Hi Hannah, When more than 1,000 of us (representing a wide variety of language communities) made a direct, straightforward request of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees in 2014, neither the board as a whole nor any individual member publicly acknowledged the existence of the request. Nor, of course, did they address its substance. So, I must commend you -- even when your letter had about 4 or 5 signatures, you got a response from a sitting Trustee (Victoria Doronina).
But that response has significant flaws that I haven't seen discussed: Doronina discusses the candidacy of Lane Rasberry, making at least three statements that do not stand up under scrutiny. 1. She says that he "*stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI.*" *This is demonstrably false*, based solely on the evidence she directly cited. Rasberry did not make a prediction about the future (as Doronina claimed), but rather stated "*Please consider that right now, the Wikimedia Foundation is proposing to replace some of the text in Wikipedia articles from the content written by humans with content written by artificial intelligence*." He displays precisely such a proposal, written by a Wikimedia staff member in their official capacity, which states: "... *One of the ideas we’ve been discussing is the presentation of machine-generated, but editor moderated, simple summaries for readers....*" 2. Doronina also quotes from Rasberry's candidate statement, and concludes "*It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.*" But the very first sentence she quotes gives two options: "*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info.*" I emphasize the second part, in which Rasberry clearly acknowledges the possibility that the Foundation (presumably through a vote) might explicitly choose the path of opacity over the path of transparency. Is Doronina's position that the Trustees should pursue opacity without even acknowledging that they are doing so? Is her position that her subjective notion of what Rasberry's statement "sounds like" should override the reputation he has earned, in both volunteer and career positions, over decades? If so, how does that align with the "assume good faith" ethos we cultivate? 3. Doronina also says: "*To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee.*" Speaking as a former Editor in Chief of the *Signpost* myself, it is this statement that gives me the greatest pause. On a basic level, I agree with Doronina: One cannot simultaneously serve as a Trustee and edit an independent publication. As I said when withdrawing my own candidacy for Trustee in 2015: "*After all, I have been able to do a lot of work I take pride in, without any involvement with the Wikimedia Foundation; and joining the Board of Trustees would inevitably impact my ability to continue some of that work.* <https://web.archive.org/web/20160328062819/http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-board-candidate-recommendations/>" If Doronina believes one cannot simultaneously be a Trustee and a Signpost editor without potentially damaging the reputation of either or both institutions, I agree with her. I don't know what Rasberry believes, but nothing in his statement says that he would (or could) insist on holding both positions simultaneously. Rasberry articulates a general preference for transparency, which any Wikimedian will recognize as well aligned with our shared values. Nowhere does he state that he would pursue transparency should it conflict with the fiduciary duty of a Trustee. That disposition, as far as I can tell, exists only in Doronina's mind (and perhaps in the minds of more circumspect Trustees who have not chosen to speak publicly). It is a revealing moment, for a Trustee to argue not merely against the position of a candidate, but in favor of his exclusion from an election, and simultaneously make such subjective and unfounded statements herself. I commend Doronina for giving us this window into her reasoning, but I find the reasoning problematic. Her clear message is that the subjective impressions of sitting Board members, in their personal capacity, are a legitimate basis for rejecting the candidacy of someone who has held numerous positions of trust both within and outside the Wikimedia movement spanning decades. I wish I could speak to the claims about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy, but I cannot. Doronina does not cite any specific examples in her case, and I am not familiar with any of the issues there. -Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 2:19 AM Victoria Doronina <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Hannah, > > I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available > information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last > time I tried, it didn't end well. > > It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful > about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. > In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass > the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but > it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of > these candidates. > > Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what > they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the > WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant > about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may > have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I > cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation > of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity. > > As for Lane, he > > * publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to > replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this > is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. > Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry> > > * Publicly written in the candidate statement: > > *I set up a Right to Information > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information> project on Meta-Wiki > because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to > communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community > to organize to make public information requests to me.* > > To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, > especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his > duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also > writes: > > *I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can > analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in > saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial > reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in > those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the > Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for > that country is.* > > It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information. > > All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as > he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who > makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone > who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct > contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities. > > As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do > with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in > his communications; it's much more mundane. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It would make sense to add the link to the index of >> petitions/complaints at >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_removals >> so they are all centralized. >> >> Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest. >> >> "The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good >> governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by >> excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any >> clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the >> Foundation has violated all of these principles." >> >> "We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent >> decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing >> election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, >> taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the >> legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, >> equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since >> its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. >> The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for >> democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for >> inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only >> woman in this electoral process." >> >> "There have been two candidates rejected without a credible >> explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, >> political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on >> falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman >> candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer >> candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the >> previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to >> representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election >> Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to >> vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less >> representative of the volunteer community." >> >> At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and >> significant parts of the community should result in an immediate >> independent investigation or a suspension of the election. >> >> On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I >> encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this >> message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Hannah Clover >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], >> 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/[email protected]/message/Q2I6XYSINHJ2CVVXSPWID4LC7O52ZLCE/ >> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/K4SPN43MOZLWC73ANTMYYKZRBREDTO7Z/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/VQFNNPWJ2GD5NKD5QH7Y6MSIXG4WNS2S/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/EBRZA4SXW2DVQTY3MOVIT57OZ2OFFWUE/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
