Now that I've had time to look more closely at Mr. Sandole's contributions, I am seeing a lot of good faith effort, marred by rather a lot of typical beginner's errors. Some of the diffs are horrific when taken in isolation, but as David Goodman has pointed out, in context they're merely "very concerning". Aside from all the matters related to poor programme design and the lack of transparency that have already been canvassed in this discussion and are extremely valid points, I think that it's obvious that Sandole was just thrown in the deep end here with little or no support from either the Foundation or the project sponsors, and that has resulted in the rather modest (to be kind) return on investment. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here, and not just by the WMF, but also by affiliates and other external bodies looking to contribute content. That lesson is that if you throw a newbie editor into the deep end of the shark pool that is ENWP and tell them to write stuff, then it's probably going to end in tears.
I appreciate Erik's work in tracking down and posting information on this, and look forward to reading the Foundation's report and investigation into how this occurred and why the whole affair has been so opaque until now, and hopefully sooner rather than later. If someone can give an ETA on when this information is expected to be published, I'm sure that would be appreciated by the community. Cheers, Craig On 24 March 2014 09:53, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote: > With respect to Sandole's editing > of the article on [[Opposition to military action against Iran]] > > The edit listed in this thread > * > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opposition_to_military_action_against_Iran&diff=514822741&oldid=514817891 > > by itself would seem to show undue emphasis on one particular researcher at > the center. > > But looking at it in context of the entire body of his additions to the > article > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opposition_to_military_action_against_Iran&diff=519399894&oldid=513945067 > shows he has also adding a long section by another scholar criticizing > Kroenig. (the section dealing with > three other people at the Center was there long before he began editing the > article. ) > > I think this shows an attempt at balance, > but I suppose it could be argued that it represents an attempt at further > enhancing Kroenig's importance > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:14 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> > > wrote: > > > On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote: > > >> It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, > > >> and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in > > >> this article under the circumstances. > > > > > > It's unacceptable under /any/ circumstances, but I don't see an obvious > > > copyright violation, nor can I find a place where you pointed out one? > > > Where was that established? > > > > Responding to your second email first, a search for "copyright > > violation" on all emails on this list will lead you right to the > > relevant post, by Russavia. > > > > Or search for copyright violations in the following page > > > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/443518 > > > > And in the email you quoted Russavia gave the diff where it can be found. > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia-United_States_relations&diff=prev&oldid=524972499 > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> > > wrote: > > > Russavia, > > > > > > First, I write here in my capacity as a volunteer and a member of the > > > community you claim to speak on behalf of, clearly not as a staffer of > > > the Foundation (not that engineering has anything to do with programs > > > like this anyways). > > > > > > On 03/22/2014 09:00 AM, Russavia wrote: > > >> I understand this is a difficult time for the WMF, but many in the > > >> community (the number one stakeholder in our projects) will not be > happy > > >> with simply getting a few reports from Sandole > > > > > > Whether or not you have a point about that position having been badly > > > considered or having a been a waste of money -- and I'd be inclined to > > > think that it was at least a little of both -- you've squarely crossed > > > the line between "asking legitimate questions" and "pointless > > harassment". > > > > You have selectively quoted Russavia. His email wasnt pointless > > harassment. > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070681.html > > > > The email was primarily Russavia asking: > > > > "Can you please provide the original JDF so the rest of the community > > has the opportunity to look at it." > > > > That is a legitimate question in the circumstances, given this was a > > document that appears to have been revised after publication and it is > > being discussed on this list without it being public. > > > > The tone of Russavia's email around that request had some rough edges, > > but so does your email. Credit where it is due : Russavia appears to > > have put quite a lot of time into this in the last few days, and > > shared an analysis that at least fairly conclusively points towards a > > serious problem. > > > > I'm not expecting Erik to make it his primary task on Monday morning > > to find and publish this, and do appreciate that he has been > > personally answering questions and publishing relevant documents > > already, but it is a pretty simple request and he has staff who can do > > it. > > > > Honestly this type of information should be publicly accessible from the > > get go. > > Why wasnt the JDF published on wiki? And discussed on wiki? > > It is surprising that quite a few people have known about this, and > > said nothing until now. It is also surprising that (afaik) the WMF > > didnt announce the person selected for this position to the community, > > to facilitate continual review of the ongoing program and its > > contributions, and hasnt undertaken a program evaluation of this > > already - one half of the Belfer position should have fallen directly > > in the scope of the Editing Workshops evaluation. > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/Editing_workshops > > > > > Even if Timothy has been highly disruptive rather than just apparently > > > very inefficient (which he wasn't), > > > > promotional paid editing, inserting pro-U.S. POV and > > copyvio/plagiarism into English Wikipedia may not be 'highly > > disruptive', especially as there were so few edits involved, but it is > > far from 'just apparently very inefficient'. > > > > > or if it has been donors' money that > > > had been spent (which it wasn't), > > > > It is appropriate to distinguish between general public unrestricted > > donations vs 'the donor of the restricted money telling WMF what to do > > with it', however focusing on what was 'spent' is not appropriate. > > There are direct costs which may be larger than the granted amount; > > there are indirect costs, and there are opportunity costs. From what > > I have seen, I think it is fair to conclude that general public > > unrestricted donations will suffer from this broadly speaking. > > > > There may be quite a bit of direct costs that arnt covered by the > > Stanton grant per se, including selection process, onboarding, > > reviewing their work, and now handling the fallout of a failed project > > (e.g. Erik's time and I presume Jay is also working overtime). The > > Stanton grant quite probably included an amount for normal overheads > > related to the position (selection, onboarding, monitoring), but those > > costs could have blown out and/or the WMF decided to absorb the costs > > given the size of the restricted grant for program activity. > > > > 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. > > > > There is reputational damage to the WiR concept, WMF, and Wikimedia > > generally, which will be felt across the movement. While the WMF may > > not be going to run this type of program again, affiliates do run > > these types of programs. Affiliate staff and volunteer time will be > > spent rebuilding the WiR brand. IMO it is also a shame that this will > > mean more resistance to content rather than community-focused WiR. I > > know many people feel very strongly that a WiR should act as an > > enabler for the community rather than fill the gaps themselves, but in > > practise a lot of WiR end up writing content to some degree, and I > > think there are scenarios when a WiR should be more of a contributor > > rather than collaborator, especially in topical areas that are > > under-represented in major languages and in wikis in their early > > stages needing a major content boost rather than a minor, and maybe > > shortlived, boost to the number of contributors that a WiR might be > > able to achieve. But the community, GAC and FDC will be more shy of > > content-heavy WiR type programs since Belfer. > > > > Then there is the potential for this to cause Stanton to stop giving > > grants to WMF, which means donor money needs to fill the void or > > programs need to be cut (and staff may need to be laid off.) > > > > I cant even guess the opportunity costs, except that these types of > > 'special interest' projects can be headaches for pushing through large > > structural changes like Sue's "Narrowing the focus" which was launched > > in October 2012. > > > > > or if you had /actually/ been > > > appointed to speak for "the number one stakeholder in our projects" > > > (which you haven't); > > > > Eh? No appointments necessary. > > > > > it wouldn't justify your continuing harangue when > > > you have been clearly told that no further substantive information > would > > > come until Sue returns next week. > > > > Who said that there would be no further substantive information until > > Sue returns? > > > > > You've made your point and raised the issue, and now the information > for > > > informed judgment is being published. How about you let the /rest/ of > > > the community examine it and reach its own conclusions? Because, right > > > now, you seem more interested in stoking the fires of your vendetta by > > > harping on what you /want/ that conclusion to be than any actual > > > interest in figuring out what happened and how to prevent it from > > > happening again if it was a problem. > > > > Which vendetta are you referring to? > > > > Russavia was asking for more information, presumably in order to > > figure out what happened. > > > > -- > > John Vandenberg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > _______________________________________________ > 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>
