User:Adamw/Draft/Wikimedia Foundation accountability gap
The other root problem WMF has is its total lack of accountability to anyone, or in other words the lack of the "democratic" part of democratic centralism. Other than dissolution by a judge/court, which I suppose is possible under Florida law, there is no way whatsoever for stakeholders to control what the WMF does. WMF has multiple aspects of an autocracy, see also The reader as tool for autocracy. Nemo 12:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Ijon (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- +1 -Pete F (talk)
- +1 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- +1 Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- +1 Peter Damian (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- +1 ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't the board members elected or appointed by the stakeholders (except for the founder's seat, though one can argue the founder is one of the stakeholders too)? I don't think direct democracy would work better in this case. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are many different kinds of accountability. There are various ways in which the organization has sought autonomy over the years, and it has in my opinion been more successful in those efforts than in many other areas. The end result is that there are few checks and balances. One form of accountability is relationships with other institutions (e.g. philanthropic foundations), and the kind of dialogue that comes in seeking, executing, and reporting on grants. Wikimedia has worked hard to avoid restricted grants in the past (though I don't know the current policy). -Pete F (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Hire an independent ombudsperson (find using search committee and a background check ;).
Proposal 2: Revise the WMF's bylaws so that our various communities (editors-readers, staff, developers, movement) are fairly represented on the Board. Abolish archaic appointed seats. Adamw (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)