I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initiative/ To quote Komura, "On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer." I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press. Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not? I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism." Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes. I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60% comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street. In summary: We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty. Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization. It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word. -- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
