Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election

Go vote for the WMF's Board of Trustees.

The Wikimedia Foundation's biennial Board of Trustees election is open for voting. Of the ten seats on the board, three are elected representatives of the global Wikimedia community—you.

The relationship between the WMF and the community has been strained in recent times, perhaps most notably after the introduction of superprotect on the German Wikipedia and the VisualEditor on the English. As such, Wikipedia editors love to gripe about the WMF. Often, this complaining is justified, but voting in this election is one of the primary outlets by which Wikipedians can shape the strategic direction of the WMF. The board hires the executive director, approves the annual budget, and generally oversees the organization. We need to seize the opportunity to help shape the WMF's responses to the challenges it faces and will face in the coming years.

You can get to know the candidates through several methods. Last week's Signpost special asked them to rank their answers on a numerical scale, making it a quick and easy way to see the candidate's positions on various issues. For those looking to make a more in-depth assessment, the main questions page on Meta has 35 questions (as of publishing time) to read through.

How should you vote? We are not in a place to tell you who to vote for, but as the system used is a modified form of an approval vote, you can maximize your impact by liberally voting no. As Dirk Franke explains (minor changes for readability):

“

To give you some examples with small numbers:

Person A who receives 9 support votes and one oppose vote has an approval rate of 90%.
Person B who receives 17 support votes and two oppose votes has an approval rate of 89%.

In this case person A would be the winner although in total numbers he has only half the support of person B. In this scenario the candidate needs 9 support votes to make up for one oppose vote.

This of course works for bigger numbers as well:

A: 90–10 gives an approval rate of 90%
B: 900–101 gives an approval rate of 89.91%

A wins

A: 900–100 gives an approval rate of 90%
B: 908–101 gives an approval rate of 89.99%

A wins

The higher the approval rate for the top candidates is in general, the higher is the impact of a negative vote.

With an approval rate of 90% for the top candidates voting nay has 9 times more impact than voting yes. Around 80% approval rate the impact of a nay is 4 times as big, around 70% approval rate the factor is below 3 and around 50% the factor is just one. Below 50%, the support votes become more influential than nays.

Given normal circumstances in such an election the approval rates for the top three candidates should be over 70 or 80%; so a negative given has three to four times than impact than a positive vote given.

For you as tactical voter this means: don't waste nay-votes. Don't vote neutral.

”

Vote now and make a difference. The people selected in this election will quite possibly help make significant decisions for the future of our movement.

Next "From the editor" →

In this issue

20 May 2015 (all comments)

From the editor

In focus

Traffic report

News and notes

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.

I voted so as to earn the right to complain about whatever direction the foundation goes if I feel it to be the wrong direction. That having been said, I fail to see the need to vote since nothing changes regardless of whose sitting in a position of power or authority. Nothing has ever changed, and nothing will ever change. Its the sad truth of any election process, but that is my opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are a relatively small organization. Thus I think change is possible. If we give the community a greater say in tech development (and complete authority over at least some tech resources) I think we have a better chance of avoiding issues were large sums are spent on stuff that is not wanted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assessment. In my opinion, we have passed the point at which change was possible years ago, now all we can do is attempt to tweak the existing system in meaningful ways so as to give lip service to any attempt to implement change. While we may be small, at this point in our existing, it wold take a benevolent dictatorship to overhaul and fix the great issues now know to be facing us here. By no means should that stop you from trying, its just this one somewhat disgruntled editor's personal opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I wasn't impressed with the quality of several of the candidates. As someone noted on a mailing list I'm a member of, very few of them have previous experience relevant to being on the board of an organisation like the WMF (a mid-sized and fairly well funded international NGO which manages a bunch of complicated and high-profile websites and an ambitious community engagement program). A couple also seem to want to be elected to argue with the WMF, which seems to be inconsistent with the kinds of responsibilities which go with being a WMF board member or likely to be a productive way of representing the community. I voted for the ones who seemed qualified and hope that they do well, and voted against those who seemed clueless or a bad fit for the role. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: A couple also seem to want to be elected to argue with the WMF, which seems to be inconsistent with the kinds of responsibilities which go with being a WMF board member or likely to be a productive way of representing the community.

If this is what the community wants to see from the Board then this is what ought to happen on the Board. I don't see what's implicitly unproductive about being proactive (would you rather I say combative?) about the situation that the movement is in right now; far from it, I think that these are the most important conversations we could be having right now. Just three of the seats on the board are afforded to the community vote, and what you ask for is provided in the skill-based seats allotted by the Board itself. What is necessary from community-elects is activism on the part of the community. ResMar 04:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being proactive and vocal is good. Joining the board with an ill-disguised axe to grind against "San Francisco" isn't given that the role involves working with the WMF in a mutually respectful way. I think that the community reps need to have a solid appreciation of organisations like the WMF to be able to provide useful advice on its operations which leads to results. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still be nice to see some independent voices on the Board. I felt that the current representatives should have stuck up more for the right of individual projects to make decisions by consensus on the matter of paid editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: The board of trustees is a regulatory body with 10 seats. Expert managers are appointed to four seats in the board. A seat is given to our founder, one of our greatest managers. And two seats are given to expert board members from the chapters. The three community trustees represent you in this regulatory body. It is vital that their ideas are your ideas. And that you actually trust your trustee. Do you really want to vote for another manager, when the board already has 7 expert managers. Or do you want your voice to be heard on the board. Someone to present your ideas on the board. A person who stands next to you, will feel what you feel, see what you see, and you only need to turn your head to talk to them. We only appoint 3 people to the board. We need people we can talk to. People to discus your ideas with you. People to discus your ideas with the board. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if the community reps are clueless about what's involved with running an organisation like the WM Foundation or have a grudge against it they're going to be ineffective. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we should all cooperate to achieve results. Among the candidates I see experience as members of the arbitration committee or as a steward, people who organised Wikimania and GLAM conventions, people who created Wikidata and the Medical translation usergroup, or a professor in internet social studies, or etc etc. These people will not be clueless. Indeed I think that most people will be equal except for their Wikimedia experience. Those people who know Wikipedia, OTRS, Commons, GLAM, the Education programme, Wiki Loves Monuments, those people will have an advantage. Within the Wikimedia Foundation, the real management is done by the executive director and the staff. The chair of the board does some minor work. The board as a whole has a more general advisory role, it is a regulatory body. However, as could be seen when we got a new executive director. She was dependent on her advisors in everything concerning Wikimedia online. Such a lack of experience is a disadvantage and can cost months on every single new matter. I believe for the board to be effective it needs Wikimedians as well as managers. We have 7 managers. The community should provide the board with 3 Wikimedians. And they should all cooperate to achieve the best results. I believe that every member of the board has the best intentions, and no member will be ineffective if they have good ideas and can explain it face to face with other members. Only when our voice is not given and we do not give our ideas, or give it only via inpersonal letters, will such ideas be easily disregarded. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Tangent) Nice to see one of my Welcome 19th C. lithograph uploads illustrating the story. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]