Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/Board elections/Adam Koenigsberg

*How did you become involved with the Wikimedia community? What contributions are you most proud of?

My first contributions were way way back in 2005. I was interested in a topic that didn’t have a page on en.wikipedia, and so I started one. It got nominated for deletion, and through the 2 nearly-consecutive VfDs about it, I learned all about how the Wikimedia project works. I decided to stick around and do my part to make the community better.

I am most proud of my work closing the Kelly Martin RfC. I was one of the few members of the community with no stake in the outcome, and I worked to make sure that it was buried, so that the wounds it caused could start to heal.

*What do you see as the role of the Board of Trustees?

The Board of Trustees is the legal governing body for the Wikimedia project. It is the board’s job to oversee, but not micromanage, the day to day activities of Wikimedia’s staff.

*If elected, what would you bring to the board that it currently lacks?

I am very proud of my strong business background; with a Masters in Business Administration from one of the world’s top business schools pending, I will be able work with the other trustees to advance the foundation using proven, modern, not-for-profit modeling techniques.

*What specific goals would you have as a trustee?

My goals would be thus:

1. Secure the foundation’s future for decades to come
2. Leverage my marketing training and fundraising experience to find ways to raise money for Wikimedia without compromising NPOV, even a little tiny bit
3. Utilize my advanced degree in business strategy to help the Wikimedia foundation accomplish its strategic planning objectives

*The Wikimedia Foundation is beginning an organized effort at strategic planning, in which the board will play a major role. What are the key elements you would like to see prioritized in Wikimedia's strategy for the coming years?

I am quite excited about this project, as my training in business strategy will allow me to contribute in ways that set me apart from the other candidates.

Elements I would like to see prioritized include a focus on fundraising to ensure a stable future, a search for new opportunities to expand the scope of the project (for instance, when Wikibooks started, that was an expansion of scope), and an effort to expand the project in non-English languages.

Again, I am quite excited to help in any way with the strategic planning of Wikimedia’s future, no matter what course the Board ultimately chooses to set.

*What do you think the Wikimedia Foundation isn't doing that it should be? What is it doing that it shouldn't be?

Actually I find the WMF to be quite on the right track. I do think that the Foundation’s most glaring shortcoming is minimal success in other languages besides English, but that is clearly a Foundation focus.

*The English Wikipedia community is increasingly concerned with questions of project governance: who has authority to set and reshape policy, and who should?; how can a project so large, with so diverse a community, make collective decisions?; does consensus scale, or will some form of democracy be necessary to address the project's problems?; and many others. What role, if any, do you think the Board of Trustees can or should play in addressing governance and policy problems on individual projects?

The Board of Trustees will ideally have no active role in the English Wikipedia. The Board exists to provide strategic planning for the project, and to oversee the general workings of the staff. Policy on specific projects is informed by consensus in those projects, or, in specific instances (e.g. BLP) by the legal team at WMF. The Board should know about these changes and may advise, particularly on the legal policies, but it is not the job of the board to set policy.

To the second part of the question, consensus and democracy exist on a plane, and there is no specific tipping point between the two. As it stands, the English Wikipedia generates exceptional content, and while every editor wishes certain things were different, the system is doing an exceptional job of allowing the encyclopedia to reach its end goal: generating the sum of all human knowledge, in English.

*Wikimedia's partnerships with outside organizations--including for-profit companies like Kaltura and Orange as well as non-profits and public institutions like Mozilla Foundation and various archives and museums--have becoming increasingly prominent. What sorts of partnerships should and shouldn't the Foundation pursue?

To me, the question is not, which organizations should the Foundation pursue, but rather, how can the Foundation set up a control mechanism to ensure that no partnerships pursued by the Foundation will have an adverse effect on the work of the project. It is apparent to everyone that strong partnerships with authoritarian governments and Fortune Global 2000 companies will not work. However, it is a mistake to assume that a not-for-profit or a public institution will have the Foundation’s best interests in mind.

Many non-profits are wonderful organizations that could add value to Wikimedia in very unique ways. Other organizations could add value, but that added value will come at a cost, be it ads, NPOV, or merely a tie to an unsavory company. Many organizations forget to see how their partner in a deal benefits. It is imperative upon Wikimedia to have an evaluative process in place to ensure that any organization that wishes to work with Wikimedia will be able to add value to their own organization without taking advantage of Wikimedia. The media, at least in America, are always looking for reasons to criticize Wikimedia. It is important that this isn’t an area where criticism can be generated.

So long as an organization can add value to Wikimedia without compromising the project, I do not rule out any specific set of non-profit companies or public institutions.

*Over the last three years, the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation has expanded rapidly, with a budget growing from $3.0 million in fiscal year 2007-2008 to a planned $9.4 million in 2009-2010. What strategy should the Board of Trustees pursue in planning for future financial growth? What is your view of the current financial plan?

I believe that future financial growth for a not-for-profit foundation is not a goal. The goal is the betterment of the institution that the foundation is supporting. Whatever budget is required by that is the budget that should be pursued, whether it is fifty dollars or a half-billion dollars.

*What role would you like the board to play in fostering the initiation, growth and viability of local Wikimedia Chapters? What role do chapters play in your strategic vision for Wikimedia?

The board should absolutely support the creation and expansion of chapters in the future. I believe it is too early to tell what the local chapters legacy in Wikimedia will be. The chapters currently are very focused around the encyclopedia projects, I would like to see that change, but I do not believe that it is the role of the board of trustees to influence Wikimedia chapters focuses, that should be done by the consensus of the membership or community.

*How does the Wikimedia Advisory Board fit into your strategic vision for Wikimedia? Are there any specific tasks you would ask of them as a trustee? Are there critical areas of expertise that are not represented on the Advisory Board and you think should be?

I believe that the Advisory Board is more important to the community than the Board of Trustees, because the Advisory Board should be closer to the pulse of the community and the project, while the Board of Trustees has to focus on finances and details. I would certainly as specific tasks of them, but those will come in time; I have no agenda for the Advisory Board yet. I do not feel that publicly evaluating the areas of expertise of the Advisory Board is in the best interest of anyone, so I withhold comment on the last question.