[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 Of course it's like that Ilario,sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons". 
and as person involved in the previous ASBS election I politely hinted that 
aspect as much as possible in the past. Also, sometimes even some chapters are 
mostly few key persons when relationship with WMF is involved, but it's easier 
to start from UGs to handle the issue.

i had some general idea of what you are supposed to facilitate if you want real 
transparency in these processes and I felt that was not fully there. Instead of 
building on previous know-how, the process was restarting again and that do not 
get great functionality in WMF, usually. It's like knowing for sure that these 
sort of mails would have happened at the end.

I had no time to look carefully, but that was kinda of a feeling and as a 
result, despite being a first contact and having a decent know-how, I decided 
not to engage the affiliate in the process. The affiliate I represent is small 
and fragmented and lacks a strong identity yet, I know for sure that getting to 
a meaningful ranking would have taken a lot of effort and in May and June I 
simply had no time. Or it would have resulted in me pushing my ideas in a way 
or another, and that was not correct. Like, many people are ns-0 users and 
don't now names, so they trust your side of the story.

So I decided to skip it. I was asked a contact for the first step and replied 
by mail that in May I had no time to even start a thread on meta about deciding 
whom to select (it would have been me, probably, but I did not feel it was 
correct). 

my choice was either focusing properly as a UG on the WIkisummit application or 
that, and I did at least properly the first one. I could have taken part in the 
process probably representing 90% myself, nobody would have noticed.
Alessandro

Il sabato 23 luglio 2022 17:59:01 CEST, Ilario Valdelli 
 ha scritto:  
 
 I think that there is a very sensible point here.
Sometimes behind some usergroups there is not a specific community but only few 
people and sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons".
Being more transparent helps to demonstrate that the whole process has been 
conducted appropriately but also to have an overview that affiliates have voted 
really on what their community proposed.
Kind regards

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 3:28 AM Gnangarra  wrote:


I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need to 
protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members, 

This is not some functionary volunteer role, nor is it a scholarship to attend 
some event. The affiliate and the members of the Board of Trustees are both 
very public facing aspects, when a person is on the Board of Trustees their 
identity is public https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ .  It is obvious 
that a truly  vulnerable person would not even put themselves into a BOT 
position.  It's important for members of the community to know who their 
affiliate chose to represent them because it's a reflection of that community.  
I know some affiliates actually didnt consult their communities for input into 
the decision process before the fact so knowing after the fact is at least 
pretending to be transparent in the voting.


On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 06:01, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

I don't think there's anything blithe in pointing out that an after-the-fact 
promise of secrecy serves no one.  Affiliates had to decide whether to vote 
without knowing whether the list would be published (but hopefully realizing 
that the username of their voter would be published, although I'm not sure if 
this was made clear).  The main effect of post-hoc secrecy here would be to sow 
confusion and set up unrealistic expectations about future votes; in the last 
affiliate-selected board seat process, not only was the list of voting 
affiliates published, but their individual votes were as well: 
,
 and for the reasons Lodewijk describes, we might well wish to return to such 
full transparency in the future.
If a decision either way had been made and communicated beforehand, affiliate 
voters could have made an informed decision, but as with most of the rules for 
this election, it was announced in the middle of the election, rather than in 
the many months before it.  In any event, I agree with SJ that this is a 
decision to be made by the elections committee, not WMF staff.


On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:45 PM Robert Fernandez  wrote:

I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need to 
protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members, especially 
in a community that usually prides itself on the ability to participate 
anonymously.
That said, perhaps we could publish the names of participating affiliates who 
affirm the wish to be named publicly. 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lis

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner

[WereSpielChequers]

Dear Andreus,

If you are going to compare that figure of over 5,000 editors who admit to
being paid editors to the hundreds of thousands figure for editors, you
might want to filter it a bit. I had a quick look at what you linked to and
found one account whose last edit was in 2017, and another who hasn't
edited since they were blocked in 2018. It would be interesting to know the
proportion of currently active English Wikipedia editors who disclose that
they've done paid editing, better still the proportion of edits that they
do.

Regards

WSC


On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 14:55, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner
>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>2. Re: Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner
>   (F. Xavier Dengra i Grau)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 14:16:22 +0100
> From: Andreas Kolbe 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco
> Examiner
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List ,
> miskan...@wikimedia.org,  jel...@sfexaminer.com
> Message-ID:
>  azrn34...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="75d2be05e478c23d"
>
> Dear Maryana, Jeff, and all,
>
> Allow me to raise a couple of points with respect to the interview
> published yesterday in the San Francisco Examiner, titled "What does the
> CEO who oversees Wikipedia do? We ask her."
>
>
> https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/what-does-the-ceo-who-oversees-wikipedia-do-we-ask-her/article_a7ab64fe-084d-11ed-830c-77f61ed96d7d.html
>
> I'll quote the relevant passages.
>
> 1. "[Q:] *You said there’s hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. So
> how many people get paid and are professional editors of Wikipedia?* [A:]
> Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people helping the rest of us
> make sure that we find information on the internet that is accurate and
> verified and cited and sourced. There are employees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation that provide support to these communities and volunteers, but
> the volunteers themselves are not paid staff."
>
> This is a good statement inasmuch as it makes clear that Wikipedia is
> written and curated by volunteers, countering the widespread but erroneous
> assumption that the WMF's paid staff plays an active role in this. On the
> other hand, that point had already been made, and given that this appears
> to have been a direct question about how many paid and professional editors
> of Wikipedia there are, the article would have benefited from a mention of
> the thousands of editors who *are* paid by individuals and organisations
> (other than the WMF). There are over 5,000 Wikipedia editors who openly
> disclose being paid:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns2=1&search=This+user%2C+in+accordance+with+the+Wikimedia+Foundation%27s+Terms+of+Use%2C+discloses+that+they+have+been+paid+by
>
> To these must be added an unknown number of additional paid editors who
> operate without disclosure, or use a different method of disclosure than
> the one searched for by this URL. Could this be added to the article, and
> mentioned in future interviews where this question is asked?
>
> 2. "[A:] ... We have roughly 600 people scattered across over 40 countries
> and every region of the world. ..."
>
> The article would have given a more accurate impression if it had mentioned
> that well over half of these are based in the US. Could this info be added,
> and included in future interviews?
>
> 3. "[Q:] *Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to
> give money? *[A:] They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in
> Wikipedia to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An
> enterprise that doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. I’m not
> incentivizing you to stay longer than you need to stay."
>
> The WMF has never asked for money to ensure that things "can remain" as
> they are, or to avoid having to put up ads. It has asked for money to
> enable exponential growth of the Wikimedia Foundation – whose salary costs
> have increased tenfold over the past decade[1] – and to accumulate vast
> reserves, which have increased by an even greater factor over that time
> period. Last year alone, the Foundation's assets and the Wikimedia
> Endowment together grew by about $90 million dollars, a surplus that is
> almost the equivalent of one full year's expenses.[2] Seen in this context,
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

[Ilario Valdelli]

I think that there is a very sensible point here.

Sometimes behind some usergroups there is not a specific community but only
few people and sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons".

Being more transparent helps to demonstrate that the whole process has been
conducted appropriately but also to have an overview that affiliates have
voted really on what their community proposed.

Kind regards

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 3:28 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need
>> to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members,
>
>
> This is not some functionary volunteer role, nor is it a scholarship to
> attend some event. The affiliate and the members of the Board of Trustees
> are both very public facing aspects, when a person is on the Board of
> Trustees their identity is public
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ .  It is obvious that a
> truly  vulnerable person would not even put themselves into a BOT
> position.  It's important for members of the community to know who their
> affiliate chose to represent them because it's a reflection of that
> community.  I know some affiliates actually didnt consult their communities
> for input into the decision process before the fact so knowing after the
> fact is at least pretending to be transparent in the voting.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 06:01, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
>> I don't think there's anything blithe in pointing out that an
>> after-the-fact promise of secrecy serves no one.  Affiliates had to decide
>> whether to vote without knowing whether the list would be published (but
>> hopefully realizing that the username of their voter would be published,
>> although I'm not sure if this was made clear).  The main effect of post-hoc
>> secrecy here would be to sow confusion and set up unrealistic expectations
>> about future votes; in the last affiliate-selected board seat process, not
>> only was the list of voting affiliates published, but *their individual
>> votes were as well*: <
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asbs_presentation_matches_with_stv_py_results.pdf>,
>> and for the reasons Lodewijk describes, we might well wish to return to
>> such full transparency in the future.
>>
>> If a decision either way had been made and communicated beforehand,
>> affiliate voters could have made an informed decision, but as with most of
>> the rules for this election, it was announced in the middle of the
>> election, rather than in the many months before it.  In any event, I agree
>> with SJ that this is a decision to be made by the elections committee, not
>> WMF staff.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:45 PM Robert Fernandez 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the
>>> need to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members,
>>> especially in a community that usually prides itself on the ability to
>>> participate anonymously.
>>>
>>> That said, perhaps we could publish the names of participating
>>> affiliates who affirm the wish to be named publicly.
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> Public archives at
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LNXPN2Z5TY35SJOV6MOLB7ASOQL57GGF/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DNDMKF4NKNDFEKC5FFHXWB24FISK4NCA/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/27TMCRTG33NLTXSSN4P5JZFVX7OEEIFS/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario 
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

Hi Andreas,

Even if I agree with you in most of your points, I completely disagree about 
asking others to try to amend with press editors the already published 
interviews. The fact that the public discourse from the WMF’s front line is 
imprecise is not new at all, but I don’t think that it will get solved by 
asking a newspaper to add community’s refinements over the statements from the 
CEO.

Let’s also be cautious with the number of 5000 paid editors. In my opinion they 
are a scourge of our editing communities, but if we need to talk knowledgeably 
about them, Wikipedia is not only its English version and we should really 
count them across all languages.

Best regards,

Xavier Dengra

Actiu ds, jul 23, 2022 a 15:16, Andreas Kolbe  va escriure:

> Dear Maryana, Jeff, and all,
>
> Allow me to raise a couple of points with respect to the interview published 
> yesterday in the San Francisco Examiner, titled "What does the CEO who 
> oversees Wikipedia do? We ask her."
>
> https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/what-does-the-ceo-who-oversees-wikipedia-do-we-ask-her/article_a7ab64fe-084d-11ed-830c-77f61ed96d7d.html
>
> I'll quote the relevant passages.
>
> 1. "[Q:] You said there’s hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. So how 
> many people get paid and are professional editors of Wikipedia? [A:] 
> Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people helping the rest of us make 
> sure that we find information on the internet that is accurate and verified 
> and cited and sourced. There are employees of the Wikimedia Foundation that 
> provide support to these communities and volunteers, but the volunteers 
> themselves are not paid staff."
>
> This is a good statement inasmuch as it makes clear that Wikipedia is written 
> and curated by volunteers, countering the widespread but erroneous assumption 
> that the WMF's paid staff plays an active role in this. On the other hand, 
> that point had already been made, and given that this appears to have been a 
> direct question about how many paid and professional editors of Wikipedia 
> there are, the article would have benefited from a mention of the thousands 
> of editors who are paid by individuals and organisations (other than the 
> WMF). There are over 5,000 Wikipedia editors who openly disclose being paid:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns2=1&search=This+user%2C+in+accordance+with+the+Wikimedia+Foundation%27s+Terms+of+Use%2C+discloses+that+they+have+been+paid+by
>
> To these must be added an unknown number of additional paid editors who 
> operate without disclosure, or use a different method of disclosure than the 
> one searched for by this URL. Could this be added to the article, and 
> mentioned in future interviews where this question is asked?
>
> 2. "[A:] ... We have roughly 600 people scattered across over 40 countries 
> and every region of the world. ..."
>
> The article would have given a more accurate impression if it had mentioned 
> that well over half of these are based in the US. Could this info be added, 
> and included in future interviews?
>
> 3. "[Q:] Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to give 
> money? [A:] They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in Wikipedia 
> to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An enterprise that 
> doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. I’m not incentivizing you to 
> stay longer than you need to stay."
>
> The WMF has never asked for money to ensure that things "can remain" as they 
> are, or to avoid having to put up ads. It has asked for money to enable 
> exponential growth of the Wikimedia Foundation – whose salary costs have 
> increased tenfold over the past decade[1] – and to accumulate vast reserves, 
> which have increased by an even greater factor over that time period. Last 
> year alone, the Foundation's assets and the Wikimedia Endowment together grew 
> by about $90 million dollars, a surplus that is almost the equivalent of one 
> full year's expenses.[2] Seen in this context, I find the answer given paints 
> a misleading picture, especially given a prior sentence saying that "her 
> 600-employee organization humbly raises funds to keep operating ..." – as 
> though there were an acute need for donations to keep the WMF going.
>
> I'd love to see the WMF communicate more openly and transparently about the 
> growth of its organisation and the additional things it is doing, or planning 
> to do, with its additional funds, and to see more detailed media reporting on 
> Wikimedia's financial growth. The WMF pattern of growth is really markedly 
> different from that of other donor-funded organisations that have a more or 
> less stable budget – there is a story here that is being missed.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> [1] See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries#Total_salaries_per_financial_statements
> For sources see the PDFs linked in the table shown here: 
> htt

[Wikimedia-l] Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Maryana, Jeff, and all,

Allow me to raise a couple of points with respect to the interview
published yesterday in the San Francisco Examiner, titled "What does the
CEO who oversees Wikipedia do? We ask her."

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/what-does-the-ceo-who-oversees-wikipedia-do-we-ask-her/article_a7ab64fe-084d-11ed-830c-77f61ed96d7d.html

I'll quote the relevant passages.

1. "[Q:] *You said there’s hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. So
how many people get paid and are professional editors of Wikipedia?* [A:]
Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people helping the rest of us
make sure that we find information on the internet that is accurate and
verified and cited and sourced. There are employees of the Wikimedia
Foundation that provide support to these communities and volunteers, but
the volunteers themselves are not paid staff."

This is a good statement inasmuch as it makes clear that Wikipedia is
written and curated by volunteers, countering the widespread but erroneous
assumption that the WMF's paid staff plays an active role in this. On the
other hand, that point had already been made, and given that this appears
to have been a direct question about how many paid and professional editors
of Wikipedia there are, the article would have benefited from a mention of
the thousands of editors who *are* paid by individuals and organisations
(other than the WMF). There are over 5,000 Wikipedia editors who openly
disclose being paid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns2=1&search=This+user%2C+in+accordance+with+the+Wikimedia+Foundation%27s+Terms+of+Use%2C+discloses+that+they+have+been+paid+by

To these must be added an unknown number of additional paid editors who
operate without disclosure, or use a different method of disclosure than
the one searched for by this URL. Could this be added to the article, and
mentioned in future interviews where this question is asked?

2. "[A:] ... We have roughly 600 people scattered across over 40 countries
and every region of the world. ..."

The article would have given a more accurate impression if it had mentioned
that well over half of these are based in the US. Could this info be added,
and included in future interviews?

3. "[Q:] *Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to
give money? *[A:] They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in
Wikipedia to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An
enterprise that doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. I’m not
incentivizing you to stay longer than you need to stay."

The WMF has never asked for money to ensure that things "can remain" as
they are, or to avoid having to put up ads. It has asked for money to
enable exponential growth of the Wikimedia Foundation – whose salary costs
have increased tenfold over the past decade[1] – and to accumulate vast
reserves, which have increased by an even greater factor over that time
period. Last year alone, the Foundation's assets and the Wikimedia
Endowment together grew by about $90 million dollars, a surplus that is
almost the equivalent of one full year's expenses.[2] Seen in this context,
I find the answer given paints a misleading picture, especially given a
prior sentence saying that "her 600-employee organization humbly raises
funds to keep operating ..." – as though there were an acute need for
donations to keep the WMF going.

I'd love to see the WMF communicate more openly and transparently about the
growth of its organisation and the additional things it is doing, or
planning to do, with its additional funds, and to see more detailed media
reporting on Wikimedia's financial growth. The WMF pattern of growth is
really markedly different from that of other donor-funded organisations
that have a more or less stable budget – there is a story here that is
being missed.

Best,
Andreas

[1] See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries#Total_salaries_per_financial_statements
For sources see the PDFs linked in the table shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development
[2] See the following articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/Special_report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I32UGYRNSRV32NO4GTDIRZ6GYP2VZS7T/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org