Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2007/Candidates/^demon/questions

Questions

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 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A: I believe that as the Wikimedia-related projects increase in use and popularity, expansion is a natural progression. If we were running 500 projects in 500 languages each, it would be unrealistic to believe that the current staff (both administrative and technical) could run it with any semblance of smoothness. However, the rate at which we expand as an organization must directly correlate in terms of proportion. In saying that, I mean if we need to expand, we need to do it at a rate which satisfies the needs of the projects, but without getting "too large too fast" if you will. As far as what positions those would be, I feel that would be a question to answer when--as it doesn't appear to be a matter of if, but when--that expansion must occur. From a management and logistical standpoint, I would see no issues with having interns, as it could be a marvelous learning experience for other young people to A) See how a non-profit organization is run, and B) Have a part in helping with what is quickly becoming (if it isn't already) the largest repository of free information to be found. ^demon 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional?

By nature and design, wiki communities are an amateur, unstable amalgam of widely differing perspectives and agendas. There is no individual or collective responsibility and no competence test for participation. Yet, the board of the ever-expanding and legally constituted foundation that runs one of the world’s top websites, needs to be highly professionally, highly competent, collectively coherent and responsible. It must have business savvy, and be willing to make hard-nosed and even unpopular decisions. In your opinion:

1. Is the current board, vision and structure fit for that purpose?
2. Are you? (Would you be a competent candidate for a board in any non-profit venture?)

(same asked of all candidates)--Doc glasgow 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser policy

What is your opinion of the privacy policy, particularly relating to checkusering of adminship candidates? Majorly (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A: I believe that privacy is something we all have a right to as human beings, even if we choose to edit a publicly accessible website such as Wikipedia. This is why from the beginning, we've never required the public disclosure of contributor's names. I believe the privacy policy does a good job with protecting the privacy of contributors to the Wikimedia Foundation projects. When it comes to CheckUser, I believe it is a very powerful tool that has a very important role to play in both curtailing vandalism eliminating sock puppetry and vote fraud. However, due to the concerns of privacy for each individual, I believe it is a system that needs to be used "only when necessary." For example--in a routine sock puppetry investigation on the English Wikipedia--if you have other solid evidence to link a case of sock puppets (be it editing style, similar account names, etc), then the CheckUser should be deemed as unnecessary. In regards to your last question, the running of CheckUser on individual adminship candidates, I believe this is an area we should tread lightly. The blanket statement that "all potential administrators must go through CheckUser" is an invasion of that privacy I mentioned above. However, if serious concerns are raised about the authenticity of an individual, and CheckUser would confirm or deny those concerns, it should be used, keeping in mind the principle of "only when necessary." ^demon 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Chapters

Taking into account the growing importance of Wikimedia chapters in furthering our common goals on the one hand and the impact the decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation have on the work (if not existence) of the Wikimedia Chapters on the other hand: What do you think about the idea of giving the chapters a formal say in WMF's decision making process? What do you think especially about a) letting the chapters appoint one or more board members (beside the ones elected by the community) and/or b) changing the WMF back to a membership organization (with the chapters as members)? Do you have any other ideas to achieve more checks and balances between Foundation and chapters? On top of that, would you care to elaborate on your vision about the current and future role of the Wikimedia chapters? Thanks in advance, Arne (akl) 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Project policy involvement

What are your views on board involvement in writing and implementing policy for the various projects, especially in controversial areas where it appears that community consensus will be difficult to establish, such as on the "attack sites" [1] and biography of living people (BLP) [2] issues? Cla68 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A: I believe that for the most part, individual projects and their respective communities should be allowed to form and revise their own policies as they see fit. That being said, there is both a time and place for Board intervention. While an intervention merely due to consensus deadlock is not something I directly approve of, in situations where there are potential legal ramifications is a time when the Board can most certainly step in, and in fact should step in if the community in question cannot formulate a policy that adheres to the legal system. Basically, in regards to the two situations you mentioned above, the Board should play a careful advisory role in establishing those policies, carefully soliciting the advice of the project they would affect. When the Foundation could be accused of libel because an anonymous contributor said "So-and-so sucks at life and I hate them," the Foundation very clearly has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the projects as a whole; if that means they need to write a policy to that effect, then by all means, they need to do so. ^demon 16:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot

You operate a bot, recently I saw your bot removing bullet points from articles (after a interwiki template was converted to a "box")... the issue was hotly disputed, and also at a TfD... yet you proceeded to have your bot non-consensually remove bullet points to allow the spam-box to function properly. You then closed the mother template as "no consensus - keep" several days later. Clearly external influences played a part in your decisions... how can you be trusted to operate as a member of the WMF board? MatthewFenton 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Could you provide links to this situation? I do not recall it directly, and I would hate to answer a question based off of misinformation or lack of understanding on my part. Thanks. ^demon 17:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ads, branding, business dev., GHGs.

1. On the board, will you vote for ads on Wikimedia sites?
   1. yes
      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. other
   2. maybe
      1. only for a huge amount of money
      2. only during budget emergencies
      3. only if editors support it
   3. never
   4. other
2. What are your thoughts on Wikimedia branding?
3. What are your thoughts on the foundation's hiring of a business developer?
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.?

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-19t18:18z

A1: I consider advertising on Wikimedia Foundation sites to be incompatible with our founding principle of a Neutral Point of View. Advertisements, by their very nature, are intended to present a specific viewpoint on a product, service or group of people. That viewpoint cannot be neutral, or they would cease to be an advertisement. Even symapthetic points of view, such as "Cancer Awareness" are not neutral, as they promote a cause. However, in the event of a funding emergency, only with the consent of the project they would affect, I would consider advertising a possible option for the Foundation. This is not a decision to be made lightly, though. ^demon 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A3: I hadn't previously read this discussion, but after looking into it, I see that it is a course of action that is entirely understandable and acceptable given that this is a quickly growing non-profit organization. I can see why it could be met with some reservations by the community at large, but provided the developer's suggestions are taken in an advisory role, I do not personally see how it would conflict with our mission of providing free content. As long as we're here pursuing that goal, I see no problems in expanding our expertise by bringing on marketing professionals who are designed to help us maintain a positive public image and increase our income, which can always be funded into new and exciting projects, consistent with our primary objective.

Note: My answer near the top about expanding the staff may be good additional reading on this subject

(Answers 2 and 4 forthcoming, I need more time to formulate my thoughts)

What if

What would you do/recommend when elected and faced with 40% budget deficit? Absolwent 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)