User:Guy Macon/How to get a response from the Wikimedia Foundation

This page is under construction. Consider it a rough draft until this notice is removed.

Overview

This list contain proposals that require some sort of action by the Wikimedia Foundation. The reason there are no proposals here regarding the English Wikipedia is that I am happy with the current RfC system that we use to make decisions.

The reader should understand that nothing we do here will, by itself, result in any changes to an Wikipedia project. All we can do here is craft a request and post it to the proper place where someone at the WMF will see it and make a decision.

Past experience has shown me that there are a couple of wrongheaded responses that I keep getting whenever I discuss these sort of proposals.

First, I am often told "you are demanding that the WMF do what you propose". That is wrong. "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I do demand that the WMF gives me an answer -- not responding in any way or discussing it forever without a decision is not acceptable, and I won't apologize for demanding that the WMF respond.

Second, I am often told that it is my fault that I did not get an answer. Either I asked the wrong way, asked in the wrong place, etc. My reply to those claims is this: every page on this list (including this one) has an associated talk page. If you think I asked the wrong way, tell me, in detail, what the right way is and I will try that. Or make the request yourself and see if you have better results. If you think I asked in the wrong place, tell me where the right place is and I will ask there. Or do your own asking and see if you have better results.

Past Performance of the WMF

In the past,[1] the WMF has shown a strong tendency to Stonewall requests for all bu minor changes, to keep important information secret[2] from the community, and to have an us-vs.-them them adversarial relationship with The English and German[3] Wikipedias. Examples from the past include:

• Superprotect.[4]
• Knowledge Engine,[5] [6] (The Knowledge Engine grant agreement was kept secret by the WMF, claiming "donor privacy" issues, and only released after The Signpost contacted the Knight Foundation and found that there were no privacy issues on the donor's side).
• Pending Changes (PC itself worked out fine; the problem was the WMF promising a limited-time-trial and then refusing to turn it off at the end of the trial).
• The Sue Gardner golden handshake[7] (Sue Gardner, WMF executive director from 2007 to 2014, received $100,000 pay rise and was secretly kept on as a "special advisor" after we were told that she stepped down in 2014.)

That being said, most of the WMF employees who were involved in the above are no longer with the WMF. It would not be fair to assume that the new leadership will exhibit the same behavior.

Update I got an answer on my referrer proposal. It wasn't the answer I wanted (they said no instead of yes) but I am committed to accepting the answer whether I like it or not. More importantly, the WMF answered in a timely manner, the right people appear to have examined and evaluated the proposal, and everything went smoothly with no drama or unnecessary conflict. Good job WMF. Keep up the good work.

Comments are welcome at User talk:Guy Macon/Proposals/Interacting with the WMF.