Wikimedia Foundation director admits to sweetheart contract
by Gregory Kohs
October 18, 2010





I really hope that you will share this on Facebook, Twitter, and via e-mail with your friends. Please comment on the Examiner article, too. This piece really demonstrates just how cracked is the WMF governance structure.

Note: over the years I have learned that whenever the CEO or spokesperson says "I don't know" to an embarassing question, and doesn't follow it up with a promise to find out and tell you the answer, it's because they never intend to speak of it again. It means they could easily find out formally, but never intend to. See plausable deniability; if somebody's going down for this, it's not going to be Sue.

Sue's been talking to lawyers. I smell them. Godwin?! Did you forget to use the Speed Stick again?

Feel free to kindly Digg this story, too.

Great story Greg. I think you really hit on something with this one.

What's interesting here is that Gardner (and the rest of the gang) could have easily shrugged something like this off, except that she says she doesn't know how much the study cost them. At best it's a transparent attempt at evasion, and at worst it's just a bald-faced lie. How hard could it possibly be for her to find that out? Is she trying to have us believe that they don't keep records? And if so, which is worse, the idea that she doesn't know (or refuses to take the trouble to find out), or the idea that they don't keep records?

Something like that just casts doubt on all the other statements she's made about this, if not on their contracting practices in general.

Only 1 additional Digg beyond my own?

Shalom, this is why you can't get together a WR-based rally toward the IRS against the WMF. I can't even get together a crowd to click a Digg button.

I note that this was also obliquely mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost. Good job for even recognizing it, guys.

I couldn't see it on Twitter, maybe a Tweet announcing the article is in order.

Its part of an online Wikipedia persona she is cultivating, just like Jimbo is working that, "Wikipedians are really sweet people" number. Sue is going for a kind of ditzy, sincerity. Meanwhile it is really all about their salary.

The title, I suppose, is a pun on the Amsterdam episode? They didn't go through the whole advertise, tender and interview thing for the 'controversial images review she gave to her old friend and his daughter.

Did they go through the whole advertise and interview thing for her CEO position? How far does this MO go?

It had been tweeted, last night.

Is it on the famous WR FB page?

Godwin jumps ship.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061693.html

• It's time for NewYorkBrad to step up to meet his destiny.
• Reading between the limes, I smell something subtropical about this departure.
• I encourage Mike to come post here at Wikipedia Review once he's fully detached.
• Was it a golden parachute, or a sack of dimes to keep his mouth shut?

Mods, could we get this Godwin departure stuff into the Godwin departure thread? I don't need credit as being the "first", since I wasn't.

Could we maybe start that thread with the observation that at the end of WW II even Himmler deserted, after realizing there would be no separate deal with the allies?

Or must we save that for later in the thread?

Now, don't be an assymptote …

Jon

Last year, questions were asked of the Wikimedia Foundation staff about the cost of the 2010 Donor Survey, fielded by Q2 Consulting. These questions, asked by multiple people, were very deliberately not answered.

The key question is very simple:

1. How much money was paid to Q2 Consulting by the Wikimedia Foundation for the execution of the 2010 Donor Survey?

(We already know that no competitive request for proposal was issued, and we know that Philippe Beaudette was employed by Q2 Consulting prior to his employment with the Wikimedia Foundation, and we know that the WMF at the time had a policy on purchasing and disbursements that requires director-level and CFO approval for items greater than $5,000.)

I would like to offer a $50 prize, contingent on the following:

* First, that an official representative of the Wikimedia Foundation provide an official disclosure of the money paid to Q2 Consulting for the 2010 Donor Survey. (A visual scan of a bank check is not required, though would be authoritative; but at minimum the statement of fact must be made officially and publicly by a senior staff member of the WMF.) If the amount is greater than $5,000, it would be nice to know if the Director and CFO each approved the disbursement, per WMF policy, but it is not expected that this additional detail will be provided.

* Once that information is disclosed, I will give $25 to the first person (after August 22, 2011) to have posted the "key question" above to the "Foundation-l" mailing list, so that all are aware that the question remains unanswered.

* Subsequently, I will donate $25 to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, in appreciation of its inevitable, though reluctant, dedication to the principle of transparency and disclosure of key disbursements of donor-enabled funds.

If you have any questions, please contact me via telephone or e-mail. Via e-mail, fifteen people have been blind-copied on this message, and it was delivered to Sue Gardner and Philippe Beaudette directly.
--
Gregory Kohs
Phone: 484-NEW-WIKI

Nobody's jumped to be first on the Foundation-l list yet. $25 is just waiting there (potentially) for the earliest bird. Must not be a recession if $25 is going unwanted.

Would you like me to try asking people directly, as part of a general interview?
PM me some names and phone numbers (if you have any).

I'd interview Godwin, but I suspect he will either be evasive, or has signed an NDA and can't say anything.
The more I look into this stuff, the more Sue Gardner and Erik Moeller look like gangsters.

Amazing. I can't even get someone to post a question to the Foundation-l list, in exchange for a chance to earn $25.

Is it that people are so afraid of getting their address blocked on the mailing list?

Well, $25 doesn't buy much these days...

There's also the possibility, which I believe I might have brought up earlier, that Q2 actually did the survey for free, or for substantially less than $5,000, and part of their agreement for doing so was that the WMF wouldn't disclose this (for fear of a "cheapening effect" WRT their other clients).

I guess what I'm saying is "be careful what you wish for," and also, "an NDA trumps a $25 bounty," though I'll admit that the person asking the question would have nothing much to lose by being insta-blocked, given that they'd use a throwaway e-mail address to do it.

All valid points, Somey (although, I believe SpiderHand's commentary thus far has virtually confirmed that the study was not done for free, but for some quantifiable dollar amount that Sue considers small). However, you nailed it best at the end -- what is there to lose by at least trying for the $25 prize, even if the WMF check-blocks the payment by not fessing up?

Hmm...

Someone (who asked that I not reveal name) noted privately to me a key reason why this question might not be posted to Foundation-l:



Indeed... their boss has a black widow tattoo on her hand!