I'd like to confirm that I am one of the community members Liam considerately declined to name; I agree with Liam's account of what happened; and I agree with Fae's proposed solution (a detailed, public report from the WMF, the Belfer Center, and/or the Stanton Foundation). The report should explicitly address the structural and ethical issues raised on this list and on Odder's blog post.
I do have a bit more to say about this, but will leave it at that for now. I'll probably post on my blog in the next 24 hours. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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>
