Wikimedia Foundation down to 1 star out of 4 Options Rating

[thekohser]

Charity Navigator downgrades the Wikimedia Foundation on the measure of "Organizational Efficiency" from 2 stars to only 1 star.

Congratulations, Sue Gardner!

[GlassBeadGame]

Charity Navigator downgrades the Wikimedia Foundation on the measure of "Organizational Efficiency" from 2 stars to only 1 star.

Congratulations, Sue Gardner!

Looks like they have a pretty unacceptable level of fund raising and admin expenses. But overall they still rate 3 of 4 stars. That means CN needs to be educated about just what the substance of "program activities" amounts to in more detail.

[Doc glasgow]

Charity Navigator downgrades the Wikimedia Foundation on the measure of "Organizational Efficiency" from 2 stars to only 1 star.

Congratulations, Sue Gardner!

I notice also they have no records retention policy, which is somewhat ironic given the obsession of the community to record and archive everything in its history.

[Jon Awbrey]

Charity Navigator downgrades the Wikimedia Foundation on the measure of "Organizational Efficiency" from 2 stars to only 1 star.

Congratulations, Sue Gardner!

I notice also they have no records retention policy, which is somewhat ironic given the obsession of the community to record and archive everything in its history.

See Confessional Oversight Committee

Jon

[Somey]

I notice also they have no records retention policy, which is somewhat ironic given the obsession of the community to record and archive everything in its history.

Could that also mean that they simply never throw anything away, at least in their offices? I actually know a little bit about this subject (as opposed to most other subjects that I just pretend to know about), and in my experience the "default" for organizations with no records retention/disposition policy is to keep everything, particularly when most of the records are electronic (as might be assumed for the WMF). It's especially true for newer organizations who have yet to experience "pile-up." When everything was always maintained on paper, the lack of such a policy would definitely have indicated a tendency towards incompetent (or just missing-in-action) administration, but that's not necessarily the case today.

I'm not trying to defend them or anything, but I would have to say that the WMF's poor performance as a "charity" probably has less to do with their lack of administrative skills, and more with the fact that they're just not a goddamned charity.

[thekohser]

I also see in comparing the 2007 Form 990 with the 2008 version, Sue Gardner got herself a 12.5% raise in base salary, now at $168,700, plus a nifty $6,350 in additional "other compensation" mad money. All while lowering WMF's "Organizational efficiency" by another star rating.

Great job, Spider Hands!

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

[Kelly Martin]

One of the other things that amuses me here is that they are marked as having a "whistleblower policy", but that policy actually says that anyone who attempts to blow the whistle will be summarily fired without recourse. It's really an antiwhistleblower policy, but they call it a whistleblower policy, and therefore get credit for having one.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I am inspired to do a 'zoom in' ...

One of the other things that amuses me here is that they are marked as having a "whistleblower policy", but that policy actually says that anyone who attempts to blow the whistle will be summarily fired without recourse.

How does the Wikimedia Foundation Inc intend to retaliate against an employee?

Is Mike Godwin there to plan some dastardly legal action against them ... or would they just start a BLP topic?

Employee Protection (Whistleblower) Policy

If any employee reasonably believes that some policy, practice, or activity of Wikimedia Foundation Inc is in violation of law, a written complaint must be filed by that employee with the Executive Director, to the Chair of the Board of Trustees, or to the Chair of the Audit Committee.

It is the intent of Wikimedia Foundation Inc to adhere to all laws and regulations that apply to the organization and the underlying purpose of this policy is to support the organization’s goal of legal compliance. The support of all employees is necessary to achieving compliance with various laws and regulations. An employee is protected from retaliation only if the employee brings the alleged unlawful activity, policy, or practice to the attention of Wikimedia Foundation Inc and provides the organization with a reasonable opportunity to investigate and correct the alleged unlawful activity. The protection described below is only available to employees that comply with this requirement.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc will not retaliate against an employee who in good faith, has made a protest or raised a complaint against some practice of Wikimedia Foundation Inc, or of another individual or entity with whom Wikimedia Foundation Inc has a business relationship, on the basis of a reasonable belief that the practice is in violation of law, or a clear mandate of public policy.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc will not retaliate against employees who disclose or threaten to disclose to a manager or a public body, any activity, policy, or practice of Wikimedia Foundation Inc that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule, or regulation mandated pursuant to law or is in violation of a clear mandate or public policy concerning the health, safety, welfare, or protection of the environment.

My signature below indicates my receipt and understanding of this policy. I also verify that I have been provided with an opportunity to ask questions about the policy.
______________________________________________________
Employee Signature Date

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sat 2nd October 2010, 4:40pm

[thekohser]

CUOC's visual work is an emblem of pride on the Wikipedia Review. Huzzah!

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The original words on Sue's sheet were

I loved Wikimedia strategic planning because

mass collaboration
=
good decision making

That seems to fly in the face of good, old fashioned commonsense

Too many cooks spoil the broth

[Jon Awbrey]

The original words on Sue's sheet were

I loved Wikimedia strategic planning because

mass collaboration
=
good decision making

That seems to fly in the face of good, old fashioned commonsense

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Massive Dynamics Paralyzes Universes

Jon

[EricBarbour]

mass collaboration
=
good decision making

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Massive Dynamics Paralyzes Universes

The jocks beat them up when they were 13,
so now they're gonna take it out on you.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Sorry to be pedantic about this, but can we just cut close to Sue Gardner's face again?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 3rd October 2010, 4:12pm

[Milton Roe]

But this is only about $90,000/yr. in non San Francisco dollars, which go much farther. She probably is not even saving money, but lives paycheck to paycheck in one of those silly Victorian houses.

[Abd]

The original words on Sue's sheet were

I loved Wikimedia strategic planning because

mass collaboration
=
good decision making

That seems to fly in the face of good, old fashioned commonsense

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Yeah. Mass collaboration can make for very good decision-making, or it can make for very bad decision-making. It depends on the process. I'm afraid that our friend Sue is clueless about this.

What mass collaboration really made for on Wikipedia was cheap labor. Unfortunately, the quality may, in the end, be roughly what was paid for it. In order to maintain and raise the quality, stable social structure would have been necessary, structure that would truly reward quality.

Unfortunately, sometimes Wikipedia structure has punished quality. My favorite article writer is PHG. Almost always in trouble. His work is so beautiful it practically makes me cry sometimes. Yet he's been harassed. This was the kind of editor that, where he had problems -- and he did have problems -- he'd have been worth extensive hand-holding and support.

(He's now called Per Honor et Gloria (T-C-L-K-R-D) . When I got a barnstar from him, it meant something to me....)