User:RamzyM (WMF)/Sandbox
 | This is the sandbox of RamzyM (WMF). A sandbox is a subpage of a template or article used to test a change to the main article or template before deploying said changes. Once you have finished with the test, please erase the contents of this page leaving this box ({{Sandbox notice}}) in place. Or try other sandboxes: Main Sandbox | Tutorial Sandbox 1 | Tutorial Sandbox 2 | Tutorial Sandbox 3 | Tutorial Sandbox 4 | Tutorial Sandbox 5 |
The creation and implementation of a Universal Code of Conduct has been a Board priority since 2020. The original timeline for the implementation of the UCoC was wildly unrealistic, the UCoC was implemented by the Board without community ratification, and the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee was recently elected without a sufficient number of members to form a quorum. What lessons should the Board take from the UCoC process, especially about how the Board interacts with volunteers?
Bobby Shabangu (Bobbyshabangu)
No response yet.
Deon Steyn (Oesjaar)
No response yet.
Erik Hanberg (Erikemery)
No response yet.
Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)
No response yet.
Christel Steigenberger (Kritzolina)
No response yet.
Lane Rasberry (Bluerasberry)
No response yet.
Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius)
No response yet.
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (Nadzik)
No response yet.
Mohammed Awal Alhassan (Alhassan Mohammed Awal)
Well, it is an undeniable fact that volunteers play a crucial role in Wikimedia projects, and there should be adequate support for their efforts. In order to be empowered to contribute effectively, they should be given a significant level of recognition, and provided with training and resources. The Board should consider establishing support systems that address the diverse needs of the volunteer community. The Board should as well adopt a collaborative approach in interacting with volunteers rather than a top-down approach. Engaging in dialogue, listening to concerns, and co-creating solutions with the community can build stronger relationships and trust. This collaborative spirit should be embedded in all Board activities. For instance, it is apparent that the initial timeline for implementing the UCoC was ambitious and failed to recognize the complexities involved. Future projects should therefore involve more realistic planning phases, with enough time for community feedback and iterative development. The Board should ensure that volunteer perspectives are integrated early and throughout the process to build a more inclusive and representative outcome. Also, it appears that there was a significant gap in engagement with the community which resulted in the implementation of the UCoC without any community ratification. For any policy or guideline to be effective and respected, it must be perceived as legitimate by the community it intends to govern. The Board should therefore prioritize mechanisms for community approval, such as referendums or comprehensive consultation periods, to ensure buy-in and adherence. To bridge the engagement gap, the Board should deliberately set consistent and clear communication channels to provide regular updates, explain decisions transparently, and spell out how community feedback is incorporated in the process. That way, there will be trust, and is equally a demonstration of respect for volunteer contributions. Electing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee without members forming a quorum means there is the need for careful planning in governance structures. To avoid such situations, the Board should ensure that committees are properly constituted and have enough members to function effectively. This might include setting clear criteria for elections and having contingency plans for filling vacancies. The implementation of a universal policy like the UCoC should not just be a one-time event but rather as an ongoing process. The Board can learn to adopt an iterative approach, where feedback is continuously gathered and used to refine the policy and as well be made flexible in responding to emerging community needs and challenges. The Board should adopt a collaborative approach in interacting with volunteers rather than a top-down approach. Engaging in dialogue, listening to concerns, and co-creating solutions with the community can build stronger relationships and trust. This collaborative spirit should be embedded in all Board activities.
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)
No response yet.
Tesleemah Abdulkareem (Tesleemah)
No response yet.
Victoria Doronina (Victoria)
The statement about the absence of the UCoC ratification is incorrect. After a consultation on Meta, which included open calls, the UCoC was ratified by around 2000 people from from 107 “home” wikis representing 74 of Wikimedia’s project languages voting and 74.87% of voters supporting the UCoC. Despite the UCoC passing with a healthy majority, the Board had noticed that the Enforcement guidlines were causing the majority of the negative comments accompanying the vote, so they were returned for the corrections.
A small number of engagements between the majority of volunteers and strategic discussions is an ongoing problem. The same people turn up for the call for volunteers for global structures such as the Affiliation Committee or Sister Projects Taskforce, mainly from the Global North. On the other hand, there are also candidates from the Global South who are very enthusiastic but have insufficient experience and often don’t understand the fundamenta wikimedial policies, such as copyright. We have a generational and geogrational gap, which is reflected in the difficulties of the Movement governance.
The absence of the quorum for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee also raises the question about the feasibility of the current proposed structure of the Global Council, which starts as a 25 person body and potentially can be expanded to 100 members. In my opinion, we simply don’t have 100 diverse volunteers who are prepared to work on this level additionally to their other projects.
As for the lessons, WMF is implementing variuos training opportunities for the people to be prepared for work at high level, for example training academy WALDO, which the candidates will take part in. In this election we have 12 candidates and only 4 of us will be elected. I invite everybody who will not be appointed to the board to apply taking part in the other global governance structures.
There has been some trend towards devolving or sharing the governance of the Wikimedia movement, including having a separate board for the Wikimedia Endowment and the proposed Global Council in the Movement Charter. What do you see as the positives and negatives of these trends, and what is your overall assessment of the work so far?
Bobby Shabangu (Bobbyshabangu)
No response yet.
Deon Steyn (Oesjaar)
No response yet.
Erik Hanberg (Erikemery)
No response yet.
Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)
No response yet.
Christel Steigenberger (Kritzolina)
No response yet.
Lane Rasberry (Bluerasberry)
No response yet.
Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius)
No response yet.
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (Nadzik)
No response yet.
Mohammed Awal Alhassan (Alhassan Mohammed Awal)
The trend towards devolving or sharing governance within the Wikimedia movement has several positives and negatives. Below are my opinion about some of the positives and negatives:
Positives;
Having separate boards like the Wikimedia Endowment and the proposed Global Council will ensure a more specialized governance systems. These boards can focus specifically on their mandates, which can facilitate a more informed and effective decision-making.
Considering the proposed Global Council in the Movement Charter and its activities so far, it seems to represent the true diverse global community more effectively which is the ultimate goal of the Charter. This inclusivity can ensure that different regions and linguistic groups have a voice in the movement’s governance, and ensure a more democratic and equitable structure.
Having a smaller, and or specialized boards or councils ensures a shared workload and guides them through their areas of focus and specific responsibilities. This can lead to faster implementation of initiatives and more targeted support for various community needs. Sharing governance responsibilities can alleviate the burden on the central Board of Trustees, allowing it to focus on broader strategic issues while other bodies handle more specific tasks. It also ensures checks and balances among the bodies. Checks and balances are more effective when there are multiple governance bodies. This ensures accountability and transparency across the movement.
Now, let's consider Negatives;
In as much as it is necessary to ensure that all bodies are aligned with the overall mission and vision of the Wikimedia movement, devolving governance may sometimes lead to a lack of cohesion and unified direction amongst the different bodies. This can lead to complex or bureaucratic decision-making processes. Unless there is a clear communication and coordination mechanism put in place to mitigate this risk, there will be less results achieved within a longer period.
Establishing and maintaining multiple governance structures requires resources. Another possible negative impact of the multiple governance structures is the additional resources required in their establishment and maintenance process. There is a risk that this could divert resources away from core activities if not managed efficiently. In terms of human resource, with the establishment of multiple governance bodies and to ensure that all of them have the necessary expertise and experience, it is necessary to have a robust selection and training processes to ensure effective governance across all levels.
My Overall Assessment of the case is that;
The establishment of separate boards and the proposed Global Council are steps in the right direction towards a more inclusive and effective governance. However, there has to be a carefully designed plan and a continuous evaluation process to ensure these bodies function efficiently. In the planning processes, the mandate of each body should be clearly defined and there should be regular communication and evaluation of their activities to ensure they align with the objectives and goals of the Wikimedia Movement. To gain the trust and buy-in from the Community, there should be continued engagements and transparent processes to clearly convey the benefits of these governance structures to them. During these engagements, there should be willingness to adapt based on feedback from the Community and changing circumstances to ensure success of these governance structures. Flexibility and responsiveness to the community’s needs should remain a priority.
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)
No response yet.
Tesleemah Abdulkareem (Tesleemah)
No response yet.
Victoria Doronina (Victoria)
No response yet.
In the 2024-25 draft Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan, there is a statement that Wikimedia content is becoming less visible as part of the Internet's essential infrastructure, because an increasingly closed and artificial intelligence-mediated internet doesn't attribute the source of the facts, or even link back to the Wikimedia projects. What responsibility does the Board and the Wikimedia Foundation have in enforcing the CC-by-SA licensing of the content from all projects by AI or other digital media information formats that do not respect the copyright law?
Bobby Shabangu (Bobbyshabangu)
No response yet.
Deon Steyn (Oesjaar)
No response yet.
Erik Hanberg (Erikemery)
No response yet.
Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)
No response yet.
Christel Steigenberger (Kritzolina)
No response yet.
Lane Rasberry (Bluerasberry)
No response yet.
Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius)
No response yet.
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (Nadzik)
No response yet.
Mohammed Awal Alhassan (Alhassan Mohammed Awal)
No response yet.
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)
No response yet.
Tesleemah Abdulkareem (Tesleemah)
No response yet.
Victoria Doronina (Victoria)
No response yet.
Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan recognizes multiple trends negative to the Wikimedia movement: decreasing visibility, audiences moving to a novel competition such as artificial intelligence solutions and Internet influencers, increasing information warfare and erosion of trust, necessary technical investments while the revenue growth was flattening. At the same time, the movement's products and processes change very, very slowly. Which bold steps would you recommend to the Wikimedia Foundation?
Bobby Shabangu (Bobbyshabangu)
No response yet.
Deon Steyn (Oesjaar)
No response yet.
Erik Hanberg (Erikemery)
No response yet.
Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)
No response yet.
Christel Steigenberger (Kritzolina)
No response yet.
Lane Rasberry (Bluerasberry)
No response yet.
Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius)
No response yet.
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (Nadzik)
No response yet.
Mohammed Awal Alhassan (Alhassan Mohammed Awal)
No response yet.
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)
No response yet.
Tesleemah Abdulkareem (Tesleemah)
No response yet.
Victoria Doronina (Victoria)
No response yet.
What are your thoughts about systemic bias on Wikimedia projects, both in their content and their demographics, and including identity-based, language-based, economic/resource-based, ideological/worldview-based, and other forms of system bias? What measures or initiatives do you think the Board can appropriately take to address systemic bias?
Bobby Shabangu (Bobbyshabangu)
No response yet.
Deon Steyn (Oesjaar)
No response yet.
Erik Hanberg (Erikemery)
No response yet.
Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)
No response yet.
Christel Steigenberger (Kritzolina)
No response yet.
Lane Rasberry (Bluerasberry)
No response yet.
Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius)
No response yet.
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (Nadzik)
No response yet.
Mohammed Awal Alhassan (Alhassan Mohammed Awal)
No response yet.
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)
No response yet.
Tesleemah Abdulkareem (Tesleemah)
No response yet.
Victoria Doronina (Victoria)
No response yet.