The Signpost

News and notes

Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Resident Mario, Skomorokh and Tony1

General counsel Mike Godwin leaves the Wikimedia Foundation

Mike Godwin, July 2010.

On October 19, the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner announced that Mike Godwin, long standing general counsel to Wikimedia, would be leaving the Foundation on October 22. Gardner described Godwin's departure as a "confidential personnel issue" and said that "we want to handle this kind of thing with respect for people’s privacy and dignity, and we are hopeful we can do that in this instance," stressing that his departure is neither "because of a change in direction or policy, related to our legal context" nor "over a point of principle" nor "because he did something egregious" ("The Wikimedia Foundation believes Mike has always acted in what he believes to be the Wikimedia Foundation's best interests").

Mike Godwin was hired on July 3, 2007, less than a week after Sue Gardner (see Signpost coverage). Before working for the Foundation, he had 17 years of experience as a technology and free speech lawyer, some of which resulted in his 1998 book Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. He is also credited with the invention of "Godwin's law," a whimsical adage on Internet discourse, which states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." He has edited Wikipedia as User:MGodwin.

The General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation is in charge of the day-to-day legal issues within Wikipedia. During his time on the Foundation staff, Mike Godwin had been involved in several important legal issues, including the introduction of employee background checks after the case of former COO Carolyn Doran, the 2008 privacy and data retention policy updates, the 2008/2009 license migration and the August 2010 FBI seal issues. While the Foundation has chosen not to reveal the details of his severance package, Sue Gardner did say that he will remain available to Wikimedia for several months longer. The Foundation is currently seeking for a replacement for Godwin through its employment agency m|Oppenheim, and is expecting to fill the position by January. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed by senior WMF staff. In the interim, an outside counselor will fulfill the Foundation's day-to-day needs. In the announcement's Q&A (described as "cryptic" by law blogger Rober Ambrogi), Sue Gardner said about Godwin's future prospects that


Among the Wikimedians commenting on Godwin's departure was Board member Kat Walsh (User:Mindspillage), who thanked him for his work noting that

Ten ArbCom seats up for grabs

The official Arbitration Committee logo, which has been used since the start of 2010
Preparations are under way for the eighth election of the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). By tradition, the elections are run by the community without the involvement of the Committee itself. Provisional election pages have been set up based on the model of the 2009 election, which was conducted using the SecurePoll secret ballot system. There will be a 10-day nomination period (14–23 November), followed by two "fallow" days for the completion of technical tasks; the 10-day voting period (26 November – 6 December). If the SecurePoll system is adopted, the vote will then be audited by independent scrutineers and announced on the election page, as for last year. Jimmy Wales is aware of the schedule and has confirmed his availability to formally announce the appointments after the audit. A large community RfC in 2009 established the Committee's numbers as 18, with a maximum two-year term for incoming arbitrators. This time, there are 10 seats to fill, with terms starting on 1 January 2011.

Until the call for nominations starts on 14 November, the parameters of the election are open to community feedback. There is a draft set of nine questions for all candidates (discussion here); voters will also be able to ask a unique question of each individual candidate on the public pages, and any number of questions on candidates' user talk pages. Editors interested in helping to organise the elections are encouraged to sign up as volunteer coordinators.

The Arbitration Committee is a critical part of the English Wikipedia; experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing for election.

Briefly

This week in history

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Mailing list dispute

It should be noted that at least one of the editors who have been arguing against Kohs' blocking on Foundation-l appears to have been a sockpuppet of himself [1], putting forth (among other arguments) that "Kohs will likely return with sockpuppets on the mailing list. He is relentless when prodded."[2]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisk tisk. What an a. ResMar 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know mailing lists have communication value, but how much real info can the foundation's mailing list support when it seems pretty much anyone can post to it? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much. Regrettably, it seems the Wikimedia mailing lists have largely become a place for trolls and banned users to complain about Wikipedia; important discussions about Wikipedia are probably better had on Wikipedia itself. Robofish (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, interesting. Kohs has been a thorn in our side for years, one of those people right on the borderline of trolldom. If someone is clearly a troll, they are unanimously blocked and we move on. If they are clearly not a troll and useful to the community, there is no issue, and we move on. If they're on the borderline, we spend years debating whether or not they're a troll, a far worse result

. Stevage 12:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is the concept of "troll" is too often stretched to mean "harsh or unpopular criticism". Not everyone believes this equivalence, but enough people do so that it's a factor in the above debates (which is not to say it's the only factor in such debates). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed, Godwin!

Whatever the background for Godwin's sudden departure (and Gardner's cryptic announcement doesn't leave much of a clue), Wikimedia is losing a man of principle, integrity and, not least, humour. Godspeed to you, sir! Lampman (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not widely known that Mike also played a critical part in the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts, helping me to secure representation and thereby ensure the maintenance of the PD-ART policy that has brought many important works to our articles. I wish him the best in the future. Dcoetzee 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Thank you Mike. Whatever may come you set a very high standard and fought for what Wikipedia believes in. Whoever follows will need awfully big shoes..... FT2 (Talk | email) 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0