Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions/Craig Franklin

Craig Franklin (Lankiveil)

Please ask here your question to be answered by Craig, the moderators will pass the questions to the candidate and place the answers in this page.

1. Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)

   My personal view is that a lot of the material that comes out of these sites is not in fact legitimate criticism or in any way helpful to anyone. Legally speaking, they are protected in that they are (I understand) based in the United States and can therefore enjoy the free speech protections of that jurisdiction.

   There may be instances of libel on such sites which theoretically could be prosecuted in a court of law, however given the anonymity of many contributors and the way the sites are structured, I suspect it would not be practical for the average man on the street to go about doing this.

2. Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)

   At one point, I registered an account on Wikipedia Review without being aware of what a rat’s nest it was. I only ever made two posts, the latest in May 2009, at which point I realised that my participation there was unlikely to result in any positive outcomes.

3. Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)

   I am aware of a number of cases where simple on-Wiki harassment has morphed into more sinister issues of real-life harassment. I certainly sympathise with those who have been the victim of such attacks, and it is my view that the attacks in question emanating from the “badsites” are completely unacceptable, malicious, and have been made solely with the intent of smearing individual editors, Wikimedia chapters and by extension the whole movement, rather than for any higher or altruistic purpose. My view is that if we tolerate harassment (whether based on sexual orientation, gender, race, or anything else), even just a little bit; we are just as bad as the harasser themselves.

   With that said, there are only limited options available to the Foundation for dealing with attacks that take place off of official projects. On-wiki however, the Terms of Service provide for actions to be taken against those engaged in harassment or antisocial behaviour. I would like to see these provisions used liberally against those engaging in harassment against other users, including on-wiki sanctions for off-wiki harassment where appropriate.

1. Answer to the question (see above the questions)

   In a project as large and complex as Wikimedia, disagreement happens every day. I don’t think disagreement is something to be shied away from by sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears, adopting a “positive attitude,” and pretending it is not there. The trick is effectively managing this disagreement so that it doesn’t blossom into conflict. My general rule of thumb for doing this is to:

   1. Always consider the viewpoint of the other side and ask myself what I’d do in their position.

   2. Avoid personalising the disagreement.

   3. Look for any areas of common ground and agree on those before tackling any difficult issues.

   4. Realise that “finding consensus” is not the same thing as talking the other party around to your point of view

   5. Realise that “finding consensus” is also not the same thing as pretending the opposing view doesn’t exist or is completely without merit.

   6. Realise that if you do come to a consensus, you won’t get everything that you want, and that that is okay. ‘Compromise’ is a word that I often associate with a sustainable consensus on an issue.

   Is this approach successful? Not always, but I’d like to think that I’m regarded as a reasonable person by those that I’m disagreeing with, because you never know, I might be agreeing with them about something else tomorrow.

   To use a more concrete example, I have been in sharp disagreement with the Foundation on many aspects of the chapter funding question, a disagreement that has been raging now for many months. In particular, I’ve often pointed out what I perceive to be problems in the positions advanced by some Foundation staff with regard to their justifications and their plans. However, I’ve already arranged to buy a drink for some of those same staff at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin later this month*, because there is no point resorting to abuse or bad feelings.

   • If we’ve disagreed on anything in the past year, and I’ve missed you out, and you’ll be in Berlin, email me and let’s have a drink and a friendly chat together.

1. Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)

   I have been the Treasurer of Wikimedia Australia since 2010. Before that I have been a financial member of the chapter since it was originally founded. As Treasurer, my responsibilities range from setting the high level financial policies to meet our organisation’s strategic goals and dealing with statutory financial reporting, tax, and audit, all the way down to booking hotel rooms and issuing reimbursements for volunteers who are performing work on behalf of the chapter and the movement.

   I have been nominated for this role by Wikimedia Indonesia. As the only other active chapter in our immediate neighbourhood, we talk often with the Indonesian chapter about various issues. I am not a member and have no official role in the Indonesian chapter, however I am on friendly social terms with their board.

2. Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)

   If elected, I would have to resign from the Wikimedia Australia board, so it would no longer be “my own chapter”. With that said, I would not be a party to any board decision which I perceived as against the interests of any chapter, because I believe that a healthy chapters movement ultimately benefits the Foundation and the movement. I do not accept the notion that there needs to be any “side” for me to stand on with regard to chapter/Foundation relationships.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   The issue with the very pressing issue of editor retention is that there is no single policy change that can be made that will turn things around. A holistic, whole-of-movement approach is needed to resolve these problems, rather than making a set number of changes and declaring the problem solved. With that in mind,

   1. Improving accessibility, particularly through technology, with things such as the WYSIWYG interface and continuing to improve the Vector skin to ensure maximum accessibility to those on slow internet connections, those on mobile devices, and those using non-traditional devices such as screen readers to access the projects.

   2. Investing in existing volunteers, to complement outreach activities. We're doing okay at getting people through the door, it's convincing them to stay that's the problem, and the programmes just aren't there to support editors between the "newbie" and "veteran" phases.

   3. Devolving decision making to the community wherever possible, so that volunteers are not just seen as abstract content-generating units, but as stakeholders with an active voice in the directions that the movement takes.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   There are many quantitative measurements that the Foundation already undertakes to measure editor activity and retention. If editor retention initiatives start to work, it should be easy to use these existing measurements to confirm that.

3. Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)

   On the whole, from "average" to "poor". A lot of work has gone into measuring the scale of the problem, and that work is excellent, but there doesn't seem to be any real idea on the part of the Board or the Foundation on how to go about reversing the trends that they are measuring. There is a lot of good work going on in getting people to make their first few edits, but there is no follow-up to keep them involved beyond that point. Programmes like the Public Policy Initiative need to be followed up with other activities so that the new editors feel that they have a reason to stick around and continue to contribute, even when they no longer have to do it in order to gain course credit.

1. Answer to the question (see above the questions)

   Not any more so than any other candidate. If selected, I would seek the guidance of the Board's Chair on whether to abstain from motions directly concerning either Wikimedia Australia or Wikimedia Indonesia, and how long I should do so for

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   In short, no I don’t believe that the Wikimedia Foundation Board has the legitimacy or expertise to speak on behalf of the entire movement. A lot of this is because the demographics of the board do not match the demographics of our movement. With respect to our current trustees, a full 60% of the current board are white, highly educated (and “elite” universities like Harvard and Yale are over-represented compared to the general population), work high-paid white collar jobs, and hail from North America. Only one lives outside North America or Western Europe. This is in stark contrast to our community, which is an increasingly diverse group. I do not believe that, despite the best of intentions, a board so heavily stacked with privileged Americans can truly speak on behalf of or understand the thinking of a potential volunteer from somewhere like South America or the Pacific. The majority of trustees also have no actual mandate from the community either, which means that their views may sharply diverge from what the community consensus on any given topic is.

   The other reason I don’t think that the board is qualified to speak on behalf of the movement is because their thinking and reasoning is so often at odds with the thinking and reasoning of the broader community. You only need to look at the fiasco with the image filter, where not only did the Trustees propose something that a large portion of the community found deeply offensive to their values, but did not (as one has recently stated) even think that it would be controversial! Given how out of touch with the community the Trustees have proven to be from time to time, I would not have any confidence that any statement they made truly reflected the view of the movement as a whole.

   Finally, my view of the ideal role for the Foundation is not to speak for the entire movement anyway. I have quite a minimalist view of what the Foundation should be doing, and that’s concentrating on core activities like technology and legal, rather than trying to shepherd the metaphorical herd of cats that is our community.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   At this point, with the final form of both bodies still undecided, I can’t give a definite answer to this question. I would not be interested on serving on any body which serves as a debating club with no real power, that serves only to paint a veneer of community consultation over decisions made lock-stock-and-barrel by staff or unaccountable board members.

3. Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)

   My view is that a majority of trustees should have a direct mandate from the community, and if selected to fill a seat I will attempt to reform the Board in that direction. This still leaves room for outside expertise, while at the same time ensuring that the community retains overall control over the direction of the projects. I would also seek to revive the essentially moribund Advisory Board, and use that as a mechanism to gain advice from figures outside of the movement on matters concerning the community, without giving up any overall control.