Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look
like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new
email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from
there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems
sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since
improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have
since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't
allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look
like in one year's time:
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I
am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
After a five year run, the Wikicite project has come to an end, it is a
success. To secure the accomplishments of the last five years, it is
vitally important to find a public for what comes next. The suggestion from
the Wikicite people is to support all Wikipedias . This is a great
suggestion because like Commons and Wikidata, it brings the same kind of
data together and finds benefits in collaboration.
While this gets in place, we can put Wikipedia editors first by providing a
representation of current science that is about a Wikipedia article that is
evaluated. I did describe how this will work in a blogpost . Today I
blogged about putting Wikipedia editors first  again but it comes with a
We have been collaborating with the Internet Archive for a long time, the
IA serves a vital role by ensuring that links to references remain
available through its projects. As it is, the IA has similar projects to
WikiCite. My suggestion is that we join hands, collaborate and have a
shared project that benefits both our audiences. For us it will
particularly be our Wikipedia editors and readers that benefit, it is
entirely reasonable to expect that it will improve the quality of our
projects as well.
What do you think?
Join the Research Team at the Wikimedia Foundation  for their monthly
Office hours this Tuesday, 2021-07-13, at 16:00-17:00 UTC (9am PT/6pm
To participate, join the video-call via this link . There is no set
agenda - feel free to add your item to the list of topics in the etherpad
 (You can do this after you join the meeting, too.), otherwise you are
welcome to also just hang out. More detailed information (e.g. about how to
attend) can be found here .
Through these office hours, we aim to make ourselves more available to
answer some of the research related questions that you as Wikimedia
volunteer editors, organizers, affiliates, staff, and researchers face in
your projects and initiatives. Some example cases we hope to be able to
support you in:
You have a specific research related question that you suspect you
should be able to answer with the publicly available data and you don’t
know how to find an answer for it, or you just need some more help with it.
For example, how can I compute the ratio of anonymous to registered editors
in my wiki?
You run into repetitive or very manual work as part of your Wikimedia
contributions and you wish to find out if there are ways to use machines to
improve your workflows. These types of conversations can sometimes be
harder to find an answer for during an office hour, however, discussing
them can help us understand your challenges better and we may find ways to
work with each other to support you in addressing it in the future.
You want to learn what the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation
does and how we can potentially support you. Specifically for affiliates:
if you are interested in building relationships with the academic
institutions in your country, we would love to talk with you and learn
more. We have a series of programs that aim to expand the network of
Wikimedia researchers globally and we would love to collaborate with those
of you interested more closely in this space.
You want to talk with us about one of our existing programs .
Hope to see many of you,
Martin on behalf of the WMF Research Team
I'd have been more impressed if the answer was that we are a global and
multilingual organisation, and there is a potentially huge overhead in
translating multiple questions and answers into assorted languages of the
Limiting the amount of translation by only translating for languages where
Wikimedians have requested it, and limiting the number of questions seems
to me a very practical response. But it puts enormous power into the hands
of the people who composite and choose the questions.
As for the candidates, if they baulk at a few hours of answering relevant
questions, do they have the time available to take on the role?
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 00:17:24 -0400
> From: Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q&A
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:18 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> > You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the
> > Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be
> > chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for
> > having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a
> > limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too
> > of your time.
> > Is this the right approach? If this is a time-consuming role, it doesn't
> seem entirely unreasonable that the selection process would also be a
> little bit time-consuming. I'm not saying the election needs to be an
> endurance marathon, but the election should reflect the job.
> Being able to decide which questions are worth answering and which are best
> ignored is an important skill. For that matter, so is being able to
> reframe questions to address the points that you think are important, as
> you have done here.
> It's important also for board candidates to be able to answer questions
> that aren't the ones that are curated for them. The Foundation is the
> board's main contact with the outside world, but it shouldn't be the only
> one, as the Community Affairs Committee is a proper acknowledgment of.
> Only listening to the people in the room with you leads to iceberg warnings
> that go unheeded, as we've seen enough of lately. Even the very wise
> cannot see all ends, and all that.
The 2021 Board of Trustees election *opens on 4 August 2021 and closes on
17 August 2021*.
Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a
three week long call for candidates, there are 20 candidates for the 2021
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of
community-and-affiliate trustees. The Board is expected to select the four
most voted candidates to serve as trustees.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia
Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve its competencies and
diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are
currently missing and hope to cover with new trustees.
How can you get involved? Learn more about candidates. Organize campaign
Read the full announcement: https://w.wiki/3c8L
Mervat Salman (She/Her)
Movement Strategy & Governance Facilitator
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the
questions selected by the Elections Committee <
from the broader Community-created list <
has not been well-chosen, on several grounds.
First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant
Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so
strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be
grounds for presumptive inclusion.
The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As a
role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it
seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be
answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions
in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA
candidates who answer well over 20, on average.
A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions on
the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones left
off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it is
also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from
individually seeking answers from candidates.
Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am
unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the
original Q&A talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given
for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list.
There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I
look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a