WMF Board of Trustees: A Fish Rots from the Head Down

[eagle]

There is a good article in this week's signpost about whether the two trustees elected by chapters (and thematic organizations) should be done on-wiki in a transparent manner. link

At first, the election was going to be done on meta-wiki, but then it was shifted to the chapter-wiki. What do you think?

[EricBarbour]

There is a good article in this week's signpost about whether the two trustees elected by chapters (and thematic organizations) should be done on-wiki in a transparent manner. link

At first, the election was going to be done on meta-wiki, but then it was shifted to the chapter-wiki. What do you think?

Frieda Brioschi from Italy will return to the board after a term in 2007–08

I wonder if, during their "secret" ballot, anyone remembered why Frieda left the Board in 2008?......
And what about this?

[TungstenCarbide]

... And what about this?

"You are not authorised to read this forum."

[Zoloft]

... And what about this?

"You are not authorised to read this forum."

Eric is having a brain bubble.

Try this instead: link

[Capsot]

Hi everyone,
Thanks (gràcies Tim!!) a lot for the warm welcome! I'll try to create a new thread about my "friends in high places" (actually I would get closer to what Garth Brooks sings... without the whisky...) as soon as I can, after checking the exact timeline of my "intimate" relations with the Chapters and the Foundation. I usually write too long comments so I'll try to be efficient then.
Otherwise, to comment what has recently happened with the "election" of the new members, suffice it too say, that the keyword of the Chapters related institutions is secrecy and opacity... they are some kind of black ops except that they are kind of totally independent from the Foundation and from the Wikipedias... They are the summum of the disfunctions of the Wikimedia world... I'll tell you what I know (which is actually a small part of what may happen there...) but will help you grasp, probably, a better vision of it.
Have a nice Sunday!
Claudi

[Hex]

Claudi!

[neved]

Isn't it nice, when one trustee writes bio of another trustee, and edits bio of another trustee.

[Poetlister]

Isn't it nice, when one trustee writes bio of another trustee, and edits bio of another trustee.

Highly dangerous - he might be considered an expert on them, and we can't have experts editing articles.

[thekohser]

Isn't it nice, when one trustee writes bio of another trustee, and edits bio of another trustee.

Slap {{COI}} tags on them, and let the misdeed be forever branded.

[neved]

A few days ago Mr. Wales had this to say about COI editing:
link

No, I have not changed my tune. I have long advocated for the best practice called the "Bright Line rule" which says that if you have a COI, you should generally not edit article space at all, and that any edits to talk pages should be accompanied by a clear disclosure of the conflict of interest. I still advocate for that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess a first question to ask is since when Mr. Wales has not changed his tune. Since before he edited his own bio or since after it.

Besides

• His trustee director is involved in COI editing
• His most senior arbitrator Newyorkbrad (T-C-L) is involved in COI editing
• A few of his senior administrators (Gwen Gale (T-C-L), Elonka (T-C-L), Jehochman (T-C-L) ) are involved in COI editing.

And those people users believe they have a right to judge me.
Really?

Mr. Ira Brad Matetsky, I also have a few articles
published in a scientific journal , and I wrote and edited Wikipedia articles on the same subjects, but never, Mr. Ira Brad Matetsky, I used a reference to my own work. It never even hit a back of my mind to do something like that. I offered to Wikipedia readers my pictures and my expertise but I have never offered them myself, as you did.

Really, "A Fish Rots from the Head Down".

[Triptych]

... Their page on the Wikimedia Foundation site: link

List of members as of June 2014:
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Phoebe Ayers
Stu West
Bishakha Datta
Jimmy Wales
Samuel Klein
Alice Wiegand
Patricio Lorente
Ana Toni
María Sefidari

It's all your fault. The lack of a serious child protection structure, unprotected BLPs, unfiltered porn, the complete unreliability of every article in the encyclopedia. You've swallowed Godwin's "We mustn't control the projects or we'll be liable for any harm they do." Well, board, you have control. That you do not exercise it is your choice, but that failure to act doesn't absolve you of a jot of responsibility. You are responsible for any harm the project does, and for its unreliability. How do you morally justify your complete abrogation of responsibility simply to immunise yourselves against possible damages claims? I'm pretty sure if Wikipedia's survival was challenged by such claims, our readership would ante up the necessaries to protect us.

Shame on you.

+1, basically.

I regret not coming to this thread sooner, and I've obviously got some good content yet to read.

[Triptych]

What Sj totally misses is that what he calls "targets of abuse" are mostly those who have abused others. Sj is utterly unconcerned about these people, the abused, because to him they are not important. They are easily dismissed as trolls, POV-pushers, malcontents, etc., whereas the people he is defending are the important people, the workers who make Wikipedia successful, in his view.

The fact is that the vast majority of abused Wikipedians don't come to Wikipediocracy, they simply disappear, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There could be millions of such. It's totally unclear how many of the registered editors that don't edit, i.e., the very large majority of them, do so because they found the environment less than congenial. Does the board want to know? Is it making any efforts to find out? Does the board have any measure of the damage that has been done by the ruling clique on Wikipedia?

Abd is right. This website is, and it says so in its mission statement, is a reaction to Wikipedia. It criticizes it. Those in its power structure that come under fire, sometimes personally? That doesn't happen because they're admirable people. Sj, who is Trustee Samuel Klein, and also to my surprise I see right now is Director of Outreach for OLPC, he doesn't understand Wikipediocracy participants' side of the equation. He doesn't see the harm the administrative culture does to contributors. Unequivocally, that culture is a cyberbully culture. That is what has evolved at Wikipedia. Oh it is true that in many swaths of Wikipedia, on innumerable developing articles, there are unmolested editors simply because they haven't been noticed enough to be molested yet.

Sj doesn't see the abused contributors. He's in the administrative bubble. Why wouldn't he stand up and say for example, when the Access to Non-Public Information policy was revised to allow personally-identifiable (checkuser etc.) information to be released to anonymous administrators, that that was the wrong way to go? Because those people getting checkusered on whim of some unaccountable entity called "Dord" or "Wizardman" don't matter to him.

Zoloft is right too. If Wikipediocracy is going to hold people accountable, to criticize and call them out, it is about time to turn our critical eyes upstream from the latest WP:AN/ANI or Arbcom atrocity of the day, and focus critically on what the Board has been doing.

[Kelly Martin]

I regret not coming to this thread sooner, and I've obviously got some good content yet to read.

So when you posted to this thread a month ago, that was someone else?

[Poetlister]

I regret not coming to this thread sooner, and I've obviously got some good content yet to read.

So when you posted to this thread a month ago, that was someone else?

The thread was started on 11th June and he didn't comment until 13th. He regrets the delay of two days.

[Triptych]

I regret not coming to this thread sooner, and I've obviously got some good content yet to read.

So when you posted to this thread a month ago, that was someone else?

The thread was started on 11th June and he didn't comment until 13th. He regrets the delay of two days.

I clicked on it momentarily, commented the Colonel Sanders bit without reading the thread generally, and forgot that part. Thanks for calling this important failing of mine to my attention, peanuts.

[eagle]

If Wikipediocracy is going to hold people accountable, to criticize and call them out, it is about time to turn our critical eyes upstream from the latest WP:AN/ANI or Arbcom atrocity of the day, and focus critically on what the Board has been doing.

There are two approaches. The first is to look at how and why the WMF Board picks its "Board Elected" slots. I include Mr. Wales in that category, because he remains on the Board at their sufferance. The second is to look at how effectively the Board sets policy and monitors the real problems confronting the WMF and the Community. A key aspect of that is when does the Board delegate to the Staff and to the Community.

We have already discussed the WMF Board's Skills Matrix that is used to "balance" the Board when it selects the "Board Elected" slots. link That thread suggests that too much emphasis is placed on "diversity". We have also discussed extensively the extent to which Mr. Wales contributes to the Board. For example, he promised to raise the Bitcoin issue with the full Board. link To date, the Board seems to have asked only two questions: how is the fundraising going and are people still visiting the websites? The Board has not addressed the toxic editing environment or the child protection issues or most of the other issues on the reform list that we assembled in response to Wil's question.

Quite properly, the Board has delegated many important issues to its staff, but has failed to follow up to see if the problems have been resolved correctly. On key issues such as discretionary spending and grant-making, the Board has delegated to the Fund Dissemination Committee (FDC) which in effect delegates it to the Community.

So, WO can set up a yardstick (perhaps represented by a gas gauge or thermometer) to rate the WMF Board on the following fronts:
1) How effective is the WMF Board in selecting "Board Elected" trustees including how well do they perform?
2) How effective is the WMF Board at articulating the real problems and setting goals for their solution?
3) How effective is the WMF Board at delegating to the staff and the Community and in following up on their progress?
Perhaps WO can conduct a quarterly poll of its participants and publish the average rating, just like the diving judges at the Summer Olympics. (A belly flop gets a 0.)

[Triptych]

So, WO can set up a yardstick (perhaps represented by a gas gauge or thermometer) to rate the WMF Board on the following fronts:
1) How effective is the WMF Board in selecting "Board Elected" trustees including how well do they perform?
2) How effective is the WMF Board at articulating the real problems and setting goals for their solution?
3) How effective is the WMF Board at delegating to the staff and the Community and in following up on their progress?
Perhaps WO can conduct a quarterly poll of its participants and publish the average rating, just like the diving judges at the Summer Olympics. (A belly flop gets a 0.)

Respectfully, but that's a lot of work, Eagle. I don't presume to know the right way of thinking myself, but I don't know how we're going to organize that stuff to give them a report card. I feel like Wikipediocracy is like a screwdriver, and it might be able to turn a screw here and there, but it's never going to be a space program.

[eagle]

I don't know how we're going to organize that stuff to give them a report card. I feel like Wikipediocracy is like a screwdriver, and it might be able to turn a screw here and there, but it's never going to be a space program.

If you think that we are too busy monitoring ANI and ARBCOM to follow Board Room battles, I would say "let's give it a try."

If you think that special polling software is required, I would say that the pilot could be executed on a single forum thread.

First, we agree on the categories/rating criteria. You might like the three questions in my last post, or we can come up with something different (I have no ego investment in this project.)

We open the thread with a statement of the criteria. People reply to the thread with ratings from 1 to 10:

Factor A: 7
Factor B: 3
Factor C: 2
And optionally add their reasons/observation on their WMF Board scoring.
I volunteer to then read through the thread, type the scores into a spreadsheet and post the mean scores. Perhaps the results would be worthy of a blog post.

The exercise would be a waste of time if people did not take the task seriously. However, I firmly believe that the WMF Board owes a duty of prudence and professionalism to the WMF stakeholders. The rating process will reinforce the message that the WMF Board is being watched, and that people should track their accomplishments and effectiveness. Repeating the process over time will give a rough sense of whether the WMF Board is improving or declining.

This is just a concept, and if we don't get buy-in, we can forget the whole thing.

[HRIP7]

This is just a concept, and if we don't get buy-in, we can forget the whole thing.

I like the idea in principle.

[Anthonyhcole]

Minutes of the 21 November 2014 board meeting. Start 9:00am, close 2:40pm.

November 21, 2014
Location: San Francisco, CA
Board of Trustees Present: Jan-Bart de Vreede (Board Chair), Patricio Lorente (Vice-Chair, present for a portion of the meeting), Phoebe Ayers, Frieda Brioschi, Bishakha Datta, Sam Klein, Maria Sefidari (present for a portion of the meeting), Jimmy Wales (present for a portion of the meeting via web conference), Stu West, and Alice Wiegand
Non-Board members present for most of the meeting: Lila Tretikov (Executive Director), Geoff Brigham (Secretary and General Counsel), Stephen LaPorte (Legal Counsel)
Non-Board members present for portions of the meeting: Lisa Seitz Gruwell (Chief Revenue Officer)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM on November 21, 2014 and confirmed that a quorum was present. Jan-Bart, Patricio, Phoebe, Frieda, Bishakha, Sam, Maria, Stu, and Alice were in attendance. Lila, Geoff, and Stephen were also present.

Executive session
The Board held a confidential session at the start of the meeting. Lila was excused Geoff and Stephen stepped out after the session's introduction, and no staff members were present for the remainder of this portion of the meeting.

Housekeeping
Lila, Geoff, and Stephen returned for this portion of the meeting.

Board minutes
The Board considered a vote to approve the minutes from the October 2014 online meeting. Sam made a motion, seconded by Jan-Bart, to approve the minutes, and the Board unanimously approved the vote.

Board Handbook Update
Stephen reviewed updates to the Board Handbook from the previous quarter.

Operational Updates
Lila presented a general update on the WMF's activity since the August 2014 meeting. (Lisa joined at this point in the meeting.)

Lila's presentation began with a review of the editor and page view trends on Wikipedia. Next, Lila reviewed the changes in the online environment that surrounds the Wikimedia projects, including mobile usage, social media, and machine-readable data. The Wikimedia projects are following the general trend on mobile usage, but need development in other areas, such as social media features and machine learning expertise. The next steps should be to improve Wikipedia by focusing on its strengths, recognition, reach, and trust.

Lila discussed areas that the Wikimedia Foundation should address, such as the social complexity for new contributors on Wikipedia, the way Wikipedia content is actively used on other platforms, and the need for thought leadership on user rights, privacy, and accessibility.

At this point in the meeting, Jimmy joined via web conference.

Lila discussed the need to experiment quickly with incremental changes. This may require new technology and better forms of community interaction. Lila discussed her plans for the next quarter, including continuing strong legal work, improving product, developing less reactive communications responses, and rebalancing grantmaking towards specific goals. A few areas may require significant work, such as building a team for engineering, developing partnerships with others who reuse Wikimedia content, and creating a strategy to support Wikimedia's communities of readers and contributors. The top priority will be developing a strategy and clarifying the metrics for the organization's operations.

The Board discussed these points with Lila, including branding and the WMF's relationship with users. At the conclusion of this topic, Patricio and Maria left for the remainder of the meeting.

Executive Update from Fundraising
Lisa began her presentation with a history of the Wikimedia fundraising campaigns. Lisa reviewed the revenue from major countries, including a comparison of revenue performance in top countries based on GDP and traffic. Lisa also reviewed the Wikimedia Foundation's other sources of revenue, including individual donations in response to emails, donations from other organizations, and donations received through donor advised funds. A growing number of donations come through Wikipedia's mobile sites, but the dollar value of those donations are lower than desktop donations.

Lisa described the factors that influence the success of a fundraising campaign, including traffic trends by region and donation volume by region, persuasiveness of the message, effectiveness of the payment methods, length of the campaign, technical and strategic ability to play effectively in the mobile space, and geographic focus of the campaign. Lisa discussed the changes that the fundraising team observed during the last year, including a decrease in page views in North America and Europe.

Lisa outlined the upcoming priorities for the fundraising team, including an increased focus on partnerships with those who reuse Wikimedia content, more emphasis on mobile, experimentation with more visible campaigns, and expansion of the methods of payment processing. Lisa presented specific examples of fundraising campaigns from this past year.

The Board asked questions about mobile payment options, tax benefits for donations such as UK Gift Aid, and successful approaches in previous fundraising campaigns. Board members asked Lila and Lisa to consider and evaluate ways to raise additional revenue to increase the reserve for future needs of the organization and movement, including the possibility of adjustments in fundraising methods as appropriate. The Board thanked Lisa for her presentation.

At the conclusion of this portion of the meeting, Lisa was excused for the remainder of the meeting.

Legal presentation
As General Counsel, Geoff reviewed litigation and other legal issues with the Board. This presentation was presented confidentially under the attorney-client privilege. The Board thanked Geoff for the presentation.
Conclusion

The Board held a brief discussion reviewing the meeting and the preceding two-day retreat. The meeting closed at 2:40 PM.

Lila discussed areas that the Wikimedia Foundation should address, such as the social complexity for new contributors on Wikipedia, the way Wikipedia content is actively used on other platforms, and the need for thought leadership on user rights, privacy, and accessibility.

Thought leader (T-H-L)

[Hex]

developing less reactive communications responses

???

Perhaps "reactive" is WMF-ese for "defensive", or possibly "knee-jerk".

[DanMurphy]

developing less reactive communications responses

???

Perhaps "reactive" is WMF-ese for "defensive", or possibly "knee-jerk".

You wouldn't expect them to admit in public that they sent forth incompetents to treat customers like dirt.

But this seems clear enough:

A few areas may require significant work, such as building a team for engineering.

Oh, and:

The top priority will be developing a strategy and clarifying the metrics for the organization's operations.

That's right, kids. Sue Gardner left behind an organization without a strategy or any concrete measures for success or failure. You kind of have to tip your cap at how many years she was able to get away with it.

[Vigilant]

It's this kind of statement that makes me certain herr Mole:man is doomed.
He was in charge of building an engineering team and measuring their progress.

They were running open loop for soooooooooooooo long.

Point by point analysis into plain English.

A few areas may require significant work, such as:
* building a team for engineering

Their engineering teams suck balls. Here's a direct admission of it.

* developing partnerships with others who reuse Wikimedia content

Google is scraping our site and we're making ZERO money while they do take it all.

* and creating a strategy to support Wikimedia's communities of readers and contributors.

We treat the community like shit.

* The top priority will be developing a strategy and clarifying the metrics for the organization's operations.

We have no idea what the fuck anyone is working on or when it will be done, if ever, and if it is actually finished, if anyone wants or will even accept it.



That's a terrible truth to have to tell to the BoD.

[EricBarbour]

That's right, kids. Sue Gardner left behind an organization without a strategy or any concrete measures for success or failure. You kind of have to tip your cap at how many years she was able to get away with it.

All she left behind was tens of millions of dollars of donations, which apparently makes up for all their other stupidities.

"Money makes you smart and competent!"

(/sarcasm)

[Poetlister]

"Reactive" might be the opposite of "pro-active". I suspect though that the real meaning is "angrily reactive".

[Vigilant]

"Reactive" might be the opposite of "pro-active". I suspect though that the real meaning is "angrily reactive".

What they're trying to say is that they should get in front of the ball instead of letting shit spiral out of control into mountains of rage and drama before they try to step in.

ObVisualEdsel, superProtect, Flow, now SanFranBans

[Peryglus]

ObVisualEdsel, superProtect, Flow, now SanFranBans

ObVisualEdsel means Visual Editor, right?
And how are we officially spelling this nickname for WMF Global bans - San Fran Bans or SanFranBans? (I would prefer the latter.)

[Randy from Boise]

ObVisualEdsel, superProtect, Flow, now SanFranBans

ObVisualEdsel means Visual Editor, right?
And how are we officially spelling this nickname for WMF Global bans - San Fran Bans or SanFranBans? (I would prefer the latter.)

I'm good with that.

t

[Notvelty]

ObVisualEdsel, superProtect, Flow, now SanFranBans

ObVisualEdsel means Visual Editor, right?
And how are we officially spelling this nickname for WMF Global bans - San Fran Bans or SanFranBans? (I would prefer the latter.)

I'm good with that.

t

I'd prefer something with a lowercase "b" for ban.

[Hex]

suggested template image.jpg

[Zoloft]

suggested template image.jpg

Oooh that's niiiice!

[EricBarbour]

Just needs a loaf of sourdough bread to complete the image.

[thekohser]

User:Southpark (T-C-L) has written a lengthy blog post about the WMF board.

His #1 recommendation for improvement is to oust Jimbo.

[Zoloft]

User:Southpark (T-C-L) has written a lengthy blog post about the WMF board.

His #1 recommendation for improvement is to oust Jimbo.

Although a lot of that post could be summed up as "I don't know what to do or why."

[EricBarbour]

(1) Abolish Jimbo
(2) Maybe change the appointment process (although I don't know enough about it to really say so)
(3) Maybe change the election processes (but this is a matter of details and finetuning and could easily backfire)
(4) Create a lot more ways and positions for volunteers to have responsibility inside the movement / create a tenure track.

He's got the right idea, but it will never happen.

[thekohser]

Why did that one lady (Kat something) fail in her reelection bid? I thought she was fairly popular in wikicircles...?

Kat "Mindspillage" Walsh. She came in 6th in a race for 3 board seats. She was the chairperson for the twelve months leading up to the election. If I do the math, that tells me that the electorate wasn't impressed with her leadership of the board for those 12 months. (Keep in mind this was approximately the same time that the board seemed to be floundering about, looking for a replacement for Sue Gardner, while Visual Editor was in the early fail stages.)

Kat Walsh has taken a board position with Free Software Foundation. I'm not sure if Stallman is now bathing more regularly, nor if Benjamin Mako Hill is evading any lawsuits from crazed business people angered by how Wikipedia portrays them, but they will be among her "crew mates", as it were.

[Hex]

Guy Kawasaki (T-H-L) has joined the WMF's Board of Trustees. He has made a handful of edits to his own BLP as GKawasaki (T-C-L).

[thekohser]

Guy Kawasaki (T-H-L) has joined the WMF's Board of Trustees. He has made a handful of edits to his own BLP as GKawasaki (T-C-L).

Hat tip to Sparkzilla.

[Hex]

Hat tip to Sparkzilla.

Ah, in News and Media. Worth a merge in here?

[Vigilant]

You guys NEED to read the answers that the BoT candidates are giving to pretty softball questions.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... /Questions

Particularly, the Flow question's answers are a fractal disaster.

[Hex]

I ave not studied this issue and am therefore of course not prepared to give an judegemental answer one way or tghe other.. If I am elected to the Board I will certainly wish to look into it - as I will wish to be assured of the value and relevance of all major expenditures undertaken.--Smerus (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[Moral Hazard]

I ave not studied this issue and am therefore of course not prepared to give an judegemental answer one way or tghe other.. If I am elected to the Board I will certainly wish to look into it - as I will wish to be assured of the value and relevance of all major expenditures undertaken.--Smerus (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This year's candidate pool is overwhelmed with the inarticulate and ill informed.

The intensity of the stupidity is amazing.

[Poetlister]

I have had many encounters with Smerus; he is intelligent and mature, and thinks carefully before he says anything. Therefore he doesn't stand a chance.

[Vigilant]

As far as I can tell, none of the candidates have more than the faintest idea what the WMF has been doing for the last 5 years.
As a member of the board of trustees in any reasonable non-profit, you'd be expected to have some familiarity with the organization you're applying to.

It's gonna be sad great!

[Randy from Boise]

As far as I can tell, none of the candidates have more than the faintest idea what the WMF has been doing for the last 5 years.
As a member of the board of trustees in any reasonable non-profit, you'd be expected to have some familiarity with the organization you're applying to.

It's gonna be sad great!

Since three of the candidates are running for re-election, I reckon we can dismiss this comment as either hyperbole or silliness.

Short answer: they haven't been doing much.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Although it surprises me to be saying this, in addition to Pete Forsyth and myself, I urge people to vote for Doc James Heilman as the best available oversightery reformerish third candidate for the three community seats on the WMF Board of Trustees.

The candidate Questions and Answers remain here: linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... /Questions[/link]

RfB

[EricBarbour]

Although it surprises me to be saying this, in addition to Pete Forsyth and myself, I urge people to vote for Doc James Heilman as the best available oversightery reformerish third candidate for the three community seats on the WMF Board of Trustees.

And Hasten The Day!

[Randy from Boise]

Pete Forsyth dropped out at the 11th hour, right ahead of voting, which bums me mightily. Last person in and first person out...

In a blog post he has endorsed Denny Vrandečić and Dariusz Jemielniak.

linkhttp://wikistrategies.net/board-election-update/[/link]

tim

[thekohser]

Pete Forsyth dropped out at the 11th hour, right ahead of voting, which bums me mightily. Last person in and first person out...

In a blog post he has endorsed Denny Vrandečić and Dariusz Jemielniak.

linkhttp://wikistrategies.net/board-election-update/[/link]

tim

Tim, I'm sorry to hear that you backed a quitter.

[Vigilant]

I'm very happy to see that, in full Bull Durham style, Petey-boy has been practicing his Jimmy clichés.

I am very happy to report that these issues have indeed received strong and thoughtful attention from many candidates.