Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Community view

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Community view

Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections

Contribute   —  
Share this
By EpicPupper

The Wikimedia Foundation Board election process for 2022 started in April. Twelve Wikimedians have submitted their candidacy, and six members of the Analysis Committee have been confirmed at the time of publication. The Analysis Committee is responsible for evaluat[ing] the candidates against the skills and diversity, equity and inclusion criteria shared by the Board of Trustees. An affiliate shortlisting period will be held from July 1 to 15, and a community voting phase is scheduled for August 15 to 29.

To help inform affiliates on the wishes of the community, The Signpost is holding a poll to select a potential shortlist. To participate, please use this link; contributors can select "yes", "abstain" or "no" for each candidate. The top 6 candidates will be published and recommended for affiliates to select for shortlisting. Please use your username in the "name" field; only the Signpost Editors in Chief (EpicPupper and JPxG) will have access to the vote logs. Once done, please email one of the EiCs to confirm your vote. Duplicate votes will not be counted.

Edit count statistics are tallied below for each candidate, for voter convenience.

  • Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak): ar.wikipedia.org 3,643 en.wikipedia.org 3,182 commons.wikimedia.org 1,926 meta.wikimedia.org 985 www.wikidata.org 546 wikimania2016.wikimedia.org 66 ar.wikisource.org 46 he.wikipedia.org 34 www.mediawiki.org 29 fr.wikipedia.org 29 Other projects 194
    • All projects 10,680 [1]
  • Mike Peel (Mike Peel): www.wikidata.org 192,526 commons.wikimedia.org 130,267 en.wikipedia.org 73,789 en.wikisource.org 5,054 meta.wikimedia.org 4,043 simple.wikipedia.org 929 wikimania2018.wikimedia.org 477 pt.wikipedia.org 299 wikimania.wikimedia.org 174 foundation.wikimedia.org 114 Other projects 510
    • All projects 408,182 [2]
  • Gilbert Ndihokubwayo (Gilbert Ndihokubwayo): meta.wikimedia.org 211 commons.wikimedia.org 121 rn.wikipedia.org 36 fr.wikipedia.org 19 eo.wikipedia.org 16 en.wikipedia.org 11 www.wikidata.org 9 wikimania.wikimedia.org 2 en.wikivoyage.org 2 eo.wikiquote.org 1 Other projects 0
    • All projects 428 [3]
  • Tobechukwu Precious Friday (Tochiprecious): meta.wikimedia.org 1,086 www.wikidata.org 487 incubator.wikimedia.org 310 commons.wikimedia.org 306 ig.wikipedia.org 232 www.mediawiki.org 165 en.wikipedia.org 44 wikimania.wikimedia.org 9 sn.wikipedia.org 4 en.wikiquote.org 4 Other projects 8
    • All projects 2,655 [4]
  • Lionel Scheepmans (Lionel Scheepmans): fr.wikiversity.org 23,399 fr.wikipedia.org 4,877 meta.wikimedia.org 2,939 en.wikiversity.org 1,090 fr.wikibooks.org 856 commons.wikimedia.org 738 be.wikimedia.org 442 en.wikipedia.org 259 www.wikidata.org 186 wikimania.wikimedia.org 84 Other projects 566
    • All projects 35,436 [5]
  • Abderamane Abakar Brahim (Abakar B): fr.wikipedia.org 577 commons.wikimedia.org 515 meta.wikimedia.org 117 wikimania.wikimedia.org 74 fr.wiktionary.org 18 www.wikidata.org 3 en.wikipedia.org 3 www.mediawiki.org 2 pl.wikipedia.org 1 en.wikivoyage.org 0 Other projects 0
    • All projects 1,310 [6]
  • Joris Darlington Quarshie (Joris Darlington Quarshie): commons.wikimedia.org 13,307 en.wikipedia.org 3,588 www.wikidata.org 1,254 outreach.wikimedia.org 1,178 meta.wikimedia.org 1,168 www.mediawiki.org 1,097 en.wikiquote.org 46 af.wikipedia.org 14 incubator.wikimedia.org 4 ak.wikipedia.org 3 Other projects 1
    • All projects 21,660 [7]
  • Egbe Eugene Agbor (Eugene233): www.wikidata.org 11,192 commons.wikimedia.org 771 meta.wikimedia.org 547 test.wikipedia.org 467 www.mediawiki.org 90 en.wikipedia.org 24 fr.wiktionary.org 10 fr.wikipedia.org 4 nl.wikipedia.org 2 wikimania.wikimedia.org 2 Other projects 2
    • All projects 13,111 [8]
  • Kunal Mehta (Legoktm): en.wikipedia.org 29,898 www.wikidata.org 22,133 commons.wikimedia.org 4,908 www.mediawiki.org 4,059 meta.wikimedia.org 1,269 es.wikipedia.org 573 en.wikinews.org 326 de.wikipedia.org 243 fr.wikipedia.org 241 it.wikipedia.org 233 Other projects 3,721
    • All projects 67,604 [9]
  • Shani Evenstein Sigalov (Esh77): he.wikipedia.org 9,968 www.wikidata.org 2,439 meta.wikimedia.org 921 commons.wikimedia.org 865 en.wikipedia.org 361 outreach.wikimedia.org 301 wikimania.wikimedia.org 156 wikimania2014.wikimedia.org 47 wikimania2012.wikimedia.org 36 wikimania2016.wikimedia.org 17 Other projects 48
    • All projects 15,159 [10]
  • Gina Bennett (Redwidgeon): en.wikipedia.org 479 en.wikiversity.org 130 commons.wikimedia.org 78 meta.wikimedia.org 59 wikimania.wikimedia.org 45 outreach.wikimedia.org 7 www.wikidata.org 7 en.wikibooks.org 6 en.wikivoyage.org 5 ca.wikimedia.org 2 Other projects 0
    • All projects 818 [11]
  • Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom): pl.wikipedia.org 15,159 www.wikidata.org 2,489 meta.wikimedia.org 969 pl.wikimedia.org 713 en.wikipedia.org 571 commons.wikimedia.org 382 pl.wikinews.org 17 pl.wikiquote.org 13 de.wikipedia.org 11 wikimania2013.wikimedia.org 10 Other projects 83
    • All projects 20,417 [12]

Thank you for sharing your views!

← Previous "Community view"
Next "Community view" →
+ 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.

I'm surprised that half of these 12 have less than 5,000 total edits -- a few with less than a thousand total edits -- hardly enough to get a good feel for the mood & environment of any one project. And yet the Analysis Committee found them qualified. -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: The analysis committee has not convened. When it does it will eliminate about half of these candidates. The North American analysis committee member has not yet been appointed; see these notes from the meta:WALRUS meeting last night to select one - meta:WALRUS/May 2022. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the lead of this article is confusing. The first sentence discusses the candidates for the Wikimedia Foundation Board, the second the Analysis Committee. While I might have been a bit hasty in connecting the two, it's not helpful mentioning both together without explaining their relationship. Say, these are positions we'll be voting on in the coming days. -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"wishes of the community". Just to be clear here, when we say "the community" we're talking narrowly about people who are on English Wikipedia, who read the Signpost, who are interested in this election, and who take the time to fill out this unofficial poll (Not to mention highlighting edits as a proxy for qualification to serve on a board). That seems neither inclusive nor diverse. Ckoerner (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckoerner: I'd like to highlight some aspects that you mentioned that are present in normal elections: only people who are "interested in elections" will vote, and only people who take time to do so will. Unfortunately, I believe that this is the best way forward; the Wikimedia Foundation has decided its preferred method, and in that method shortlisting is not the responsibility of the community. Thank you, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @EpicPupper thanks for replying. I hope my comment wasn't viewed as being too pointy. I want to call you in (and others reading), not call you out. Text is hard. :) I appreciate the attempt to help inform affiliates and just want to make sure we're being honest with our language. Everyone is busy and I'd hate for the framing of "the community" to be misconstrued by affiliates.
True to that aspect of who shows up. Of course only folks who are interested will vote. Same with people commenting on Signpost articles. :p That doesn't really refute the gist of my comment. I'd hope we'd do our best to help folks who struggle to find the time to participate as they are often the most overburdened and underrepresented in community governance (folks who have minimal time to volunteer, English isn't their primary language, aren't aware that there are even elections(!), etc.). Bringing those folks into the fold would give us a much more representative view into the wishes of the/a community.
A small clarifying point. If I'm following things on Meta correctly, and I think I am, but would love to be politely corrected if not because it's A Lot! The method of election governance was developed by a board selection task-force (all members of which are community-selected) and the Elections Committee (also made of volunteers).
That's after the two call-for-feedback sessions in 2021 and 2022. Foundation staff are following the process approved by these volunteer-led groups. So "the Wikimedia Foundation has decided its preferred method" is more accurately "the Wikimedia movement has decided its preferred method and the Foundation is carrying out those wishes" from my perspective. Ckoerner (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.