The following request for comments is closed.

This vote establishes the community consensus for whether Arnnon Geshuri is thought fit to remain a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation and is in a position credibly to meet the pledge of personal commitment required for trustees.[1] A vote of the community has no legal weight, but should be taken into consideration by the board of trustees to fulfil the Wikimedia Foundation statement of values.[2]

The day after the announcement on 6th January 2016 that Geshuri had been unanimously appointed a month earlier by the board of trustees[3], an open letter was sent to the Chairman of the board asking why Geshuri had been appointed, despite being widely known for having played a significant role in the anticompetitive agreements scandal at Google.[4] This vote is being raised after two weeks with no formal acknowledgement, or commitment to action, back to the community that the board intends properly to reconsider Geshuri's appointment.

Further background on Geshuri can be found on his Wikipedia biography and a Wikipedia essay focusing on his role in the Google scandal and providing a range of reliable sources. The Signpost, the English Wikipedia's news journal, also covered this issue with a number of quotes from well known Wikimedians: "Community objections to new Board trustee"

Arnnon stepped down [ edit ]

As Patricio Lorente just made public in this post to the wikimedia-I mailing list, Arnnon Geshuri has stepped down from his post on the board. — The preceding comment was added by Sänger (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)





Vote [ edit ]

Please sign as a support or oppose for the following proposition and restrict comments and discussion to #Comments and discussion.

Proposition [ edit ]

In the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, Arnnon Geshuri must be removed from his appointment as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board.

Support [ edit ]

Oppose [ edit ]

"Fulfil" is the British spelling of "fulfill"? Crazy! I totally thought that was a typo. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Canadian spelling as well. Varlaam (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don’t think that this type of petition is helpful to the community or the board, or the relations between the two. This approach feels like an attempt to micro-manage the board, nearly half of whom have already been elected and given a mandate by the community to exercise their judgement as they see fit.

There is already some clear resentment and confusion over the removal of James Heilman, and the sense that the community’s concerns are not being taken into account. This petition actually compounds those concerns in that it further undermines the results of the fair and anonymised election of trustees in the 2015 elections. The Board elections have a process that can legitimately claim to establish a community consensus, this petition can’t.

The board are aware of the concerns about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment, I think for now we should let them get on with investigating and preparing their response rather than escalating this conflict. StuartPrior (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Stuart. What would you see as an appropiate time frame to react in any official form when it comes to such an urgent matter? --Jensbest (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Board Elections look like a Mickey-Mouse-Event... The Board undermines the trust in the Board. For me as an normal Wikipedian it looks like an Augias stable, and no, I am not Heracles. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)





So, as chair of the Board, Patricio acts promptly on seeing this vote-of-no-confidence page and having just read the calmly worded but blistering message from a former chair of the Board on the Wikimedia mailing list. He is painfully aware of the thunderous political reality, and realises that a professional strategy is now required to minimise internal and external harm to the Board's standing, after the gooey mess through which it has been dragging itself over the past month. As a matter of urgency, he calls Alice, Frieda, Dariusz, Denny, Kelly, and Jimmy (avoiding Guy, who has already made a fool of himself and the Board at the no-confidence page). Patricio gains majority agreement to call Arnnon to urge him to resign; he encounters significant objections from only one trustee. Patricio is sufficiently prescient to have drafted a brief public statement of resignation for Arnnon's consideration (the usual things: I deeply regret that I was unable to serve blah-de-blah, and wish the Foundation and its community the best for future success jiggedy-blah). Patricio has learned from the shambolically managed Heilman incident last month by also preparing a Board statement for release immediately upon Arnnon's resignation. He has run both statements past the appropriate staff expert at the WMF, who suggested minor changes; and he reads out both texts during his call with each trustee. Patricio's deft footwork in collaboration with Dariusz has already set in motion the process of choosing a replacement without delay; the replacement will be tech-savvy without too obvious a connection with Silicon Valley. Patricio then calls Arnnon, who has been half-expecting this for at least a week. Arnnon is in no position to resist, given the majority opinion of trustees. Tony (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Nouill: so any suggestion what to do? I did not vote yet and wonder if there is an other way, but none comes to mind ... Sicherlich Post 16:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I just think that type of action have negative effect on long run, and that for me their negative effect are bigger that the positive effect. If you think opposite, you should just vote. (I don't have magic alternative.) --Nouill (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Hmm okay. ... Sicherlich Post 19:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC) IMO accepting that WMF ignores (once more) raised questions by people from the community and just keeping quite. Might be worse in the long run. Sounds like "Don't challenge the leader". Typically in authoritarian systems? Hmm.

@Stemoc apologies for being picky, but this was not a replacement for James - the positions appear to have been in the pipeline for some time beforehand. Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I never implied he was, it seems like James was opposed to this so they go rid of him...the timing is everything and they didn't even bother waiting for a month before they made the hiring..something smelled fishy then, it smells much worse now.-- Stemoc Guy Kawasaki: Steinsplitter (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a concern about bringing someone on the board of Trustees who was involved in activities of questionable legality under existing trade laws, but there is also a broader issue that I think warrants this no-confidence measure. As has been mentioned in the Signpost, Geshuri's appointment means half the board of trustees is connected to Google. When one considers Google and connected groups have given substantial amounts of money to the WMF, while as Andreas laid out in his recent article profiting off the site's free content the makeup of the board creates certain legal concerns.

Google actively prioritizes Wikipedia in its search algorithms and has previously used adjustments to its algorithms to squelch for-profit sites serving similar functions that do not offer their content for free and thus do not make them exploitable for easy advertising bait, including sites owned by its competitors. This could create implications for the WMF's non-profit status as a charitable organization cannot be operated for the benefit of an individual or corporation and the more Google's ties to the WMF increase the easier it is to make the case that the WMF is being used to financially benefit Google. Hiring someone who was involved in anti-competitive practices to prompt these concerns is partly fitting and partly worrying in this context.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"as Andreas laid out in his recent article profiting off the site's free content" Wikimedia makes knowledge freely available by anyone, for any purpose. It is not compulsory to share these values—you're not being forced to contribute—but those who oppose open & free knowledge are wasting their time if they think they can change this fundamental goal of Wikipedia. "a charitable organization cannot be operated for the benefit of an individual or corporation" If a charity does not benefit any individuals or organisations, then it is literally of no benefit. Maybe you meant that a charity cannot be operated for the exclusive benefit, but then where is even the suggestion, never mind the evidence, that the Wikimedia Foundation is being run for the exclusive benefit of a for-profit company? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Here is what the IRS states regarding 501(c)(3) organizations: To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual . . . The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

In other words, it need not be an exclusive benefit and no law enforcement authority, certainly not the IRS, is known to be particularly gracious with regards to its interpretation of the law.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate: MartinPoulter (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Transparency statement [ edit ]

I would like to state that as the proposer of this vote, I have not been in any relevant significant private discussions with anyone in our movement before sending the open letter to the board on 7 January or before creating this page though I have taken part in public discussions. The single exception is that as a friendly courtesy I wrote privately to Patricio (Chairman of the WMF board) on 8th January with the email subject "Reaching out" with pragmatic suggestions on how to proceed. To give an idea of tone, that email closed with "Being Chair is not easy, indeed I have resigned twice from such positions after conflict. It comes with the territory. Keep in mind that you represent us, the community of Wikimedians, so do the right thing and do it in a timely way." At the time I copied the email to James Heilman as one of the past serving WMF Trustees I have full trust in and could provide me with an alternative perspective. Patricio has not replied, nor acknowledged my correspondence, nor attempted any private message. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Update 5 hours after writing the above, and over two weeks after my 8th January "Reaching out" email, I have received a reply from Patricio. He acknowledges my email, nicely apologises for the delay, and assures me that the board is discussing the issue, but prefers to not share his views "until the board speaks". The was no other information, such as timeline, or whether there is an intent to take action. --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What does the Board make? [ edit ]

And so, my fellow Wikipedians: ask not what WMF can do for you — ask what you can do for your WMF.? Really, what does the Board make to help Wikipedians around the world? --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I remember Fuck the community, who cares. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I think you misremember, Marcus. As far as I can tell, no one at WMF ever said that. Ijon (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I think, they think so, we are only useful idiots. We are generating the content and the Board is living from our work. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The question has additional obvious application: what financial stipend does the WMF Board receive? Jus da fax 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Board members can get expenses paid for meetings related to the WMF. When I was on the board I paid all my own travel, accommodation, and meal expenses however this was a personal position. I think Jimmy also does but am not sure and am additionally not sure about the rest of the board. Page 8 here has compensation for all board members at zero. Not sure if the amounts spent on travel is listed anywhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Fair enough. Thanks, Doc. Jus da fax 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Whoever is working in the interest of the community and has my confidence will also have my money. A great board my meet at Wolfgangs at our expense, so what? -- Andreas Werle (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe this is the problem of the board? that they are NOT paid? Nobody like to work for less. Only Wikipedians . --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you are all heros and half gods working very hard without getting paid (like half the population of this planet raisng children cooking meals and cleaning stuff not getting paid either)--ChristophThomas (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reject any funding by Google [ edit ]

I also think the community should enforce that the WMF rejcts any funding by Google, Inc and its subsidaries. There is too much potential of conflicts of interest when accepting their money. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should accept funding and pay regular editors a salary, The Wikipedia Basic Income policy should commence. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC) No, I don't agree with paying editors. This place was built by volunteers. Too late to start paying people now, and impossible to go back and pay those who worked hard in the first place. Jus da fax 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC) It's shocking to see such a suggestion being made. Unlike governance, in which the exact opposite to the following should apply, the only people editing wikipedia should be those who are intrinsically motivated. From the slightest to the most prolific, all should edit under the same conditions. FleetingJoy (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC) I'm guessing that was tongue in cheek Prokaryotes? Made me chuckle anyhow :-) Tim bates (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree. The WMF has been accepting millions from Google for years. That must stop. Jus da fax 16:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There is really no reason to not pay editors. The argument from above, because they did not pay in the past is silly, The problem with editor pay would be distribution, controlling (quality, amount of contribution, not just vandalism etc). Maybe a community vote could decide who gets paid. This would be very interesting. I guess content would exponential increase, as well as quality. Currently the only editors who get paid, are paid editors, many not disclosing it. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC) I guess it is related to Conflict_of_interest. What has happened with payment in the Debian community illustrate the fact that paying editorial (in that case programming) work on the project is better left to third parties. Quote from a LTS funding project: "Paying Debian developers with Debian money is still a no-go, the last time it was attempted, it generated quite some dissent (see this article)." This LTS project is paying Debian developer with a company outside Debian.--Rougieux (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Timing [ edit ]

While apparently this vote was needed to get a word out of the board (Fae mentions above that he got an email from Patricio afterwards that they are discussing the issue) I don't think this heavy tool is timely yet. I'm quite disappointed by the lack of communication from the board, the lack of explanation and also to some extent the lack of transparancy. This seems so far to be mostly the result of clumsyness rather than an evil plan (we're talking about a volunteer board here) and lets keep in mind that this is no 'urgent' issue (there may actually be many urgent issues at hand, I don't know) albeit important. So until the board comes with a statement (and while I would have expected that within the week, I'll be waiting until a month has passed for that, to allow a full and thorough investigation. This no-vote-yet is not a sign of desinterest :) Effeietsanders (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

+1 to Lodewijk as I wanted to write something similar. Generally I find this situation quite disappointing but I would like to get an answer from the Board first or make sure there will be no answer. At the moment the fact that the Board is still discussing the issue makes sense as they might still not have held their January meeting — NickK (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WMF board does not make public a future schedule of meetings or calls, it is unclear why that is a good thing for transparency or simple logistics—perhaps this is why it is difficult for trustees or supporting employees to book cheaper flights.

You can find meetings listed at wmf:Meetings with the last minutes (November) stating "near the end of January or beginning of February" as the next meeting. Unfortunately the (unplanned) December meeting has yet to be published, presuming that the resolution to appoint Geshuri was at a minuted meeting. It would be surprising if the majority of trustees did not believe that this fundamental governance problem did not warrant an unplanned call before the in-person meeting, considering that the decision to appoint Geshuri was back on 9th December 2015, 44 days ago. As there is published evidence that some trustees knew about Geshuri's key role in the Google scandal during his time on Google's board, and others did not when they appointed him to the board, this naturally is seen by the public as a fundamental failure for WMF trustees to either communicate or govern themselves professionally. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC) The point is that the Board plans an in-person meeting, not a voice call. This might take time to schedule (thus an imprecise data does not suprise me), and it may perfectly happen that some board members are not immediately available. Of course I would prefer an immediate answer but I would accept waiting till the next meeting — NickK (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Well, the board can wring their hands in private for several days or weeks before giving a meaningful answer to the questions the community has raised over the last two weeks, such as who recommended Geshuri to the board. They are also free to respond more quickly by holding a ten minute call to vote Geshuri out if he has chosen to not resign, or agree an immediate public statement if they recognize this is a critical governance issue and a communications disaster. However, being prepared to wait for several more weeks while the board and Geshuri consult lawyers and PR specialists (or whatever they are up to) now puts you in the minority. The Wikimedia community's views about the basic competence of the current board of trustees to govern themselves, or ethically take direct personal responsibility for hundreds of millions of dollars in budgets and reserves, is becoming firmly entrenched while we speak, and it will be increasingly tough to turn around without seeing several major changes to the board and their non-transparent behaviour at the "top" of our collegiate movement; a community which claims to put openness, accountability and transparency at the core of everything we do. --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Given past actions by the board my guess is they are just buying time and hoping this thing blows over. I think its also going to take a lot more votes than what we have to force the boards hand into picking a decent board member or better yet, allowing the community to choose the member rather than replace a community elected position with one that was not chosen by the community. Again, just my opinion here, but this seems to be a deliberate powerplay on the part of the board to reduce the number of elected community seats and shift power away from the community. Reguyla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, with superprotect it took them over a year after they (both board and WMF) spat the community in the face, until they removed without any apology for their misdeeds a tiny piece of software, that should never have been deployed at all, at least in a morally intact WMF and board. Up to now absolutely nothing in terms of content has been said about either the Doc James removal or the crook appointment. They have lost contact with the communities and obviously don't even have a desire to get some back. There is absolutely no excuse for this long silence in such alarming circumstances. But there was absolute no reaction at all towards the 1000 community members, that signed the letter in regard of MV/superprotect, why should we expect any reaction here? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC) To be fair there has literally been reaction, after all two current board members wrote on this page in the first 24 hours of it being created, and the Chairman was suddenly moved to reply to my private email from two weeks ago. So there are reactions, but what is needed is credible remedial action and preventative action. Actions that might be necessary and sufficient would be a frank public statement explaining why Geshuri, along with the trustee that showed a personal judgment failure by recommending him, have chosen to step forward and resign, plus commitment from the remaining trustees to empower an independent governance review with recommendations for board structure and process improvements by the end of March 2016. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, Fae, but does it look healthy to you that for example your email just gets a response after the public pressure that a running vote of no confidence puts? Does it look healthy to you that the reaction of one board memeber comes so fast that the first "oppose" is by him (with obviously not much thinking paid on questions like if this is a good idea to make this signature as board member in this context)? To be fair: The board who governs our movement doesn't feel the obligation to be transparent to us. To be fair: The board of the foundation that always is in for some lofty words about diversity does nothing to enforce this on itself. To be fair ... I could continue. I have no words for how disappointed and desillusened this organization leaves me after ten years of being a volunteer. --Julius1990 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Hi Julius, I agree the WMF board is not healthy right now and needs advice and lifestyle changes to get fit again. This thread is getting too long and a bit ranty, so my reply here to a direct question from my collegiate friend Ziko, is more useful for you and others if you are interested in my perspective. --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I think it should be clear that things do not work that way and buying time would not help at all. Superprotect was an action of an employee, not an action of the Board. Appointment of Arnnon Geshuri was an action of the Board, and we do want the Board itself to take action. Had they issued a quick statement, it would have calmed down the situation, and we would have forgotten the issue by this time. A late statement would be still OK, as that would mean that the Board indeed takes community feedback into account, although may need some time to answer. However, lack of any statement is definitely the worst: this would deepen the distrust between the community and the Board, as this would mean that Board simply failed to address a serious issue raised by the community. I do hope that trustees have common sense and want to avoid this — NickK (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We still shouldn't be speculating as to a response. If a meeting is scheduled, we need to hear "We will be discussing this in a meeting on _________. Following that, you can expect our statement by _________." In that case, it's entirely reasonable that we wait until that date. But the total silence, and no commitment to provide answers, isn't acceptable. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is how I look at this. The board cast out a community elected member and then replaced that position with one that they selected and that individual was not only a google employee, but also had an extremely negative history. In my opinion, this vote of no confidence should extend to the entire board including Jimbo. The community needs to send a clear message that the board doesn't just support the WMF, they also support the community. I also agree, a meeting should occur quickly (like in a period of hours or days) and they should clearly tell us, the community clear details as Seraphimblade suggests. Reguyla (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry @Reguyla, but that is simply not true. As you can read on various places, these two are totally separate. Actually the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri took place before James Heilman was removed, and they occupied totally different seats. The seat of James is still empty, and will be filled in coordination with the elections committee. If you want to send a message to the board, to jimmy or to anyone - please do. But don't muddle discussions with untruths. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Technically you're right, those are separate actions. But of course they show the same mindset of removal from the core values and the communities within the Board. One of the best legitimized members was removed for dubious reasons, not been made public until now, and a disgraced member, that has proven not to have a high moral standard, has been appointed at nearly the same time. Thus de facto a valid member was removed without valid reason, and a unsuitable, and far less validated member was appointed. He was not a direct replacement, but he was part of a pattern. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC) And let's not forget about Guy Kawalski who apparently doesn't even know enough about the project to sign their posts, who is in a position to make decisions that affect the entire community they they apparently know nothing about. Then we have Jimbo, who does absolutely nothing on the project except pontificate eventhough he has long had the ability of actual interaction and helping, etc. Then you have a board that unanimously ejected a well trusted member that was selected by the community and unanimously selected the member this discussion is based on. This board needs to be dissolved and we need to start over...but I am content with showing them that we aren't going to just stand aside while they make decisions like this that are not in the best interests of the movement, the project or the foundation. Reguyla (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The last month or so leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and given others' comments above on issues dating back still further, I now support community investigation of the WMF Board. Deeper scrutiny will hopefully be welcomed by board members, under the circumstances. If not, if they "dig in," then yes, a motion of No Confidence should be considered for the WMF Board as a whole, and I welcome discussion of board functions, philosophy and governance. It's time for transparency and accountability, and the community discontent and requests for information and possibly far-reaching change can hardly be considered surprising or unreasonable, given the events of past weeks. The vacant seat should not be appointed by this Board, that seems clear. I also feel everything up to and including "firing" the entire WMF Board should be under discussion by the community, especially if they fail to remove Geshuri in the face of clear-cut overwhelming community rejection. His position should also be filled by community. That's called democracy. We need more. Jus da fax 17:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

17:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC) I support Lodewijk's reasoning and I am not yet prepared to vote support or oppose.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments Lodewijk. I feel similar, but additionally, this vote 'scares' me a bit. That I have to consider it at all right now, even though my gut tells me that it's not the appropriate setting. It feels 'witch hunt'y and I'm worried that by not voting, I might be unable to stop the burning of a possibly innocent man, and that by voting I would legitimize a mock trial that will unavoidably still lead to the burning of a possibly innocent man. This mob mentality I'm seeing, although understandable in its origins, is increasingly worrying me as someone who loves our projects, it worries me at LEAST as much as the functioning of the board does. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DJ (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC) User:TheDJ: Please accept that votes of no confidence are also given by people who love our projects. They are not a mob but a majority with serious concerns. I and a lot of others have voted "per Anthere", who gave a balanced view of the situation, very far from burning anybody, neither mr. Geshuri nor the BoT as a whole. A loss of confidence vote is not a trial, much less a mock one. The community had/has confidence in James according to the votes he received, while it shows here that mr. Geshuri does not have it, and the serious concerns are that the former is no longer in the BoT while the latter still is. --Sir48 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from trustee Alice Wiegand on appointment of Arnnon Geshuri

Can we get this in English please!. Reguyla (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) She explicitly wrote it in German, because the translation of Schweigen (lit. silence) was not with enough other meanings for her. So don't expect the subtleties with any translation. BTW: I think it's quite arrogant of the english crowd to expect everything to be spoon-fed to them Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I at first also wondered why Wiegand's comments were only shown in German. But then I clicked through to the original blog post and saw that Peteforsyth requested it be reposted here specifically so that other Wikipedians could see and translate it. Assume Good Faith as they say. :-) Regardless, this was a good reminder to this US-American that Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a global project. I used Google Translate to get the gist of the post, as I only studied German for one year over 20 years ago, but regardless I'm sure I'm missing many subtleties. Funcrunch (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC) With respect Sanger it has nothing to do with arrogance, but of a global understanding. Far more people speak English than German and that's not a matter of arrogance but of fact. I can read German to about a 4th grade level and google translate apparently to about the 6th grade so although I did get the gist of the translation, many others would not and I thought, for the sake of the wider audience, it might be useful. I do also wonder why another member of the board apparently does not have enough understanding of the projects to leave it here themselves. As I said above, I do not expect the board members to be experts nor even participate actively, but they should at least know enough about the projects they are making decisions for that they should have an account and be able to sign comments properly. This makes the 2nd board member in 48 hours that cannot even sign in to leave a comment. That does not look good on the board. Just my opinion of course. Reguyla (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) If you look up near the top of the Oppose section, Alice Wiegand did post and sign an unrelated comment earlier. (I'm not defending the Board in general or the appointment at issue, BTW, just pointing this out.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. My apologies and I struck out my comment regarding not leaving her own comment. Reguyla (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC) It would be lovely if someone could translate Alice's post; I read it via google translate and it looked very insightful, though I'm sure I've missed things. However, I agree thoroughly with Funcrunch that it's a useful reminder to us native speakers of English that not everything happens in English, and that many people are effectively excluded from English-language debates. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just finished a quick'n'dirty translation of Alice's blog post here. Don't hit her for a weak translation, that's mine. Anybody with better bilingualism: please improve it! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sänger! Reguyla (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed helping to translate Alice's piece into English, especially where she raises the vision of a future where the board of trustees and the communities can have "civilised discussions even when controversial". However this evening I was overcome by irony when pointed to current WMF trustee Jimmy Wales' petulant rant against our respected colleague, and previous WMF trustee James Heilman, while at the same time he is responding on the same page to questions about the impact of this vote of no confidence:

"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." diff (emphasis mine).

While the WMF board is being embarrassed by one of its trustees behaving like a teenage troll swearing with his locker-room mates, there is little chance of building bridges. When the current trustees discuss how to improve themselves, I urge them not be so polite and respectful of each other that they never discuss how to change Jimmy's role as a voting trustee, so that at least he will be quoted by the press as an amusing internet celebrity/pundit who happens to be a founder of this exciting project, rather than as an official default voice of the WMF and our community. --Fæ (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've tried warning everyone of the dangers of this, since early 2007, when I saw how the Board had been constructed by Jimbo to be 60% Wikia-centric. Few people listened. They were quick to assure me (and themselves) that such a self-dealing arrangement was only coincidental at best, and benign at worst. It may be too soon to say "I told you so", but I think in 1 or 2 more years, it will be decisive. - Thekohser (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Twitter and Wikimedia are in Google domain [ edit ]

Right now was announced the dismissal of the senior executive management of Twitter. The replacement appointed is Omid Kordestani, ex-executive from Google and wrapped in the same scandal with Arnnon Geshuri.[6] Perhaps what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg --The Photographer (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ex-(Executive-)Googlers are EVERYWHERE in the SF bay area. it's one of the biggest employers after public services and Disney (if i'm not mistaken) and one of the oldest existing Internet companies around. Like all corners of society, the same people tend to pop up when niche-expertise (Internet-tech is still 'a different beast') is required. Yes, it's one big carousel, and yes Google's size and tenure make up a very big part of that carousel. You can say that the "Larger Bay Area-tech mentality" is unhealthy in the global scope, but to argue everyone is in bed with Google is rly giving Google way too much credit, or if you will too little credit to the stupidity of groupthink amongst individuals. Let's try to stay on topic instead of going to Roswell. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Call Rosweell this issue is like tell that mediawiki is a community project. Ridicule my comment using generic Roswell and Disney fallacies could be nice, however, the preceding facts and the evidence is very strong about the pressure from big companies to Wikipedia control. --The Photographer (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Adviser or visitor [ edit ]

Above, User:NickK says, "In my view, the best solution would be inviting Arnnon Geshuri to serve the Wikimedia movement in another capacity, for instance, as a member of the Advisory Board or as a Board Visitor." I agree. There seems to be general agreement that Arnnon is eminently fit to oversee WMF's procurement and nurturing of staff. The problems with our board don't stop with Arnnon, though.

Denny and Kelly have incredibly valuable expertise to bring to the board but Kelly has no expertise useful in guiding the overall direction of this movement, and, while he is being paid by Google, Denny has a fatal financial conflict of interest. Both would be better positioned as advisers or visitors. Guy seems like an odd choice. Do we really need a marketing executive on the board?

Jimmy Wales has no expertise of any relevance to bring to the movement. I see he's made a place for himself on the board that will manage WMF's endowment fund. Ridiculous. Why are we stuck with this man? He didn't make Wikipedia. We did. He only "gave it away" when he realised the community wouldn't let him sell advertising. And he "gave it away" to an entity whose board he has a permanent seat on. Wales brings nothing, nothing to the table. All he does is take glory for our work and big fat speaker's fees. Why does Jimmy get to appoint himself to the board and name himself our spokesperson? The next RfC should be on the role, and usefulness, of Jimmy Wales.

Voting trustees should have deep knowledge and experience in such fields as epistemology, volunteer-driven non-profits, and education. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Denny was elected by the community to be a full member of the board because we trust him to make decisions on behalf of the movement, regardless of his employment. (He was already working at Google before the election, and included this information in his candidacy presentation.) Jimmy Wales is actually quite well respected throughout Wikimedia, and I strongly suspect his position on the board is well supported by the community. The members appointed by the board are there primarily for their expertise, are frequently previously active and respected Wikimedians, and are able to help guide the WMF using their particular skills. I have no idea why you would want board members to specifically have expertise in epistemology. Regarding Arnnon Geshuri, I agree that if he is removed from the board, it could be beneficial to invite him to serve in another capacity on the Advisory Board or similar. --Yair rand (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Regarding epistemology, it would be good to have someone who knows a bit about the nature of knowledge setting the goals for a foundation whose vision is of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." A lot of people deeply involved in this movement have a problem distinguishing knowledge from unreliable assertions. Regarding, "I strongly suspect his [Jimmy's] position on the board is well supported by the community", the only way to know that would be by submitting his seat to the community's vote. I prefer to know things than "strongly suspect" them. As for the rest, thank you for your opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Please note that that I am not against appointing experts to the Board, my reasoning applies only to controversial cases like this one. Having diverse profiles on the Board is generally a good idea, and an HR expert should be a good choice in current circumstances. However, as the story went to media I do not believe we can continue as if nothing happened, hence my suggestion. This reasoning cannot apply to Kelly and especially to Denny — NickK (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Noted. Nick, while the WMF needs board-level expert oversight of its finances, HR and no doubt other areas of its work, that technical expertise can be provided by a long term non-voting advisory board. We have a limited number of voting trustees. The affiliates and the community throw up well-respected voting trustees with a lot of chapter and project experience, but we're not getting the diversity or range of experience we need from them. When it comes to selecting voting members - who will decide the vision and long-term goals of the organisation - the board needs to choose people with deep expertise in education, knowledge, volunteer-led nonprofit governance and third world knowledge-distribution issues. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Ideally we would need people with both expertise in a particular field and education/knowledge/nonprofit experience. I cannot say if Kelly (whose Board profile suggests she has nonprofit experience) was the best candidate as I don't know names of other candidates, but I do not see why we should question Kelly's presence on the Board. Your comment would be more relevant to a discussion on Board composition and election/selection process but I would prefer having this discussion once the controvercy surrounding Arnnon's appointment is resolved — NickK (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Another issue [ edit ]

There is another issue that Geshuri's involvement in the Google scandal has overshadowed. Have a look at Geshuri's profile on LinkedIn, & examine what are his skills & expertise. The answer is as obvious as it is depressing:

The man is from HR!



While this may mean nothing to readers outside of the US, the letters "HR" (aka Human Resources) should say it all about this man. Based on my experience, as well as others, HR is the dumping grounds for people who can't for various reasons be fired, yet are too incompetent to be entrusted with any responsibilities. (And as bad as Brits will argue their version of Human Resources is, believe me when I say ours is much worse.) While I admit there have been exceptions, my usual interaction with anyone from HR is the initial orientation on the first day of a new job & whenever I have a question about benefits or filing out a form their telling me that I need to speak to someone else. Books about conducting a successful new job search routinely explain that getting one involves treating HR as a barrier between the applicant & the hiring manager -- you find a way around HR. And the horror stories are endless of employees turning to HR for help with a job situation, only to find HR betrayed the employee & sided with management even if the issue was that a manager was breaking the law.

In short, anyone with only HR experience has nothing to offer the Wikimedia movement. Unless the Foundation is considering requiring all volunteers to fill out a job application & submit to a background check before we make edits. Or maybe offering us all benefits similar to what employees in many Silicon Valley companies have, such as free meals, concierge services, or fitness gym memberships.

Now I did say there were exceptions. And I did perform due diligence (unlike the Board of Trustees) to see if maybe Geshuri is one of those exceptions. I found nothing. What motivated me into making this statement was reading his email to Wikimedia-L, offering his apologia pro vita sua, in which he says nothing. Nothing about what he can bring to the movement, the Foundation, or even to the profession of HR. Well, he does say "trust me", which has interesting connotations. And which HR is always telling employees whenever they report an incompetent boss is screwing up managing people or handling responsibilities from above.

I'll stop here. Either you share my misgivings & want him gone posthaste, or you don't.

It's not that hard to believe that there are countless better candidates out there for the Board of Trustees than Arnnon Geshuri, & not only should he either resign or be removed from the Board, but so should the person who suggested him as a possible candidate. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right. There are some strange community member round here who are not familiar with every single two-letter combination in English. And after reading your comment and doing tiny research here, I'm still not sure if HR stands for Croatia, heart rate or human rights. Thanks for further hints. → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Touche. Fixed. -- Llywrch (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Antitrust law [ edit ]

Ruud;good info. Monopolies and oligopolies have been considered "Un-American" for 125 years. The Supreme Court explained the Sherman Antitrust Act like this: "The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."This is taught in all business schools so the leaders of most Silicon Valley companies with any business education, like Eric Schmidt are well acquainted with not only the letter of the law but the morality behind it. The monopolies got so bad before the law that cattlemen who were not in the good graces of Railroad monopolies could not even get their cattle to market.For today's silicon valley celebrities to not only engage in oligopoly activities but to frame them as "capitalism" that they are proud of, is an insult to the intelligence of the people who are ripped off by such market manipulations and such activities are, indeed, inherently criminal and have been so for 125 years, which is why the Department of Justice got involved in this Human Resources' manipulation, I think. The arrogance behind these type of activities seems grounded in the belief that the shareholders and public will be the only ones to pay for the illegal activities they embrace with such puffed out chests, while they go forward from company to company with pay raises at each stop and the reputation of being a tough guy capitalist. I think and hope they are pushing their luck in 2016.Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Press [ edit ]

Jan. 25 [ edit ]

Jan. 26 [ edit ]

Jan. 27 [ edit ]

Jan. 28 [ edit ]



