Talk:Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence program

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Contradictory statements[edit]

In the Wikimedia-l thread it is mentioned that Tim was listed as a fundraiser, not a paid WiR. Sorry, I don't have a link to hand but I'm still reading the thread and if I come across one I'll add it here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link to the archived thread handy, but my memory is that he was run through the fundraising department without a direct pointer to the fact that his work was as a paid WiR, yeah. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Moeller explained that here. It was a semantic issue -- the initial report of the hire listed the position under fund-raising only because that was the department handling the project, not because he had a role in raising funds. -Pete (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard COI[edit]

Gardner says that Sandole "seems to have generally adhered to Wikipedia policy in his article writing". I would assume that Sandole must have had some interaction at some point with either Kennedy School professor John Gerard Ruggie, or Harvard faculty member Carmen Mejia. I wonder if Sandole encouraged Ruggie to extensively modify his own Wikipedia biography with a single-purpose account, or whether Sandole suggested to Mejia to author Ruggie's Spanish Wikipedia biography, again with a single-purpose account? -- Thekohser (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given how many faculty Harvard has, I seriously doubt that Sandole told Ruggie to go edit his page, let alone told Mejia (who isn't even KSG faculty) to go edit her own page, let alone on a non-English Wikipedia. Cut the vague insinuation please. I welcome you productively adding stuff to this page, and think that some of your contributions have been productive, but don't think your previous post is appropriate for a WMF wiki Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the above section is considered a violation of the "Outing" policies on Wikimedia projects, I have no objection whatsoever to it being reverted or oversighted. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a wiki specific outing policy as far as I know, and my objection to the section isn't that it's outing, it's that it's wild unprovable speculation that's incredibly likely to be correct and likely to distract from the real problems with Belfer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have local oversighters, I have discussed the above with stewards, and the consensus is that the above discussion isn't outing. --Pine✉ 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, given who has admin status on this wiki, even revdel would be fine for all but the most egregious cases of outing... but my objection to Koh's post wasn't that it was outing, it was that it was wildly unprovable speculation likely to distract from the actual issues at hand. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My name isn't "Koh". -- Thekohser (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of community discussions and reviews[edit]

Nemo wrote: "maybe we can create a subpage with collated community reviews" - that's a fair idea: there have been a great deal. We should avoid giving too much prominence to the longest, or most entertaining / point / conspiracy theory-y: but it is worth listing them and summarizing useful kernels of feedback from each. Sj (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's disturbing to me that you, Mr. Klein, would begin the process of creating a subpage with collated community reviews by sneakily removing mention of several of the first and most comprehensive reviews, disguising your action with a vague edit summary, and then you do absolutely nothing to actually start the subpage that you called a "fair idea". Seems that what you accomplished was to sweep community reviews under the rug and help foster an environment where they will not be documented here on Outreach. As a graduate of Harvard and an affiliate with Harvard's Berkman Center, you are a highly conflicted individual to even be editing this Outreach page directly. I think that's disgusting, but others may disagree. - Thekohser (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reasonably, community reports should go chronologically, and that Odder's should be given especial prominence because it ignited the issue. (I absolutely think the WO post should be mentioned, although it still already is.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Forsyth notes[edit]

Why are Pete Forsyth's (excellent) notes given a prominent color-highlighted section, adjacent to the "official" account from Sue Gardner? If Forsyth's commentary represents an official account from the WMF, then I suppose it's fine located where it is, but (again), why the color backdrop? If Forsyth's comments are not official WMF communication, don't we think that his commentary should be moved to another section of the page (and the coloring dropped)? - Thekohser (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the previous color backdrop was probably unnecessary, although I imagine Pete intended it so that his report wouldn't blend in to the official report. Since Pete was more involved in the program than anyone outside the WMF, I think it's probably a good thing for his viewpoint to be the most visible one barring WMF's itself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work out things on talk please[edit]

I just reverted an edit that had removed the community response caveat and added some media links; as this is an internal post-mortem, I don't think that tracking media coverage here is a useful thing to do. We have a billion other places where we track media coverage, eg the meta press room. Beyond that, I'm going to remove a couple things that don't have sources that make statements about living people; if they're relevant and readded with a source, I won't automatically remove them. Work out disputes on the talk page, don't just editwar back and forth. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually realized that there was less unsourced stuff than I thought. I would suggest Ktr101 unprotect. Since this is clearly intended to be an internal postmortem, it's not the place to track media coverage: Kohs&co, please don't readd media links etc. I only glanced over it briefly, but your WO blog about the issue looked prety good, and I think it should probably stay. I've had a bad week and need to run out for an outreach event: if I come back in four hours and this whole page has gone to shit, there's a good chance I'm going to act like a cranky person. All involved: please keep this as a community post-mortem, and make sure your statements about living people are sourced, and your statements in general are not overly sensationalistic. Within those confines, edits from all are welcome. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, Kevin Gorman -- it's not ideal when a page that was specifically designed for input gets protected. (That's not an absolute -- if it becomes a target for highly disruptive behavior it would make sense to change it.) But I don't think we're anywhere close to that point. I'm tempted to undo the protection myself, but since I'm so close to this situation it may be better if I don't.
    • On the specifics -- I think the media links are worthwhile and important, as they add (at least somewhat) independent context to reports that are otherwise merely self-reflective. I think Thekohser, when he reverted his own addition of the words "community-driven," was on the right track; initially, it made sense to distinguish between the words of insiders in the process like WMF and myself, and "community" on the other hand. But as the list of links expands to include commentary published in independent sources, the word no longer applies. It seems straightforward and uncontroversial to me.
    • I do agree about the naming of individuals. I don't think it's necessary in this document; but I think, as long as there has been concern about the marriage relationship expressed, it should be noted in some form here. (I happen to think that fact is a red herring, and a distraction from the actual important issues; but that's just my opinion.) -Pete (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we do include media coverage, it should certainly be in a separate section from internal community assessments. (Tangent: the protection was undone at the time of your comment :)) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to "work things out" here on the Talk page, when the main article page has Sue Gardner telling us to "please feel free to add additional material below". Certain people have tried to censor this resource, as it becomes more and more clear that unprofessional decisions were being consciously made by the Wikimedia Foundation. By all means, cover it up, if you like -- that will make the story all the more delicious to news media. (What's really needed are more honest mea culpas such as the one offered today by Victor Grigas.) - Thekohser (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A) I'm not a WMFer. (B) I think most of your edits to this have been improvements, and have left them in place. (C) In my last post, I explicitly suggested the creation of a separate section to track media if one is desired, because internal assessments and external media are significantly different things. (D) Half your posts here have made you look like a troll, as did your email to ktr. This is self-promotional, not placed in the right section of the page, and hugely problematic.
You can stay and engage in productive dialogue that leads to a better understanding of the hugely problematic Belfer project, or you can keep trolling until you magically suddenly can't. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my edit was any more "self-promotional" than Jimbo Wales advertising his "personal party" here on the Outreach wiki. - Thekohser (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising an anniversary party put on with his own funds (vs most of the rest which were grant funded) is a lot different than placing very prominently a selfpromotional paragraph advertising WO. You put it above the actual reports from the project, and above and with far greater prominence than all other community feedback about Belfer. Let me be clear: I think Belfer was a large and predictable mistake that shouldn't have happened. I think I even explicitly told the LA Times that this week though the story won't be out for a while. Some of your contributions here (like collating community criticisms) have been quite important, and others have been plain trolling. Cut out the trolling and stay on topic (10th annniversary events are not on topic, unless they happen to have been held at Belfer.) I want this to be a useful post-mortem of Belfer so we can avoid similar mistakes in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my lettered post earlier in this thread doesn't entirely make sense anymore, since Kohs edited his after the fact. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note[edit]

I am not planning to participate on that page at all, but if someone feels a need for a 3rd opinion or wants me in an administrator capacity then you can ping me on my talk page. So far I am not sensing a need for the use of admin tools, but please especially make a point of not outing people's pseudonymous accounts here or anywhere else. If you think there is a possibility that an pseudonymous account was misused there are ways we can investigate that and take enforcement action without violating the Wikimedia privacy policy. I have posted regarding Belfer on Wikimedia-l but I don't think that I am involved to the point where I shouldn't act in an admin capacity on this issue, and I will make blocks if there are privacy violations that would fall under the Oversight policy. Thanks for your attention and civil discussion of the Belfer affair. --Pine✉ 07:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which facts are allowed to be presented, if substantiated by verifiable evidence?[edit]

Could we get a !vote here, to gauge which facts are allowed to be presented in the Assessment page, as long as they are supported by a verifiable and reliable source? These are some of the facts that have been censored off editorially excluded from the Assessment page thus far (often because they were worded too "pointy", not because the facts are being suppressed):

  • That Wikipediocracy published a blog post by Gregory Kohs, entitled "Business as Usual", which covers the Belfer Center WiR program.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have a conflict of interest there, Greg? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when the WMF implements the "you must disclose your employers, benefactors, and clients" amendment to the Terms of Service, and then I'll be forced to say, won't I?  ;-) Good one, HJ. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent -Pete (talk)
  • That the primary trustee of the Stanton Foundation is Liz Allison.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude -- I don't think this is relevant to an assessment of behavior of the Wikipedia community or the Wikimedia Foundation. (I don't feel terribly strongly about this, she is in a position of significant social impact, so I don't think BLP-type concerns are very compelling.) -Pete (talk) update: when I said "exclude" I meant in relation to the marital relationship. I don't think it hurts to mention her by name as I did in my timeline -- but I don't feel strongly about this either. -Pete (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the director of the Belfer Center is Graham Allison.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude -- see above. -Pete (talk)
  • That Liz Allison and Graham Allison are a married couple.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Include -- only because some other people seem to think this is significant. I don't. -Pete (talk)
  • That Liz Allison is paid $225,000 for 30 hours per week, to run the Stanton Foundation.
Ambivalent -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude -- I can't imagine why that is possibly relevant to this page. -Pete (talk)
  • That Liz Allison is an active supporter of the Wikimedia Public Policy Initiative.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Include, but it's better to say that Stanton is an active supporter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and some of their substantial gifts were toward the PPI. -Pete (talk)
I disagree that it's better to say that "Stanton" is an active supporter of PPI. The Stanton Foundation has only two trustees -- Liz Allison and an accountant -- and no other staff. Unless you think the accountant is selecting which topical areas the foundation should be targeting, then the support is being driven, in fact, by Liz Allison. Allison attended more than one status meeting of the PPI, correct? The accountant never attended any PPI meetings, as far as I know. So, the intellectual support for PPI is both in spirit and in reality coming from Liz Allison, who then wields the financial benefits of the Stanton Foundation. It obscures her motivations to say that "Stanton" is an active supporter of PPI. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Daily Dot published a news article by Tim Sampson, entitled "One of Wikimedia's largest donors accused in paid editing scandal", which covers the Belfer Center WiR program.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Include -Pete (talk)
  • That Timothy Sandole says he was only paid $40,000 of the $53,690 allocated for the residency. That WMF spokesperson Jay Walsh has confirmed to Daily Dot that the remaining $13,690 went toward administrative overhead costs.
Include -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, administrative costs are utterly commonplace among non-profits, universities, etc. You could criticize the general practice, and I might go along with that -- but highlighting it in this case is clearly "undue weight." -Pete (talk)
  • That the WMF has not provided detail on how those $13,690 costs were itemized.
Ambivalent -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude -- in my opinion it's absolutely appropriate they should refuse to comment on such a frivolous question. -Pete (talk)

Please add your opinions about the inclusion or exclusion of the above factual claims in the Assessment page. (Also, feel free to contribute additional factual claims that you believe merit community decision. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How much information someone is paid to run the group that provided the grant money for the project is not relevant to a discussion of Belfer, so I see no reason why it should be included. I think your WO post (which is already on the page) should be included, it just shouldn't be given prominence over other community assessments. I think it's probably a good idea to include outside media coverage, but I think there's an important distinction between internal and external coverage, and that we would lose utility if we threw it all in one big section, especially if there ends up being a lot of externals. I'd support the creation of distinct internal assessment and media coverage sections, with the internal assessment section being given more prominence (because it's likely more important in creating a complete picture of what happened.) I think that the significant administrative costs should probably be mentioned somewhere, although I'm not sure it's worth mentioning that they weren't itemized. I think discussion of the connections between Stanton and Belfer should probably be included, but I see no need to include specific names - describing the relationships is enough, and any curious reader can find the names easily enough (mainspace here is indexable, and I don't think there's any particular reason the assessment of the flubb should show up with the prominence that WMF domains typically do on google in association with the particular named outside WMF individuals. I'm not sure it's relevant that Stanton supported the PPI, although it may be relevant that Stanton has historically been a large donor.
Generally speaking, I think the page should be ordered w/r/t how close people were to the events: WMF's report first, then Pete's, then any reports by other individuals directly involved, then links to Sandoles', then other internal community assessments and discussions, then external media. We should also have a 'lessons learned' section somewhere, although I'm not sure offhand what area of the page it would be most appropriately learned in... and as the goal of the lessons learned section is to provide productive feedback to avoid the same thing happening in the future, the points there shouldn't barbed. Links to Sandoles' user account etc so people can take a direct look at his edits should also probably be included. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the "lessons learned" section doesn't end up blank. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reversal"[edit]

@Nemo bis: -- How is this a reversal of either the "not accepting restricted grants" or "WiRs are to be focused on collaborative editing and liaising etc." lessons? What, in those grants, makes you assert this is a "reversal"? Asaf (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Asaf (WMF):, no apparent reason to characterize this as a reversal; but I do thank @Nemo bis: for noting it here, it's worthwhile to have contextual information about what WiR positions WMF has funded. (For that reason, I'd suggest adding Consumer Reports and the Czech position as well, both of which preceded Belfer.) I changed the language here to something more neutral. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the adjustments for neutrality - those current WiRs were funded very much with the lessons from Belfer in mind. Agree it would make sense to have a section listing WiR positions that WMF has funded, both pre- and post- Belfer, for context. Perhaps the section should be retitled and expanded? Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Siko (WMF) I like that idea. Could you also provide brief explanations of how the post-Belfer WiRs were compliant with the lessons and policies adopted after the Belfer grant? --Pine✉ 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asaf, do you think you might be able to comment on this, or forward this request to somebody who could? -Pete (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pete. Sorry, I've only noticed this now; it must have been a while since I had visited Outreachwiki, and it appears to not be included in the cross-wiki notifications feature, because I did not get notification about this ping on Meta.
To your request, I can't comment substantively, as I am most probably not aware of all the WiR positions WMF has funded since Belfer. Accomplishing what you requested (and Siko endorsed) would take some work by program officers, rounding up the information, and so I'm tagging Katy (and backing it up with an e-mail, because of my suspicion that Outreachwiki isn't generate cross-wiki notifications), who would be in a position to allocate time to do this. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asaf and KLove, thank you for sticking with this. Interest in best practices around Wikipedian in Residence programs remain high; when I bring up the concept, I am typically met with strong interest. It would be really helpful to have a clearer understanding of the WMF's thinking process around WiR programs, and how it has learned from mistakes (which I know you value in your grantees). A correction to my statement above -- when I said Czech I misremembered, I meant this Danish grant. Also, the fact that Outreach Wiki appears to be left out of pageview statistics, as well as cross-wiki notifications, seems to be further justification for moving this page to Meta Wiki, as I suggested below; if I don't hear any negative feedback on that in the next few days, I may go ahead with that. -Pete (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how pings work after import..re-pinging Asaf (WMF) and KLove (WMF) now that this has been moved to Meta Wiki. -Pete F (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping received, Pete F! Thanks for moving this to Meta, too. I can't respond to this without a longer conversation with program officers who can speak to these issues and give substantive updates. I will need to come back to you in the coming weeks. KLove (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the confirmation, KLove (WMF)! Glad to know this is in progress. There is no specific urgency, but if I may be so bold, it seems there has been a long history on this specific issue -- dating back to 2011 -- of things not getting followed through on. I say this not to assign blame, but to emphasize how valuable it would be to those of us working toward ethical parameters around various kinds of paid editing to get some substantive and relevant information from WMF, without having to issue reminders or repeated requests too many more times. I don't feel urgency for an answer by any specific date, but I do hope you can dig up some relevant information and share it before long. (I see the cost of slow communication on this as including recent, unrelated, initially-undisclosed paid editing by the funder of this initiative, and initially-undisclosed paid editing by board members of a chapter. The more ambiguity exists around these issues, the more poor examples accrue. Any additional clarity on the issue will be highly beneficial. I am confident you guys have put good thought into these things and reached worthwhile decisions; there are few publicly visibly examples of that out there in the world.) -Pete F (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. One unfortunate side effect of moving this to Meta is that the 22 people who had it on their Outreach Wiki watchlists will no longer have this on their watchlist. I think it would be worthwhile to ping all those who contributed to the report or the talk page to notify them of the move; but maybe it's best to wait until there is new information to share, to make that announcement? -Pete F (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this feel a little bit like a monologue, or is it a conversation? - Thekohser (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Meta?[edit]

Any objections to moving this page to Meta Wiki (with a redirect)? I think this has become a significant document, and it would be better to have it in a more visible location, and perhaps set a more effective precedent for similar documents. Also, on Meta it could (at least theoretically) be translated using the translation tools. -Pete (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to do this shortly. I requested a technical feature that will make it possible to fully import pages from Outreach Wiki to Meta Wiki, which would be the proper way to do this; see here: phab:T134788 -Pete (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

WMF grants for WiRs[edit]

Hello Pete, I wanted to consult with my colleagues in the grants team before responding to you. It's been a very busy quarter for us, so I thank you for your patience.

Before and after this post mortem, WMF has funded (directly, and through our affiliate partners) a number of residencies. When advising grantees and potential applicants in any WMF grants program, we encourage grantees to cover the costs of Wikimedians in Residence (WiRs) through host institutions, or to engage volunteers in this work.

There have been more than 40 WiR programs involving affiliates who received funding through the FDC/Annual Plan Grant process. We do not do an in-depth review of each of the WiR programs after they are completed. We don’t have the capacity to do so, and don’t believe it is compatible with the goals of the APG program, since grantees receive general support funding through this program and are trusted to make decisions about how to use their funding effectively for mission-aligned activities (as specified in their grant agreements). If any issues surface related to Wikimedians in Residence being paid inappropriately for editing activities, we would address them on a case by case basis. There have not yet been any issues of which we are aware.

In the past, Project & Event Grants (PEG) and Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) have followed the same guidelines for funding Wikimedians in Residences (WiRs) -- WiRs whose focus is to collect resources, train/engage GLAM and Wikimedian community, and organize events around integrating content are eligible for funding. WiRs whose sole focus is to digitize resources and/or personally create content are not eligible for funding. In cases where funding for a residency is provided directly by WMF or a grantee receiving funding from WMF, we ask grantees to make job descriptions of Wikimedians in Residence that do not include paid editing of the Wikimedia projects.

These guidelines are also outlined in the newly launched Rapid Grants and Project Grants programs. The PEG/IEG programs have funded only a handful of WiRs (or similar positions), which have gone under careful review by the community and respective grants committees. Examples of the types of WiRs we have funded through PEG and IEG include GLAMing Madrid, Metro Institutional Growth and Community Fellow, UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence, and Wikipedian in Residence for Gender Equity. In all of these cases, the WiR has served as a trainer, facilitator, and networker between the GLAM institution and community.

Cheers, KLove (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KLove (WMF), thank you for this -- just realized I did not acknowledge this here, though I read it with great interest when you posted this. I just sent an email to Wikimedia-L to publicly acknowledge this as well.
IMO, your comment should be moved to the main page, it's an important part of the story. Any objection? -Pete F (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Pete F, I figured you had seen it, but glad to know you have, indeed, seen it. What main page are you referencing, though? KLove (WMF) (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KLove (WMF), perhaps under the Lessons Learned section near the bottom of the wiki page (as opposed to this talk page), which already has a related note. -Pete F (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, Pete F. I'm happy to move it there. Thanks for the suggestion. KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am befuddled as to why the WMF does "not have the capacity" to conduct a post-mortem review of every one of its 40 or so Wikipedian-in-Residence programs where WMF donor money was granted to Wikipedians. In my estimation, the process might involve a 30-minute interview with the grantee, a 30-minute interview with the hosting organization, another 30-minute examination of the grantee's editing activity, and then a 30-minute process of briefly summarizing what was learned in the 90-minute investigation. At two hours per program, that would be about 80 hours of time.
The Wikimedia Foundation currently has 289 staff and contractors on the payroll. That represents over 566,000 person-hours annually of available work capacity. I am hoping that KLove (WMF) can explain why this valuable albeit theoretical program of 80 hours time (0.0141% of the total capacity) is somehow beyond the capacity limit of the Foundation? - Thekohser (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean reports like these?
-Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program&oldid=16312596"