The Stanton Foundation

[HRIP7]

One of the biggest Wikimedia donors is the Stanton Foundation. Greg once confessed himself unable to find out any details on this body, which has given millions and millions to WMF.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pre ... provements

The Stanton Foundation is the foundation created by the American broadcasting executive and media pioneer Frank Stanton, who, in 1960, organized the first-ever televised presidential debate. Among its previous grants to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Stanton Foundation provided $1.2 million in 2010 for the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative, a program designed to improve the quality and quantity of information related to public policy topics in Wikipedia. The project resulted in 800 American students at universities such as Harvard and University of California Berkeley adding the equivalent of 5,800 printed pages of material to Wikipedia, and has now been expanded to include universities in Canada and India.

They don't have a website. Who runs this foundation? What other causes do they support? Where does their money come from these days?

[EricBarbour]

FWIW, they do have an address and phone.
Lots of nonprofit foundations keep a low profile like this, it doesn't mean they're "hiding" anything. That should also show you that a
website still isn't a "necessity" for an organization like that. They are privately endowed, and don't need outside donations.

I'm tempted to write to them and ask them how they feel now, about their Wikimedia gift and the invaluable results.
(That's supposed to be a joke, you're supposed to snicker.)

[thekohser]

One of the biggest Wikimedia donors is the Stanton Foundation. Greg once confessed himself unable to find out any details on this body...

Largely because when the WMF made the announcement, they used the name of another foundation to describe the donor.

[The Devil's Advocate]

FWIW, they do have an address and phone.

That appears to be a similarly-named, but different foundation connected with the Frank and Domna Stanton Foundation that is unrelated to the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund that we are talking about.

Interesting point about this fund is that the current article on Frank Stanton of CBS claims the "Stanton Foundation" aka Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund was established upon the death of Frank Stanton, when records would seem to indicate it has been around since as early as the late 80's and early 90's.

As far as more information about the group itself, here are some of the things I have found about what it does:

http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/fellowship ... wship.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/fran ... -0529.html
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fel ... anton.html
http://www.rand.org/about/edu_op/fellow ... clear.html
http://carnegieendowment.iapplicants.co ... 62511.html
http://www.stmarksschool.org/news/detai ... duleID=235

One thing I note is that it appears (from the Belfer Center link) that it identifies as the "Stanton Foundation" all on its own so there is no issue of it being the "wrong" name. It could be the foundation uses that as an official name even though it is not the same as the legally registered name.

Here's the NYT obit about the man who established the fund:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/busin ... wanted=all

[HRIP7]

FWIW, they do have an address and phone.

That appears to be a similarly-named, but different foundation connected with the Frank and Domna Stanton Foundation that is unrelated to the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund that we are talking about.

Interesting point about this fund is that the current article on Frank Stanton of CBS claims the "Stanton Foundation" aka Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund was established upon the death of Frank Stanton, when records would seem to indicate it has been around since as early as the late 80's and early 90's.

As far as more information about the group itself, here are some of the things I have found about what it does:

http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/fellowship ... wship.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/fran ... -0529.html
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fel ... anton.html
http://www.rand.org/about/edu_op/fellow ... clear.html
http://carnegieendowment.iapplicants.co ... 62511.html
http://www.stmarksschool.org/news/detai ... duleID=235

One thing I note is that it appears (from the Belfer Center link) that it identifies as the "Stanton Foundation" all on its own so there is no issue of it being the "wrong" name. It could be the foundation uses that as an official name even though it is not the same as the legally registered name.

Here's the NYT obit about the man who established the fund:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/busin ... wanted=all

Good work. One thing I was wondering is who administers the fund, and what other chairs, if any, they sit on.

[thekohser]

One thing I note is that it appears (from the Belfer Center link) that it identifies as the "Stanton Foundation" all on its own so there is no issue of it being the "wrong" name. It could be the foundation uses that as an official name even though it is not the same as the legally registered name.

That may be, but their 2007 Form 990 had their name as "Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund". More here, and in replies to that post.

[oscarlechien]

Yes, it is indeed the "Stanton fund", which was originally refered to as the "Sloan foundation"for some reason and which has been known for several years.

...I really wish that this material which has already been collected (and which is no longer under our control, even though it is under our copyright, individually...) could be centralized somewhere so we don't have to keep repeating the same material that has already been documented...elsewhere...

[HRIP7]

Yes, it is indeed the "Stanton fund", which was originally refered to as the "Sloan foundation"for some reason and which has been known for several years.

...I really wish that this material which has already been collected (and which is no longer under our control, even though it is under our copyright, individually...) could be centralized somewhere so we don't have to keep repeating the same material that has already been documented...elsewhere...

Sloan and Stanton are listed separately, here:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

They're different organisations. See http://sloan.org/ and http://www.sloan.org/pages/1/about-the-foundation

[oscarlechien]

Yes, but that history has already been gone over. We're repeating ourselves here. The intial press release for the Stanton fund grant listed the Sloan foundation incorrectly. This is old news.

We've already gone over this material. When are we going to get the datadump so that this material can be searchable, outside of going over to WR...where it could be gone at any moment?

Really, for somebody's who's been at this for several years, the fact that we have to re-explain this stuff again and again is really quite depressing...

[HRIP7]

Yes, but that history has already been gone over. We're repeating ourselves here. The intial press release for the Stanton fund grant listed the Sloan foundation incorrectly. This is old news.

We've already gone over this material. When are we going to get the datadump so that this material can be searchable, outside of going over to WR...where it could be gone at any moment?

Really, for somebody's who's been at this for several years, the fact that we have to re-explain this stuff again and again is really quite depressing...

We are going to write a few FAQs and so forth. Possibly in a wiki. Trawling through old discussion threads is cumbersome; the info really has to be available in a more user-friendly and searchable format.

[oscarlechien]

Yes, but that history has already been gone over. We're repeating ourselves here. The intial press release for the Stanton fund grant listed the Sloan foundation incorrectly. This is old news.

We've already gone over this material. When are we going to get the datadump so that this material can be searchable, outside of going over to WR...where it could be gone at any moment?

Really, for somebody's who's been at this for several years, the fact that we have to re-explain this stuff again and again is really quite depressing...

We are going to write a few FAQs and so forth. Possibly in a wiki. Trawling through old discussion threads is cumbersome; the info really has to be available in a more user-friendly and searchable format.

Who is "we"?

"We" have already done a great deal of work.

Could this work not be incorporated in another form? I see that you're saying basically this, but you're not saying who "we" are, nor are you describing the format.

It is still really depressing to have to go over this material once again, since so much still needs to be done...I don't know what to do about that, other than to draw attention to the obvious problem. Greg K. was also involved in this discussion while it happened, as was MSJake, The Joy etc. We have the history and the perspective, since we were there. This has value...

[lilburne]

I was interested in the "Stanton Nuclear Security Fellowship" that is linked to above. So I made this little connectivity map.

http://theyrule.net/map_958

[oscarlechien]

that link doesn't resolve to either "Stanton" or "Sloan". What is the connection to the Stanton fund, here?

[HRIP7]

Yes, but that history has already been gone over. We're repeating ourselves here. The intial press release for the Stanton fund grant listed the Sloan foundation incorrectly. This is old news.

We've already gone over this material. When are we going to get the datadump so that this material can be searchable, outside of going over to WR...where it could be gone at any moment?

Really, for somebody's who's been at this for several years, the fact that we have to re-explain this stuff again and again is really quite depressing...

We are going to write a few FAQs and so forth. Possibly in a wiki. Trawling through old discussion threads is cumbersome; the info really has to be available in a more user-friendly and searchable format.

Who is "we"?

"We" have already done a great deal of work.

Could this work not be incorporated in another form? I see that you're saying basically this, but you're not saying who "we" are, nor are you describing the format.

It is still really depressing to have to go over this material once again, since so much still needs to be done...I don't know what to do about that, other than to draw attention to the obvious problem. Greg K. was also involved in this discussion while it happened, as was MSJake, The Joy etc. We have the history and the perspective, since we were there. This has value...

As for format, I said "possibly in a wiki", here on this site. It's something we're discussing (where we = admins, trustees and moderators of this site, including all the people you mention).

[oscarlechien]

...which means having to enter the data once again....losing the immediacy of the actual experience.

As a musicologist, I know that this almost always entailes loss of the original experience.

I own the copyright to my own contributions on WR. I would be happy to release them as a searchable ressource, in order to document "what actually happened".

Once again, even though I'm part of a "primary source" here, I'm not part of "we"...I guess I should get used to that.

[lilburne]

that link doesn't resolve to either "Stanton" or "Sloan". What is the connection to the Stanton fund, here?

In my experience these funding organisation rarely publicly advertise that they have funds available, nor do they send out circulars inviting applications. The availability of grants are made known via personal connection. Thus you need to look to see if there are any common connections between the different organisations receiving the grants.

Wikipedia's grant is probably originally via Sue Gardner's CBC connections. However, I wouldn't dismiss outward connections which resulted in work under the grants initially being done at Berkley and Harvard.

[The Devil's Advocate]

I was interested in the "Stanton Nuclear Security Fellowship" that is linked to above. So I made this little connectivity map.

http://theyrule.net/map_958

The names are not terribly surprising if you looked at the obituary of Frank Stanton:

He served on the boards of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution, the Stanford Research Institute and Lincoln Center.

Mr. Stanton had also served as chair of the RAND Corporation. It appears a Carnegie guy and former vice-chair of the Fed was also one of the guys on the New America Foundation, where Mr. Schmidt is chair.

[lilburne]

I was interested in the "Stanton Nuclear Security Fellowship" that is linked to above. So I made this little connectivity map.

http://theyrule.net/map_958

The names are not terribly surprising if you looked at the obituary of Frank Stanton:

He served on the boards of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution, the Stanford Research Institute and Lincoln Center.

Mr. Stanton had also served as chair of the RAND Corporation. It appears a Carnegie guy and former vice-chair of the Fed was also one of the guys on the New America Foundation, where Mr. Schmidt is chair.

See they all chat amongst each other, recommend each other, and tip off friends and associates as to where there some funding might be available.

[HRIP7]

Lilburne/TDA, could this develop into a blog post? It looks to me like you might have the beginnings of one there.

[EricBarbour]

[lilburne]

Lilburne/TDA, could this develop into a blog post? It looks to me like you might have the beginnings of one there.

You'd need far more research capability then I suspect either of us could generate. Also it would tend to end up looking like some weird New World Order RAND conspiracy nonsense.

Short story would be that Stanton Foundation had money available for projects involving "Public Policy". They don't appear to publicly advertise the grants available. So this was information originally filtered through to WP either through the personal connections in corporate or journalist realms. Something along the lines of the "Stanton Foundation might have some funding you could tap into". That is generally how it works, a lot of the funding I got for local projects was due to being tipped off by contacts in various fields, you'll be hard pressed to find the exact connections for any grant though. All of this is sort of like a tramp's mark on a doorstep to tell others coming afterwards that a meal or some clothes might be available at this address.

[EricBarbour]

You'd need far more research capability then I suspect either of us could generate. Also it would tend to end up looking like some weird New World Order RAND conspiracy nonsense.

I don't agree. If you did it carefully, and pointed out that wealthy and connected people have always done this throughout history,
just be forthright and no one will accuse you of "conspiracy theorizing". (Except crackpots like Fae, of course, but they don't count
anymore than conspiracy theorists do.)

It might help to bring up the fact that the same people tend to sit on the boards of multiple corporations, and they tend to be
from the business area the corporations focus on: financial/banking, heavy manufacturing, tech, etc.

You could also point out Matt Halprin. He's a venture capitalist, knows little or nothing about "education", and got on the
WMF board of trustees the easy way: the Omidyar Network bought him a seat. Completely blatant. Similar things with
their absurd "Board of Advisors". It's a semi-random gang of free-software fans, Wikipedia fans, venture-capitalist types,
and people like Madame Jessamyn West, who looks quite out of place (apart from her evident talent for heeling her
own Wikipedia biography). Many of them were involved with other free-culture educational projects, and really ought
to know better than to support Wikipedia by now. I expect it's mostly just resume-padding for them.

If you criticize Wikipedia, by extension you're criticizing them. I expect to put out this WP book, and instantly be attacked
by Clay Shirky, incoherently as usual. I really, really dislike Mr. Shirky. He smells like a scam artist with a massive ego, a
premium "digerati". Read that stupid book of his: it's stuffed with Coasean libertarian ranting, and bizarre fanboy
justifications for crowdsourcing. All based on thin air, pretentiously rendered.

[oscarlechien]

Lilburne/TDA, could this develop into a blog post? It looks to me like you might have the beginnings of one there.

You'd need far more research capability then I suspect either of us could generate. Also it would tend to end up looking like some weird New World Order RAND conspiracy nonsense.

Short story would be that Stanton Foundation had money available for projects involving "Public Policy". They don't appear to publicly advertise the grants available. So this was information originally filtered through to WP either through the personal connections in corporate or journalist realms. Something along the lines of the "Stanton Foundation might have some funding you could tap into". That is generally how it works, a lot of the funding I got for local projects was due to being tipped off by contacts in various fields, you'll be hard pressed to find the exact connections for any grant though. All of this is sort of like a tramp's mark on a doorstep to tell others coming afterwards that a meal or some clothes might be available at this address.

There is a backstory to this: The initial grant from the Sloan foundation (for which Erik M. was instrumental in negociating, if I remember correctly) was being announced at the same time that Valleywag did their series of articles about Erik Moeller and his supposedly pro-pedophilia stance. The articles were based on a file that was sent to a number of people but only Valleywag decided to use it. It was never quite clear exactly who was behind this, but it was obviously someone with inside information. The fact that the Sloan foundation grant was worked into this article makes me wonder if it didn't figure prominently in the "secret document" as well...The announcement for the Stanton fund grant took place almost immediately following this incident, and I remember Erik M. being a principal in that discussion as well.

I've never seen that document, but it would be worth tracking down...

I found the intiial press release for the Stanton Foundation grant in my notes. I wonder if they achieved their goal of luring new writers???

[oscarlechien]

Also from my notes : this blog post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation...

...there was quite a discussion of this issue on WR, if I remember correctly...

Also, the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund changed its name to the Stanton foundation in 2009, which explains the confusion over the names.

[EricBarbour]

I found the intiial press release for the Stanton Foundation grant in my notes. I wonder if they achieved their goal of luring new writers???

No, of course not. Participation in actual article editing has continued to slide.

[Zoloft]

For more on the Stanton Foundation, and their paid Wikipedian in Residence at Harvard, see here: link