User:Llywrch/2021 Foundation Elections

The number of people running (or for you Brits, standing) for a seat on the Board of Trustees this time around is 19. Normally I would not give this election much thought, but so much time has passed since the last election, I have spent some time seriously thinking whom I would vote for. And my home project, en.wikipedia, has a tradition of Voter Guides to their ArbCom elections. Hence this page detailing the reasoning for my votes.

Prolegomena

My aim was to rank the candidates, from first choice to 19th. In doing so, I considered two things: the quality of their answers; & their experience with Wikimedia activities. I also took into consideration how many questions each failed to answer: I've had to answer questions from the community in my unsuccessful run for the en.wikipedia ArbCom, so I know how hard it can be to answer a diverse set of questions. Nevertheless, any question posed sincerely deserves an answer, & failing to answer all the questions selected & presented suggests the candidate is not truly serious. Fortunately, only 3 candidates failed to answer all 11 questions, & only in one case did this have a serious effect on my ratings. One thing I did not take into consideration was balance for diversity sake, although I find my top 4 choices are geographically diverse. This is an issue that could be solved by appointing an academic or cultural advocate from the Global South to one of the non-community posts, instead of the usual pool of Silicon Valley personages. (Here I'll point out that there is a large pool of academics from Afghanistan in need of work; their viewpoints from both a country & a culture -- namely Islam -- underrepresented in the BoT, would help greatly address our diversity issues.)

By "quality of answers", I looked for specifics, which showed they actually have knowledge of the issue. I will explain by discussing two questions, numbers 1 & 8. The first question concerns increasing the number of volunteers for Wikimedia projects; it is widely known that the number of volunteers has either stabilized or been decreasing since 2007, depending on the analysis. Each candidate has presented tactics & strategies for increasing the number of volunteers, some of which are very thoughtful ones. However, not one has considered a factor that some (okay, yours truly) been pointing out for years, that the number of possible volunteers is finite. Not everyone wants to collect stamps or coins, or enjoys traveling, or other common hobbies. Likewise, not everyone is interested in editing Wikipedia, for example; writing a useful Wikipedia article is the equivalent of writing an undergraduate term paper, an activity few people enjoy. The goals of other projects are even more unusual. I point this out not to argue increasing the number of volunteers is impossible, but that it is something not one candidate bothered to consider, either to refute this opinion, or to perhaps include it in their strategies.

Anyone who has been active in the projects ought to know what the eighth question concerns, & know the specific cases it applies to. The first thing any informed Wikimedian who read that question would have thought of the conflicts between the Foundation & both the en.wikipedia & the de.wikipedia communities. The matter of Superprotect & FRAMBAN have led to much distrust between those volunteer communities & the Foundation. However, the matter is not so much that the Foundation overreached: there is also the matter of the Croatian Wikipedia where Neo-Nazi nationalists allegedly have seized control in violation of the principal Neutral point of view. So one cannot simply say that the Foundation should never intervene in the management of any project. Further, these incidents do not comprise all of the issues related to this question; there is also the matter of common carrier, a point of US law which is relevant because the Wikimedia servers are in the US. This matters because it requires any conduit of information that acts solely as a conduit is not responsible for its content. If the Foundation is too active in monitoring content or behavior, this may violate the rules regarding common carrier. In short, this is a very complex matter which any effective board member needs to be aware of. Yet not one of the candidates showed awareness of all of these issues.

My point in discussing these 2 questions is not to establish a litmus test. Anyone can express an opinion about any of these 11 questions -- & probably a better one than I could either furnish or agree with -- but that opinion is only empty words or the sound of cymbals unless one knows the incidents that engendered those questions. And specifics help convince me that they know what they are talking about.

My other criterion -- experience with Wikimedia activities -- may imply I endorse the current establishment, & want no change. That is not true. I think Wikimedia is in desperate need of changing; we have witnessed too many examples of bad judgment, at best. Yet electing someone to the Board of Trusties who does not understand the processes that the Wikimedia movement, or the individuals involved in it, will fail to effect any changes. Some who want to be on the Board while having good intentions, unfortunately exhibit any useful knowledge of how to effect those changes.

All of that said, here is my list. I have simplified it: I have only listed here the top six & the bottom four. I mention the top six because I believe they are the most qualified; I mention the bottom four as examples how not to present yourself for this position. The rest, in my judgment, are too similar in their strengths & weaknesses to merit individual mention. There is no point in saying that one of these is more qualified than another; in my judgment, they all failed to distinguish themselves as a candidate worth voting for -- but not critically.

The top six

1. Ashwin Baindur -- Not only did I find his answers to questions 4, 5, 6 & 11 showed he understood the issues, he also took the time to answer "community questions" which was not required, but demonstrates he wants to have a conversation with the communities. I will admit that I am hesitant about him, since a military career often results with a very circumscribed & unrealistic impression of the world, but since it was as a military engineer I am willing to give him benefit of the doubt.
2. Lorenzo Losa -- I found his answers to questions 6, 8, & 10 satisfactory. And he has been active in the Brazilian Wikimedia groups.
3. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight. She is one of two whom I recognized prior to this election, & I honestly expected to rate her higher. While her answers to questions 5 & 11 showed she understood those issues, I had serious qualms about her use of the jargon "takeaway". (Dislike of Jargon is one of the handicaps of having an education in the humanities.) I always see the use of jargon as a warning that that the person is not thinking enough about what they say; often jargon replaces familiar words that were frequently used before it came into circulation, & has the pernicious effect of changing how we think. Nonetheless, I found it detracted from an otherwise good & convincing answer to question 7.
4. Adam Wight -- On the negative side, he failed to answer 2 of the 11 approved questions, & used the jargon "crowd sourcing." Even more than "takeaway", this is a pernicious phrase. It denotes the concept that there is a group of people out there, fungible individuals whose individual identities are not important, & who are ready & willing to donate their time & energy to any project without compensation. In short, businesses can exploit them for profit without giving them money or even respect. It is a concept that is fatal to the health of the Wikimedia projects.
   On the positive side, I found his answers to questions 8 & 10 showed he understood those issues. And he did take the time to answer the community questions. So perhaps he, like many, do not understand the implications of "crowd sourcing", & can be excused for using it.
5. Darinsz Jemieluiak -- While I did not find any of his answers met my criteria, he did write a book about Wikipedia that was published by a respected academic press, has been involved in Wikimedia activities, & answered many of the community questions. These are good things.
6. Victoria Doronina -- Ordinarily having only one good answer to the 11 selected questions, & some involvement in Wikimedia activities, should not get one rated this high. However, this was enough to separate her from the other 10 candidates who either failed to distinguish themselves with their answers or activities. I guess what I'm looking for in a candidate for the Board is someone who is more qualified than me for that position: Doronina passes that test, if barely; the other 13 do not.

The bottom four

(in descending order)

1. Ravi Mohanty -- Here is an example of a bad answer to a question. Question 11 concerns the Foundation using funds for non-Wikimedia related causes. And there are situations where use of these funds outside the projects not only can be justified, but benefit all of us in the long run. However, Mohanty uses this as an excuse to discuss Global Warming, implying that the Foundation should use its finite monetary resources for this cause.
   I won't downplay the seriousness of Global Warming; it is an existential threat. However, the primary purpose of all Wikimedia projects concerns knowledge & information, to present information unencumbered of patents, fees, & other limitations all inhabitants of this world encounter. Humanity has many problems & threats that need to be dealt with, but Wikimedia's mission concerns only one small set of them. If we lose our focus, & chase after any of the other serious needs in the world -- not only Global Warming, but hunger, income inequality, & many more -- we will fail to make progress towards our dedicated cause.
   This is not to say that when given an opportunity to address one of these other issues -- say replace the existing servers with more efficient ones, thus using less energy & reducing the carbon footprint -- the Foundation should act accordingly, but their priority should be to spend any available funds on the goals, projects & its volunteers before spending them on other unrelated but deserving causes.
2. Reda Kerbouche -- Kerbouche answered the least questions of any candidate, & did not bother to answer any of the community questions. His involvement in Wikimedia activities is unsatisfactory. This implies he is not serious about becoming a Trustee. (I can only consider the facts I am given.)
3. Lionel Scheepmans -- Scheepmans did answer the community questions, & did provide a good answer to question 2 -- I agree that the Foundation has reached its optimum size, & there is no justification for adding more employees -- but time after time he displayed no detailed understanding of the issues the Wikimedia world is facing. In his answer to question 8 he indicates he has no knowledge of conflicts between communities & the Foundation -- which surprises me. To question 9, he claims not to understand the question -- although I doubt the French language lacks the words to explain the concept. And answering question 5 -- concerning the proposed Foundation renaming -- he claims to have given his opinion at the RfC, only to offer an unhelpful link. (It took me a couple of searches, but I finally found it here, which is a brief statement, with no supporting argument. He could have simply copied it to the answer page & not given us a link.) He lacks any Wikimedia experience; I could come up with better answers. I'm looking for someone who could do the job better than me, & Scheepmans fails to convince me he can.
4. Gerald Meijssen -- He is the other person I knew of before this election, & the only one I had formed any solid opinion about. I first encountered Meijssen a dozen years ago, & that online encounter left me with a bad opinion about him. Unfortunately, he has done nothing to redeem himself in my eyes. Most significantly, he has gotten himself subjected to moderation on the Foundation mailing list due to his intemperate language. It doesn't matter what he says or what he intends to do as a Board member: if elected, I doubt he would have any positive effect on either Foundation policy or Board decisions.