Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/Forum

← Back to Forum

Discuss this story

• Why are the editor-in-chief, the active interviewer, someone having a strong opinion on the discussed subject and the person having the last word the same person? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I liked this style, even though I disagree with Smallbones completely. You can see two fleshed out and justified opinions on the topic, much better than a journalist's usual style of filtering the subject's opinions through the interviewer's biases. — Bilorv (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, kind of a weird format. It initially gave the impression of being an interview, but gradually came to feel more like a debate. I totally expect an interviewer to challenge the viewpoint of the interviewee and have them respond to opposing views, but inserting your own opinions and framing them as fact ("you're dead-wrong", "you haven't shown any examples of abusive fundraising adverts") seems pretty unusual for a journalistic interview. Colin M (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, this feature is labelled "Forum". I have not reread other instances of "Forum", but it seems to have the form of a debate; an economical choice. Many news 'stories' make use of 'economical' framing. <Anyone remember "Point/Counterpoint"?> I imagine this is especially true of Signpost given the size of its budget. Perhaps expanding the number of participants could happen: the topic choice could be 'evergreen', with a flexible deadline, that can be used to flesh out Signpost issues as needed. (On the other hand, the story bank is the only bank in which deposits draw less interest as time passes.) — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 05:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think fundraising is the wrong target, though some of it has seemed deceptive to me. I agree with Smallbones that one should raise funds before the situation becomes dire, but they should be raised honestly. Portraying the situation as dire when it isn't is dishonest and unethical. (It also is crying wolf, in that if the situation ever does become truly dire, people will sigh, say "Oh, this again, is it?", and be desensitized to that. That should be held in reserve for a possible time when it really is an emergency.)
  But. And there's a big, big but. As the WMF has gotten larger, those within it have, as the saying goes, seemingly forgot where they came from (as can be seen from the repeated allegations of harassment and bullying against the very organization that is trying to cram a "UCoC" down the throats of people who don't want it, in a stunning display of hypocrisy). Wikipedia founded the WMF, not the other way around. It is there to serve the projects, not rule them and put forth a bunch of initiatives with "Well, you're getting this whether you like it or not!".
  Similarly, many WMF employees, including our last ED, seem to prefer communication channels outside the wikis, and that is unacceptable. While of course there should be those at the WMF handling social media and the like, the primary communication channels should be on the wikis, and it should be expected that WMF employees will know how to use them (preferably from being volunteers themselves) and communicate in the appropriate way and in the appropriate places on the wikis, not on Facetwittubegram. Similarly, requests for feedback, surveys, etc., should take place on the wikis, not via anonymous surveys outside them. But the common thread is that business which affects the wikis should take place on those very wikis, not elsewhere.
  Yeah, that's tough to both do and interpret. But that's how our projects operate. Anyone unwilling or unable to work in that setting is not a good fit for employment with WMF.
  Yes, the community of editors needs the WMF. But WMF better not forget that the opposite is true, too, and that it is their primary responsibility to serve the editorial communities, not lord it over them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Smallbones: You should do the right thing and let Andreas Kolbe have the last word. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I asked about this during the copyediting process, and Smallbones' answer was that he and Kolbe agreed to let Smallbones have the last edit. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Did Kolbe see Smallbones' last comment before they agreed to that, or was it in principle? I would like to see the agreement, given the shocking final comment from Smallbones. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I really doubt that @Jayen466: (Andreas) has any of these concerns, but if he does he should feel free to respond here or by email. Strange as it might seem, we had a very good relationship during the writing of this, exchanging 5-7 emails over the last 2 weeks, keeping some track of word count. I'd originally proposed 2 parallel essays (with each of us getting to see the other's essay as they were written) and a couple of variants. He wouldn't bite until I essentially gave away the store - we'd exchange questions and answers and each of us could say whatever they wanted to. I do think there is some comradery berween us as Signpost EiCs. In some ways I think it was a failed experiment - we both got a bit carried away at times. I mean it sounded almost like an ArbCom page a few times. But we both got what we bargained for, the right to say whatever we wanted to - on a very broad topic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if Kolbe has concerns, I am expressing my concerns. I am especially concerned with To conclude, Andreas, you haven’t shown any examples of abusive fundraising adverts, which is an obvious lie given that there are pictures of examples on the same page. It would have been less repugnant to have said this if it wasn't the conclusion of the article, and if Kolbe was able to respond.

I take it that Kolbe did not agree with you publishing your final comment at the end of the article, and that they only agreed to the idea of you concluding the article without seeing what that conclusion would be. Please clarify if this is not the case or if there is something missing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Onetwothreeip. Smallbones is right though. We agreed that as editor-in-chief of the Signpost, he should have the last word. I'd seen his conclusion before publication – we edited the page together (see edit history). Smallbones has strong opinions and jumps in with both feet. That's fine. I assure you he was a perfect gentleman behind the scenes, and I do indeed feel a sense of camaraderie because he's kept the Signpost going all this time. I know it's a heck of a lot of work.

We agreed that we should try to keep the piece to about 3,000 words. If I were to say anything further in response, it's that I never meant to imply that the WMF should only fundraise once the money runs out – only that it shouldn't claim the money is running out when by any measure it is richer than ever. To go to Latin America, the global epicentre of the pandemic right now, with fundraising banners claiming "We need you to make a donation today so that we can continue to protect Wikipedia's independence", when the Foundation had already taken about $50 million more this financial year than even its own annual plan originally asked for, seemed altogether perverse.

I didn't write the Daily Dot headline by the way – my working title was "Monetising Wikipedia".

The German language area had better fundraising banners for a while – nothing about "humbly", "awkward", "really need", just a matter-of-fact "We fundraise once a year, now is the time, we're aiming for x million, right now we are y million short, if you can help, please do." And they actually stopped when the target was reached. If the WMF did that, that would already be an improvement. Putting a little more info on the banners about what the WMF is actually doing, rather than pretending it's all just to keep Wikipedia going, would be better still. That's what we should shoot for. Best, --Andreas JN466 12:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think they are wrong in their comments to me and I'm not concerned with their attitude towards you. What is wrong is that they made the final comments in the article, which contained at least one significant lie. As I'm now aware that both of you agreed to their final comment, I have to place responsibility with both of you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agreed that Smallbones as the host should conclude the piece. I didn't say that I agreed with what he said! But it's not for me to tell him what he can and can't say. He is entitled to his opinion. People can agree or disagree. Regards, --Andreas JN466 12:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: I also feel that the WMF is too pushy with its donation advertising, and I am far from the only OTRS (VRT) agent who hates December because of some distinctly distressing emails we get along these lines. I have also talked to a number of WMF staffers on the topic, though I suspect they'd struggle to go on the record on the issue, who share the concerns. I by no means agree with a number of Andreas Kolbe's more extreme views on the issue, but it would be really interesting to see a follow-up with the head of WMF fundraising and another editor, as to the acceptable level of push on the topic. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• "The WMF is asking for about US $2.00" - the median per capita annual income in India is $616. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing that out, Duncan. --Andreas JN466 12:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jayen466: thanks for noticing! By that measure (and my maths) $2 for an Indian is like about $50 for an American, and I think it is misleading for the article not to point that out. Smallbones any comment? DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I may be being anal here, but did you really have to italicize half the whole text? It felt unnecessarily hard to read. Nardog (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• From past discussions, I think I'm in quite a minority position of strongly opposing the fundraising banners. If I thought it had any chance of passing, I would start an RfC on the English Wikipedia to ban all fundraising banners (I think some tech person can do this with some CSS or something) and wheel war or threaten mass exodus if necessary to enforce this, until the WMF voluntarily agreed not to show fundraising banners on en.wiki (and hopefully something like this would cascade into other language projects). One fundamental reason is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion #5, which includes the sentence: Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. More practical is what Andreas lays out in quite a lot of detail: the fundraising banners are very misleading, prey upon people who should not be donating to Wikipedia, and propagate wilful misinformation. They also create an impression in the minds of readers that the small, simple thing they can do to help Wikipedia is to donate. It isn't. It's to edit. If you just want to fix typos and make small grammatical improvements anonymously, great, you're helping. Moreso than that $2. If you want to make a substantial contribution to our mission then you do it through editing labour hours, not donation money. Lack of editors is what could make us die on Thursday, not WMF server budget.
  Now, I gather that the WMF employees have pretty good wages and labour rights, impressive for an American company, and I don't object to this use of money. The WMF also does plenty of projects which are worthwhile and plenty of its tech stuff is necessary. The money that you and I put aside for charity could be spent in worse ways than donating to Wikipedia, but I think there are better causes for me to donate my money to, at least while the WMF has the assets and income that it does (and is planning to with its for-profit plans). Smallbones' argument seems to be that most other companies, including non-profits, are worse. Yes, that's true. But we should hold ourselves to higher standards, particularly higher standards than America does. (Firefighters begging on the streets is nothing like I have ever seen in the UK. Why does your country not have any proper public infrastructure?) — Bilorv (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you are indeed in a minority of opposing them using the fundraising banners at all - certainly I wouldn't agree with that. I think I am part of a much larger group (though as editors don't normally see the banners, it's tricky to identify where the majority of people with an actual awareness lies) who dislike the execution. Disliking certain ways in which the WMF spends its money is definitely a majority viewpoint, but it much harder to act on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, well we're agreed on what is majority/minority opinion, at least, and I do support reform of the banners as a step in the right direction. I suspect that if we surveyed Wikipedians on what the WMF should and shouldn't be spending money on, we'd get the classic Wikimedia problem that everyone agrees overall that the WMF is misusing money, but on no single issue would there be a consensus on what to change. — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bilorv: - I'll just see if I can explain volunteer firefighting here - it pretty much goes back to Benjamin Franklin operating at a time of British rule. Franklin's very practical political philosophy was one of self-organized self-help groups (very Wikipedian!). Yes, forming governments is one way of doing this, but government is not always the best way of doing things (e.g.Wikipedia or the press in general). Besides, those darned Brits were in charge of the government. I was quite surprised when I moved to this area how strongly the Franklin model of firefighting is supported, but it is used in other areas, particularly in rural areas (with fried chicken dinners a common way to raise money). My hypothesis on the support in more urban areas is that the firefighters really like it. Perhaps they like it for the comraderie, the free training, the adventure, but I'll guess something else as well - they form a local institution that has a lot of local power - something like the Junior Chamber of Commerce.

I should emphasize that I was never truly offended by the "boot in the driver's face." It's just something that a useful and successful local institution has to do. I also always feel free not to donate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was certaily under the impression that WP was under financial duress because of the banners. I was also surprised by Smallbones (who I rate very highly) taking the last word. Dutchy45 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• That counterpunch diatribe read like conspiracy theory nonsense about Wikipedia from the left. It's not as frequent as the right-wing garbage, but just as partisan and unhelpful. I do think the daily dot article raises some fair questions; namely, why is the WMF doing all of this? Also I don't think anyone has previously mentioned -Indy beetle (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Must be the mood of the moment --Andreas JN466 17:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Ugh. As always with criticism of Wikipedia, the problem is not that the logic doesn't make sense but that its factual premises just don't relate to how Wikipedia actually works and operates. It's a really complicated thing. In this case, it's not best viewed as a capitalist enterprise with financial conflicts of interest based on who funds the WMF, nor is it best viewed as an oligarchy run by a very narrow range of American white men. You can even see contradiction in the way we describe ourselves at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Community: actually, we are an anarchy, and a bureaucracy, and a democracy, as well as a liberalist community and an oligarchy and more. We're just not all of these things in all situations. We are whichever is practical in the moment to maintain an internal community that writes the encyclopedia, tidies up useful contributions by people not in the inner community, and defends against outside threats (vandals, POV pushers, COI editors). — Bilorv (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, but we are (mostly) white, Western males who naturally think (mostly) like white Western males, prefer certain sources of information, have certain values, and so on. Nobody has to ask us to be like that. If we had grown up elsewhere, we'd just as naturally be different. The WMF's declared global strategy is to become "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us". Clearly this infrastructure will be coloured by our culture, our very conception of reality. And if via Wikifunctions and Wikidata our worldview can be translated into any regional language in Africa, India, etc., this will spread our ways of thinking, our consumer habits – opening up new markets (but also impacting the environment). At least, you might grant, that's one facet of the big picture, one that'll have occurred to many people long ago. Why do you think, e.g., Google and the WMF asked Indian volunteers to create articles in Indian regional languages for Indian search terms trending on Google? It's to increase Google's revenue and market penetration in these regional-language communities. You don't Google if there's nothing of value to find. Any wealth generated in this process flows to the West, as it has always done. No one gives money to the WMF without expecting to profit in some way. Wikimedia is, for better or worse, a cultural ambassador. --Andreas JN466 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Disproportionately white Western males, but on "mostly". I guess my comment wasn't directly tied to the Counterpunch article enough. I agree that we have plenty of biases based on our contributor base, and that who donates to the WMF and why is something of interest. But this Counterpunch article conflates internal/external community (no mention of our perspective on paid/COI editing) and misrepresents the relationship of Larry Sanger to the community. There's all sorts of misleading implications in the headline and first paragraph about Wikipedia being statist and donors/editors being the same group. But even if we are disproportionately white Western males, there's substantial diversity of belief on topics like war and I think editors are more radical in beliefs than our base demographics would imply. Hence, neither capitalist enterprise nor groupthinking oligarchy is the right view here. Or at least, the piece is so sensationalist and simplistic as to be a net negative. — Bilorv (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
          • I actually agree with you about that article as a whole. I posted it more tongue in cheek, because I happened to see the Wikipediocracy thread on it right after reading the above comment on Counterpunch and found the coincidence funny. As for WP demographics, did you see the Recent Research section of this Signpost issue? (Edit: Actually, you commented there, so you clearly did.) Cheers, --Andreas JN466 08:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• I find Andreas's point about the (unwarranted) urgency implied by the language of fundraising banners very compelling (though I think the US politics tangent is one that's liable to create more heat than light). Another turn of phrase that stuck out to me in a recent banner was "Show the volunteers who bring you reliable, neutral information that their work matters." (example banner). As one of those volunteers who has spent hundreds (thousands?) of hours editing Wikipedia, I was disappointed that WMF would presume to speak for me in this way. To me, the measure of whether my work "matters" is not in how many hundreds of millions of dollars the WMF brings in. When the topic of supporting Wikipedia comes up with friends and family, I urge them to, rather than making a cash donation, spend a couple hours adding citations to an article, or fix typos as they come across them, or raise issues on talk pages. Heck, if you want to show volunteers that their work matters, leave a nice 'thank you' note on the talk page of an editor who contributed to an article you found useful.

For those who haven't seen it, it's worth mentioning User:Guy Macon's related essay "Wikipedia has Cancer", though its focus is more on the rate of growth of WMF expenditures/revenue rather than the tone of fundraising appeals. Colin M (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Show the volunteers who bring you reliable, neutral information that their work matters" is offensive to many editors. The WMF knows that. There were complaints about it on the mailing list last December. Following similar complaints by the Brazilians in April, it was taken out of the banners on the Portuguese Wikipedia ... only to be used again a couple of weeks later in Spanish-speaking Latin America. (It's included in the Spanish version above.) --Andreas JN466 18:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a really terrible phrase. 95% of the feedback I get is negative, most of it deliberately hostile and often politically charged, because there's a selection bias of only people who disagree caring enough to say/do anything. So maybe you could thank me by... thanking me, not by paying some money to a company whose assets I couldn't tell you in dollars to the nearest power of 10. It is concretely a practical thing that a layperson can do: when you read an article and learn something important, find the most primary recent contributor (if one exists) and write something nice on their talk page. I try to do it from time to time. — Bilorv (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have always found the fundraising banners annoying at best and downright pandering and hypocritical at worst. I found the editor's defense of them disingenuous, honestly. You want to show volunteers their work matters? Maintain standards on article content and verifiable, reliable sources in those articles. Value that work instead of turning us into children in late-night television ads begging for money for some unverifiable "charity" doing who knows what with your twenty dollars a month. Intothatdarkness 20:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Lgruwell-WMF and MeganHernandez (WMF): - it's not quite obvious who the fundraising leads are, so please feel free to ping someone who may be more appropriate. If you've got 15 minutes, could you have a read of the interview, and then the discussions/concerns above. As you can see, while many of us don't agree with everything claimed by Kolbe, concerns about the aggressive tone, as well as claims about editors, are common. Your thoughts and participation would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, I've made a post to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, quoting some of the comments here along with your request that Megan and Lisa come and participate. I don't think they log in here very often, and therefore it may be some time before they get your ping. Unfortunately, I am newly moderated on the mailing list, so my post is currently stuck in the moderation queue. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 10:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Now published: [1] --Andreas JN466 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• WMF is one of the only few organizations that give enough credit, respect and security to the crowdsourced content. The for-profit companies have time and again betrayed the public by shutting down abruptly without even an archival. Yahoo!Answers recently vanished without even respecting the millions of people's contribution, when they followed GeoCities path. Flikr recently deleted billions of valuable images. The selling of Github, Mapillary, Stackoverflow , etc., to the enemies of open source affected the communities' morale. I would call it the "tragedy of digital commons". It is very sad that even in 2020s there are not many promising open knowledge and free content projects. So please stop criticizing them for raising funds, rather make them focus on solving issues of Wikimedia projects. I am only grateful if WMF collects and spends more money for keeping the open knowledge missions alive. - Vis M (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree that WMF respects crowdsourced content, when English Wikipedia is considering banning IP editing and other languages have already done so. 04:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

  I wish they hired more technical developers to implement Wikipedia:Timed flagged revisions and other lighter anti-vandalism measures as a less harsh step - Vis M (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I think this is similar to Smallbones' argument, that other companies are worse. You're listing some very big and genuinely disgraceful problems with other projects. But I don't donate my labour hours to other projects. I donate it to Wikipedia and no, the WMF does not give me any credit, respect or security. We see this through their insanely slow response to technical restrictions that stopped my messages to IPs reaching the targets, their lack of off-wiki action against malicious UPEs who waste so much of my time, their attempts to work with Google without negotiating that Google stop knowingly take credit for my writing, and in this case their fundraising banners that marginalise and de-emphasise the importance of my volunteer labour (implying money, not edits, is the primary way to help). — Bilorv (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• One thought about Wikimedia fundraising. I've long believed that were the WMF to fire half its staff, the average volunteer to any project -- the people who contribute content, not those who regularly interact with the Foundation -- would not notice any difference. A lot of assumptions or conclusions could be drawn from this thought experiment, but I believe it is a significant cause for resentment towards Foundation fundraising. (The aggressive fundraising tactics is, of course, another cause.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The current number of WMF staff/contractors is twice what it was in 2015. --Andreas JN466 09:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• The frustrating thing is that Smallbones doesn't seem to really grasp how many of us feel about those advertising banners. We're not suggesting that "advertising be delayed until Wikipedia is really in trouble". We're suggesting that advertising be far more honest than it currently is. There's a big difference. MeegsC (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• ? The more money the better, as there is never a limit to fund new and innovative Wikipedia projects. For instance, many more full scholarships to conventions could be arranged, travel and lodging costs could be paid for long-time editors who work and photograph on location (artwork travel for articles seems one way to improve the project's coverage), and I've recently advocated adding a few long-time editors as Wikipedia ombudsmen to WMF staff (at least one per shift) to solely protect and advocate the Wikipedia project (they would quickly interface with editors and staff when problems and/or solutions arise, and the rest of the time edit as usual while also monitoring key pages). A great deal of income seems preferable to saying "We have enough, thank you" but of course WMF shouldn't mislead contributors either by claiming near-poverty. Large benefactors always preferred. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The most important thing we should not be doing is seeking--or even accepting--donations from large benefactors. We don't need them--I've been told small donors contribute about 80% of the funding. WP is at base a populist egalitarian project, and should stay that way. If we become dependent on a few foundations or individuals, we lose our freedom of action, and we lose the perceived independence of our content. (I do not thing the CFR or any such group has any actual influence on enWP content now, and that's the way we want to leave it. But the mere fact this could be seriously questioned in this Forum illustrates the problem.) We're open resource written by the general public, and addressed to them, and we need to retain that perspective. The closer we approach to an ordinary foundation or business model, the less the influence of the volunteers, and the less likely we are to retain and attract them. As the largest information technology firms get more and more dominant, there needs to be one place at least where their influence does not extend. The board should not be just 50% from the volunteers--it should be entirely or almost entirely from the volunteers, and elected directly. At the very least, nobody who has ever held an executive role in the information industry should be on it--their experience will contaminate us. We shouldn't be part of their world.--I would even say, we exist in opposition to it. (Though I recognize the paradox that we and all independent sites exist only because the large firms pay for and operate the basic structure of the internet for their commercial purposes, and the further paradox that Google et al get much of their value from our voluntarily provided content. WP is enmeshed in the commercial and official world , just as we individually are in our life generally. ) DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Accepting money from those who realize the value of Wikipedia has nothing to do with how they and their articles will be treated, or will they be allowed to dictate in the slightest how the money is used. If Bill Gates wants to give $500 million to the upkeep of Wikipedia, no strings attached, because he knows its unique place in society, he should be welcomed with the understanding that because of that his page will be even more scrutinized by long-time valued editors. I agree with you about the board, the more real editors selected the better. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

David, I'm absolutely fine with the idea of a board 100% elected directly by the volunteers. That would be democracy. How do we get there from here? And I agree that any influence organisations like the CFR have on Wikipedia content is likely to be minor to non-existent. That's not what I was implying: there is no need. Wikipedia has firm rules about which sources are allowed to be cited. I remember your comments from a few weeks ago where you expressed the view that Wikipedia could be a little more liberal in this respect, a view I share. These rules by and large already make sure that Wikipedia's content is broadly consistent with America's – or more broadly the West's – interests. There is no need to micromanage every Wikipedia article if the broad thrust is right, and Western establishment values and viewpoints enter minds and cultures across the globe, in hundreds of languages, through projects like Wikidata and Wikifunctions, amplified by Google infoboxes, Amazon and Apple voice assistants etc. Information is soft power, especially when done on a global scale (which is of course why China e.g. doesn't want Wikimedia, and Russia has an uneasy relationship with it).

Making Wikimedia "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge", the strategy that came out of this process overseen by a CFR member (and which many volunteers actually think of as weird, or overreach, and more or less imposed on them), aims precisely in this direction. It is surely an idea the CFR could only approve of. The idea of exporting Western culture and making it globally dominant is not even intrinsically bad: Western culture has good and bad elements like any other culture. Western culture offers valuable freedoms many other countries lack. Most people in the West consider it altogether superior (although if 8 billion people on earth lived Western lives, it would probably be fatal for the environment). So Wikipedians by and large may be entirely happy and proud to play a part in this endeavour of cultural ambassadorship, spreading free (Western) knowledge and values in the service of freedom, democracy, economic growth and wealth generation, fighting against poverty, oppression and lack of access to Western-style technology, knowledge and education. But I submit it's worth thinking about these things, and trying to see them from different perspectives, and noting the political and business motivations involved.

So if Wikimedia strategy processes can conceivably be influenced by CFR consultants, what other types of influence are possible? Think back to August 2011, when Wales surprisingly endorsed the Kazakh Wikipedia, run by a government operative in a country with a deplorable human rights record (but huge mineral wealth and a useful stance on nuclear disarmament). Wales told Wikimania of his intention to go to Kazakhstan and give that award in the presence of the President or Prime Minister of Kazakhstan. Now in October 2011, two months after the award, the WMF announced that it had received its biggest ever donation from the Stanton Foundation: $3.6 million.

You may recall that the Stanton Foundation is run by the wife of Graham Allison, who was then director of the Belfer Center, and who is the possessor of a friendship medal from Kazakhstan's president Nazarbayev. He is also a CFR member and former assistant defense secretary in the Clinton administration. Clinton, like his mate Tony Blair, had had well-publicised and controversial dealings with Kazakhstan, delivering "a propaganda coup" to its President, as the New York Times put it. So I submit here is one possible explanation for why a free-speech advocate like Wales might suddenly sing the praises of a dictator who brutally suppresses free speech in his country, in the process delivering to him – just like Clinton before him – another propaganda coup that was promptly touted by Kazakh officials on multiple embassy websites: "Kazakhstan wins Wikipedian of the Year award!" But even if all of that was mere coincidence, what we do know is that a few years later there was a very public scandal involving a Wikipedia editor working for the Belfer Center who was paid by the same Stanton Foundation. One of the last things Sue Gardner did before she left was to analyse what had gone wrong and should never be repeated. So influence can be of many kinds, and arguably yield results that a volunteer-run board would not have supported. --Andreas JN466 23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There are reasons why things have not been structured to encourage a democratic approach. Part of this bias is due to early libertarian influences on Wikipedia -- which I won't go into, but considering that Jimmy Wales considers himself a small-l libertarian (a well-known fact), that statement should not need a citation. Part of this bias is due to fear that any elected board could be subverted by an outside group who could overwhelm the core of dedicated volunteers, the vanguard party. It was a realistic fear in the earliest years: I remember when the EN-Wikipedia list was abuzz with news that Neo-Nazis planned on taking over Wikipedia by mobbing us with their followers. When you consider that at the time we had only a few hundred volunteers making edits on a regular basis, that was a credible threat. However, when the attack came, instead of hoards of Neo-Nazis, it turned out to be barely a corporal's guard -- who were swiftly dealt with.

I'm sure there are other reasons -- besides inertia -- for this prejudice against a democratic process. -- llywrch (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)