User:Mike Peel/WMF election 2022 video answers

Under what circumstances should the WMF intervene in community affairs?

Ideally the Foundation should never have to intervene in community affairs. However, there are cases where it has to, primarily for trust and safety reasons, but also for legal reasons. It should always do so very carefully, respecting local community processes, and where possible widely consulting with the community before intervening.

There are also a lot of opportunities where it could intervene better and more often, in constructive ways such as through tech development, strategy, and fostering partnerships between editors and institutions, alongside affiliates. However, this is more participation than intervention.

What role should affiliates play in the selection of Board members?

The original idea behind the election process via affiliates was that they can identify and propose people from their wider partner networks who would bring new perspectives to the Foundation Board. However, in practice the process has selected community members instead of people from their wider networks, which reduces the value of a separate process.

The general situation is also changing now. We will soon have the Global Council, and affiliates will probably want to focus on selecting Council members instead, particularly given the way that the Foundation Board's role will also change at the same time. So it may be worth rethinking this role - but I wouldn't want to commit to supporting any particular approach without talking about it more with the affiliates and wider community.

What do you think about the Foundation's current approach to fundraising?

The Foundation's approach to fundraising has been very successful in terms of dollars received. I particularly like the approach that the Enterprise project has been taking recently to ensure that significant reusers of Wikimedia content contribute financially to the projects, since that is based on mutual benefits. However, as various people have pointed out, the banner campaigns are not entirely honest in its advertisements.

Centralised fundraising is also not optimal, since it would be possible for local affiliates to raise more money due to local tax benefits and by being able to have local donor relations, if they were allowed to do so. The process could also be coupled with editor recruitment processes, which may have a significant impact, if the community is ready to support many new editors joining the projects. In general, though, we need to do much better with donor relations - it's not just receiving money, it's creating a wider community.

What is the most radical change you would seek to see implemented in either the Foundation or the Movement?

I would like to see the Foundation become much more community oriented, integrating the community in all parts of its activities, which sadly is not currently the case - this is one of my main reasons for standing. Related to that, I would also like to see the Foundation significantly invest in the technology issues that the community has been raising for many years now through processes like the community wishlist. I think these are two fundamental issues that would significantly increase the impact of the Foundation work and make the community a lot happier with the Foundation!

Does the Wikimedia Foundation provide value for the community in proportion to its budget?

The Foundation is inefficient in its use of budget compared to its accomplishments, and this is something I have long wanted to see improved. The Foundation could also do a lot more to support the community through funding and community-focused programs.

I was part of the former Funds Dissemination Committee, which was reviewing the budgets of larger Wikimedia affiliates. The FDC also provided feedback on the Foundation's annual plans over the years, which was unfortunately not followed up on. I would like to see the Foundation following its own requirements for affiliates by sharing detailed annual plans and budget information on wiki. These should be subject to a substantial community consultation, including external review by a grants committee.

This model has been shown to significantly benefit affiliates over the years. After these reviews, affiliates are far more effective at demonstrating that they are providing value for money for the Wikimedia movement, particularly compared to the Foundation.

Do you think the Wikimedia Foundation's technical prioritization accurately reflects editors' wants and needs?

There is a big gap between the Foundation's technical activities and what editors actually need. An easy way to solve this gap is to significantly increase staff resources to the Community Wishlist program. This has been working well over the years, but it has not had the staff capacity to fix all of the requests it receives. There is a significant backlog of technical issues, some of which date back more than a decade, which should be fixed.

Significant improvements could be made elsewhere as well. A flexible user interface that scales with screen sizes would significantly help those using smaller devices, such as mobile phones, for editing. This is particularly true for global south communities.

Sister projects particularly need technical support. For example, Wikisource has huge potential to transcribe both old texts in the public domain and newer freely licenced publications. However, Wikisource desperately needs significant technical work to modernise and streamline its editing process.

We also need to make it easier to embed and edit media content on Wikipedia and Commons to make our content more accessible to those that struggle to learn through reading text.