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

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

Please ask me questions here, new questions at the bottom. --Steve 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions

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 [1]. 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 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. Wikinews is an important project, and in many ways a quite remarkable one. That we now have the clout to send a reporter to a major international event such as the G8 Conference is really quite wonderful. Naturally, then, the problems you have outlined concern me - what, prey tell, was the outcome? Did you get a reporter to the conference or was the opportunity lost? I think that answers the first part of your question; yes, I support sending accredited reporters chosen by the community to newsworthy events wherever possible.

To answer the second part of your question, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation is entrusted with the good governance of the Foundation, including finance, planning, staff issues, and so on. Ordinarily, the Board is not involved in day to day administration: not only do we have staff to do this, we have our most important asset - the community. The Foundation wiki says it is not the role of Board members to "[interfere] in day-to-day operations, except in emergencies". That said, the impending failure to send a reporter to such an important world event would count as an emergency in my book. Wikinews:Accreditation policy isn't the clearest policy I've ever read, and after doing some a little reading through old mailing list discussions and so on, it's not exactly clear to me how it's intended to work. I do believe that this is an important issue and that somebody should have stepped in to help, whatever the process is meant to be.

Looking to the future, which is far more important, we clearly need to re-evaluate the accreditation scheme to ensure that trusted reporters chosen by the Wikinews community are able to receive their passes. It's not the role of the Board to micro-manage, but we certainly should take an interest in ensuring the process is in place and working and that the day to day administration is delegated to the proper person or persons. Finally, I have to wonder - per my private personal platform statement - whether Wikinews is one of our projects which would benefit from being independent. It's content is "organic" and to an extent transient, rather different from the majority of our sites which are reference works rather than news, and it would appear that being part of a larger project is bringing some unnecessary bureacracy. Please note that this is just food for thought at this stage, and an attempt to stimulate debate. I'm not actually proposing that you become independent, merely suggesting it as something your project might want to think about, and that the Foundation might want to consider as part of a wider-reaching strategy review/roadmap. --Kingboyk 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive response, and taking the time to look into our accreditation policy. The letter that I personally sent to our reporter is quoted on DragonFire1024's questions page. We got the guy in, but only got a couple of stories out of it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for replying to me. Good luck with your project! --Kingboyk 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images and other media

What are your opinions on the use of non-free images and media on Wikimedia Foundation projects? Should they be used at all, or disallowed completely? And what do you think about the 23 March board resolution on this issue? Is it sufficient, too much, or does not go far enough. Thanks. Zzyzx11 00:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the resolution gets it about right. Our business is free content (in beer and in speech), and the bottom line is that wherever possible we should be publishing and using freely licenced images and media. However, in my opinion there must be exceptions. Creating quality educational material has to be our top priority, and sometimes that necessitates the use of copyrighted images - quite legally and in my opinion quite morally too. The resolution reflects this. At this stage, I don't propose any change to the Foundation's licencing policy vis-a-vis images and media.

Wikipedia is now a top ten website, and that ought to bring with it some clout. Whilst in fact the resolution already says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals", I think it would be worthwhile for the Board to issue a press release on this and drum up some publicity targeted at PR agencies and copyright owners. I'm quite sure we have enough power to move at least some new press pack photos into free licences. Generally, press pack photos are high quality professional portraits, issued to the media free of charge as a way of promoting a person. There's no reason at all why such photographs should not be released under, say, a Creative Commons licence and, if they are, everybody benefits. More preferable of course is a user-created free image, and we're starting to see those in ever increasing numbers, although sometimes the quality leaves a lot to be desired. Hopefully this can only improve with time.

On the English Wikipedia, we have had a bot tag all non-free images with new, easily parseable template names. This makes it easier for downstream publishers to use our content devoid of any non-free images. If other projects haven't done the same, I would encourage them to do so.

In the interests of disclosure I should point out that I have been quite vocal in defending the use of certain non-free images, most specifically album covers, on the English Wikipedia. The policy says non-free images may "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". As an editor most active in the area of popular music, I consider album art to be irreplaceable and (in my sphere of interest) of huge importance. Whether or not they are within the narrow limits defined by the Foundation's policy is moot (as interpretation of Law always is); I contend that they are. I don't see this as particularly important to my Candidacy as, unless there's a sudden attempt to delete all album covers, I don't propose any changes to the media licencing policy right now. I think that just about answers your questions; if not, please let me know. --Kingboyk 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Impending failure

The Wikimedia Foundation at a corporate level is soaked in its own drama and if conditions don't improve soon, it will crash and burn. I want the newly elected trustees to act as catalystic mediators to simply and peacefully transform drama into productivity and then success for the foundation. How do you plan on doing this? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if you elect me to the Board that's exactly what you'll get. I believe my track record is one of quiet achievement and of consensus building, not least through my considerable involvement in WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. I'm not a Wikipedian for the politics, nor am I a careerist. I care deeply about our Project, and don't care much at all for drama.

All that said, it remains to be seen whether the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia will still be here in 10 or 20 years time, or whether we'll crash and burn. The latter is certainly a possibility; why pretend otherwise? We've come a long way and we've achieved a great deal, but our underlying model is in no way proven just yet. I'll do all I can to help the Foundation move forward and to ensure that we are here to stay, and I can't say much fairer than that.

For more specific commitments and concerns of mine (including comments on finance and fundraising), please refer to my private personal platform statement. If after reading that you have any more specific questions about how I would operate as a Board member please fire some more questions at me. Cheers. --Kingboyk 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Change

Hi Stephen,

What is the top 3 things you want to have changed in the current strategy of the foundation? Thanks, Effeietsanders 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the questions. I've outlined in some detail my thoughts at User:Kingboyk/2007 Board election/Personal statement. I think the top 3 strategic changes would have to be:

• Thinking bigger in terms of fundraising, and considering hiring somebody to manage our fundraising efforts.
• Encouraging our sub-projects to improve the quality of our articles instead of quantity.
• Becoming more pro-active in attracting editors and readers from outside Europe and North America.

In terms of strategic planning, I have advocated the creation of a roadmap for our future development. We need to outline where we are going and how we are going to get there; currently we seem to be drifting along with no real direction. --Kingboyk 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Value

Hi Stephen,

What kind of value do you add to the current set of boardmembers in the area of Legal, Financial, Accounting etc expertise? Thanks, Effeietsanders 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am competent in all of the above, but an expert in none. I have studied some English Law but I am a not a lawyer; I can read a balance sheet but I'm not an accountant; and I've sat on the Finance Committee of another large volunteer-run organisation. The Foundation employs a laywer and an accountant, and I'm perfectly capable of listening to their professional advice and acting on it. I do not accept any suggestion that every member of the Board should be a hot shot; we employ some excellent people and presumably pay them quite healthy wages, to advise the Board on just these issues :) Indeed, one of my strengths as a candidate is that I'm a regular, unaffected Wikipedian. --Kingboyk 20:29, 21 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 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Your questions are based on your preceding statement of opinion, which makes it difficult to answer them without seemingly accepting your opinion :) It is my position that this is a grassroots project which needs to be governed, as far as possible, by members of the community - the people who create the content and do all the important hard work. We have many competent and talented people within our Community who are ready and willing to serve (I'm one of them). Any competent board member should be capable of listening to and acting on professional advice, and that's most of us.

Talk, as others have, of "captains of industry" running Wikimedia is all very well, but these people became captains of industry by being ruthlessly selfish and it's unlikely they share our philosophical or egalitarian values. We are only a website; even if the Foundation were to die tommorow the content would live on. Therefore, I have to reject to an extent your assertion that our status as a top ten site suddenly makes it imperative that we are governed by professionals. We must retain our core values, we must choose the best people from within our community to represent us, and we must hire well. Indeed, there's way way too much focus on personalities around here (around the Foundation and projects in general). Let's concentrate on getting the job done.

1. I'm not a politician nor do I want to engage in negative campaigning, so I will merely ask the rhetorical question: did we get where we are today because of or despite the Board?
2. Yes. I would be a competent candidate for any non-profit venture. I am not, as I've said before, a professional nor an expert in corporate or non-profit governance, but I'm smart enough to do the job with the assistance of our hired professionals and my more experienced colleagues on the Board. It's a little curious that nobody has mentioned technical knowledge. That I have.

--Kingboyk 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ads, 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. How would you vote on the board about the foundation reducing or offsetting anthropogenic greenhouse gases, e.g. power used by hardware, flights, etc.?

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-21t14:00z

1. I reject categorically pop-up ads, Flash and large graphic adverts. They are obtrusive and unprofessional, and I'm quite sure their presence would alienate a number of readers and editors. Furthermore, the runaway success of Google AdWords proves that they're not necessary.

It does seem a little peculiar that there are so many Wikipedia mirrors who offer nothing offer than "our" content plus adverts, whilst we struggle for funding, and I'm certainly not shy in suggesting that we may have to be ad-supported some time too. I'd prefer it if we stayed ad-free, but if our financial situation warranted it my choice would be opt-out.

2. I've outlined my thoughts on our brand in some detail here. I am however not a marketing expert and would listen to the community feedback and professional advice before taking any decision.

3. I think hiring a business developer is a good move. Of course, this needs to be kept under review to ensure we are getting good value for money. I would prefer that we focussed on charitable donations and fundraising over commercial activities, however, and have proposed hiring somebody to manage that effort. Perhaps the two roles could be combined?

4. It's a wonderful idea that I support wholeheartedly in principle. However, it's doubtful we can afford it right now (I'll leave the debate about whether anybody can afford not to take action like this for another time). I do like the idea of a specific fundraiser to pay for going carbon neutral and would support that if it were felt to be practical. In summary, then, I would support this as a Board member only when it was financially prudent to do so. I suspect that would not be for a long time to come, unfortunately. --Kingboyk 16:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)