The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, last week rejected two Board of Trustees candidates during its community elections allowing regular contributors to directly choose board representatives. Its purported rationale included one candidate’s involvement with a major community newsletter and another’s social media comments attacking Israel. The rejections provoked community outrage, including from former board members and staff. Petitions and statements opposing the decision, some blaming Israeli and United States government pressure, generally pledged to boycott the election.
It comes as the online encyclopedia owned by the Wikimedia Foundation has become the subject of increasingly negative reporting over left-wing and anti-Israeli bias. Multiple Congressional representatives in the House and Senate, along with an Acting U.S. Attorney, have reached out with concerns about bias on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also owns sites associated with the online encyclopedia in various languages. These sites host contributions from people around the world who are referred to as the “Wikimedia community” and have chapter organizations, user groups, and other associations established in affiliation with the Foundation. Given their influence over the content of Wikipedia-related sites, generally half of the Foundation Board seats are reserved for candidates elected by the community. The current election seeks to replace two board members elected in 2022, including Vice Chair Shani Evenstein Sigalov, a Hebrew Wikipedia administrator and former board member of the Wikimedia Israel community chapter.
Though the Foundation takes a minimal role in governing Wikipedia and affiliated sites, it has become increasingly involved with its operations by financing “edit-a-thons” and other groups contributing content to the site and by imposing a “code of conduct” on its volunteer contributors. In both cases these initiatives have favored left-wing ideologues criticizing Wikipedia and associated sites for an alleged lack of diversity. Critics of the site have thus focused on the Foundation’s bias in its leadership, including the Board of Trustees. Site co-founder Jimmy Wales retains a seat on the board, although exercising only ceremonial authority on Wikimedia sites themselves after surrendering his privileges several years ago.
Board Rejections
During the current elections for board seats, the Foundation on October 1 approved a candidate review process. This process would review six candidates on a shortlist who passed an initial approval process of community affiliate organizations. A background check and interview was included as part of this review process and would check for “reputational, financial, operational, or other types of risk for the Foundation” among other issues that could arise if the candidate joined the board. The Foundation previously announced this process was originally done after the community election process, but was changed to precede the elections citing, in part, “increased scrutiny the board faces” among other reasons.
On October 3, Board Chair Nataliia Tymkiv announced that two short-listed candidates had been unanimously rejected days before community voting would begin. In the announcement, Tymkiv stated that now “more than ever, the Foundation needs a strongly unified board committed to collective decision-making responsibilities that can help steer the organisation and our movement through difficult global headwinds” when explaining the review process and its conclusion. The two candidates disqualified were Lane Rasberry and Ravan Jaafar Al-Taie. News of the decision soon made its way out to the community, prompting immediate outcry about intervention in the election process and a perception that the decisions were improperly motivated.
Al-Taie declined to comment on the decision after it was announced, but Rasberry, who edits as “Bluerasberry” on Wikipedia and is an editor of the site’s Signpost community newsletter, posted about it to the newsletter’s discussion page. In his statement, Rasberry noted the main reason his board candidacy was rejected was because of his involvement with the Signpost. He stated another reason was lack of involvement in collective decisions in the community. Rasberry states he spoke out regarding his rejection out of concern people would suspect a more serious issue prompted his removal and was discussing with the Foundation release of a full statement on the rejection reasons.
Al-Taie’s candidacy saw considerable public scrutiny. On X, Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir raised concerns due to social media posts Al-Taie made regarding the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel, comments later covered by the Jerusalem Post. Al-Taie’s posts included claiming a “new Holocaust” in Gaza shortly after Israel’s military response began, appearing to justify the October 7 attacks, rejecting reports of sexual violence by Hamas, and sharing an image depicting Jesus Christ as a Palestinian being crucified by an Israeli soldier on Christmas Eve. She also repeatedly posted an inverted red triangle symbol used by Hamas. The report argued her remarks would violate the “code of conduct” imposed by the Foundation.
Later reporting on the remarks appeared in the Jewish News Syndicate by journalist and Wikipedia critic Aaron Bandler, which cited responses from several major Jewish organizations condemning Al-Taie’s candidacy and a comment from an Israeli diplomat in the United Kingdom. The Washington Examiner similarly reported on her candidacy describing her as a “Hamas propagandist” in its headline. Both outlets reached out to the Foundation for comment at the time with JNS reporting a response stating that the Foundation does not make editorial decisions on site content.
Remaining candidates included former Foundation Trust and Safety head James Alexander, South African editor Bobby Shabangu, and Polish Wikipedia editors Wojciech Pędzich and Michał Buczyński. Shabangu also faced scrutiny with a member of Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy alleging he created an English Wikipedia article with ChatGPT AI assistance due to it being mentioned in the reference section. Admin Andrew Leung, who edits as “OhanaUnited” on Wikipedia, removed a tag citing these concerns claiming no evidence. Russian Wikipedia editor Lvova Anastasiya alleged an unnamed remaining board candidate violated the “friendly space policy” on Wikimedia community gatherings, claiming this was known to the Trust and Safety team.
Community Outcry
Editors responding to Rasberry’s announcement of his rejection accused the Foundation of democratic backsliding. Samuel Klein, a former board member, expressed confusion at the decision and said the cited concerns were not a valid reason for rejecting his membership on the board, but should instead be up to voters. Klein was also a director at One Laptop Per Child who edited Wikipedia articles about the project to downplay criticism and suppressed information regarding Harvard President Claudine Gay’s controversial testimony on campus antisemitism. Andreas Kolbe, a former editor-in-chief of the Signpost, questioned whether the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into bias on Wikipedia was a factor in Rasberry’s rejection.
In a “village pump” discussion for Foundation news, former board member Dr. James Heilman stated the candidate rejections risked the site being taken over by “a board not aligned with our movement.” He further lamented the “loss of democracy” in a direct response to the announcement. Heilman was ousted from the board in 2015 months after his election, purportedly for advocating transparency regarding a planned search engine. Later re-elected, Heilman helped secure a partnership with the World Health Organization amidst the COVID pandemic. Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court, banned Heilman that same year from edits about drug pricing. He claimed opponents censored Wikipedia for the pharmaceutical industry.
Contributors responded directly on the Meta Wikimedia site with similar concerns about election integrity. Former Board Chair Christophe Henner criticized the rejections as a systemic issue of the Foundation being disjointed from the community, concluding: “No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.” Several criticized Tymkiv’s remarks on needing a “unified” board as rejecting viewpoint diversity when that may be what the community wants. Former Arbitration Committee member Todd Allen, who edits as “Seraphimblade” on Wikipedia, called the elections a sham, stating he wouldn’t participate. Allen stated if the Foundation supports community-elected seats then they should not interfere with elections.
Previous Board Chair Florence Devouard questioned why, regardless of issues with the rejection, the two runners-up during the short-listing process weren’t chosen as replacement candidates. Klein echoed her question. Nicole Ebber, a representative of the German Wikimedia chapter organization, posted a statement for the group approving of the vetting process. However, the group expressed concern about candidate diversity and the poor handling of the process. The German Wikimedia organization called for the Foundation to engage the community in a discussion on board selection, stating they need to “remain united and resilient to face external threats and challenges.”
Open Letters and Petitions
Numerous open letters condemned the decision. Arab contributors, including nearly a hundred individuals and twelve affiliate organizations condemned the rejections. Stating Al-Taie was subjected to “a media campaign . . . for her public support of the Palestinian cause” the letter expresses the “feeling that the Foundation disregards and undervalues the Arabic community” and professes the rejection shook their “confidence in the principle of transparency that Wikimedia claims to uphold.” Declaring an electoral boycott, the letter noted Al-Taie was the only remaining female candidate and raised concerns of political bias. A full explanation was demanded within a week with a threat to pursue further escalation otherwise.
In a Spanish community letter objecting to Al-Taie’s rejection, diversity concerns were similarly uttered labeling the decision “a dangerous precedent for democracy” further characterizing it as “political gender violence” and expressing concern “that a state’s political lobby can influence a process independent of global politics in this way.” Questioning possible U.S. government involvement, the letter suggested the Wikimedia movement should ask why they “should be governed by US law” and declared Al-Taei’s rejection violated Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The Spanish letter calls for a boycott “until clear conditions for inclusion are established” and to reorganize the election “with clear rules so that no woman is ever again excluded from it, respecting the principles of equity and inclusion.” The Italian community published an identical letter. Among the Spanish letter’s signatories was Maria Sefidari, who contributes as “Raystorm” and is a former Board Chair. Sefidari was subject to controversy in 2019 when the Foundation banned English Wikipedia admin “Fram” and sparked an editor revolt. One purported complainant against Fram was allegedly in a romantic relationship with Sefidari. Fram’s ban was lifted without restoring his admin privileges.
A letter from Wikimedia LGBTQ+ user group members declared the rejections “unacceptable and counter to the stated values of the [Foundation].” Calling them an “unambiguous procedural failure to run a democratic election” and “appalling political blunder by the Foundation” the letter notes Al-Taie as the sole female candidate and Rasberry the only queer candidate. Claiming the decision seemed “targeted in a way that supports the US Government’s anti-diversity agenda” the letter states a diverse board is needed to “withstand a US government that is openly attacking minorities and trans people with blatant lies and conspiracy theories” and calls for a boycott if both candidacies are not reinstated.
Hannah Clover, who edits as “Clovermoss” on Wikipedia, submitted a petition calling for reform on the Board of Trustees and moving towards a membership-based organization. Clover argued “the community deserves serious consideration and analysis of the benefits and risks” of such a move and that the board should, at least, “recognize that there are certain risks to being self-perpetuating in nature, involve the community in its decision-making as much as possible, and provide minimal interference in elections.” One signatory was former Foundation staffer Jake Orlowitz. Several commenting on the petition suggested moving outside the United States, such as Jonathan Cardy, a board candidate rejected during the short-listing process.
Former admin Fram suggested at Wikipedia’s “village pump” discussion area regarding the Foundation that the community hold a vote of “no confidence” in the entire Board of Trustees. He pointed to a previous effort regarding Arnnon Geshuri, who resigned from the Board of Trustees mere weeks after joining following community outcry citing his alleged involvement in anti-competitive practices at Google. While some editors doubted the efficacy of the suggested measure, given the vote would not be binding, others supported pursuing such a method to express the community’s discontent with the electoral intervention.
Foundation Board Response
Board Chair Tymkiv responded to the community outcry by apologizing for the lateness of the rejection decision, but otherwise defending the process. While not providing specifics regarding the rejections, Tymkiv stated that, due to the sensitive nature of board decisions, prospective board members “must consider the discretion required in the role. This means their ability to continue publicly writing, speaking and contributing to topics that may come before the Board of Trustees is limited.” Reception was poor with some suggesting the response lacked transparency or didn’t answer any concerns. Some editors suggested attending a conversation with the Board of Trustees at the North American WikiConference on Saturday.
In an e-mail chain regarding the reform petition, board member Victoria Doronina provided additional comments on the rejections. Stating she was speaking in her personal capacity, Doronina argued Al-Taie should be more cautious about her social media posts as they posed a reputational risk to the Foundation at a time when there is particular media focus on them. On Rasberry, Doronina suggested several comments he made about pushing for greater transparency at the Foundation implied intent to disclose confidential information and criticized his comments objecting to a planned AI summary tool the Foundation proposed as false. Several people objected that her assessment of Rasberry’s statements was erroneous.
Taking Doronina’s comments as confirmation Al-Taie’s social media posts were the reason for her rejection, numerous people strongly objected to her removal claiming Al-Taei was rejected for “anti-genocide” views, though some considered the decision reasonable. Al-Taie herself, after initially declining to comment, posted a lengthy rebuttal she said others compiled. The rebuttal attacked Lir, the researcher who drew attention to Al-Taie’s posts, and responded to many claims about her posts. While mostly focused on factual or interpretative disagreements, the rebuttal does not reject claims regarding the depiction of an Israeli soldier crucifying a Palestinian Jesus other than denying claims it implied Jews having collective guilt for Christ’s crucifixion.
Al-Taie further responded with hostility towards Doronina saying she was “someone who relies on a biased and mistranslated media article, published by a platform known for excusing the killing of children, as a source to question a candidate’s fitness for the Board of Trustees” and questioned whether the vetting process was a problem during previous instances where Al-Taie was elected or chosen for important positions by the Foundation. Expressing her “deep disappointment” with the Foundation Board, Al-Taie stated she “truly believed that members of our Board of Trustees would be more discerning, more informed, and more impartial, not so easily swayed by external bias or political noise.”
Wikipedia Bias Concerns
Such dysfunction comes as left-wing and anti-Israeli bias on Wikipedia have recently aroused significant political interest. Acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin reached out to the Foundation earlier this year with concerns about ideological bias and foreign influence on Wikipedia, which prompted retaliatory attacks from editors. Bi-partisan members of Congress raised concerns specifically regarding antisemitism and anti-Israel bias with the House Oversight Committee focusing broadly on issues of bias. Earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee sent a letter focused on Wikipedia purging conservative media, including Breitbart News, following a viral interview of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger on commentator Tucker Carlson’s podcast.
Sanger has also been a regular critic of bias at the site he co-founded, recently submitting “Nine Theses” advocating reform to address neutrality concerns. This included calling for greater democratic governance of Wikipedia and its contents. Editors subsequently responded by attacking him and censoring the copy of his reform proposal that he posted on Wikipedia, even attempting to delete it outright leading to the page being locked. He has previously been subject to retaliation and censorship from Wikipedia editors over his criticism of the site.
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
