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! Some WMF staff 'got it' and tried to help but the process (Thank you to those staff) was apparently already in motion and had too much momentum to change. We did get to dilute the worst of the original job description so it wasn't so blatant a paid editing role but our suggestions that the position be 'paused' until the community could help was rejected because of a deadline that had been set by Stanton/Harvard apparently. Other concerns about reporting outcomes and where the money came from/to have already been raised. The odd financial and organisational relationship of Stanton-Harvard-WMF is just one of them. The original job description (here https://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o52lWfw8&c=qSa9VfwQ) is on the WMF's page and says that "Wikipedia, in cooperation with the Belfer Center... is seeking applicants for a Campus Wikipedian...." with the first task of the position being "Researching relevant topics and improving the articles".Stanton is not mentioned anywhere as the actual funding organisation (are we ok with that?), and since when does "Wikipedia" hire people? Some of the issues that we were arguing about at the time included why, when the GLAM-focused Wikimedians have tried to ensure that WiR roles are about facilitating a relationship between the community and an organisation's academics/researchers/curators/etc, does this position focus on editing articles directly, for money. Even if that wasn't the actual primary purpose it certainly LOOKED that way according to the job description and you'd think that of ALL groups in the community the WMF would see the 'red flag' of posting a job on its OWN contractors page asking for a paid editor. Furthermore, the WMF have in the past frequently refused to directly support WiR roles on the basis that this kind of direct outreach was not its role but more a role of the Chapters (this is before the current 'affiliation' system and before the 'Individual engagement grants' etc. and in that situation their position was fair enough). And yet, this position was a direct contradiction - the WMF ITSELF advertising for a WiR and administering the payment of the person. At the very least that made it feel like a double standard for the rest of us. There was no transparency with the people in the community that could have helped facilitate the successful 'birth' of the project - what should have been a great recognition of our projects' value - but instead felt like a betrayal of our hard-earned trust with the cultural/education sectors. 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. Now, it's up to the WMF to dig themselves out again. Ironic given the current attention being given by the WMF to paid editing... -Liam/Wittylama On 21 March 2014 09:23, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta <asengu...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process > did > > not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a > > fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began > > recruiting and to inform the community as they did so. > > I am sure you are technically correct, however the blog post that Lisa > linked to[1] appears to directly contradict your statement. In > particular it informed the community that: > "... the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce ... We're seeking > an experienced Wikipedia editor for a one year," > There is no qualification of any sort, so the blog post has been > written so that the WMF is directly claiming to be running or > responsible for the recruitment. > > Further, Stephen Walling states in a comment that: > ".... when we say we're looking for a Wikipedian, that means we are > looking for someone experienced as a volunteer editor of the free > encyclopedia." > This statement can only be read as the WMF running the recruitment, > there can be no other interpretation of "we" when this is on the WMF > blog and written by a WMF employee. > > The post does state that "This position is funded by a generous grant > from the Stanton Foundation This philanthropic institution has > supported ... the Wikimedia Foundation in the past.." However there is > no implication that the Stanton Foundation were doing anything other > than providing a grant to the WMF and that the WMF were responsible > for . > > There is no doubt that the WMF provided its name against this post and > officially promoted and endorsed it, putting the reputation of the WMF > firmly against this project. I hope that someone can provide a report > of the beneficial outcomes of this project for Wikimedia and open > knowledge showing exactly what was purchased for this generous grant > that was claimed to be provided to the WMF or for the benefit of WMF > projects. > > Links: > 1. > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/26/can-you-help-wikipedians-collaborate-with-harvard-university/ > > Fae > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
