Just as a postscript to the Belfer Center affair, regular readers will remember that Russavia wrote in March 2014[1] that –
*The Stanton Foundation has been a long-term donor to the Wikimedia Foundation [...] Stanton has no website, and apart from several high-profile grants to the Wikimedia Foundation, it has made grants to the Council on Foreign Relations, MIT's Department of Political Science, the Rand Corporation, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in addition to the Belfer Center. All of these organisations operate in the arena of international relations.* *The trustee of Stanton and contact point for the Wikimedia Foundation is Elisabeth (Liz) K. Allison [...] From the outset, it should be noted that Liz Allison (Stanton) is married to Graham Allison (Belfer).* In December 2014, the $500,000 award Jimmy Wales received from the UAE government proved controversial among Wikipedians; see for example William Beutler's summary titled "Jimmy Wales and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Prize Money", published on his blog, "The Wikipedian"[2]. In the wake of the UAE award, it transpired that Wales had previously been reported[3] on the World Economic Forum website to have contributed to a "Guide to Good Government and Trust-Building" compiled "in cooperation and with the support of the Government of the United Arab Emirates". When Wales was pointed to the UAE government's human rights violations and asked why he had lent his name to the effort, given the UAE government's signal lack of credentials in this field, Wales said that he had been asked to contribute by Prof. Nye of Harvard.[4] According to the Harvard website, Prof. Nye, too, works at the Belfer Center.[5] Some Wikipedians also raised Wales' 2011 "Wikipedian of the Year" award for the Kazakh WikiBilim organisation in the discussion of the UAE award.[6][7] William Beutler referred to this part of the discussion in his piece, saying that the "Kazakh situation [had] always struck [him] like a misstep on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wales both—seemingly a partnership entered into without a clear understanding of the situation".[2] Jimmy Wales commented in a 2013 discussion, "As far as I know, the Wikibilim organization is not politicized." This always struck me as strange. Quite apart from WikiBilim's state financing, the Kazakh Prime Minister's photograph appears on every page of WikiBilim's website, which says that "In order to increase the attention of society and especially young generation of internet users Wikibilim started to administrate Kazakh Wikipedia."[7] Just to put this in perspective: does it not seem inconceivable that Jimmy Wales would give a "Wikipedian of the Year" award to a Russian Wikipedia organisation that had Putin's or Medvedev's face on every page of its website, where it claimed to "administrate" the Russian Wikipedia? How is Kazakhstan different? I still do not understand it. It came to my attention some weeks ago that Graham Allison, the Belfer Center's director, is not just the husband of the Stanton Foundation's Liz Allison, but also a past recipient of a special medal of friendship from Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev, for his "contribution to strengthening friendship and cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States."[9] Allison also authored the introduction to President Nazarbayev's book, "Epicenter of Peace".[9] Given the above past instances of Wikimedia Foundation leaders obliging Belfer Center staff by acceding to their requests, do people think that this reported friendship between the Belfer Center's Director and the Kazakh government may in some way have influenced dealings between Wikimedia Foundation board members and WikiBilim? I would further recall here that in July 2012, Kazakh media reported that Jimmy Wales had "thanked the Kazakh government for creating conditions for significant achievements in the development of the Kazakh language Wikipedia".[10] This was half a year after "A [Kazakh] law that took effect in January 2012 required owners of internet cafés to obtain users’ names and monitor and record their activity, and to share their information with the security services if requested," as noted by Freedom House in its 2013 report on freedom of the press in Kazakhstan, among many other issues.[11] If the quote in the Kazakh media report is accurate, wasn't this a strange statement to make for a self-declared champion of free speech? How does it fit with the movement's goals and values? [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070665.html [2] http://thewikipedian.net/2014/12/26/uae-prize-money-human-rights/ [3] http://www.weforum.org/news/global-agenda-council-launches-guide-good-government-and-trust-building [4] https://archive.today/Ui7PK [5] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/3/joseph_s_nye.html [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_179#Congratulations [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-17/In_the_media [8] http://wikibilim.kz/index.php/english/about-foundtion [9] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19468/graham_allison_awarded_medal_of_friendship_from_kazakhstan.html [10] https://web.archive.org/web/20130114222103/http:/caspionet.kz/eng/general/Kazakh_Wikipedia_receives_award_at_Wikimania_conference_1342672669.html [11] https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/kazakhstan On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lila, and all, > > I am glad to hear this will be revived. I read your message with interest > and appreciation, up to the final paragraph: in this instance, WMF is in a > very poor position to chide anybody for snark. Nemo's "snark" was > lighthearted and minimal, and doesn't even register next to the WMF's > damaging and disrespectful actions on this issue now spanning more than > three years. Let me be direct, though -- I'll take care to lay things out > in a snark-free manner here. > > Last spring, WMF found itself in a bit of a bind, of its own making: this > list, the blogosphere, etc. were making a lot of noise about how the WMF > had actively undermined the efforts of Wikipedians to guide organizations > in ethical engagement with the project. One action above all others served > to quiet that noise: the announcement of specific reforms quoted by Nemo > above. > > Now, many months overdue and apparently forgotten, it appears that the > announcement was made *for the purpose* of quieting the noise, as opposed > to being made out of actual concern for how universities interact with > Wikipedia, or how the WMF interacts with knowledgeable members of the > Wikimedia movement. An oversight, in general, is understandable and human. > But overlooking something that was *specifically undertaken to correct past > mistakes* is something different. That kind of oversight, I contend, > provides a clear view of the level of interest the organization actually > has in addressing the problems under discussion. The WMF is clearly not > very interested in undoing the damage it wrought. > > The Wikimedia movement, and English Wikipedia, have worked hard over many > years to establish guidelines and policies that frame an ethical approach > and guide volunteers toward producing high quality and consistent content. > The GLAM sub-movement in particular has worked to bridge that framework and > the operations of mission-aligned organizations like museums and > universities. But that work -- which the WMF enjoys talking about in its > annual reports, etc. -- was ignored by the WMF the moment it became > inconvenient. The moment it interfered with a grant. At precisely the > moment when the WMF had a chance to positively influence a leading > university, it instead gave that university license to disregard the > relevant ethical concerns. > > Making all of that right, the WMF told us last year, was a priority. But > apparently it was not. > > I am glad to learn that the remedies then under discussion will be picked > back up. The WMF will be a healthier organization because of it. But I > emphatically request that you refrain from scolding those of us who are > frustrated by the need for non-WMF staff to repeatedly, over a span of over > three years, remind the WMF that important things need doing. > > A little snark, in this case, should be the very least of your concerns. > Pete > -- > Pete Forsyth > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > Hi Nemo, > > > > Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are correct -- this did not > > make my "to do" list, but I believe honoring commitments made by the WMF > is > > important and therefor I've been looking this issue. Here is what I found > > and what we will do: > > > > > > - This issue was a clear oversight error. > > - To prevent issues like these in the future two paths are important: > > 1. ability to highlight issues through escalation > > 2. improved clarity on which programs or grants qualify for funding > > (through training) and the process by which that is done > > - The first point will be addressed this quarter by HR in the employee > > handbook through the modified escalation policy and escalation > channel. > > - The second will be addressed through changes to grantmaking program, > > which we proposed to open for discussion this spring/summer (Q4/Q1) > > starting with the FDC-level grants > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Advisory_Group/Recommendations/2014/ED_Response > > >. > > In short, we are looking to be very clear on goals, parameters, and > > focus > > of grants we distribute to ensure they are handled and validated > > consistently and accurately. > > > > > > The two aspects together should help avoid these types of issues. I am > also > > asking to include some "'guardrail" items in employee training. No system > > is perfect however, and we will continue to tune it to avoid problems. > > > > Finally, while I sincerely appreciate you bringing up the issue, I would > > also appreciate if this is done without snark or disparagement in the > > future. This would ensure everyone is more productive in their solutions. > > We will respond in kind. > > > > Thank you, > > Lila > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < > nemow...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Sue Gardner, 01/04/2014 05:23: > > > > > >> On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> We will update the wiki page at > > >>> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_ > > >>> Residence/Harvard_University_assessment > > >>> with more information and details. I encourage others to participate > > >>> in this as a collaborative process. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Thanks Erik. > > >> > > >> For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a > > >> postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link > > >> from Erik above. > > >> > > > > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_ > > > Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program#Decisions_made said: > > > > The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for > > > > staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that > > > > staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community > > > > policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a > > > > simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014. > > > > > > I think we're well past the deadline–unless "2014" was a typo for > "2015", > > > or "ED" a typo for "Sue Gardner in her spare time". Any updates? > > > > > > Nemo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > 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, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > 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, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
