Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

hmm....hould we consider merging this with WMF_Board_portal? their purpose seems similar. Maybe we can transclude one with the other as a template? Theo10011 (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that the purpose is similar (here is the place to leave notes for the board, there is the place to find information about the board). But if you have an idea how to make the best out of both, please try. --Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Should perhaps be merged to a "contact us" page with info on the OTRS queue, this doesn't seem used and I doubt board is looking at it (usual vicious circle). --Nemo 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand your idea. Indeed, the OTRS queue is not much used (and yes, still primarily it's spam) but it is not unused and it's not unseen. But does that proof anything? Alice Wiegand (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if this page could simply serve as the talk page for the WMF Board Portal? -- phoebe | talk 20:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion[edit]

I know that this is not exactly "on topic", but I want to take this opportunity to ask that while we're analyzing the termination of a mid-level employee for paid conflicts of interest, might we look at the numerous other questionable cases of money being transfered (or paid employees making undisclosed COI edits) in association with Wikipedia content, that have involved Wikimedia Foundation staff, trustees, or affiliates? Some recent examples, though not an exhaustive list:
  • Ting Chen, Jimmy Wales, and Rauan Kenzhekhanuly link
  • Amazon, Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikia link
  • Dr. Bertalan Meskó, who was told "In practice, there is no 'bright line rule'." Albeit, no direct link to WMF here, except that Meskó was never reprimanded for formally recommending to pharmaceutical companies that they hire paid Wikipedia editors. link
  • User:Wifione - Again, no direct link to WMF, but highly suspicious pro-corporate POV editing by an admin, never reprimanded for his misdeeds, other than Jimmy Wales saying "certainly very poor edits, and they certainly do not meet my expectations of what Admin editing behavior should be like". Wifione remains an administrator on Wikipedia. link
  • Europeana, Wiki Loves Monuments. Note how Jimmy Wales said, "I recommend that you... complain directly to the people involved...", suggesting that the WMF trustee wasn't interested in pursuing a reprimand of Europeana's COI employee editing. link
  • Hi @Thekohser — since I was heavily involed with Wiki Loves Monuments, I'll take the liberty to respond and clarify this matter for you. Wiki Loves Monuments has never been a Wikimedia Foundation project; it was always led by the community and organized by various national chapters; the only involvement from the WMF is that they supported WLM in matters of PR, and delegated a small team of engineers/programmers to work on a mobile app for Wiki Loves Monuments (and some smaller tasks, too), and awarded small grants to the various national chapters (and, last year, to the international facilitating team). If you see any COI editing done by Europeana, it should therefore be handled by the community and Europeana themselves, without involving the WMF. odder (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Erlend Bjørtvedt, Telenor, and Wikimedia Norway link
-Interesting side note on that one, when my name was mentioned to Jimmy Wales by another user, Wales said, "Let him know that if I see him, I'll call the police." Seems like criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation is a crime now, maybe?
  • Cooley LLP. When the WMF's lawfirm sent a cease-and-desist letter to a paid editing firm, a week later, it was discovered that Cooley LLP employees had been removing sourced negative content from their own Wikipedia article, for years. link and link
-- Thekohser (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Could the Wikimedia Foundation board please post a commitment to comply with the 1964 Civil Rights act that protects women from discrimination in employment by giving teeth to the community to punish harassers who go after female contributors' employment? Could the WMF also investigate whether Sue Gardner and Jimmy Wales violated Sarah's rights under the 1964 Civil Rights act by supporting harassment on the part of male contributors that ultimately led to her termination[?] The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArtistBettyAnne (talk • contribs) .
I doubt that the WMF board can pass a resolution that might make the organization liable to legal action. -- (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Fæ, we could pass a resolution strengthening our commitment to non-discrimination. That would not make us any more liable to legal action, afaics. However the WMF 's current non discrimination policy is quite broad and actively enforced: we strongly support diversity and empowerment across the gender spectrum. Our Board is 50% female; as is half of our executive team, including the ED. ArtistBA, I appreciate your concern, but it is not warranted. I removed part of your comment: please don't use the full names of staff who wished to leave the organization quietly, nor challenge the employment status of others. SJ talk  20:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Future of this Noticeboard[edit]

It will not have escaped the assisuous reader that engagement by members of the Board here has been at a rather low level. In a discussion on this topic, the Vice-Chair of the Board opined I honestly disagree that "additional effort" is an realistic opportunity. My personal opinion is that if something does not work the way you expect, it doesn't help just do do more of it. You need to do it differently to make a shift. [1]. If the Baord is currently unable or unwilling to engage further, and indeed sees this Board as not working the way we expect, perhaps the time has come to close it and consider other options for engagement between the Board and the Community -- "do it differently" -- bearing in mind, of course, that whatever replaces this page will not be able to claim more than the very small proportion of their time that the Board are currently able to devote to engagement here. Any suggestions? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be an accurate representation of the Board's attitude towards the community to simply replace the page with this. -- 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Has any Board member ever edited the page?!? EllenCT (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Certainly, and I'm pretty sure several read it regularly, even if they don't comment as often. Pundit, Doc James, and Raystorm have all participated in discussions on this board at times. Guy Macon did a poll two years ago to find out how many follow the page. --Yair rand (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank goodness! EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)