Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2007/Candidates/Mindspillage/questions

2007 board elections
Election notice FAQ Candidate presentations Endorsements Vote Results
Organization
Election committee Candidate presentation guidelines Translations Coordinators Current requests Quick translation

Membership

Last December, the Wikimedia Foundation revised its bylaws to change itself from a membership organization to a non-membership organization. In a membership organization, the trustees are directly responsible to the membership; in a non-membership organization, the trustees are ultimately responsible only to one another (and indirectly to donors, who presumably will not donate if they feel the trustees are not being responsible). Do you feel that the Foundation, constituted as it is as a non-membership organization, provides sufficient structural checks and balances to ensure that the trustees observe their fiduciary responsibilities appropriately? Would a return to a membership structure, with the ability of members to bring policy proposals themselves at the annual meeting or by other methods, to remove board members by appropriate vote, and to sue the Foundation under certain conditions limit the ability of the Trustees to do what they need to do? If you do support a return to a membership structure, how would you determine who the voting members are? Kelly Martin 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the current revision, which was done just before my appointment, it changed nothing in practice; already there were no members of the Foundation and the revision only described what was in place.

As for the future, I don't think it is the idea of membership itself that is problematic, but rather determining who those members are.

I think the current state of the Foundation is greatly disorganized and that information flow isn't sufficient for there to be sufficient checks and balances, membership or not; it's hard to say whether membership would improve that or if simply improving organization and information availability would do it. I would like to see that kind of accountability, however it may be accomplished.

In principle I don't believe a membership structure, with members who did have a genuine concern about WMF's activities, would limit the ability of Trustees to do what is needed; speaking to leaders of similar organizations I don't believe Wikimedia can be sustainable under our current model if we do not have a dedicated core of people both providing support and knowing that their voices do have influence. However, being formally a membership organization requires being able to determine a bar for membership sanely.

And that's a hard problem, one I don't have a good solution to. Creating too low a barrier to entry means that those who want to turn WMF to their own interests would be able to do so more easily -- and we are an attractive target to many because of our visibility, influence, and potential commercial power. Too high a barrier to entry means that people who genuinely should have their voices heard will be excluded. (Part of what I like about the chapter structure is that it seems this is easier to handle on a local level than a global one.)

And so I do not support a return to a membership structure until this problem is handled acceptably; I think we need to think about it carefully before committing to change or not to change. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Office evolution

In what way do you forsee the office (and staff) evolving under your tenure as a board member, should you be elected? i.e. would you be in favor of expansion, contraction, status quo, more interns, new positions, less, what?Swatjester 01:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC) *cough*specifically on the interns part ;) *cough* Swatjester 06:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the weird timestamping, it was a cut and paste from the other candidates. Swatjester 06:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The most important staff changes coming up are the addition of an executive director and a legal counsel, both of whom should be brought on in the next few weeks; this is something that has been long needed but it has taken some time to find and negotiate with candidates for the positions. I'm looking forward to seeing the office have an executive leadership team in the coming months who are not too busy simply fighting fires to get things done.

As for the rest, this really isn't something the board will have much direct influence over; rather it will be up to the existing office staff under the direction of an executive director to determine what else is needed, and the board only having influence over high-level strategic decisions. The board has been too much involved in operational matters without this leadership and I at least am looking forward to stepping back and getting out of that;that's not what we're supposed to be here for!

As a personal opinion, though, I do think we aren't doing as much as we could be with structured volunteer help and I look forward to more such opportunities, such as internships; I know there have been a few more interns taken on recently (you might know one of them...). I'd to see more volunteer positions that carry with them defined responsibilities and commitments, on the Foundation side of things, in addition to the opportunities that currently exist all around for people to simply drift in and out as they are able. This is something I have seen starting to form already, such as the election committee, and then some from the project-focused side such as the Wikipedia 0.5 team, and I think focused, task-oriented groups like this are something we need to encourage in the future; this is something I hope Cary as Volunteer Coordinator can do more of with the office settling in more. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As you might expect, I am interested in the last paragraph. Is there anywhere online that you have....spilled your mind about this? i.e. a brainstorming page somewhere, or a blog or something, or is this something that one would just have to get in touch with you about? Swatjester 23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesser-known projects

What is your opinion on some of the projects that are not as well-known as Wikipedia? Would you favour a situation where attempts are made to nurture these projects rather than almost-solely concentrate on the one that has the highest profile? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also very interested in this question, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking from the inside I don't think that the board concentrates on Wikipedia over the others, really, not of its own direction. The appearance of overemphasis on what could fairly be called the "flagship" project, Wikipedia, doesn't come from us but rather from the outside; this is what the most people are interested in, what the press wants to talk about, where people approach us to pursue partnerships, what people see as our success story... and also what people generally want to sue over. And I think it will always be the most successful and visible of the projects on its own momentum and because the culture was built around it to begin with, and not because of anything the leadership of the foundation does.

I do think we need to do a better job of making the public aware of all that is going on, that Wikimedia is more than just the English Wikipedia, and drive traffic and interest toward the others. But the initiative to nurture the less-developed projects—as do most of the initiatives to develop the larger projects!—must come primarily from within the project communities themselves, or from dedicated small working groups who want to pursue a particular project: that is, from the people who are best placed to do so. And I hope to see that happen. The Foundation's role is then to assist by making contacts, putting its name behind a proposal, or earmarking funds to carry out a well-thought out project proposal.

We may have occasion where for some reason or another—a partnership opportunity, a grant opportunity, something else—we have occasion to really push something that we otherwise might have left to its own devices, but really we as an organization can't commit to doing something without the people already there to make it happen.

The Board alone is a small group, some of whom have limited experience in participating on the projects, particularly the smaller ones. This is at its core a volunteer organization, driven by the commitment and interest of those who both build and use it; I think it is most worthwhile to give a push to projects that are on their way to succeeding based on the interest and motivation of those who use it, and that the primary drive needs to come from there as well. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ads, branding, business dev., GHGs.

1. On the board, will you vote for ads on Wikimedia sites?
   1. yes
      1. pop-ups/flash/banners/graphics
      2. flash/banners/graphics in skin whitespace or at bottom
      3. company logos in site notices
      4. prominent text ads
      5. company names in site notices
      6. text ads in skin whitespace or at bottom
      7. opt out
      8. opt in
      9. other
   2. maybe
      1. only for a huge amount of money
      2. only during budget emergencies
      3. only if editors support it
   3. never
   4. other
2. What are your thoughts on the foundation's hiring of a business developer?
3. Please elaborate your position on branding and partnerships.
4. Please elaborate on how you'd vote on the board about the foundation reducing or offsetting anthropogenic greenhouse gases, e.g. power used by hardware, flights, etc.?

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-17t07:57

Wow, lots of issues to address in this question.

I don't want to have ads, as I suspect most don't, and I will never support anything so obtrusive as a popup or Flash-based monstrosity. I'd like us to pursue other ideas for as long as possible. But I'm not morally or philosophically opposed to advertising, and I don't believe having it would conflict with our aims and values. (Not inherently: I think anything that required any influence over the content would be completely unacceptable. But something like Google ads, where the advertisers and the site operators have no contact with each other, does not have that problem.)

I think opt-in is completely fine; I wouldn't see a problem with us doing that tomorrow (provided we could work out the technical, legal, and financial considerations). As for the other sorts of ads: estimates of how much money advertisement could bring in are in the range of... well, of enough money to do almost anything we could think of wanting to do, and that's not something to be passed up lightly. And yet we continue to pass it up. I think we need to take a solid look at the pros and cons of it to have a clear, complete picture of what we're turning down and why we're doing it.

One note: if the foundation were in danger of shutting down because of financial crisis, I would not hesitate to support advertising, even if only on a temporary basis. (And then I wouldn't hesitate to want to figure out where we went wrong that we can't support basic operations on the money from donations alone, because we should, as a public charity with a great deal of community involvement and goodwill, be able to do that.)

If we do wish to avoid advertisement in the future, we need to look into other ways of funding. We can simply keep going as we have been on donations alone, but we can't do any more than that, and we're straining to. All of this that others are talking about even in the questions elsewhere on this page: supporting new initatives, new hires, new projects.

I do support the hire and consultation of people for business development; I think it is becoming increasingly necessary, not only to manage our own affairs but because businesses both established and starting up are wanting to enter into business deals with us, and we need someone with business acumen to evaluate whether these ideas make sense from that perspective, and what other options there are.

As for branding, I am undecided. I have little experience in marketing and branding and prefer to consult outside advice; my role in these matters is primarily to object where something goes contrary to the philosophy of the organization as I see it, rather than to formulate strategy myself. As a personal preference, while I recognize the strength of Wikipedia as a brand... I really don't like the idea of rebranding the other projects, which have their own "feel" and identity. I'm not dead set against it but neither is it something I'm happy to support. In face of compelling evidence that rebranding the others would be the right thing to do, I would do it. But I'd want to see that evidence carefully gathered.

My position on "greening" the site has already been expressed on foundation-l; to summarize for those who have not read it I support our being environmentally responsible and using no more resources than necessary, but I don't think that we should be diverting resources to go further than that. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guardian

My interest is for the Board to act with a long-term view of its mission in mind,
and not to take actions which might compromise WMF's future. 

That is nice, you are a guardian..right? ..can you please give me examples of the actions that might compromise the foundation's future?

I know that know..but don't you think that any decision is taken with the consensus of the board members can seldom affect the foundation in a bad way?...--The Joke النكتة‎ 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Some examples of decisions that could compromise WMF's future include entering into disadvantageous contracts or partnerships that require us to give too much control to an external organization that may not share our interests. We could choose policies and practices that seem like a good idea, but that alienate the core community and cause it to fork or simply disappear.

And I do believe a decision taken by board consensus could be harmful: not out of malice, but sheer oversight. I've seen my role on the board this past term to be the person always pointing out what could go wrong, looking at new plans and initiatives and saying "wait, stop, what about *this* part?" (And now I wonder if my colleagues would agree with this characterization...) There need to be people who do that, to counterbalance and be a moderating influence on the people with grand ideas. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Change

Hi Kat,

What is the top 3 things you want to have changed in the current strategy of the foundation? Thanks, Effeietsanders 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Value

Hi Kat,

What kind of value do you add to the current set of boardmembers (In your case only reviewing the other boardmembers, not yourself :P ) in the area of Legal, Financial, Accounting etc expertise? Thanks,Effeietsanders 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser policy

What is your opinion of the privacy policy, particularly relating to checkusering of adminship candidates? Majorly (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Communication with communities

Smaller communities in my experience can have problem drawing attention of the Board to important community issues where Board input is really necessary. Do you recognise such needs are currently left unanswered, and what could change to let the Board process such requests?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Foundation Growth

The Wikimedia Foundation is growing at much faster rate now than ever before. We are trying to establish ourselves as a stable, mature, international non-profit organization. What type of organizational and management skills can you offer that will benefit the foundation?

Also, our advisory board (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board) is filled with experienced and competent professionals. The foundation can benefit greatly from their expertise and knowledge in various fields. Currently, their involvement in the foundation seems limited, how can you change the system to utilize their expertise? Do you think the advisory board should have more influence on decision-making? Vpatel 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

You used to describe yourself as: a libertarian, extropian, transhumanist, contrabassoonist (among other things). What roles do libertarianism, extropianism, transhumanism, and contrabassoonism play in your work for the Board (past and future) and for the Foundation?--Ragesoss 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much no role whatsoever, which is largely why I removed it from my user page. Well, I suppose that's not accurate; we all bring who we are into what we do. So I'll say that those labels do not factor in to what I do, but the outlook and general philosophy that leads me to hold them does.

I identify as libertarian because iI believe that central planning is often less efficient than people working on an individual basis and coordinating themselves, and that there should be minimal intervention by a central power to keep the basic requirements of a society going; what those basics are gets far too much into personal politics for this question. And the Wikimedia projects show an example of this philosophy in practice toward a successful end; it's got its lumps but on the whole I think it has made more progress than were there a formal editorial hierarchy determining how things go. (Jimbo said in a recent interview that you should read Hayek if you want to understand Wikipedia, and I think that's about right.)

I identify as transhumanist and extropian because I think it is moral and ethical to try to be better than we are, not to reject advances simply because they are "unnatural", that we can use technology for great advancement if we study it rather than fear it.

As for contrabassooning... well, I could say that as a musician I have a perspective on forms of content creation other than text, and an appreciation for what rich media can add to a reference work.... but really, contrabassoon is just admitting a bit of insanity. What else can you possibly say about playing a humongous instrument that looks like furniture and sounds like a foghorn? If I were really smart, I would have played the flute; those things fit in your purse. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious Picture Ban – Muhammed (Islam) versus Bahá'u'lláh (Baha'i)

Islam is a religion which don't want to see/show pictures or images of the founder Muhammed. Baha'i is a religion which don't want to see/show pictures of the founder Bahá'u'lláh. Wikipedia in most languages show respect for Islam and don't show Muhammed. But Wikipedia in most languages show a picture of Bahá'u'lláh. Wikipedia show more respect for the picture ban in islam than it show for the picture ban in Baha'i. What do you think is the cause for this and do you think that Wikipedia shall treat religions equal? Caspiax

I don't think this is relevant to my Board candidacy as it is not a matter for the Board to decide; it's up to the individual project communities. As a Foundation position, all projects should represent a neutral point of view, but there is a wide latitude of editorial judgment within that. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What are "free" works?

Hi Kat,

1. What is your opinion on the fact that the WMF has based its licensing policy on a definition of free cultural works that is not controlled by the WMF itself but by some external group? Doesn't that make it harder to adapt it, if that should ever become necessary?
2. How should, in your opinion, requests for clarifications from the community regarding said licensing policy and/or the definition of free cultural works or their impact on the Wikimedia projects be handled?

Hint on the trick question
The definition of free cultural works says that additionally, free works "must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above." The Empire state building is trademarked, and the image of the Polizeihauptmeister appears to be subject to personality rights. Now what?

3. Trick question: would you consider Image:Empire State Building3 Dec.2005.jpg or Image:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg "free" works? They are properly licensed CC-BY-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.5, respectively... (please look at the images before looking at the hint :-)

Cheers, Lupo 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A Hugh for you

Un fuerte abrazo amiga, a hugh for you. --ÁWá 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear mindspillage, you can see this page [1] and to answer for Calcarea Carbonica, a very good personality, is a remedy for you, my name is Pediaknowledge, I was talking with you. --ÁWá 14:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Amiga: sé que eres más inteligente que estos niños que se han apoderado de la Wiki, por desear trepar y tener el poder totalitario y absoluto.

• Mira este artículo que solo los tontos y bobos no conocen:

• "Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de pensamiento, de creencia y de religión; este derecho incluye la libertad de cambiar de religión o de creencia así como la libertad de manifestar su religión o su creencia, individual y colectivamente, tanto en público como en privado, por la enseñanza, la práctica, el culto y la observancia."

• (ARTÍCULO 18 DE LA DECLARACIÓN UNIVERSAL DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS, año de 1948.) --ÁWá 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is an article, after the second world war, written by inteligent people --ÁWá 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• So much young people doesn't know these inteligents words of wisdom. --ÁWá 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharing accounts

What is your opinion on family members/close friends using another person's Wiki account? Would you vouch not to allow other people use your account as <unnamed> board member did? MatthewFenton 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters location

From time to time there has been discussion about whether the Foundation's current headquarters in St. Petersburg, Florida, in the United States, is the best location for the office. Do you think that the Foundation should continue to be headquartered in and operate out of Florida, or would you support a move to another location? If you think a move is appropriate, where would you move the Foundation to, and why? Kelly Martin 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional?=

By nature and design, wiki communities are an amateur, unstable amalgam of widely differing perspectives and agendas. There is no individual or collective responsibility and no competence test for participation. Yet, the board of the ever-expanding and legally constituted foundation that runs one of the world’s top websites, needs to be highly professionally, highly competent, collectively coherent and responsible. It must have business savvy, and be willing to make hard-nosed and even unpopular decisions. In your opinion:

1. Is the current board, vision and structure fit for that purpose?
2. Are you? (Would you be a competent candidate for a board in any non-profit venture?)

(same asked of all candidates)--Doc glasgow 14:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Chapters

Taking into account the growing importance of Wikimedia chapters in furthering our common goals on the one hand and the impact the decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation have on the work (if not existence) of the Wikimedia Chapters on the other hand: What do you think about the idea of giving the chapters a formal say in WMF's decision making process? What do you think especially about a) letting the chapters appoint one or more board members (beside the ones elected by the community) and/or b) changing the WMF back to a membership organization (with the chapters as members)? Do you have any other ideas to achieve more checks and balances between Foundation and chapters? On top of that, would you care to elaborate on your vision about the current and future role of the Wikimedia chapters? Thanks in advance, Arne (akl) 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Project policy involvement

What are your views on board involvement in writing and implementing policy for the various projects, especially in controversial areas where it appears that community consensus will be difficult to establish, such as on the "attack sites" [2] and biography of living people (BLP) [3] issues? Cla68 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What if

What would you do/recommend when elected and faced with 40% budget deficit? Absolwent 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cash & users

We need money and people. We have lost users (for a while) after this event. Nobody expected it, but... the same was in 2006. Do you want to talk about money (with these wealthy guys) and what's your opinion about that event ;)? Przykuta 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews and Accredited reporters attending events

Wikinews may be one of the lesser-known projects, but we recently managed to get a contributor entry to the G8 conference. Efforts were made to get the Board involved in the drafting of a letter for the reporter's entry to the G8, but these received no response. As an involved party there is more about this issue on Eloquence's questions page [4]. What is your opinion on this, it is - I believe - an issue the board should take seriously. Those of us who contribute on Wikinews are ambitious enough to think that we can overtake the Wikipedia article count (although I may be retired before we manage it there are new news stories every day). As we really want to be able to do truly original reporting we need people who can "almost" say they represent us. Do you support this, and do you believe the board should have been involved for something as important as sending a reporter to the G8 conference? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)