Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Organizational impropriety
Posted by: thekohser
From the 2011-2012 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/37/2011-12_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE_.pdf (page 19):
QUOTE
The likeliest source of external distraction is probably media resulting from a reputational issue, such as editorial scandal or perceived organizational impropriety. Risk of editorial scandal can't be mitigated: there is an inherent level of risk that we cannot side-step. Risk of organizational impropriety is unlikely at the WMF due to its experienced leadership team and well-established controls. However, the risk is greater within the chapters, which are young and primarily run by volunteers with little experience.
So, is it perceived organizational impropriety, or is it http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-wires-biased-study-of-donors http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikijunior-took-the-money-but-no-books-printed?
Posted by: Abd
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 19th July 2011, 2:08pm) 
From the 2011-2012 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/37/2011-12_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE_.pdf (page 19):
Hard to tell the difference sometimes. However, the WMF plan is self-congratulatory, and evidence of lack of the very thing they are attempting to claim. There is always a risk of organizational impropriety, and any organization which perceives the risk is low is unlikely to notice it. Rather, vigilance is required, and systems that will examine "perceived impropriety," not dismiss it out of hand. Basically, the statement itself establishes a lack of mature governance. I've seen this in many relatively new organizations, it's not like it's uncommon. Shit happens.QUOTE
The likeliest source of external distraction is probably media resulting from a reputational issue, such as editorial scandal or perceived organizational impropriety. Risk of editorial scandal can't be mitigated: there is an inherent level of risk that we cannot side-step. Risk of organizational impropriety is unlikely at the WMF due to its experienced leadership team and well-established controls. However, the risk is greater within the chapters, which are young and primarily run by volunteers with little experience.
So, is it perceived organizational impropriety, or is it http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-wires-biased-study-of-donors http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikijunior-took-the-money-but-no-books-printed?Posted by: Kelly Martin
That statement is clearly a calculated attempt to minimize the role of chapters in ongoing governance. There has long been pressure to give chapters some role, possibly a large role, in governing the Foundation; the main purpose of that statement is to provide an excuse why this cannot be done.
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 19th July 2011, 11:30am)
That statement is clearly a calculated attempt to minimize the role of chapters in ongoing governance. There has long been pressure to give chapters some role, possibly a large role, in governing the Foundation; the main purpose of that statement is to provide an excuse why this cannot be done.
And whose "fault" is it that the chapters are full of "impressionable" young people?
They went around encouraging it for years, and now they want to minimize their importance.
Sue, you are one mean little creature. Don't forget to tell them about the penis photos!