The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has proposed revisions to its eligibility criteria for community-elected Board of Trustees members after a community revolt last year over the disqualification of candidates. In the revised criteria, only community members with significant board experience or who have held highly-privileged positions with Wikipedia-affiliated sites or organizations would be eligible. Community members noted this would automatically render ineligible one candidate disqualified in last year’s election.
Members of the community objected that the new criteria seem to privilege Wikipedia insiders over other community members with one calling it an “oligarchical self-coup.” One current member of the board does not appear to meet the proposed criteria, though would be eligible for re-election under criteria for those who have already served on the Foundation board.
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation held elections for community representatives on its Board of Trustees. As part of the election process, the Foundation first had recognized community affiliate organizations participate in a short-listing process and put the candidates through a further vetting process. Following this process, two candidates were disqualified from running for the board. One was Ravan Jaafar Al-Taie, an active editor on the Arabic-language Wikipedia site who served on prominent community committees, including one responsible for drafting a “movement charter” for contributors to Wikipedia-affiliated sites. The other was Lane Rasberry, an editor at the Wikipedia Signpost community newsletter. News of their disqualification prompted community outcry.
Election interference claims
Regarding Al-Taie, community members believed her disqualification concerned her comments regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Israeli and Jewish media deemed antisemitic at a time when the Foundation was facing questions from Congress and the Donald Trump Administration regarding Wikipedia’s anti-Israeli bias. Community members suggested the Foundation’s decision was responding to this pressure. Meanwhile, Rasberry revealed the reason he was given focused on his role at the Signpost, Wikipedia’s newsletter, though also citing governance experience. Board member Victoria Doronina appeared to confirm these allegations, criticizing Al-Taie’s social media comments and suggesting Rasberry seeking greater financial transparency at the Foundation in conjunction with his Signpost position created concern about leaks.
Such comments fueled community hostility towards the decision as inappropriately interfering with the election process, leading to a petition calling for reform at the Board of Trustees and statements from members of various Wikipedia-affiliated communities condemning the disqualification. Some statements further threatened to boycott the election if the disqualified candidates were not reinstated, though no evidence emerged of such a boycott having effect on the results. Doronina suspended most board activities for the remainder of the year after Al-Taie submitted a formal complaint regarding her comments about the confidential vetting process. In the end, the Foundation did not reverse its decision, but committed to reforming its process.
Candidate criteria proposed
As part of this reform effort, the Foundation Board conducted numerous discussions with contributors to Wikipedia-affiliated sites including virtual and in-person conversations. Suggestions on the Meta site affiliated with Wikipedia included increasing requirements for candidates to minimize the need for short-listing and forming an independent panel to handle vetting procedures. On July 17, a Senior Manager for Community Governance Support at the Foundation, Jack Glover, published proposed changes to the eligibility criteria as part of the ongoing reform process. In an initial statement introducing the proposal and seeking community input, the Board noted the discussion and consultations that occurred and they claim informed their actions.
The Board listed several goals for reform such as improving the clarity, consistency, and transparency of the process. It also mentioned reducing the need for shortlisting, guaranteeing productive experience from prospective board members, and strong voter participation. Noting that its proposed eligibility criteria was more “specific and detailed” than in previous years, the Board stated this was to “inform the community of what the Board needs and to create multiple pathways to the Board for Wikimedians.” The criteria were noted as specifically being required for Board candidates, rather than simply desired, and were aimed at emphasizing experience with organizational governance, particularly board experience.
In last year’s elections candidates were eligible if they met basic criteria for activity on Wikipedia-affiliated sites, were not banned on more than one affiliated site, had relevant organizing experience, and met standards established by law among other requirements. While board experience and further governance experience were desired, only some involvement in collective decision-making bodies was required. Under the new proposed eligibility criteria, the somewhat open requirements on governance experience would be significantly narrowed with more specific criteria on what type of positions would make candidates eligible. Candidates would need a total of two years experience in those positions in the past six years under the criteria.
Qualifying roles
Prior service on a governing board was one noted criteria with such experience needing to be with an organization that has, at least, budget or staff equivalent to a tenth of the Foundation’s. In the latest fiscal year, the Foundation’s annual budget was about $200 million and it employed over 600 staff as of the end of 2024. Other organization roles sufficient to establish eligibility included membership of a governing body for recognized community affiliate organizations that have full-time staff, membership on various community and Foundation-affiliated committees, and advisory roles with Foundation Board committees. Prior service on the Foundation’s Board or its Endowment board would also qualify.
Other than organizational roles, candidates would also be eligible if they held certain advanced privileges on Wikipedia-affiliated sites. This includes serving on the Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court, at those sites that have one, such as the English Wikipedia. Privileges granting access to confidential information such as “checkuser” and “oversight” privileges, which respectively allow access to user data and information deleted so only privilege-holders can view them, are included. “Stewards” who have access to all available site privileges on all Wikipedia-affiliated sites, would also be eligible. Due to handling confidential information, these individuals all sign non-disclosure agreements with the Foundation.
Candidates would also be considered eligible under the proposed criteria if they held “global sysop” or “bureaucrat” privileges. The former, also known as global admins, are appointed by stewards following a discussion and can use administrative privileges on Wikipedia-affiliated sites that have low admin activity. Bureaucrats are users who can grant admin privileges to other users, usually after a community discussion, among other important roles. On the English Wikipedia, bureaucrats have a higher threshold for community approval than administrators. However, bureaucrats do not have any special data access and are typically appointed by other bureaucrats following discussions without need for additional procedures.
Questions presented by the Board on the proposed criteria asked whether the criteria were clear or other criteria should be included, while inviting further comment on governance experience requirements and criteria enforcement. Feedback was also sought on what other means could be used to “filter” candidates to avoid the need for short-listing. Beyond the eligibility criteria, the Board maintained its intention to conduct a vetting process prior to the election, but stated it would provide more clarity to the process for candidates and the community.
Disqualification basis ratified
Members of the community were generally opposed to the proposed changes. A key point raised early on by a member of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee was that Rasberry would be automatically deemed ineligible given his current experience. He does not possess any of the advanced site privileges identified in the criteria and has not served on the board or governing body of any institutions whether affiliated with Wikipedia and the Foundation or otherwise. A sub-page of Rasberry’s Wikipedia profile mentions many of his associations. On that page, he notes Wikipedia-related work with professional and educational institutions and involvement with various community affiliate organizations.
Rasberry also mentions other work outside Wikipedia and affiliated sites and organizations. This includes serving as the board secretary for his local union and long-time service on a community advisory board for the HIV Vaccine Trial Network. However, neither position entails the responsibilities nor scope mentioned in the proposed eligibility criteria for board members. Prospective candidates must meet the criteria when candidate applications typically open in the first half of that election year and need two years experience, thus Rasberry would not meet the criteria before the next two board elections in 2027 and 2028 even if he immediately assumed one of the required roles.
Community rejects criteria
Favoring individuals with greater governance experience met with general disagreement. One thread stating “that is not the community” saw numerous community members objecting to criteria favoring “insiders” over others. It was particularly noted that about half of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees is board-appointed with the remainder elected to represent the community. Several members objected that the criteria did not even address concerns about the disqualification of candidates in last year’s election. Discussion on English Wikipedia saw some lamenting that they could not expect a real community voice at the Foundation with one editor going so far as to call the proposed criteria an “oligarchical self-coup.”
Objections in a mailing list announcement saw similar responses. Wikipedia administrator Sohom Datta responded to the announcement by stating the proposal was “counter to our movement’s values, which prioritize openness and broader participation” and characterized the proposal as backsliding in defiance of community objections. Former members of the Foundation board also raised similar objections during the mailing list discussion. Former board member James Heilman stated the proposal seemed like the Foundation “trying to take over community authority” or “limit community involvement in governance.”
Choice of qualifying roles for candidate eligibility was also criticized for including individuals holding certain site privileges, particularly bureaucrat privileges. Some noted many privileges mentioned do not really convey necessary governance experience and the basis for assigning some privileges vary widely. Former Wikimedia Foundation staffer Brooke Vibber objected that granting bureaucrats the same eligibility as Endowment board members, while denying board members of affiliate organizations that do not employ their own staff was illogical. Vibber also questioned whether requirements barring Foundation staff who were “removed for cause or departed after inappropriate conduct” would apply to simply criticizing management due to Vibber’s involvement with a proposed staff labor union.
Eligible board members and candidates
Reviewing current community-elected board members shows that most would have met the eligibility criteria at the time of their election. Three elected before last year held roles at bodies mentioned in the criteria and served for the required times and both candidates elected last year also meet the requirements. However, Christel Steigenberger when elected in 2024 made no mention of the roles or governance experience required by the new proposed criteria, only mentioning board positions at small non-profits and being an administrator for the German Wikipedia. However, since the criteria include serving on the Foundation Board of Trustees, she would be eligible by next year’s election.
Looking at last year’s short-listed board candidates, all aside from Rasberry apparently qualify under the proposed criteria, including Al-Taie. In her case, cited experience includes service on community committees identified in the criteria and the same applies to candidate Wojciech Pędzich from Poland. Although former Foundation Trust and Safety Head James Alexander did not mention board experience matching the criteria, he technically holds bureaucrat privileges on a test site since 2013 and would be eligible by next year given service on the Wikimedia Endowment’s Audit Committee. He held other privileges mentioned in the criteria on affiliated sites, but these were removed more than six year ago.
Strained relationship
The relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community of contributors to the sites it owns has been increasingly tense. Last year, in addition to the board election controversy, a member of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee breached confidentiality agreements to reveal that a gunman who stormed the stage of WikiConference North America threatening suicide was known to the Foundation and it declined actions that would have prevented the gunman’s attendance. Editors this year have threatened boycotts over concerns about the firing of Foundation staffers involved in unionization efforts. Complaints about mistreatment of Foundation staff have been a recurring issue.
Concern about Foundation intrusion on the largely self-governing community is a particular source of tension. The Foundation faced a community revolt in 2019 after its temporary ban of an English Wikipedia admin, which was eventually reviewed and reversed by the Arbitration Committee. Foundation intervention was also a concern after it proposed a “code of conduct” advancing left-wing views, though it was ultimately approved. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, who retains a seat on the Foundation’s Board of Trustees, has had frequent conflicts with the community. He gave up nearly all site privileges in 2023 under community criticism and faced backlash last year after criticizing an article claiming as fact that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
Read the full article here