Hello all, I have finally decided to subscribe to this mailing list, but I will endeavour to keep my monthly post limits down, as requested :-)
== Who am I? == First, some background. My name is Chris Sherlock, and may be better known to some of you as Ta bu shi da yu (or Tbsdy lives) on Wikipedia. I was quite involved in Wikipedia many years ago, and I was involved in some fundamental aspects of Wikipedia during the time I was active - in particular, I initiated the Administrator’s Noticeboard and I created the [citation needed] tag. I was an administrator three times from memory, and attempted to fairly apply blocks, protect pages, mediate in disputes, and attempted to discuss and influence policy and guidelines, through consensus. I am a strong believer in the five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we write from a neutral point of view, we offer free content, we should treat each other with respect and civility, and we should use common-sense to achieve those ends. I am no longer active within Wikipedia. This is largely because I suffer from quite bad depression, and in the past it caused me to make mistakes on more than one occassion. The last mistake I made was when I objected to a signature being wikilinked to a non-existent user account; I rather stupidly created an account for this person and then de-redlinked it by creating a user page. I immediately revealed who I was on WP:AN and what I’d done, but unsurprisingly this was considered an egregious violation of WP:POINT. I was subsequently desysopped, and will forever more be seen as having left Wikipedia “under a cloud”. I am not complaining about this, this was the correct decision by those who made it at the time, and it is I who must alone take responsibility for my actions. But I feel that I need to disclose this and give some background as to who I am as I’ve not been on Wikipedia for many years. == Issues in the WMF == The Wikimedia Foundation has been going through a long period of turmoil. I have recently been critical of the direction in which it has taken and I feel that it is best if I put my concerns into writing. The WMF is a force for good in society. It’s why many, many people donate to Wikipedia every year. It’s why the Knight Foundation gives us grants. I think it’s important to understand why we command such a level of trust. The WMF has a very clear position on our guiding principles [1] - we believe in freedom and open source, and we want to ensure that all projects are accessible to every human being on the planet. To do this requires us to be extremely transparent in the way that we conduct ourselves. We also want to be accountable to our volunteers, donors and to those who use our resources. These are very, very important principles. They are non-negotiable, and without them the WMF cannot conduct day-to-day operations, much less have a vision for all of humanity to be given equal access to knowledge for the good of all. We aren’t doing a very good job right now. === Issue 1: A lack of transparency at the Board level === Meetings by the Board of Trustees are held in secret. Whilst there will always be matters that must be discussed in confidence, this should in practice be very limited. I believe the problems with the openness of the board is highlighted quite well by reviewing the minutes of most of the meetings. Let’s look at the last meeting from November 7-8 [2]. This was the meeting in which James Heilman was removed from the Board. Yet I see absolutely no mention of any discussion of his removal whatsoever. To find anything, you need to look at the resolutions [3]. One of the issues that has been highly contentious has been the Knowledge Engine. This was a pivotal part of the vision and direction for the Wikimedia Foundation, and of course it was highly controversial. Yet I see *no* mention of it anywhere in any meeting minutes. This was a strategy driven by Lila and the Board, yet where is it mentioned? Was it discussed outside of these meetings? If so, then there is a problem with the meeting minutes. Under Florida Statute title XXXVI, chapter 617 deals with non-profit corporations. 617.1601 handles Corporate records. It specifically states that: > "A corporation shall keep as records minutes of all meetings of its members > and board of directors, a record of all actions taken by the members or board > of directors without a meeting, and a record of all actions taken by a > committee of the board of directors in place of the board of directors on > behalf of the corporation.” [4] Note that a record should be taken of all actions taken by members or board of directors *without a meeting*. This means that if some action is taken, even if it’s not in the BoT meeting, it must be recorded. There clearly were actions taken around the Knowledge Engine, yet it is not documented! Aside from violating the statute, it’s very bad that action around such an important area weren’t documented anywhere. This is a massive failure of transparency. In fact, the meeting minutes are awful no matter which way you look at them. They have limited to no information, they don’t explain what action was *actually* decided and they seem to be incomplete. I would like to propose that all meetings be recorded, and that confidential portions be redacted and inaccessible from those who should not see them. But meetings should still be recorded. I believe that the current situation where James Heilman was removed could never have occurred if the meeting was indeed recorded. I am very, very suspicious that there is pressure brought to bare on members of the BoT and that certain members who are very influential can gain inordinate ability to push through their viewpoints to the disadvantage of other members. At the very least, I believe something like Robert’s Rules of Order should be followed at a minimum. The way that meetings are run within the Foundation are dreadful. === Issue 2: Secrecy and denigration of other members within the BoT === I fear that there is bullying and deliberate obfuscation within the Board of Trustees. I, like many others, was shocked at the language and character attacks used against James Heilman after he was removed from the Board of Trustees. Jimmy Wales wrote the *most* shockingly savage, uncivil, rude and frankly hateful comment [5] I have seen in all my time on Wikipedia, and I saw a lot of abuse: > "[Questions asking why Heilman was removed from the board have] been answered > clearly. As a quick review - my vote to remove him was because of a pattern > of behavior and actions that I viewed as violating the trust and values of > the community. One example emerged clearly after he was removed - he made a > false claim about why he was removed, and I got a unanimous statement from > every board member involved that it was false. The community deserves better > than that. James has made a lot of noise about why he was dismissed which is > utter and complete bullshit. He wrote a nice piece for the Signpost about > transparency which implied that the board got rid of him for wanting more > transparency. Utter fucking bullshit.” When Jimmy was called out on this dreadful behaviour, he wrote that: > "It isn't invective. It is just a factual statement. When I explain myself > in clear detail repeatedly and someone keeps insisting that I'm dodging the > question, I can only say: I've already explained that.”[6] When James was removed from the Board, it was done in an incompetent and frankly appalling manner. Nobody advised James as to the exact incidents that caused him to lose their confidence. But yet members of the BoT felt that it was fine to cast aspersions on his character, yet did not answer questions why he was specifically removed. They are still refusing to tell him directly. Here’s an example email that was sent to this very mailing list: > "I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, I > had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. And > while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly > and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in > confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on > the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many will agree, > not a healthy situation.” [7] Yet here’s the thing. The one who wote this, Denny, cannot or will not point to any specific incident that led him or anyone else to believe that James couldn’t handle confidential information. And this is what he accuses James of violating - the confidence of the Board! Yet there has not been even a single incident that can lead anyone inside or outside the Board to believe this. So now the question is: was there someone within the BoT who was white-anting James? It seems rather like it. If the majority of the Board felt that they could not trust James, this cannot have come about independently. It’s very interesting to see in that same email that Denny wrote that: > Based on some of the comments I have read, I wanted to explicitly address > these rather, say, interesting conspiracy theories, from my perspective: > > -- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more > transparency. > -- James was not removed from the Board because of a difference in opinion > about the strategy of the Foundation. > -- James was not removed from the Board because of difference in opinion or > disagreement about the governance of the Foundation. > -- James was not removed from the Board because he was insisting to see > some documents that the Board was withholding from him > -- James was not removed from the Board because any third party wanted him > removed (like a big pharma company who was unhappy with James on the Board > and was promising a big donation if he is gone - I am just listing this > because it was indeed mentioned.) > -- James was not removed from the Board because he demanded more community > input or was fighting for NPOV. > -- James’ removal had nothing to do with the role and composition of > community-elected vs appointed Board members. > -- James was not removed from the Board because he dared to ask too many > uncomfortable questions. > -- James was not removed because he didn’t want to sign an NDA. So basically, James was not removed for any just cause. There have been no reasons given as to why the Board lost confidence in him. Yet there is a clear pattern of intimidation and bad behaviour from various Board members. James, it appears, asked a lot of difficult questions about the actions of Lila and a number of others. This seems to have caused a lot of disquiet amongst the Board, but instead of taking action against Lila, et al. it was decided that James was to be the sacrificial lamb. Yet it appears now that James was entirely doing his duty correctly - his role was to ask these questions and ensure that the WMF was accountable. === Issue 3: Accountability of members of the BoT === The removal of James Heilman now puts a very public and unfortunate stain on the WMF. James was one of the few people on the BoT to ask Lila about the Knowledge Engine. It was always, it is clear now, that the Knowledge Engine came from her. James asked a lot of questions about what it was and wasn’t, yet from what I can tell he was never given a satisfactory answer. The KE was kept from everyone, and it was only at the end of 2015 that it was ever revealed! In the transcript of the Discovery team post-mortem with Lila, we get the following: “Lila: How do we explain the story now? The original idea was a broader concept. Never a crawler. We abandoned some ideas during the ideation phase, but we haven’t been clear what/when we abandoned." Yet I believe one of the questions James (and others!) had asked was where this fit in to the overall WMF strategy. [8] From my viewpoint, James was trying to understand the strategy and direction of the WMF because *he was a member of the Board of Trustees*. That was his role! And yet it is clear now that by asking impertinent questions about the Knowledge Engine he made someone or several people very nervous. And so, it appears, he was removed. This has been an absolute disaster for the WMF. There needs to be accountability. We need to know: a. What was the scope of the Knowledge Engine? b. When and where was it discussed within the BoT? What was discussed? c. Why wasn’t it added to the strategy consultation report? Search is part of Wikimedia’s strategy, yet Lila says that original idea was a “broarder concept”. If so, then where it that concept expressed? Someone must be accountable for this debacle. Wikimedia has processes and tries very hard to be open and transparent as it sets it’s strategy. Yet the Board of Trustees has now shown that they feel that not only must they set the direction, but they don’t even have to communicate the plans for going foward! And not only do they seem to be setting the direction for the WMF independently of things like the strategy consultation sessions, but they large ignore the many other issues that need to be addressed. Lila, to her credit, sort of acknowledged this as a problem: > "It was my mistake to not initiate this ideation on-wiki. Quite honestly, I > really wish I could start this discussion over in a more collaborative way, > knowing what I know today. Of course, that’s retrospecting with a firmer > understanding of what the ideas are, and what is worthy of actually > discussing. In the staff June Metrics meeting in 2015, the ideation was > beginning to form in my mind from what I was learning through various > conversations with staff. I had begun visualizing open knowledge existing in > the shape of a universe. I saw the Wikimedia movement as the most motivated > and sincere group of beings, united in their mission to build a rocket to > explore Universal Free Knowledge. The words “search” and “discovery” and > “knowledge” swam around in my mind with some rocket to navigate it. However, > “rocket” didn’t seem to work, but in my mind, the rocket was really just an > engine, or a portal, a TARDIS, that transports people on their journey > through Universal Free Knowledge.” From the start, it appears that Lila identified a problem, but then neglected to consult with those around her. All the strategy sessions on the planet won’t help if the person at the top will not openly communicate their ideas. And they cannot be corrected if they get it wrong, or at least have it wrong enough that it de-focuses from what is really needed to be done. That last point is important, incidentally. Wikimedia has many, many issues. So far, all these issues have been seemingly derailed because Lila and others felt that they could focus on search. Search was *always* something that everyone agreed needed to be addressed. But it’s not a panacea. The consequences of such secrecy and an inability to listen, or to consult properly, have now had tragic consequences. There have been over 12 people leave the WMF to go onto other paid jobs. Pillars of the WMF, such as Siko, have left because they don’t feel they can work in a place that isn’t open, transparent and with people who are accountable for their actions. There has been negative press, and many of our community feel deeply disenfranchised by the acts performed, directly and indirectly, by members of the BoT. There must be accountability. To start with, James needs to be advised why he was removed. If there was no cause for him to be removed, which is legal under Florida law, then he should be reinstated. An investigation should be done about who knew what about the Knowledge Engine debacle. The various concerns of the Funds Dissemination Committee don’t ever appear to have been addressed properly, and I note that there was a complaint with the FDC Ombudsperson; so that needs to be addressed forthwith, and an explanation given to the wider community about problems around grants and grant applications. I would personally like to see better accountability around direction and strategy. The BoT must be accountable and in all possible cases their discussions about WMF business should be known to the wider community. If some Trustees feel that they cannot abide by greater scrutiny, then I would like to see them vacate their position. Obviously for issues that must be confidential, then that is another matter. But it should be at the very least noted that confidential matters were discussed, and as much context given as possible. I would also like auditors to go through Wikimedia to give us some assurance that funds have been spent and allocated correctly. == Summing it all up == So to sum up the issues here: 1. The Wikimedia Board of Trustees is not meeting its own charter. There is a total *lack* of transparency, much of what is done by Board members is done in secrecy and without the input of the community. The Board does not publish adequate minutes. It has very little accountability. 2. There is intimidation and denigration of members of the Board of Trustees. This has very clearly happened to James, people are still slighting his good character and yet it has never been made clear, in any way, why he was removed from the WMF. The *founder* of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, thinks it’s OK to abuse James. At least one Board member has besmirched his good name, but will not or cannot give specific examples as to why he felt he couldn't trust James with confidential information. Denny says that others on the Board feel the same way, but yet again I say: James never gave anyone any cause to believe this. This is a very important and serious issue. Staff have repeatedly mentioned they feel intimidated. This denigration and intimidation is beginning to permeate the WMF. It is a cancer eating away at the WMF. It is caused by closed-thinking, a lack of transparency and a sense amongst some in top-management that they are entitled to do anything they want, and that they don’t need to listen to anyone except their fellow board members. 3. The Board must be made accountable. The debacle that is the Knowledge Engine has done untold damage to the WMF, and it must be independently reviewed and a report given as to what happened, and who is responsible for the damage it has caused us. Those at the top should also be accountable for their actions. Jimmy should, at the very least, apologise for his dreadful behaviour on the Wiki towards James. The Board should be accountable for the removal of James Heilman, and in accounting for their actions should be able to clearly explain the cause of them to lose trust in him, and then subsequently remove him from the Board. Meetings must be made more open, and those on the BoT who don’t want more scrutiny should be asked to excuse themselves from the Board. None of this will be easy. None of this has been easy to write! But I write this open letter to raise issues I feel I cannot keep quiet about, and to urge the community and those in the Wikimedia Foundation to do the difficult by necessary actions needed to restore faith in the WMF. Regards, Chris Sherlock 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles> 2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07 <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07> 3. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal> 4. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0617/0617.html <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0617/0617.html> 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=701673700&oldid=701673178 <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=701673700&oldid=701673178> 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=701942197&oldid=701941999 <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=701942197&oldid=701941999> 7. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080827.html <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080827.html> 8. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/2015_Strategy_Consultation_Report.pdf <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/2015_Strategy_Consultation_Report.pdf> 9. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-06-28 <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-06-28> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
