to discourage them from the place.

No problem with that.

If it does that, those experts will swell the ranks of the critics, and will be critics with clout.

Wikipedia is – or successfully purports to be – an educational project. The more actual educators scrutinise and become familiar with its internal workings, the better. Wikipedia will sink or swim in the light of that scrutiny. (As will the educators if their criticism only brings their biases to light.)

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:32 am

Kelly Martin wrote:The hard part is learning how to navigate Wikipedia's Byzantine culture so as to be an effective editor (that is, one whose edits "stick"). That part can take months or even years, and requires someone who is fairly adept at social engineering, and willing to engage in it at a level that even Machiavelli would blanch at. And it's an ongoing commitment, too, because the power centers in the community are constantly changing as individual fortunes rise and fall. Few true subject-matter experts will bother to take the time; they're better off starting their own website, or writing a traditional book or e-book.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on poor Timothy. If he was doing his job the way the Stanton Foundation wanted it, he would have had to commit a lot of time to influence brokering, especially since a lot of the articles he would likely have been expected to edit are likely either to be owned by influential Wikipedians, or to be the subject of active controversies. These are the landmines of Wikipedia's political landscape, and extreme caution is required to avoid having your editorial reputation blown to bits.

No, I don´t think this is correct.
For some areas/articles: sure. But not for all.
Not for most, I suspect

As an example:
Even in a notorious controversial area like I/P, you can easily get edits to "stick", without being a "gamer".
The "trick", as you call is, is to find the very best 10-20 general sources, and edit mostly pre-1948 history.

Because that area is virtually a "terra incognito" on WP.

Look at some of the Syrian villages (in the news for all the wrong reasons ): virtually all of them have -documented- hundreds if not thousands of years of history. Same in Lebanon. Same on the West Bank. And some in Israel.
And typically: they have no info on the history at all.

There are large areas of Wikipedia like that, in fact, I suspect most of WP´s 4+ mill articles are uncontroversial....and hardly ever edited.

It just doesn´t look like it from WO, of course, ..as it is this sites job, so to speak, to put a spotlight on the "landmines".

.....talking of "landmines", there was an interesting post by Vandenberg on the mailing-list (only partly quoted here):

However it is the indirect costs which will hurt.

As the WMF considers spending donor money on clamping down on paid
editing to be money well spent, a whole lot more of that donor money
needs to be spent achieving that goal when month after month there are
revelations of the WMF staff (which Timothy Sandole was, roughly
speaking) engaging in this type of editing, or the initial investment
of donor dollars has been wasted if the concept of WMF policing paid
editing needs to be abandoned as it has lost the high ground.

...he also opposing those WMF-folks who are gathering around Russavia, crying "Harassment!
It is very clear that the WMF-people who have spoken up would like nothing better than to shoot the messenger.

(....Heck, who can blame them; some would like to shoot him even without being the messenger!

)

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:53 am

HRIP7 wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Ah sorry, I knew who I was replying to, just somehow ended up editing out the wrong quote tag.

The point is the same though: it makes more sense for "Wikipedians" to get these posts than academics who don't know enough about Wikipedia to navigate the swamp. In this case they seem to have gotten neither (not a wikipedian, not much of an academic).
I don't believe that knowledge of Wikipedia is more important than subject matter knowledge. Put another way, I believe that it is more realistic to teach a (medical, legal, scientific ...) expert Wikipedia than it is to teach a Wikipedian the expertise an academic has acquired through years of work and study. The former is possible; the latter is not.

Having said that, it's easy to underestimate the difficulty of teaching an expert Wikipedia. If there are any examples where it's been done successfully, I'd like to see them. Assuming that subject matter knowledge is all an expert needs to improve Wikipedia is a fallacy; this case may serve as a good example of that.

I think it's the teachers who are fault. A disfunctional community.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:03 am

As expected, not a further peep on this topic on wikimedia-l so far this week. Thank god for weekends, eh?