Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2007/Candidates/Kate/questions

Membership

Last December, the Wikimedia Foundation revised its bylaws to change itself from a membership organization to a non-membership organization. In a membership organization, the trustees are directly responsible to the membership; in a non-membership organization, the trustees are ultimately responsible only to one another (and indirectly to donors, who presumably will not donate if they feel the trustees are not being responsible). Do you feel that the Foundation, constituted as it is as a non-membership organization, provides sufficient structural checks and balances to ensure that the trustees observe their fiduciary responsibilities appropriately? Would a return to a membership structure, with the ability of members to bring policy proposals themselves at the annual meeting or by other methods, to remove board members by appropriate vote, and to sue the Foundation under certain conditions limit the ability of the Trustees to do what they need to do? If you do support a return to a membership structure, how would you determine who the voting members are? Kelly Martin 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I opposed the idea of membership when it was first introduced, and I do not think it should be reinstated. I understand the need to hold board members accountable for their actions. However, board members were elected to do a job, and should have the ability to do that job with mimimal hinderance.

Having said that, I think clearer channels are needed for communication between the board and the community. Often a board decision will be misinterpreted, or simply objectionable, and cause conflict that could have been avoided if there had been more discussion beforehand. The comcom should have a more prominant role in interaction with the community, and there should be a clear channel for the community to offer complaints and other feedback to the board, and for the board to respond.

I think the board's decision making process should be more transparent, and the community should be consulted before changes which affect them are implemented. Ultimately, however, the board should have the final decision in how the Foundation is run. Kate

Sister projects

You on your statement: (...)I will return the Foundation to its core purpose: publishing a user-editable encyclopedia on the Internet. I will support relocating or shutting down non-Wikipedia projects.

Because that affirmation is so much alike the parody User:Notacandidate from the last year election, please, elaborate on it. Why Wikimedia need to develop only a free encyclopedia? What are your impressions for the Wikimedia Commons? As a system administrator, the MediaWiki software need also to not more developed by the Wikimedia Foundation? 555 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't oppose the other projects because I think they have no value. I would expect that all of them could be transferred to other organisations who would be a lot more dedicated to them than the primarily Wikipedia-oriented Foundation is. For example, the "OmegaWiki" / "WiktionaryZ" / etc. people seem to have a much more appropriate model for running a free dictionary than we do - MediaWiki is quite unsuited to Wiktionary's needs, and the project has not been well thought out (many people believe it should be a single multi-lingual project, for example). Rather than divert the resources of the Foundation to solve these problems, we should seek to find them new homes where they can flourish.

I believe MediaWiki is primarily the software which runs Wikimedia projects, and I expect it to remain so in the future (since several core developers are employed by the Foundation). However, I don't think MediaWiki should be a Foundation project, and I don't think the Foundation should have control over it. I think the current MediaWiki model, where core development is aimed at Foundation projects, but reasonable effort is made to support other users, works well.

I oppose the idea of Commons as a general free repository of images or media. Again, such a thing is better served by other organisations. However, I think the idea of a free media repository specifically for our projects is probably useful. (However, it might be worth exploring partnerships with other organisations instead of duplicating their effort.)

Finally, the reason I think Wikipedia should be our only project: because "it's enough". I accept that a free dictionary, a collection of source documents, etc. are worthwhile goals. However, Wikipedia is already a pioneering project which has made a large impact, and will remain so for a long time. I believe it to be an important project, both because of the end result (a massive repository of free knowledge), but also because of the process - an example of how Internet collaboration can produce amazing results. To support these things, I think an organisation which is tightly focussed on the project is required. Splitting our limited resources over so many other projects detracts from Wikipedia, and from those projects, which are constantly overshadowed by Wikipedia.

I believe that separating the other projects will be beneficial for both them and for Wikipedia. Kate

Don't you think it will be hard to work constructively with the Board when all the existing Board members presumably support non-encyclopedia projects under the WMF umbrella? (Given the acceptance of the mission/vision statements) Don't you think the thousands of editors on the non-encyclopedia projects indicate that the Wikimedia community believes those projects are appropriate under the WMF umbrella? All the non-English Wikipedias are also overshadowed by English Wikipedia. Do you think WMF should limit itself to the English Wikipedia only? --pfctdayelise 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will prevent me from working with the other board members. Of course, I would oppose and argue against decisions I don't agree with, such as creating new projects. However, I think I'm quite capable of working with other people even when I disagree on some issues.

I think the fact that other projects have achieved some measure of success demonstrates that those are worthwhile projects, not necessarily that they are currently being run in the most suitable way. I think many of them would be much more successful, with thousands more contributors, elsewhere. Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation brand, and the MediaWiki software (made famous by Wikipedia) contributes some amount to their success, but I think the end result is negative.

I don't think non-English Wikipedias are distinct projects in way the other projects are. The end result and basic process is the same, regardless of what language the project is in, or what local policy differences exist. Kate

How many organizations you think there are that are willing to host the sister projects and provide the same support that Wikimedia is providing? and shouldn't you instead of saying MediaWiki isn't capable/suitable for maintaining other projects beside Wikipedia..that you analyse these said defects and try to fix them?

From which the contributers will come if another organization took a project? they won't appear from no where..I think Wikimedia is a front for free content and Wikipedia provides (may provide) the best promotion to the sister projects..how many organizations are willing to host that many languages?

MediaWiki should always be developed by the foundation to ensure that it satisfy the needs of the projects..not making a software then the foundation uses..the projects needs, the software fills..the other projects just needs time to develop, writing a book is harder than writing an article..harvesting public domain content takes time..anyway..good luck..

Yes, improving MediaWiki is certainly one option. However, this would be a strain on our (limited) resources, and the end result may be inferior.

For an example of a successful non-Wikimedia project, look at Wikitravel. It's certainly the sort of thing you could imagine the Foundation hosting; but it's a completely separate project, and yet it's just as successful as (or more successful than) some of our projects. I'm not at all sure that the Foundation brand affects a project's success that much.

I haven't looked in detail at what other organisations might adopt the projects. Of course we would need to do a lot of research before considering this.

And yes, of course projects take time to develop; Wikipedia didn't start out as successful as it is today. Could Wikibooks become as popular as Wikipedia, or even surpass it? Certainly. But the Foundation is hindering that development, not helping it. Kate

Recent editing

Is there a reason why you went on indefinite wikibreak on the English Wikipedia? Is this meta-wiki the only project to which you contribute currently? —METS501 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing the English Wikipedia mainly to devote more time to sysadmin/developer tasks, which I find more interesting than editing. (There are also many more editors than sysadmins :). I still edit sometimes, if I see something that needs changing. Yes, Meta is the only "project" on which I edit actively at the moment. Kate

Office evolution

In what way do you forsee the office (and staff) evolving under your tenure as a board member, should you be elected? i.e. would you be in favor of expansion, contraction, status quo, more interns, new positions, less, what?Swatjester 01:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, I support paying employees (whether full or part time) to do work requiring particular expertise (the Executive Director and the Grants Coordinator are good examples of this). I strongly believe in the need for a well-organised, coherent management and operational infrastructure, which should again be managed by experienced staff. (Not that I think we should have a lot of useless middle management; I think this could be achieved with a small number of employees, maybe one or two). Our current situation seems to have been a result of the board being indecisive about what role staff should play, and having no definite plans for expansion. Rather than have the board decide the details of how this should work, I would propose consulting with business experts.

I think the board should assume more of an oversight role itself, and delegate most of the actual work (such an implementation of resolutions) to the staff, while keeping the ability to intervene if it feels its intent is being misinterpreted. Board members should have a good vision of what direction the organisation should be heading in, what the community wants, and so on. However, the ability to manage the details of that vision is not, and should not be, a requirement of board members. Consequently, the board should not be trying to do these things.

I am less certain about expanding our quota of interns and other less experienced employees. In general, I think a better return on investment can be gotten from experienced professionals.

To fund these additional positions, I would advocate significantly expanding our funding strategies. I could forsee a job position somewhat between the grants coordinator and the business developer, whose job it would be to find funding from both charitable sources (such as grants and donations), and corporate interests. Of course, any corporate support would need to be done in a way that doesn't conflict with our goals.

Some people have talked about forming a separate, for-profit organisation which would participate in commercial ventures and donate its earnings back to the non-profict Foundation. I think this idea is definitely worth exploring, as it could perhaps generate a lot of revenue. Kate

Ads, branding, business dev., GHGs.

1. In what way will you vote for ads on Wikimedia sites?
   1. pop-ups/flash/banners/graphics
   2. flash/banners/graphics in skin whitespace or at bottom
   3. company logos in site notices
   4. prominent text ads
   5. company names in site notices
   6. text ads in skin whitespace or at bottom
   7. opt out
   8. opt in
   9. only for a huge amount of money
   10. only during budget emergencies
   11. only if more editors support it
   12. other

   I can't say how I would vote until more research has been done. I certainly think we should explore what we might gain (and lose) from advertisements. We can't make an informed decision on the matter until we have some data to work with. Dismissing the idea out of hand seems foolish and short-sighted to me.

   Regardless of that, however, the community's opinion on advertising is certainly very important, and should be taken into account. (Losing half our contributors because we added adverts is clearly a large loss!)

2. What are your thoughts on Wikimedia branding?

   I think the "Wikimedia" brand is weak compared to Wikipedia. Even companies we deal with frequently get our name wrong (e.g. "Wikipedia Foundation", or even "MediaWiki Foundation"). If we did transfer ownership of the non-Wikipedia projects to other organisations, I would support rebranding the Foundation as the Wikipedia Foundation.

   In case we don't, I would support keeping the existing brands. Althought I thought Erik's proposal of renaming them to "Wikipedia Sources" etc. had some merit, I think in the end these are distinct projects, and combining them all under the Wikipedia brand would merely confuse people.

3. What are your thoughts on the foundation's hiring of a business developer?

   As I wrote above, I support the idea of exploring corporate and business funding opportunities. However, I'm not sure "business developer" was the right role to create to achieve this purpose, particularly as an intern position. I think we need to consider our funding, both charitable and commercial, together, and decide what we need to do, before we start looking at business development. I think the ED should have been appointed first, and had a say in this decision, although I appreciate that with Danny's unexpected departure, the need was more urgent than we would have liked.

4. How would you vote on the board about the foundation reducing or offsetting anthropogenic greenhouse gases, e.g. power used by hardware, flights, etc.?

   I have no strong opinion on this matter. In general, though, I would opppose such changes if they cost us a non-trivial amount of resources (money, time or otherwise). I would be willing to change my opinion if someone could demonstrate a convincing case for it, but so far I haven't seen one. Kate

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-17t07:52z