Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions/Liam Wyatt

Liam Wyatt (Wittylama)

Please ask here your question to be answered by Liam, the moderators will pass the questions to the candidate and place the answers in this page.

1. Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)

   For the last year (December 2010 - December 2011) I have been on a Wikimedia Foundation Fellowship, specifically to coordinate and support the global Wikimedia Communities efforts in GLAM outreach. As such I have been working fulltime to promote the interests of the Wikimedia movement globally - both in terms of direct outreach (see my list of presentations http://www.wittylama.com/presentations/ ) as well as community development/capacity building when visiting with Chapters. I have worked directly (and often in-person) with members and executive of most Chapters as well as many non-Chapter groups (e.g. Japan). Now that my specifically global role has wrapped up, and now that I'm working for Creative Commons Australia (and studying for a Masters of IP Law), I expect that I'll be able to make real and considerable inroads in promoting the interests of Wikimedia Australia and free-culture locally.

2. Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)

   "Amical", as originally conceived, wanted to be a "Wikimedia Catalan" Chapter. That is: NOT Catalonia (the adminstrative region of Spain) but Catalan (the culture & language group which is spread across Spain, France. Andorra and some of Italy). Chapters are not, and should not be, to promote specific interest groups, however valid and important that group is. Chapters are administrative organisations that are built on geographically exclusive lines, matching the jurisdictions of Countries (or administrative states/regions within a country).

   If Amical wanted to be a "branch Chapter" or "sub-Chapter" of Wikimedia Spain that would be fantastic. [This is how Wikimedia New York or Wikimedia DC will probably work with some kind of Wikimedia USA, eventually.] Wikimedia Spain have been trying very hard for a long time to maintain friendly relations with Amical and many Catalonian Wikimedians are members of WM-ES (and some are members of both). Amical could even negotiate some proportion of the national budget or a quota of seats on the national Chapter Board, or whatever. But they should not be a Chapter, with the rights and responsibilities that that implies, if their setup is to promote a culture/laugnage. They CAN fit within one of the other proposed "affiliation models" https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models

   I should point out that I am very supportive of the projects that Amical have run. They are very good at running programs (for example working with a local radio station to have Catalan Wikipedia article improvement promotions, and with WikiLovesMonuments) and I even was invited to keynote their GLAM-Wiki conference in March last year. So, I support their being able to call themselves some sort of "Wikimedia affiliate organisation" and to apply for (potentially large) grants because they have proven their ability to be effective and trustworthy with the money. I just wish they would work WITH the Spanish Chapter rather than against it.

3. Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)

   I would refer first to my candidacy statement - where I make it very clear that I wish to see an increasing number of Chapters managing the annual fundraiser directly. In an ideal world I would like to see 100% of the money raised by the annual fundraiser go through the Chapters (including an as-yet-nonexistent Wikimedia USA). See the section "2. Chapter development": http://www.wittylama.com/2012/02/times-they-are-a-changin/

   The corollaries to this are:

   - that the Chapters need to be treated according to their capacity, so that there are several "tiers" or "models" which accord increasing levels of rights and responsibilities on Chapters as they grow in capacity. This does not mean that smaller/newer Chapters are less "good" or trustworthy, and does not mean that Chapters are "obliged" to become fundraisers, but represents the reality of different levels of capacity within our community.

   - Some countries will always raise more than they can justifiably spend, and some will always raise less than they need. This is perfectly normal and, as best as possible, we need to allocate budgets in a way that is agnostic to where the money was raised (hence we need some kind of global budget and global financial allocation review committee).

   - As the minimum standard for who should have the right to be directly involved in the fundraiser increases each year (as it should), it is likely that several Chapters that have done fundraising before might not be allowed - in the short term. What is more important is that there is a "roadmap for growth" that the Chapters can follow to eventually gain that right (and corresponding responsibilities) - if they want to do that.

   With regards to "why I believe" this, it's a long story! Anyone who's been following the recent fundraising discussions on Meta would have seen the arguments used by me and others: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination I will add that I've been involved in this debate for at least four years so I'm well aware of the historical context of the discussions (see, for example, my blogpost about fundraising from 2009 which makes broadly similar arguments to what I'm saying now: http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/fundraising-structure/ )

4. Answer to Question 4 (see above the questions)

   I have known all of the community chosen members of the WMF board for several years and would classify them as my friends, often before they were on the board. I've been out for drinks with SJ, Ting, Arne, Phoebe Jimmy and Kat (not all at once!) on several occasions, for example. With regards to the external appointees, I've been a guest of Bishahka in Mumbai and met up with Jan-Bart in Amaterdam. Stu and Matt, I know less well, but we would recognise each other in the street (for example) and have met at several Wikimanias. I would also call myself a friend of several former Board members including Michael Snow and Florence Devouard.

   I have known Erik and Sue for several years too - as a volunteer Wikimedian, as a former "WMF Fellow" and former Chapter executive member. Therefore, over the years I have worked with them in the three capacities of volunteer, employee and elected representative and maintained a good working relationship throughout, while still performing the duties of each different role. So, with both the WMF Board members as well as the WMF executive staff, I believe that I can bring both experiene and also a pre-existing reputation for being forthright in my opinion.

5. Answer to Question 5 (see above the questions)

   I am well known to the Board members of many Chapters not only from being involved on-wiki/email and through my former role as the Vice President of the Australian Chapter, but also through my work (both volunteer and WMF Fellow) promoting GLAM. In the last few years I have been to community meetups or formal meetings in several Chapter countries: Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, France, UK, India, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, USA-NY and USA-DC. I been the convener of several outreach conferences and internal meetings that have had Chapter executive attendees. For example, the recent "GLAMcamp Amsterdam" had attendees from 21 countries of which many were Chapter members and several were Chapter executives. Finally, I've also met with the local community in many "potential chapter" groups e.g. Korea, Japan, Singapore, as well as attended several broader chapter-related events (e.g. Chapter's Coference).

   I believe that my extensive, long term, and personal relationships with many Chapters mean that I am a "known quantity" with an established reputation and trust with many people across the movement. I believe that this is crucial to helping our movement solve some of the complex and "hot" debates we are currently facing.

6. Answer to Question 6 (see above the questions)

   Naturally I have spoken with, and answered questions from, many people from different Chapters about my candidacy for the WMF board. Apart from Wikimedia Australia, I am also a member of Wikimedia UK (I joined during the time when I was Wikipedian in Residence at the British Museum). However, I only asked the Australian Chapter to endorse/nominate me as it is my "home" Chapter.

7. Answer to Question 7 (see above the questions)

   Very :-)

   With regards to Chapter-WMF relations, I'm active on the Internal and Foundation-l lists. Obviously I'm also active on the cultural list (which occasionally moves into WMF-Chapter discussions as it pertains to GLAM). I have attended the last five Wikimanias as well as the 2009 and 2011 Berlin Chapter conferences (first time as the Australian Chapter representative with Brianna Laugher, second time in my Capacity as WMF GLAM fellow). I am, of course, also involved in the relevant discussions on Meta.

   Apart from these things, I've also visited with many Chapters (and local wikimeetups) around the world and also convened several international Wikimedia conferences (most recently GLAMcamp Amsterdam). These have been, to a greater or lesser degree of formality, about the future of the Wikimedia movement.

8. Answer to Question 8 (see above the questions)

   In my candidacy statement I propose four broad areas where I believe that changes should be made, and describe in detail some of the changes I suggest. These areas are: Board role, Chapter development, Community support, WMF human resources: http://www.wittylama.com/2012/02/times-they-are-a-changin/

   I'm not naive enough to expect that all of those ideas will magically get consensus if I happen to be nominated to the Board but, when seen as a package. they do at least give a good indication of the direction I would like the WMF to go in the next few years.

1. Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)

   Such sites, and the people who frequent them, are protected by the laws that allow freedom of speech (as is everyone else) BUT ALSO they are subject to the laws that protect against defamation and specifically against "hate speech" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech . If these sites [or, more specifically, the owners/admins] are inciting (implicitly or explicitly) prejudice against a protected individual then that is clearly illegal. "Protected individual" in this sense includes race and gender. Free Speech is certainly protected by law, but Hate Speech is NOT part of that protection.

2. Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)

   No.

3. Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)

   I have no problem with criticising Wikipedia, Wikimedia organisations, our policies or practices. However there is a significant difference when an individual is specifically targeted, especially anonymously online. This is far less likely to be genuine and productive criticism and far more likely to be a damaging personal attack bordering on libel (defamation).

   It should be reiterated that it is not the obligation of the Wikimedia Foundation (or the Chapters) to legally defend members of the community and the community must remember that they are personally responsible for their actions (specifically with regards to Copyright violations). This is an important distinction for the WMF to retain their position as a "safe harbour" under the DMCA. HOWEVER, if a Wikimedian is the subject of Hate Speech (as it is defined in law) this is independent of their participation as a Wikimedian. As such, I believe the WMF has a moral obligation to support (legally, if necessary) community members against Hate Speech attacks, and that this support will not affect the WMF's position under the DMCA. It is the WMF's (and Chapters') obligation to support the volunteer community - and if that includes actively supporting them against Hate Speech then that's what it should do.

1. Answer to the question (see above the questions)

   I would refer to my work with the UK National Portrait Gallery in relation to the NPG-Wikimedia copyright dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute I was part of the negotiating team that met with the NPG staff during the dispute and have stayed in regular contact with them, both in-person and online, in order to maintain the relationship. I believe this has been a successful outcome because we have moved from a position of overt legal threats to a position where the status quo is acceptable to both parties. No one, on either side, would call it an ideal situation but it is one that all parties can live with. Personally speaking, I think it has been particularly successful as I have been able to gain and maintain the trust of both communities through having a cordial relationship with the NPG while at the same time steadfastly, but politely, defending Wikimedia's policies and principles. This trust enabled me to bring both groups together, publicly, at the "GLAM-WIKI:London" conference in December 2010 - see the Signpost report here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-12-06/GLAM-WIKI_London

1. Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)

   I am currently a member of Wikimedia Australia and also Wikimedia UK. When the Australian Chapter was first officially approved I was elected the inaugural Vice President, serving for two full terms. See "history of the committee" at http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Committee

2. Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)

   Members of the WMF Board of Trustees have a personal and legal fiduciary responsibility for the WMF. Furthermore, it should be reiterated that the Chapter appointed people on the WMF Board are not "representatives of" of the Chapters but "appointed by" them. Of course, as a matter of personal opinion, I believe that one of the best ways to strengthen the WMF is to strengthen the Chapters so I do not see WMF-Chapters as a zero-sum game. In such cases where there is a real conflict between the interests of the WMF and the interests of "my own" Chapter AND I have a direct personal investment (e.g. GLAM activities in Australia) then it would be appropriate for me to abstain from voting.

1. Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)

   I think the definition of "reasonable" is greatly dependent on the capacity of the organisation in question. For example, the reasonable level of accountability expected from the WMF should naturally be higher than the level expected from a newly-formed Chapter. As such, the specific documents/procedures/policies/etc. will be different. However, generally speaking, the level of accountability/transparency should generally be so that everyone can reasonably be expected to be able to find out who is doing what, why, for whom, when and how much it will cost. (I say "generally" because there are always exceptions to complete public transparency for things like staff contracts.)

2. Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)

   Being the largest, oldest and richest group within the Wikimedia movement, it is the WMF's role to be the role-model for behaviour that other groups should aspire to. It should also be actively assisting other groups to steadily reach higher levels of accountability. The Board of Trustees, as the ultimately accountable group of the WMF, must therefore be seen to be representing the highest standards of what accountability and transparency can be within our movement. This does not mean that they must be the "whipping boy" for anyone who wants to complain. But it does mean that they should be challenging themselves and the WMF to constantly review and expand their transparency and accountability practices.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   Number 1, far and away, needs to be that we focus on the "visual editor" a.k.a. the WYSIWYG project (and associated backend changes): https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Visual_editor After "keeping the servers running" this is the most important project that the WMF has right now in my opinion because, as I think 99% of us agree, it should not be required to learn MediaWiki markup to be able to contribute a footnote to Wikipedia.

   Secondly, it is my opinion that we do not need to actively go and "recruit" new editors - Wikimedians are a certain breed of people and they will automatically gravitate towards joining the projects anyway - but we DO need to actively "retain" those editors when they arrive. Therefore, and as with number 1 it is also in the technical area, I think focusing on improving the "curation tools" for existing Wikimedians will be of huge benefit to new user retention. With specific regard to Wikipedia, I'm referring to things like New Page Triage, Recent Change Patrol, Article Creation Wizard and improving the article deletion processes.... This should not mean dumbing-down the system or lowering our quality standards, but it does means that we need to help the existing community community to do their "backlog" jobs more efficiently and effectively. This is so we have more time and mental energy to assist new users rather than getting ourselves into a "siege mentality". New users and existing users should be able to spend their time focusing on the complex and challenging intellectual debates of writing out projects, not have to spend their time in technical processes which just frustrate everyone.

   Thirdly I would look towards the Wikiprojects - Wikipedia groups like "military history", "law" or "photography" (or their equivalents on sister projects like Commons or WikiSource). I think that groups of people who share a common interest in a subject are the best way of helping a new user to feel welcome and useful. We should identify technical tools, infrastructure and human support that the WMF and Chapters provide to these groups so that, in turn, they can become really effective teams to help acclimatise new users?

   I know you asked for three, but I'll give you a fourth for free... I think that Chapters could also run local support programs that are specific for new users. This would require some technical and programmatic coordination with the WMF to be able to contact (in a privacy-policy-compliant way) the newly joined Wikimedians in a particular geographic area to invite them to real-world events. These could be subject-specific if desired but the general purpose would be to build a sense of collegiality and community cohesiveness. As a community we've become reasonably adept at doing real-world activities to help recruit new users, but we've never really had any activities to specifically support the people who have already self-selected to start editing. THEY are the people we should really focus on.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   The measuring techniques that the WMF has already developed for tracking the "life cycle" of new editors are quite sophisticated. See, for example, the stats in the results of the October 2010 the "editor trends study": https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results The WMF is also investing in creating a proper analytics team and tracking tools that are both useful and compliant with our privacy policy. So, with these projects already in place, I think the measurement systems for quantitatively tracking new-user retention is actually quite good.

   That said, the WMF strategic plan doesn't only talk about increasing the number of editors (quantitative) but also has a goal to increase the quality of content. Other than the rating systems that the community manages already no new qualitative methods of measuring the projects have been proposed. I think that any focus on quantitative results should have an equal measure of qualitative analysis - no point in getting lots of new users and new content if the content is going to be deleted...

3. Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)

   There have been numerous surveys, trials and research investigations into this matter, most notably with the "2011 Summer of Research" program: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011 This has generated lots of clear data, and that's very important. I'm pleased the WMF is working on an evidence-based approach. However, no amount of quantitative analysis will give you a qualitative answer. We can draw inferences between graphs (e.g. the increased rate of talk-page templates vs. the the decline in new-user lifespan) but this will only give us a "proximate cause" rather than an "ultimate cause". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation With that in mind I would say that the WMF efforts have been very effective in identifying specific (proximate) causes - such as the language used in "huggle" talkpage templates. However, I don't think they are any closer to solving the broader (ultimate) causes because those causes have been known since day 1 - difficult technology and difficult policies. As an addendum, one stat that has been hugely informative for me is the fact that the decline is consistent across all languages which successfully helps rule out the "but the English Wikipedia is full" argument.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   In brief, my "position" on this issue is to reiterate my support for the principle of subsidiarity. That is, I would like to see the movement (and specifically the WMF) actively assisting local/national/regional groups to increase their capacity so they can successfully manage an increasing range of activities in a decentralised way. For some things (most notably MediaWiki development) there is limited advantage to decentralised management. However, for other things (such as fundraising, press-relations and culture/education sector outreach) there is great potential advantages to decentralised and local coordination. At the present time it is true that the WMF has greater capacity for these activities than many Chapters, so it makes sense that it should be playing a large role in their management in those countries. However, I believe that this work should be done in a way that is deliberately trying to build the capacity of the local community so that they can eventually take over control when they are capable.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   Obviously for a global community it is going to be difficult for many people to participate if only one language is used as a lingua franca, but on the other hand, if multiple languages are required for most activities that will greatly slow down the speed of operations (the European Commission is a good example...). I think it is a positive step that the WMF is now publishing its monthly and annual reports in several languages, so that's a good step that can be built upon.

   For active discussions, as opposed to reports, until we have successfully invented the BabelFish there will never be a completely satisfactory solution. However, three things we can do to assist in the mean time are:

   1. The WMF could begin to invest resources in monitoring a few targeted languages (e.g. French, Chinese, Arabic, German, Portuguese, Spanish) to ensure that as many as possible people have access to important discussions in their "mother or second language". This can also ensure that important issues from those language communities are made visible to the WMF in their daily work.

   2. Chapters who can claim reasonable representation of a language (e.g. Italy, Philippines) could include in their budgets (for annual grant or fundraising) dedicated support for ensuring key messages/documents between the WMF, Chapter and language community are translated and disseminated to the correct places in "their" language community.

3. 3. For major discussions/decisions, specific time should be allocated into the process to include consultation from non-English language groups - and that this must be obtained for consensus to be legitimate. (the recent "terms of service" update was a good example of this being attempted).

1. Answer to the question (see above the questions)

   I do not believe I have any conflicts of interest either in the election process or with the position of being a WMF trustee.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   This is indeed a very interesting situation, and one that is likely to be repeated in other countries. I said it to Hisham Mundol when he was announced as the India Program lead and I'll say it again: I am very much in favour of the WMF being pro-active in developing the capacity of the local community in different parts of the world rather than sitting back and waiting for Chapters to grow by themselves. What I am NOT in favour of is if the WMF starts to directly manage "local things" with the intention of perpetual centralised control. So, with India as the example, I am happy to see the WMF putting a real investment (in money and time but most importantly in organisational capacity) into the country because I hope that this investment will have the ultimate outcome of developing the professional capacity Indian Chapter. Then, the WMF team can steadily start handing over control of activities to it. I would be very unhappy if, because of the WMF team's existence, the Chapter was treated as merely a fan-club that could only apply for one-off grants.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   I am broadly in favour of the focus on the "global south" (specifically the target areas of India, Brazil and Middle East/North Africa [MENA]). It is a transparent choice that is drawn from the conclusions from the WMF Strategic Plan and it is the kind of decision that only an organisation with a worldwide-view can make. Therefore, I think it is a sensible and evidence-based strategy. However, I am nervous about the methods that are being used to execute that strategy. As mentioned above, I worry that the India project might have the result of centralising control rather than developing the local capacity. With MENA I am concerned that the contracted external organisations do not understand crowdsourcing culture and will simply do paid-translation projects. To be clear: I am not against the WMF investing real resources (people, time, money) in these, or other, countries. What I am hoping to see is that the majority of the effort goes into developing the organisational capacity of the movement locally - so that it is self-sustaining and empowered. This will be slower, yes. It will be messier, yes. It will be less efficient, yes. But in the long run it will be more effective!

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   The Wikimedia "movement", like any movement, is too broad and amorphous for any sub-group to be able to speak on its behalf in all circumstances. The Board of Trustees, and the WMF in general, should not make the mistake of pretending that they are the embodiment of the movement - the minute that they believe they "are" the movement is the moment that the movement ceases to exist. That said, the WMF Board of Trustees is as close as we will ever get to being a group that has the legitimate authority to make tough decisions that affect the whole movement. With regards to decisions like "approving a Chapter", yes, I believe they should have that right as they are the only elected authority and they can draw on the advice of the Chapters' Committee. I also believe that they, on the advice of the relevant staff or committees, should be the ones to be approving major Chapter fundraising or annual grants. This increases accountability and review.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   With regards to the FDC: Unlikely. There are people more qualified than me to on committees that are primarily financial/accounting in nature.

   With regards to the WCC: It is possible. Obviously the structure and role of this proposed Council is still unclear so it is not possible to give a definitive answer. Nevertheless, helping the coordination and capacity-development of the Chapters is something that I care a great deal about so it is something that I would be potentially interested in.

3. Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)

   The structure of the WMF Board of Trustees has been arranged so that there is a majority of seats that come from "community" sources, so I agree with that principle. I do also agree that there is great value in having a minority "appointed" seats for external experts. If we did not have those seats it would be very easy for us to get into a position of "groupthink" where we are not challenged in our assumptions. However, I DO think that there needs to be some regular changes in the people who are in the appointee seats. Being appointed once should not automatically mean being almost automatically re-appointed every two years until that person chooses to leave. Perhaps we should have a "maximum term" for all board members.