Inside Wikipedia’s Board Elections
Interviewing candidate Jonathan Cardy about what it takes to join the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and its role in shaping one of the world’s most influential websites.
Before we get started, a quick announcement: I’ve written before about Wikiracing, the game where you try to get from one Wikipedia entry to another in the fewest possible clicks. This weekend, there’s an event that’s entirely dedicated to wiki-powered games. The WikiGameJam is taking place October 3-5 at Hex House in Brooklyn. They’ll be playing WikiAsteroids, WikiTrivia, and hopefully designing the next generation of wiki-based fun.
Readers of this newsletter probably already know that the content on Wikipedia is decided by the encyclopedia’s volunteer editors, based on the site’s policies. That’s because Wikipedia is the rare large internet platform that is self-governed by its own user community. If you have a legitimate grievance with how a subject is described on Wikipedia, take it up with the editors. Or better yet, become one yourself.
What’s perhaps less clear is the role of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia and its sister projects like Wikidata. Like many nonprofits, the WMF is governed by a board of trustees who decide how charitable donations are spent and weigh in on the organization’s long-term strategy.
In recent months, some firebrand commentators have tried to paint nonprofits as shadowy cabals. At least in the case of the WMF, the reality is far more democratic. Still, the selection of the board is, as one Wikipedia editor told me, “the most important election on the internet.”
To understand this election better, I spoke with Jonathan Cardy (known on Wikipedia as WereSpielChequers), a longtime editor who recently put his name forward for a trustee seat. Jonathan walked me through the process: the criteria for running, the hurdles of shortlists and community votes, and why someone might devote years of unpaid time supporting the world’s free encyclopedia.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Stephen Harrison: Hello, Jonathan. I wondered if you could tell me about the origin of your username, WereSpielChequers.
Jonathan Cardy: If you dismantle it, I’m a lycanthropic spell checker. I pick up the kind of typos that a conventional spell checker can’t pick up. My particular niche is easily confused words. When I first started editing, I would look on Wikipedia for words like “calvary” and “cavalry.” I once spent Christmas going through a list of sports team “mangers” and adding an “a” to make it team “manager.” I’m sure you could take my edits from back then and create an AI to resolve them easily. ..
In any case, that’s why I’ve got a ridiculously high edit count. I’m going through Wikipedia, dealing with a particular typo, and I can make a large number of small changes relatively quickly. As opposed to when I am writing a couple of paragraphs about a historical topic, and there may be an hour or so of reading behind one edit.
When did you first start editing Wikipedia, and what inspired you to consider running for the WMF’s Board of Trustees?
I’ve been a volunteer editor since 2007—mostly on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and at first I was fixing typos and making small corrections. It’s been a hobby of mine for 18 years now. I also worked part-time for Wikimedia UK in 2013/15 as an outreach person with galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. Beyond that, I’ve served as a trustee for other charities, including one with an endowment not far off the size of Wikimedia’s. So when I saw there was an open seat on the Foundation board, it felt like a natural next step.
[Stephen note: The WMF Board consists of up to 16 Trustees, with one founder seat for Jimmy Wales, five appointed seats, and six seats selected by Wikimedia communities and affiliates. Jonathan was running for one of the community seats.]
One Wikipedia editor told me that this is the most important election on the internet. What’s the process for someone running for a community seat on the board of trustees?
There are four stages. First, you need to meet basic criteria—like having a certain number of edits—and submit an application. From there, if more than 10 people apply, Wikimedia’s national chapters and affiliates help shortlist candidates down to six.
This year there were 12 candidates. I didn’t advance beyond the shortlist, so I never made it to the community-wide election. But for those who do, the next step is a vote among volunteers, technical contributors, and some staff.
[This year the online voting period begins on October 8 and will be open for two weeks.]
Finally, there are reference, background checks, and social media checks before the winners take their seats.
[Stephen note: Just before this article’s publication, I received word that two candidates for the community seats have been dropped by the WMF in their vetting process. One of the candidates, Lane Rasberry, posted his initial response here, where he noted that part of the reason he was removed was for speaking publicly to journalists like yours truly. That leaves four candidates for the two remaining seats: James Alexander (American), Michał Buczyński (Poland), Wojciech Pędzich (Poland), and Bobby Shabangu (South African).]
The board’s work isn’t paid. Why would someone want to join?
Trustees make important decisions about how money is spent, what policies apply across all Wikimedia projects, and issues like Creative Commons licensing and attribution. The board also drove the Universal Code of Conduct, which sets standards across the movement. So while you don’t get paid, you do have influence on how the world’s knowledge projects are governed.
If you had advanced to the shortlist and been elected, what kinds of proposals would you have brought to the board?
One of the criticisms I had of the current structure is that we have this complicated arrangement where some countries, like Germany and Switzerland, have their own fundraising powers and quite robust organizations, while others—like the UK—are much smaller because the global Wikimedia Foundation handles the fundraising. And there actually isn’t a Wikimedia USA organization, only city or regional groups like NYC or DC.
One of the suggestions I made was to consider a more federal model globally, where countries that meet certain standards could have their own national organizations. Effectively, the Foundation would split into a U.S. entity handling American fundraising, and a global organization based either in the U.S. or elsewhere. That kind of decentralization could protect the movement if, say, the U.S. political climate turned hostile toward Wikipedia.
Last question. Because of your background with libraries and archives, I’m interested in your thoughts on dead links and the “Digital Dark Age” theory.
Yes, many sources that Wikipedians relied on 10 or 20 years ago are already gone. Dead links are a constant issue. That’s why partners like the Internet Archive are so important because they preserve snapshots of the web.
If we thought we were genuinely going into a cultural dark age, giving up computers for a few generations, then I think I’d be back to books. The Doomsday Book is my example, compiled 950 years ago. [Note: Pronounced “doomsday,” the Domesday Book was a survey of England by William the Conqueror completed in 1086 and preserved in parchment.] They made several copies with high quality material and deposited them with institutions they thought would last. Most were lost, but a handful survived, and we still have the Domesday book.
Wikimedia could play that same role for digital culture. The Foundation’s endowment should be large enough to guarantee that Commons and Wikisource will be around for the foreseeable future.
