In an unprecedented move that has sent shockwaves across the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees voted 8–2 to remove James Heilman (Doc James) from the board effective immediately, citing "serious consideration", but no specific evidence. The resolution was published on the Foundation's wiki, and Heilman was removed from the list of trustees within hours. Fellow community-elected representative Dariusz Jemielniak was the only board member other than Heilman to oppose the motion; notably, the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, supported the removal of his colleague. The standard appointment resolution for community-elected trustees includes a clear reference to the possibility of dismissal – in the case of Heilman, his term was "for a term of two years beginning on July 15, 2015, and continuing until September 1, 2017 or until the Board appoints a replacement for that seat, whichever comes first."
The announcement was made on the Wikimedia-l mailing list by chair Patricio Lorente, who said that the board is exploring its options to fill the vacant seat. For his part, Heilman also declined to specify any details about his dismissal, either publicly to the mailing list or in response to Signpost inquiries. Heilman was elected to the board in 2015 for a two-year term.
According to the Board's bylaws, any member may be removed by a majority vote of the trustees at any time, with or without cause. In this case, no explanation has been offered by either the Board or by the WMF’s chief communications officer Katherine Maher, who shared with the Signpost only that to her knowledge this is the first time that the Board has removed a member, while not answering our question as to whether the removal was related to unauthorized disclosure of information.
It is now clear that Heilman had come under pressure from his fellow trustees for some time. He wrote on Jimmy Wales' talkpage:
||Yes I was given the option of resigning over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I see such a move as letting down those who elected me to do a difficult job.
Although the Board has promised a statement detailing the reasons for the Heilman dismissal, as of publication none has been released, and the Board is under no legal obligation to provide those reasons. The Signpost understands that Lorente has been negotiating a joint statement with Heilman, but that a result is not imminent.
Jimmy Wales, who holds the founder seat on the Board and supported the motion to remove Heilman, responded to an inquiry on his talk page:
||I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what can be said – this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions.
In response to allegations that he was blaming Heilman, Wales replied:
||In what way did I do that? I did not. I merely gave you a very clear, transparent, honest and NPOV explanation of why this was announced in this fashion. We were having a meeting about it, and hadn't begun to discuss how to give the full explanation to the community in fairness to everyone, and James decided to simply announce it without explaining anything. That's just what happened, it's a fact. If you take it as "blaming" him in some way, you are reaching beyond what I said ... He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting.
It remains unclear what prompted the meeting, which appears to have been specially called, and whether Heilman had any foreknowledge of the proceedings. Former WMF trustee Phoebe Ayers told the Signpost that the chair, vice chair, or any two trustees can call a meeting pursuant to guidelines on timing and notification in the bylaws, and that votes that are not going to be unanimous are conducted either in person or on the phone for a formal voice vote.
Shortly after the announcement, we spoke by video link with Heilman, who was in a Japanese ski resort, seemingly in good spirits but urgently awaiting a day of downhill skiing after significant overnight snowfalls. He cautioned that he was under an obligation not to speak openly about specifics. Heilman is a known advocate of transparency and openness in Foundation practices. We asked what he sees as his contributions during his short membership of the Board. He replied:
||The most concrete example was my advocacy for the removal of superprotect – collaborating with fellow Wikimedians on that issue has been one of my successes. ... And when I started my position, I found that communication between the staff, the executive, and the Board were not as good as I expected, and the level of secrecy was greater than I expected. I have definitely tried to improve that. ... I believe my actions were always in the best interests of the movement, even though not always perfectly performed. My impression is that it takes all new trustees a while to learn the ways of a board of a large organization.
Should certain things remain confidential? "Yes, there are definitely certain aspects that need to be kept confidential, but this should not extend to the overarching strategy at the WMF. In a movement like ours these discussions need to be public." Does he think voters were attracted by his achievements in medical content on WMF sites? "Yes, but more than that, I believe I have a good understanding of large parts of the movement; I share its values; and I'm outspoken. I think many voters probably expected that I'd say and do what I've done."
There was immediate reaction to the announcement on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, on Wikipedia, and in third-party forums, including the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group.
Pete Forsyth, who was briefly a candidate for the WMF Board in 2015 before withdrawing and ultimately endorsing each of the three community-elected representatives, expressed grave concern at the Board’s decision. He wrote on the mailing list: "With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history."
He went on to tell the Signpost:
||There are a great many unanswered questions in this situation; those of us who care about the Wikimedia Foundation should be open to reassessing how effectively every member of the board, up until and including yesterday's vote, has upheld that duty ... There is no small irony in this incident happening [close to] the expiration of the five year strategic plan developed in 2010, at a cost of about 5 to 10% of the organization's budget at that time, with the input of 1,000 stakeholders. ... In my view, Trustees elected by the community do indeed have a duty to maintain lines of communication, and to inform the community of important events. That duty is secondary to their duty to the organization, but it is still of vital importance.
This raises an issue that commonly leads to tension where the boards of corporations, non-profits, and public entities include elected stakeholder seats. It is typical for board members to be required to sign a pledge of personal commitment, and this is the case for all WMF trustees. That can leave elected representatives of stakeholder groups who elected them in a difficult position: should they consult with their constituents when there's a risk it might be seen as breaching confidentiality? (Editor's note: the original version of this story stated that board members were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.)
Several commenters on Facebook were more outspoken, including statements such as: "I am very unhappy with the board's weak statement and the fact that this was opposed by ⅔ of the elected members of the board. It sounds like this was a purging of community voices that disagreed with the majority or in West Coast newspeak 'culture fit'. This is why appointing a majority of the board is a mistake."
Within a day of the Board's action, a page was set up on Meta entitled WMF Transparency Gap, with several WMF accounts among the contributors. The brief page points readers to the talkpage for "developing topics", and links to a WMF Board resolution in 2013 on transparency. The Signpost understands that muted reports of staff discontent within the organization have been circulating, although the matters at issue are unclear. Former trustee Samuel Klein told the Signpost: "A discussion in detail with interested staff would not be a bad idea."
This story has been characterised more by what we do not know than what we do. A fast-moving situation is likely to remain in high profile for some time, with broad and far-reaching ramifications for the movement in terms of organizational process, transparency, and community relations.
- New administrators: The Signpost welcomes the English Wikipedia's newest administrators, BethNaught and 78.26.
The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015
10. Wikidata rising
When Wikidata, the collaborative structured database project, first launched in 2012, it was difficult to summarize with any confidence. I covered it by carefully outlining its stated goals and quoting the speculative news and blog coverage. At the end of 2015, it’s not much easier to describe to a layperson, and many of its goals remain just that, but Wikidata’s growth is undeniable and the passion it inspires in the Wikipedia community is unmistakable. At this year’s Wikimania conference, Wikidata’s presence was felt like never before.
One big reason: Wikidata is unexplored territory in a way that Wikipedia no longer is. The encyclopedia project feels mature at 5 million articles (more about that below), but the database at only 15 million items has a long road ahead of it. For editors who joined the larger Wikimedia movement for the joy of discovery, Wikidata is where it’s at. The project still has some very real challenges, some of which unsurprisingly mirror those of Wikipedia, but it’s possible now to imagine that Wikidata, not Wikipedia, may prove to be the real “sum of all human knowledge”.
9. Exodus from New Montgomery Street
Has Wikipedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), seen a year with more comings and goings from its headquarters on San Francisco’s New Montgomery Street than 2015? It seems unlikely. The organization has seen admired veterans and high-level executives depart under different circumstances, and some touted recruits from Silicon Valley firms arrived to fanfare, only to exit quickly, and without comment. The only reason this exodus of talent isn’t higher on this list is because it’s one of 2015’s least-reported stories.
Approximately 18 months since Lila Tretikov became executive director, the WMF has experienced almost 100% turnover. For some longtime staff, it was probably time to move on anyway. And any incoming leader can be expected to make new hires and rearrange reports to their liking. But the very short tenures of some key hires, and mysterious circumstances surrounding some departures, can’t help but raise questions about whether Tretikov is in command of her personnel—and perhaps even if she’s the leader Wikipedia needs.
The Wikimedia Board of Trustees is the “ultimate corporate authority” of the Wikimedia Foundation, and its number includes three members elected from the volunteer community. The most recent election, held in May, (see Signpost coverage) was also the first since a major fight between the foundation and community over software implementation (Media Viewer) and platform control (Superprotect) in 2014. Against this backdrop, disagreements over Wikipedia’s next big software initiative, Flow, became increasingly pronounced—and a few months later, the project was shelved.
Perhaps it’s unfair to assume a direct cause-and-effect, but the result seemed to be a “throw the bums out” election. Ousted were Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe), Samuel Klein (Sj), and María Sefidari (Raystorm) (in fairness, none were “bums”, nor particularly responsible for the problem). In are three respected veterans with the good fortune of non-incumbency:
James Heilman (Doc James) (see update), Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit), and Denny Vrandečić (Denny).
Oddly, the two women ousted received the first and third most votes in favor, but Wikimedia accounts for “oppose” votes, and they had too many of those. Today, just two Board members are women, the lowest representation in Wikipedia’s history.
7. “Wikipedia hates women”—or maybe just Lightbreather
Wikipedia’s alarmingly low female participation rate is decidedly not a new problem. The issue first came to attention in the late 2000s, as editor surveys confirmed suspicions that Wikipedia was a total brodown. Today, the gender gap remains a frequent topic of debate, including a much-discussed Cracked article whence this entry takes part of its name.
The other half of the title comes from what’s called the “Lightbreather” case, focusing on a female editor with this username, and her interactions with, among others, a (male) editor named Eric Corbett. A disinterested appraisal of the case would find plenty of fault with both, although there is not one person in the world who possesses the powers of concentration necessary to follow all of the rabbit holes leading from this single case. Notwithstanding the particulars, it became the subject of a provocative, error-ridden, five-times corrected but nevertheless widely read article in The Atlantic, held up as one example of Wikipedia’s “hostility” to women.
The myriad possible explanations for this problem only open doors to more complicated issues. How much of the gender balance can be attributed to Wikipedia’s rules? Its community? Where is the line between heated disagreements and harassment? How much can be explained by how the web influences behavior? How much is this reflective of the tech industry’s gender gap? Will understanding this question help to explain why other marginalized identities, from Latinos to Africans, contribute to Wikipedia in small numbers? The answers to these questions seem within the reach of comprehension, but beyond the grasp of consensus.
6. A clockwork Orangemoody
Another perennial topic on Wikipedia is conflict of interest (COI), usually playing out as someone inside Wikipedia or outside writing a self-serving autobiography, a low-rent marketing firm getting in trouble for editing clients’ pages, or sometimes more favorably, a group of PR firms coming together to try to make a good impression. This year, however, brought us something we never quite imagined: a massive extortion plot inverting the typical model of paid editing: rather than helping paying customers create Wikipedia entries, non-paying “customers” could simply be threatened with unflattering articles.
Orangemoody, as it was named for its “ringleader” account, was called the largest of its kind, but that merely counted the number of involved user accounts (nearly 400). The truth is, there has never been anything quite like it. Previous cases revolved around unscrupulous firms like Wiki-PR and WikiExperts who at least professed to be offering their clients a service. Orangemoody was a shakedown involving pages held for ransom, impersonation of Wikipedia administrators, and no real-world entity to absorb the blame. Orangemoody is so threatening because it suggests that Wikipedia’s open-editing model opens the door not just to unethical, if conceivable shenanigans, but also to transgressions that are much more horrifying.
5. The luck of Grant Shapps
Next to Orangemoody, there’s something almost comforting about the familiar narrative of alleged self-interested editing of Wikipedia by Tory MP Grant Shapps and the plot twist that brought his accuser to (relative) ignominy and ruin.
Amid the UK parliamentary elections this spring, a report emerged in the left-leaning Guardian, prompted by an allegation by a Wikimedia UK administrator, that Shapps had used a pseudonymous account to massage his own Wikipedia profile while giving a drubbing to others. It seemed plausible: Shapps had admitted to editing his own biography years ago, and using assumed names in other circumstances, and his side career as an Internet executive aided the narrative.
But the tables soon turned: the right-leaning Telegraph revealed that there was no smoking gun connecting Shapps to the suspicious edits, that the Wikipedia administrator, Richard Symonds (Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), was in fact a "Lib Dem activist" who had communicated with the Guardian prior to taking action, and Wikipedians soon became concerned that Symonds may have abused his administrative privileges in blocking the suspicious account.
In the end, Symonds lost his adminship, and Shapps exited a succession of positions within the Conservative Party and government.
4. Wikipedia’s big picture trends in flux
After a long period of sustained narratives about Wikipedia’s traffic and editing trends, this year things got a little interesting. Following unabated growth in global traffic to Wikipedia, given a boost in recent years by the proliferation of web-enabled mobile devices, overall traffic actually fell for the first time. Meanwhile, after almost a decade of resignation to Wikipedia’s ever-dwindling editor base—a decline perhaps also attributable to the adoption of mobile devices—the numbers ticked upward.
An August report from an SEO analysis firm showed that Wikipedia’s search referrals from Google fell by up to 20% since the beginning of the year. Most speculation focused on Google’s ever-advancing practice of answering search queries on the results page, obviating the need to click through to non-Google websites. This has bedeviled companies like Yelp, which compete with Google to serve up reviews while also depending upon it for traffic. For Wikipedia, the situation is more complicated, and perhaps less of an issue. After all, a significant portion of Google’s answers are powered by Wikimedia projects. In fact, beginning in late 2014, Google wound down its own open knowledge database, Freebase, in favor of Wikidata. And Google still recommends more Wikimedia sites than it recommends Google sites.
Also in August, the first hard data emerged to show that the long, slow decline of active (and “very active”) Wikipedia editors had been arrested—and is now trending the other way, if ever so slightly. As close Wikipedia observers know too well, Wikipedia attained its zenith participation rate in 2007, arguably the high point for the project’s activity and excitement overall, after which the lowering tide revealed consternation and even alarm, with nobody knowing where it would end. Well, maybe here? The number of very active editors—with at least 100 edits monthly—Wikipedia’s most valuable contributors, stabilized in 2014 and actually grew in 2015. The decline of administrators, coupled with the difficulty in admitting new ones in recent years, however, remains an issue.
In both cases, more data is surely needed before we can say what it really means.
3. English Wikipedia hits 5 million articles
Admittedly, most of these top stories are unhappy ones, and the one just above is arguably mixed, but this one is unambiguously celebratory: on November 1, Wikipedia’s English language edition—by far its most popular, and synonymous with “Wikipedia” for most readers—notched its 5 millionth article.
Wikipedia has been the largest encyclopedia by any reasonable measure for a long while, so nothing has really changed. And it took seven years for Wikipedia to double in size, so if growth trends continue holding steady for now, we might not have a similar milestone to celebrate until sometime the next decade. Meanwhile, sheer heft is easier to measure than other important characteristics, like accuracy or completeness, so this benchmark will remain Wikipedia’s equivalent of McDonald’s “Billions Served” for the foreseeable future. It may be an arbitrary measurement, but it’s a damned impressive one.
Number 5,000,000 itself: Persoonia terminalis, a rare shrub native to eastern Australia. Oh, and if you haven’t seen the RfC debating which temporary logo Wikipedia should display on the joyous day, I very much recommend taking a look at the near misses. Perhaps it will instill some faith in Wikipedia’s community processes if you agree the best logo won (and you should).
2. It’s about ethics in Gamergate opposition
In late 2014 and into the start of this year, the loosely affiliated right-wing counterpart to the left-ish Anonymous expanded its focus from video game journalists to include the Wikipedia entries where said journalists’ critical takes had accumulated. Organizing on Reddit and other forums, the ‘gaters created numerous throwaway Wikipedia accounts to first try swinging Wikipedia’s coverage of their movement and a few of their top targets around to their liking and, when that failed, they took on Wikipedia editors directly.
Wikipedians fought back hard—too hard, in some cases—and when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee got around to handing out punishments, the only ones with anything to lose were the Wikipedia editors who cared. It also fed into the above-discussed ongoing trouble over Wikipedia’s treatment of gender issues, and was by far the year’s biggest blow-up along such lines, far greater than the argument over how to handle Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition, which still lay ahead.
It’s hard to say if Gamergate is a 100-year-flood (although on the Internet, the time frame may be more like 100 months) or a sign of things to come. Wikipedia has faced trolls before, but few have been as dedicated or as destructive as the ones beneath the Gamergate bridge. The best defense is a strong base of committed Wikipedians, and perhaps this year shows us they’ll probably still be around to carry the sand bags and shore up the levees.
1. China, Russia, and completing the HTTPS transition
One aspect of Wikipedia’s global prominence that the foundation and movement alike have struggled to fully grasp is the role it can, should, and does play on the international stage. This year, the Wikimedia Foundation joined forces with the ACLU to sue the National Security Agency over its mass surveillance practices, only for the case to be thrown out by a federal court. As important as that fight may be, it is but one jurisdiction of many where Wikipedia has become a proxy for privacy and free speech battles, not to mention authoritarian power grabs.
In 2015, Wikipedia’s multi-year plan to convert all traffic moving through Wikimedia servers to the HTTPS encryption protocol was finally completed. HTTPS was first enabled for WMF sites in 2011, then became the default for logged in users in 2013, and this year was finally made the default for all traffic, including readers without a Wikipedia account. This is a good thing for Internet users who wish to access Wikipedia without their governments knowing about it. But it’s complicated when governments decide to shut off access altogether.
Indeed, the full implementation of HTTPS prevents governments like China from blocking access to specific entries—such as Tiananmen Square protests of 1989—and instead they have to choose between allowing all traffic, or blocking the site entirely. China opted for the latter. To be sure, Wikipedia wasn’t even the biggest collaborative online encyclopedia in the PRC—it wasn’t even the second—and China’s Communist Party seems to be perfectly content promoting its homegrown versions of Google, Facebook and Twitter. In December, Wikipedia’s famous co-founder, Jimmy Wales, traveled to China to participate in an Internet conference, where his comments about the limitations of the state’s ability to control the Internet were intentionally lost in translation, as the Wall Street Journal reports.
A similar issue is ongoing in Russia, where the government’s media authority, Roskomnadzor, has weighed blocking access to the Russian-language Wikipedia based on its entries about illegal drugs, temporarily blocking reader access. In addition, it may also be attempting to co-opt Russian-language editors, presenting further challenges to the independence of the Wikimedia project among Russian language contributors.
It’s unclear what Russia will decide to do, but it seems safe to assume that China will hold the line for the foreseeable future. In both countries, and under still more repressive regimes—like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan—independent websites and even independent political parties and religious movements are allowed to operate only at these governments’ discretion. Why should Wikipedia be any different?
♦ ♦ ♦
And this seems like a perfectly good place to leave it. More often than not, Wikipedia’s issues reflect issues that animate and plague society and the Internet writ large. Open knowledge and digital discourse create incredible opportunities for research and innovation, but also bestow tremendous power to the platforms and communities that effectively control the gates. The problems on Wikipedia aren’t that different from those on Reddit or Twitter, they just feel more significant given the site’s mandate and perceived authority. To understand Wikipedia’s successes and failures, we have to look to ourselves for the answer.