Notes from the Candidate

On language

My apologies, but questions can only be answered in English at this time, to ensure the maximum number of people can read my responses. Wikimedia supports projects in many languages, however! If you cannot write fluent English, but have a question that is important to you, please ask it in your native tongue (and indicate what language it is!). I will do my best to have it translated, and then I will reply to the translated question.

On off-site questions

Unless it's very, very important to you to ask your question and receive your answer off-Wiki or on another project, please ask your question here! I'd much rather have one place for people to find out my views.

To everyone

Thanks for your interest in my candidacy!

Questions and Responses

Ads, branding, business dev., GHGs.

On the board, will you vote for ads on Wikimedia sites?
1. yes
  1. pop-ups/flash/banners/graphics
  2. flash/banners/graphics in skin whitespace or at bottom
  3. company logos in site notices
  4. prominent text ads
  5. company names in site notices
  6. text ads in skin whitespace or at bottom
  7. opt out
  8. opt in
  9. other
2. maybe
  1. only for a huge amount of money
  2. only during budget emergencies
  3. only if editors support it
3. never
4. other
What are your thoughts on Wikimedia branding?
What are your thoughts on the foundation's hiring of a business developer?
How would you vote on the board about the foundation reducing or offsetting anthropogenic greenhouse gases, e.g. power used by hardware, flights, etc.?

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-19t18:18z

Okay, let's break this out a little.

My feelings fall into several of your categories. Broadly:

Opt-in: albeit only accompanied by a rock-solid re-commitment to never, ever have ads. Frankly, there is very little opposition to this, as it is functionally-equivalent to donating to the Foundation. So long as this doesn't creep into opt-out in any form, and so long as we do not push users to enable it, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to (indirectly) donate to Wikimedia in this manner if I choose. Technically, I could do it today by modifying my Monobook, no? It's just that the Foundation doesn't have an AdSense account set up.
Only for a huge amount of money/Only during budget emergencies: There are certain $\lim _{x\to \infty }$ considerations at work here—if my options are "allow project to die" or "put up ads", I think it would be a minority view that I should allow the project to die. That said, even in that extreme case, everything still falls to:
only if editors support it: Exactly. The only unusual consideration here might be the fact that we need to look closely at who is doing the work of creating the content—that is, if 90% of grammar-checkers support ads, but of our top 5% content contributors, only 1% support ads, then that means we can't have ads. I view any addition of advertisements to the site as breaking a promise that the Foundation made to the editors. Thus (and this is the quote/soundbite I encourage you to use to describe my position) the only way I would ever support advertising is if the editors—those whose content we would, literally, be selling—specifically, explicitly, and en masse (ballpark it at 95%+) release us from our promise to never advertise. Otherwise? Never.

Branding is a job for:
Business development. Business development is crucial for many reasons, not the least of which is the startlingly-efficacious manner in which it tends to resolve budget shortfalls. Quite frankly, we have a lot of goodwill capital built up in the business world. Google uses us for "define:" queries, for example. A gladhander, presuming that s/he understands, appreciates, and holds dear the underlying principles of the Foundation, is a Good Thing.
While I see some value in the initiative, we are tasked by our users with democratizing and disseminating information. If I may be somewhat crass about the matter, the fact that our declared values and the ones embodied by such an approach both happen to line up with the "hippie" ethos does not automatically entitle us to spend funds donated in the belief that they'd be supporting our first mission on another, orthogonal one, instead. That said, if someone wants to donate to this specific cause, of course, I see no conflict in implementing it.

Great questions, thank you for asking them! Jouster 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if

What would you do/recommend when elected and faced with 40% budget deficit? Absolwent 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "cry" a valid answer? No? Okay, then.

If you're asking about ads, please see my response here. If ads aren't an option (and I don't really think they are ever going to be, as our userbase is very ad-averse), barring the creation of new revenue sources (via partnerships, donations, grants, etc.), we would have to cut back on services somehow. Realistically, however, I feel quite confident that if the last option on the table was restriction of services, our userbase would step up and fill the gap. If not, I'll solicit user proposals—after all, it's the users that would be affected by any service reduction. Jouster 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser policy

What is your opinion of the privacy policy, particularly relating to checkusering of adminship candidates? Majorly (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to answer this question at this time. I simply don't know enough of the debate on either side. You have my pledge, however, that I will thoroughly investigate the issue if it came before the Board, and I hope you can appreciate that I'm willing to say, "I don't know," rather than giving you a half-baked answer. Jouster 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications

Do you hold any professional qualifications or graduate degrees that would be of service to the board? Specifically in business, accounting/finance, or law, but also in any other field as creative experience (such as board members who hold masters and phd's in the arts, music and the like) are valuable too. Swatjester 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The extent of my informal qualifications for the board are my Wiki experience, my programming knowledge (see some of the userboxes on my enPedia user page), and my knowledge of security and cryptography best practices. From the standpoint of formal education, I will readily admit that I am probably the least-qualified candidate. That said, if I thought I'd be in over my head, I wouldn't have submitted my nomination; I have confidence in my ability to handle any situations requiring specialized training as they come up, in no small part due to the excellent set of reference works we all know and love. I am offering my candidacy as the "average Joe" nominee. That's, for better or worse, what I am. Jouster 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Not so sure about this: [1][2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] [17][18][19]

Wikidan829 19:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Board elections/2007/Endorsements/en:

Because the Elections Committee believes that the endorsement requirement is important to the Board election process, we urge that reasonable requests and discussion concerning endorsements should not be considered a violation of any local anti-canvassing guidelines or norms.

That said, I do not feel that I overstepped w:en:WP:CANVAS.

--Jouster 11:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project policy involvement

What are your views on board involvement in writing and implementing policy for the various projects, especially in controversial areas where it appears that community consensus will be difficult to establish, such as on the "attack sites" [20] and biography of living people (BLP) [21] issues? Cla68 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Board should never "write policy", per se, unless we are legally obligated to do so. On contentious issues such as those you describe, it may very rarely be appropriate for the Board to change the current policy while a debate is still ongoing, but that policy should be de facto, not fiat—that is to say, the Board-dictated policy should only be in place for the duration of the debate, at which point the community consensus takes over. That situation, however, to emphasize, should be EXTREMELY rare; most cases where it would be appropriate should be w:en:WP:SNOW'd by an administrator long before the board got involved. Jouster 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Hi Dan,

What is the top 3 things you want to have changed in the current strategy of the foundation? Thanks, Effeietsanders 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Value

Hi Dan,

What kind of value do you add to the current set of boardmembers in the area of Legal, Financial, Accounting etc expertise? Thanks, Effeietsanders 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cash & users

We need money and people. We have lost users (for a while) after this event. Nobody expected it, but... the same was in 2006. Do you want to talk about money (with these wealthy guys) and what's your opinion about that event ;)? Przykuta 11:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have answered your question here. If not, with my apologies, if you could be a little more specific, I'd appreciate it. From what I could gather—a board member stated something apocalyptic about a funding crunch? Jouster 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather about Wikimedia PR... A lot of newspapers have written about Wikimedia's failure. Should we talk about our cash more carefully. Przykuta 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Financing, if anything, needs to be more open. These sorts of rumors breed best in an environment parched for information. If there were a clear, updated link with budgets (the most recent I've found dates back to Q4 2005), the journalists would have done their due diligence and written nothing at all. Jouster 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews and Accredited reporters attending events

Wikinews may be one of the lesser-known projects, but we recently managed to get a contributor entry to the G8 conference. Efforts were made to get the Board involved in the drafting of a letter for the reporter's entry to the G8, but these received no response. As an involved party there is more about this issue on Eloquence's questions page [22]. What is your opinion on this, it is - I believe - an issue the board should take seriously. Those of us who contribute on Wikinews are ambitious enough to think that we can overtake the Wikipedia article count (although I may be retired before we manage it there are new news stories every day). As we really want to be able to do truly original reporting we need people who can "almost" say they represent us. Do you support this, and do you believe the board should have been involved for something as important as sending a reporter to the G8 conference? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, I did some research on the subject (see?), and allow me to be the first to openly admit I did not realize WikiNews issued press credentials. I think that's great! You appear to have three main concerns, so allow me to address them individually. Should the Wikimedia Board...

change the press credential process? No, unless, legally, we're putting ourselves at risk by putting our logo on someone's press pass. If we are, we, somewhat by default, must become involved.
more-explicitly endorse the press credential process? Of course! Again, barring legal issues, if it's the best policy the community can create, we need to be behind it 100%!
support those with press credentials, personally and directly? Yes, but it gets complicated. It's simply not practical to fully-support every one of (potentially) thousands of users with legitimate claim and need for press credentials. Furthermore, I'm thinking of things like White House press conferences, where I'd love to see a WikiNews reporter seated, but where security team is unlikely to be thrilled by the prospect of certifying the press passes, and running expensive background checks, of hundreds of WikiWarranted reporters. This could be resolved by a tiered system of credentials, much as we differentiate between "administrators", "bureaucrats", "stewards", etc. I'd be happy to equip a couple dozen of our very-most-trusted WikiNewsians with letters of recognition on Board stationery, my phone number in case they ran into someone who didn't accept the authenticity of the document, and whatever other levels of personal endorsement above and beyond the possession of the press pass they would need to do their (chosen) jobs.

Broadly, it is the Board's responsibility to support the policies that have been created by all of the projects. If that means doing something like proposing the installation of an IVR press-pass confirmation system (call a number, use a touch-tone phone to enter the user's press pass number, and it tells you the person's real name and a user-chosen passphrase they've written on their card, to prevent counterfeiting), or being woken up at three in the morning so a WikiNews reporter can get into the G8 conference? That's what I signed up for. I'll support you.

Great question!

--Jouster 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already set up credential verification. For something as ambitious as White House access we'd obviously nominate only a few people who had a good track record. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images and other media

What are your opinions on the use of non-free images and media on Wikimedia Foundation projects? Should they be used at all, or disallowed completely? And what do you think about the 23 March board resolution on this issue? Is it sufficient, too much, or does not go far enough. Thanks. Zzyzx11 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a technical solution that allowed non-free (for example, those licensed exclusively for Wikimedia or those which restrict commercial re-use) media to be used if no free media are available. Broadly, I support inclusion of as much (notable, etc.) information into the software as possible, but if, by lax rules, we encourage people to upload non-free media when it is even possible to create free versions, our policy has failed. For clarity's sake: this would leave, unchanged, w:en:WP:NONFREE. It would just add an additional layer of potential media we could use, tightly-restricted (perhaps even role-verified, subject to project policy) to ensure that it's used only as a last resort. Jouster 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statement

Hi candidate, I am user:Walter. If you are interested I offer you the opportunity to write a statement to present yourself to the community. This will I send in a special edition of Wikizine to my readers. You can write what you want, it is your presentation. Plain text, no in-text hyperlinks. Some can be placed at the end of the text.

Note: It can be that this will be send out after the closing of the endorsement. If you do not make it there then it will not be send at all.

Greetings, Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 04:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC) for Wikizine.org[reply]

Impending failure

The Wikimedia Foundation at a corporate level is soaked in its own drama and if conditions don't improve soon, it will crash and burn. I want the newly elected trustees to act as catalystic mediators to simply and peacefully transform drama into productivity and then success for the foundation. How do you plan on doing this? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, given that I lack preconceived notions about the best way to handle problems as they arise, I fulfill some of your prerequisites. However, your tone regarding the Board seems a bit hostile—are things really that bad, systemically? Alternately, in your opinion, is there some particular issue, the drama on which is spilling over into other areas and paralyzing the Board? Please let me know so that I may address your question more specifically. Thanks! Jouster 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough experience

On enwiki, 700- edits over a timespan of 4+ years. Can you explain to us why/how someone who participates that infrequently is familiar enough with policy, legality, etc to be elected to the board? « ANIMUM » 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like to slowly soak in information and let it percolate for a bit. Some people prefer to join up less than a year ago and get five thousand edits in the course of four months. We each have our methods, Magnus; I happen to think that learning to appreciate the subtleties of the intents behind policies is a lot more important than having interpretations for specific situations spoon-fed to me.

I feel I have enough experience to help lead the Foundation in a positive direction. There's a reason we don't just grab the oldest users, or the users with the most edits, or the longest-serving administrators on enPedia, and stick them on the Board. There's more to the Wikimedia world than enPedia, and there's more to being a productive member of the board than signing up for AWB and violating policy with it so that you can bloat your edit count. Given that as a backdrop, I'd contend that your use of edit count as an indicator of policy understanding falls somewhere between "disingenuous" and "laughable".

If you wish to further pursue a vendetta against me, kindly contain it to my enPedia Talk page. I have already addressed my relative inexperience in my original statement of candidacy, so I'd rather this page consist of genuine questions, not thinly-veiled attacks. Jouster 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vendetta, but your reply's tone insinuates that you hold it as such. You have perpetrated personal attacks against myself and Random. You have even committed a PA in your incivil reply. The redirects issue has been resolved: I was using a preset "Find and replace" option in AWB to fix the links, not using the bare mediawiki software; please just drop it. The reply plainly stated that I was not trying to bloat my count, but rather help the pedia. Your interpretations of NPOV, NPA, and WP:CIVIL dictate that you are not ready for a position of higher authority. Regards from the one and only, « ANIMUM » 00:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the "one and only" Mid943/Wiki_bean_dude7/Steptrip/Magnus Animum/whatever you're calling yourself today: you're acting like a spoiled child because I opposed your RfA. You badgered every single oppose vote, in fact, and your coach even went so far as to violate policy [23] [24] [25] to pump up your vote count.

Now you take your vendetta to another Wiki, and post this tripe about me making a personal attack (when you were the one cited for incivility by several other users on that RfA) when I questioned your character and judgment as part of a process at the end of which you would have the power to implement your judgment in a binding way. For bonus points, your hatred of me is so severe that you actually post this over half an hour AFTER I was disqualified due to lack of endorsements!

As I requested before, please, take this to my enPedia Talk page. If you want to rant and rave about me, at least show me the courtesy of conducting it at a place of my choosing. You can add a link from here if you wish, for posterity. Or something.

Jouster 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-negotiability

What do you think about Jimmy Wales having said that NPOV was non-negotiable? Ey zee 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Debate

This is a mass question being posted to all candidates. A couple days ago there was a proposal to hold an all candidates debate on IRC at a time TBD. The planning page is at ElectionDebate07 - please indicate if you are interested and if so, a time that would work for you. -- Tawker 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]