2025 WMF Board reform petition/translatable

Dear Wikimedia Foundation and Board of Trustees,

My name is Hannah Clover. I have been an active Wikipedian for 7 years. In that time, I have made more than 35,000 edits, became an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and been the 2024 Wikimedian of the Year. Our goals as a movement – expanding open access to knowledge – is part of the very air I breathe. I’ve dedicated thousands of hours worth of volunteer labour to that end.

But my story isn’t by any means unique. Projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation function because countless people like me make it possible for them to do so. We’re the people that write articles, take photographs, create userscripts, revert vandalism, and pursue countless other activities that I could not even begin to summarize here. We care a lot about what we do and have valuable insights to share about that.

The recent removals of two candidates right before the election sparked a flame within me. I realized that I had never really been invested in these conversations before and I had a lot of questions. Why were there only six candidates (now four) for two positions? Why was there such a lack of transparency about why and how these decisions are made? So I did what I’m known for – I talked to people.

I’ve learned a lot these past few days because of that. One recurring theme was the lack of communication, which should be proactive instead of reactive. Editors should not have to demand answers. We realize that there are limits to what can be shared when it comes to confidential information but unnecessary secrecy leads to suspicion and distrust. This lack of communication only escalates existing tensions and furthers the disconnect in community-WMF relations. So imagine my surprise to learn that board members are not currently allowed to do this! This engagement should be encouraged and not suppressed.

Which leads into another concern – that candidates be strongly unified. This stifles the Board of Trustees from reflecting the true diversity of our movement. Something I heard time and time again was that people felt like they did not have a voice, did not feel accurately represented, and did not even have the choice to vote for someone that they feel would make things better. That these elections weren’t even elections at all.

Another recurring theme was that this was a result of the Board’s structure as a board-only organization. That change is limited because fiduciary duties conflict with the interests of our communities. While we may not be stakeholders on paper, our interests should be heard. A possible solution to this is exploring the possibility of becoming a membership based organization. I realize that this is a tough pitch to make here and that there are complicated dynamics involved in such a decision that I do not fully understand. However, this was a very popular idea. I think the community deserves serious consideration and analysis of the benefits and risks of changing to this membership model, especially since there hasn’t been a discussion like that in 20+ years.

At the very least, the Board should recognize that there are certain risks to being self-perpetuating in nature, involve the community in its decision-making as much as possible, and provide minimal interference in elections. Trust lays the foundation for mutual understanding and allows the Board to better serve our needs.

We, the undersigned, are concerned that the way the Board currently operates does not truly reflect our values as a movement. But that does not make us your enemies. We are concerned because we care enough to want to work together to identify how to best change the status quo. Please engage with us so we can make that happen. We all have our own stories and concerns and deserve to be heard.