Wikimedia Conference 2018/Questions to the Board of Trustees

WMCON 2018	Core Conference Program	Fringe Events	Registration & Participants	Location	Logistics	Contact	Documentation, Reports, Reviews
	Schedule Program Program Design Process Reading material (for the Movement Strategy track)	Pre-Conference Learning Days Pre-Conference Boards Training Workshop Social Events Thematic, regional, language-specific meetups	Registration Information Eligibility Criteria How to Select the Delegates Buddy Project Participants' List Friendly Space Policy	Conference Venue Hotel	Conference Guide Travel and Hotel Booking Information Visa Process and Assistance	Logistics and Event Coordinator Program and Engagement Coordinator Event Curator	Budget Grant report Movement Strategy track documentation Further reports Sweets of the world

Questions to the Board of Trustees – deadline: Saturday, 12:30 edit

In the growing Wikimedia movement as a need of time we have created new affiliate entity ie. User Groups. Creation of user groups has empowered more focus groups based on language, theme, region, project, etc. which is very welcoming move. We also have existing affiliate structure of chapters which is mostly on country basis. Since there is overlap of these two entities we will like to know the roles and responsibilities of each stake holder in new structural reforms. - Rahuldeshmukh101 (talk)

What is the board's attitude towards Blazegraph? Wikimedia Foundation selected Blazegraph for the Wikidata Query Service (WDQS) back in March 2015. Since then WDQS has become an important part of the Wikidata ecosystem. Perhaps even a key technology? According to rumour, Amazon.com has quietly acquired Blazegraph with Blazegraph engineers probably working on Amazon Neptune. It brings up the question about the future of Blazegraph. Does the board regard the situation as a board issue, — an just a minor technical issue that is not relevant for board level discussions? Should the foundation allocate funds and get involved in the further development of Blazegraph? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the current affiliates model still reflects the relationship and trust built in the last few years? - The current affiliates model was created in a time of deep distrust between WMF and its affiliates and I believe that we have left those dark ages behind us. Therefore it would also be appropriate to talk about whether this model is still the ideal organisational structure of choice for us or if we should move on to a model that emphasises and fosters the kind of relationships we want and need. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the growth in number of affiliates sustainable, or does it need a more strategic, consultative approach? - The number of affiliates has roughly quadrupled since 2012, but in the process this has tended to cluster in certain countries such as the U.S, or in the same country working in competition, or only representing a few individuals. We've learnt from Wikipedia that organic growth can sometimes lead us to neglect certain types of content in favour of incredibly detailed content about already well-covered subjects, and that sometimes activist intervention and bringing in people from outside Wikimedia is required to ensure that we cover a broader range of knowledge. Do we need the same activist strategy and external input (from other affiliate based organisations) for affiliate growth to ensure we have strong, sustainable affiliates that can help us reach people in parts of the world we currently don't? Battleofalma (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is our official relationship with Google and other search engines? What if they stopped linking to us? Can we get localised successful as well as unsuccessful (searches without results) search data into one of our projects? This is data that search engines are harvesting from the public, information that can be abused if not made available equitably - it can show what the market opportunity is, and importantly, where, and can help the market to self coordinate - or it can help those with access to this data, to capture markets before this opportunity is even visible to those already in those markets. Search engines are searching us, they are powered by a public resource: the sum of our needs, curiosity and desires. As a newbie, and prospective representative, I need to know how our strategy speaks to this, how relevant it is, what our position is and how to engage with such a question. Dagelf 12:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Wikimedia Conference a confusing name, something that better describes Wikimania? How would you describe this particular annual event, and its mix of communities, consultation and bringing together different areas of experience? What do you think we should call what we're doing here and our aims, and what noun best captures that?--Pharos (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the strategy is just mentioning "Knowledge as Service" rather than "Knowledge as Free Service". Does knowledge as service may lead to something like Knowledge as commodity. -- Balajijagadesh (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(After deadline, but being bold and trying...) The current Resolution about Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles says: Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that we have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it were a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it. But we think this is highly unlikely, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances. Can the Board make this principle even stricter, and just say "no advertising, ever"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]