Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-09/Election leaks
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Pcb21
This kind of misses the point. The issue isn't that some of the Board members knew the results, but that those results were then distributed quite widely outside of the Board, including to some of the candidates, and to people who are known to have changed their votes after learning the results. Angela. 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- How widely, by whom, to whom, and who changed their votes? I try to limit my reporting to facts I know and have checked, and I don't have those kinds of details, certainly not on the record.
- In any case, I'd still say the connection between the leak and Jimmy's endorsement (and more generally the sense that it was okay for board members, despite their personal interests in the outcome, to have this level of involvement in election administration) is more of a story than that. That a rumor mill among Wikipedians operates much like rumor mills elsewhere is not particularly surprising, unless there's evidence that the rumors were being spread in a concerted campaign to influence the election—above and beyond the publicly visible endorsements. --Michael Snow 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say it's a hell of story. Currently it is in vogue in the press to talk about Wikipedia's quality but it seems likely that it's governance may be the next thing to come under scrutiny. Consider:
- Two resignations from the board in 9 months. Danny's resignation from employment. All three of these resignations appeared not to be for personal or external reasons but as a direct result of (perceived) problems with the running of the foundation.
- Public bickering on foundation-l between the Chairwoman and an ex-employee hinting at questionable travel expenses (this will be seen in the light of five pages of auditor's comments about the need for better developed internal controls at the Foundation in their report to June 30, 2006).
- Apparent attempt by Jimbo to shape the board election results without disclosing he was aware of results so far.
- Possible conflict of interest between for-profit entities and non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. For instance, I read one commentator calling Jimbo ordering nofollow onto English Wikipedia days after announcing his own search engine a conflict of interest.
- I'd say it's a hell of story. Currently it is in vogue in the press to talk about Wikipedia's quality but it seems likely that it's governance may be the next thing to come under scrutiny. Consider:
- And with new elections coming in July, I am not sure we are done with the bickering. I'm not judging whether these should be big issues. But I am warning that that the press has a skill of blowing exactly these sorts of things into big issues. The Foundation needs to be ready to answer queries like these next time it is running a fund-raising campaign. Pcb21 Pete 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- There was only one resignation from the Board (Angela's). The other was Brad's, who was never on the Board. Some of the underlying issues must remain confidential but, yes, we do have reasonable answers to questions that may come up.
- Thanks for the responses, Erik. Sorry for the mistake about Brad, you are absolutely right of course. I guess the very phrase "must remain confidential" grates on the nerves of Wikipedians who'd love to have the open/wiki way for everything but I understand when needs must. Pcb21 Pete 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- That you needed to write "regularly recuse themselves" rather than "occasionally recuse themselves" itself suggests that preventing COI will be a more important issue for this non-profit than for many others. OTOH, I'm pleased there is a policy :-). The point about nofollow was more about what I'd read amongst some blogosphere opinion rather than my personal view. (Actually on that point my view on that is that Jimbo did make a mistake, and I hope one day it will be reversed, but it wasn't due to his own interests that he made it!.) Pcb21 Pete 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the point is that it's a "regular" practice for board members to recuse themselves—as opposed to recusing themselves only "occasionally", which might imply that the policy wasn't being followed. I don't read it as a comment on how frequently conflicts of interest arise. --Michael Snow 17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Erik. At this point I want to make clear I was trying to be helpful about what might come down the pipe, particularly with the elections later in the year. That point may have been lost in my subsequent posts. My father happens to be the chairman of a non-profit whose goal is to advise non-profits on achieving their goals, so I've ended up knowing a few interesting tidbits in this area by proxy. Preventing COIs from having a detrimental effect on a non-profit requires a lot of vigilance as the problems can sometimes be subtle. "Spinning off" (used in a very loose sense in the case of Wikia etc) a for-profit from a non-profit can be a particularly difficult area. I recognise that the board are all volunteers overwhelmingly doing their best for the foundation for which us regular editors should be grateful. Pcb21 Pete 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, If anyone else is still reading you can read the foundation's public COI policy. Pcb21 Pete 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- A little over a month ago I wrote '"I'd say it's a hell of story. Currently it is in vogue in the press to talk about Wikipedia's quality but it seems likely that it's governance may be the next thing to come under scrutiny.'". FWIW, the New York Times thought the situation over at the Mozilla Corporation was worth a story yesterday. Mentions Wikipedia in passing. [1]