Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2007-06/de



Ein Interview mit den Kandidaten
 * Von Ral315, 25. Juni, 2007

Diese Woche interviewt die Signpost die Kandidaten für die Wahl des Kuratorium der Wikimedia-Stiftung.

Die Wikipedia Signpost ist ein wöchentlicher Newsletter der englischen Wikipedia. Als einen Service für die Community haben wir jeden der Kandidaten der diesjährigen Wahlen für das Kuratorium eine Reihe von Fragen gestellt, die, wie wir hoffen, informativ und hilfreich für eure Entscheidung sein werden. Die Fragen und Antworten finden sich unten.

Danke an alle Benutzer, die die Fragen in verschiedene Sprachen übersetzt haben: UserA, UserB, and UserC.

Die Interviews sind in den folgenden weiteren Sprachen verfügbar: Englisch, Holländisch, Französisch, Italienisch, Portugiesisch und Spanisch.

Ausir
Ausir hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Danny
Danny hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

DragonFire1024
Stellungnahme des Kandidaten:

Ich bin besonders an en.Wikinews beteiligt und bin dort auch Administrator. Ich habe fast 450 Artikel bei en.Wikinews veröffentlicht, seit ich dort im Januar 2006 angefangen habe. Ich habe auch mehrere Interviews exklusiv für Wikinews verfasst und war auch einer der Entwickler von Wikinews Video 2.0 sowie von Wikinews Weather (BETA). Ich habe zwei Promo-Videos für Wikinews erstellt und war derjenige, der (nach mehr als 2 1/2 Jahren) als erster wieder das Projekt Wikinews Weather organisiert und neu aufgezogen hat, welches nun von mir und anderen Benutzer geupdatet und betreut wird. Ich hoffe, dass ich viele Benutzer der verschiedenen Wikis dazu bringen kann, sich an der Übertragung und der Aufnahme von Wikinews Video und Wikinews Weather zu beteiligen

Mein größtest wikiweites Ziel ist der Versuch, dass Benutzer verschiedener Projekte bei bestimmten Angelegenheit und Ideen zusammenarbeiten und helfen, neue Möglichkeiten, Informationen zusammenzutragen, und effizientere Wege, diese Informationen in die Welt zu tragen, zu entwickeln.

Ich glaube, dass alle Wikimedia-Projekte die gleiche Aufmerksamkeit verdienen, wenn Entscheidungen zu Richtlinien, Finanzen etc. getroffen werden, und dass diese Richtlinien den Bedürfnissen und Zielen jedes Projektes entsprechen sollen, wann immer das möglich ist. Ich glaube auch, dass die Gemeinschaft eines jeden Projekts mehr an den Entscheidungen des Kuratorium beteiligt werden sollte, wenn die Entscheidung die Arbeitsabläufe dieses Projekts drastisch verändern würden.

'''Welches sind die Benutzerrechte hast du zur Zeit oder hattest du früher einmal? Welche sonstigen Positionen? In welchen Projekten?'''

Administrator der englischen Wikinews.

Welchem Beruf gehst du außerhalb der Wikipedia nach?

Ich arbeite in einem gehobenen Restaurant in Buffalo, New York.

Welche Sprachen sprichst du?

Englisch.

'''Warum möchtest du Mitglied des Kuratoriums werden? Was kannst du deiner Ansicht nach in das Kuratorium einbringen?'''

Das Kuratorium muss sich mehr um die kleineren Projekte kümmern und darf nicht deren individuelle Bedürfnisse ignorieren. Ich hoffe, das zu ändern.

Wieviel Zeit wirst du in deine Arbeit hineinstecken können?

So viel wie möglich.

Wo siehst du idealerweise die Wikimedia-Stiftung in fünf Jahren?

Als größter Anbieter von freien Informationen im Netz.

Wie würdest du als Mitglied des Kuratoriums sicherstellen, dass es in den Kuratoriumsangelegenheiten ein ausgeglichenes Verhältnis zwischen Offenheit und notwendigem Datenschutz gibt?

Indem man die Sitzungsberichte, wann immer es möglich ist, der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich macht.

'''Neulich gab es Diskussionen zu den Wikipedia- und Wikimedia-Marken. Wie sollten die Wikimedia-Marken deiner Ansicht nach genutzt oder geändert werden?'''

Wir sollten sie auf eine Weise nutzen, die es uns erlaubt, Geld damit zu verdienen, jedoch stets auf eine Weise, die das Bewusstsein fördert, dass man uns frei benutzen, bearbeiten und lesen kann.

'''Die Wikimedia-Projekte in den Entwicklungsländern erfreuen sich einer wachsenden Beliebtheit, liegen aber immer noch weit hinter den populären Projekten zurück. Welche Schritte würdest du vorschlagen, um in den kleineren Wikis die Qualität, die Zahl der Leser und die der Bearbeiter zu verbessern?'''

Wir bewerben weder die Wikimedia-Stiftung noch ihre einzelnen Projekte genug. Wir müssen das Bewusstsein fördern, dass diese Projekte existieren und dass sie genau so frei sind wie die anderen Wikimedia-Projekte.

Was sollte deiner Ansicht nach getan werden, um die Beteiligung an den Nicht-Wikipedia-Projekten zu verbessern?

Nun, zunächst einmal sollte für die Projekte mehr Werbung von Seiten der anderen Projekte gemacht werden. Vielleicht auch etwas Werbung außerhalb wie etwas ein solches YouTube-Video, das die University of California (LA) über das Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, kurz BOINC, erstellt hat.

Welche Strategien würdest du als Mitglied des Kuratoriums in Erwägung ziehen, um mehr Geld für die Stiftung einzunehmen?

Längere, besser beworbene Fundraisings. grant options as there are many in the US, AN EXAMPLE ONLY: adding an outside/external search engine or something that a company would pay WMF to use on their projects.

Was möchtest du den Wähler sonst noch gerne sagen?

The board need diversity. We have lawyers and professionals already. The board has lost its touch with time and needs to be more of a "everyday people" Board. Our contributers are mostly that: everyday people with everyday lives. We (the various projects) also need to work more together as opposed to trying to compete with each other. Our goals are the same, to provide free information to the world, and I also think that means efficiently and collaboratively.

Eloquence
Eloquence hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Frieda
Frieda hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Kate
Kate hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Kim Bruning
[Übersetzung folgt.] <!-- Candidate statement:

Hello, my name is Kim Bruning. I have been somewhat responsible for restoring and maintaining dispute resolution on enwiki. I now work mostly on process, and occasionally help with emergencies. I have also been coding and helping out on Omegawiki, starting this year.

For the foundation, the issues of day to day management, servers, and continuity are important. I think we all agree on that, so let's look at a different issue: There are currently 700 wikis in over 250 languages across many projects. Communication between those wikis is practically none-existent, making it hard for people to learn from each other.

Examples:
 * One wiki was banning admins from a different wiki
 * Several wikis don't use consensus
 * One wiki had a POV-violation in the site-notice
 * Many wikis have never heard of Assume Good Faith

We also need to think more about talking with other non-profit organizations. They may have already learned lessons that we are still struggling with. So day to day management, and improvement of internal and external communication is what I'd like to work on these coming two years. If you want to help me achieve that, please vote for me, or contact me, or both!

What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects?

I actually try to avoid having different strange flags, since I think they promote hierarchy and bureaucracy, which are slow poisons to networked organizations. I did hold an admin (sysop) bit for a year on the English wikipedia. It turns out that most of the time, you don't really need an admin bit to maintain order and keep wikipedians in your neighborhood happy. It took people around me almost half a year to discover that I had handed my bit in. I could request the abmin bit back anytime I like, but I haven't really seen any need, recently.

Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?

I'm having great fun coding mediawiki extensions for pay at the moment, and have some serious thoughts of making a career of it. I know at least one or two people who will cheer when they read that ;-)

What languages do you speak?

I speak English and Dutch fairly well. I speak enough German to be able to survive in Germany and learn more, and I knew enough French and Latin to pass my high-school exams.

'''Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?'''

I want to run for the board to promote my platform (which is better communication between wikis). Also, with approval voting, if I run, I make it easier for people to reasonably withhold votes from less suitable candidates (this is superior to one man one vote, where I would end up "stealing votes" from suitable candidates instead.)  I want to be on the board because I think I know what I'm doing, while I have some concerns about one or two of the other people who are running.

Besides the standard rosy visions and promises of staunch maintenance that every candidate promises, my main contribution is my ability to get people to cooperate and work together across the net with a minimum of fuss and (wiki)drama. If you're familiar with how many of our projects are run, you probably won't have a hard time understanding why such a skill might be invaluable.

About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?

I've calculated that I can easily afford to invest as much as half of my waking hours in the board. Now that we are getting a new Executive director, I hope that it will be possible to spend rather less time than that, so I can also spend some of my time on other wiki-related areas.

Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?

I think that as far as the foundation is concerned, income and expenditure should be somewhat more balanced, with part of the budget being covered by the foundation offering services to other nonprofits. I also hope that by that time we will have started saving money and building up its reserves for the very long run indeed, so that all the different wikiprojects we have will still be around in the long now, or at least for the next 100 years. ''I do know that that is an inconsequentially short time period for long now thinking, but you have to start small. Making a plan to last 100 years is herculean, but still just-about doable.''

As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?

I'm not sure the board should be handling private matters or micromanaging at all. Rather, it should be setting policy on how such things are to be done by others. This would allow board meetings to be fully public and transparent. Of course, that's the long term ideal. In the short term, I'd try to push for as much transparency as possible, and as much delegation of privacy related matters as is reasonably possible.

'''Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?'''

NB: ''It appears that this question was inadvertently not answered by Kim. Check back for an updated answer soon.''

'''Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?'''

One of the best things you can do is to increase the size of the seed-page set. If your wiki is more useful to start with, you will attract more users to start with. You can create more seed pages by translating similar pages from other wikis. As to how to attract more translators, and how to make translation easier and cheaper, that's a long story, which does not quite fit in the width of this margin. For starters, we should put more priority on making mediawiki easy to use for translators.

What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?

These projects have been growing fairly well by themselves. Increased communication between different wikiprojects might help a lot. Another thing that might help is the legendary "real soon now" Single User Login system. We need to be thinking hard about how to relieve Brion of his daily chores and get him working hard on the actual SUL code.

As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?

I would pursue Government (education) and NGO grants, non-intrusive sponsorship agreements (no advertising!), and using our expertise to offer services to other non-profits and even for-profits for money. All of these methods seem to fit well with the foundation philosophy of neutrality, and none of these have been pursued very much yet, and therefore seem to essentially be fallow ground. We should easily be able to cover our costs that way. Taking over the world with wikis, free content and free software and then make people pay for their own? Priceless!

What else do you want to say to voters?

Just because you've heard of someone doesn't necessarily make them a good candidate. Also remember that we are doing approval voting (right tool for right job). The strategy is to Vote for all candidates you find suitable. This way, it is most likely that a candidate you find suitable will indeed be appointed. Even if you don't vote for me: If you take this advice, you'll get the candidate that you want, and I'll have achieved at least one good thing by running already. :-) -->

Kingboyk
Kingboyk hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Michael Snow
[Übersetzung folgt.] <!-- Candidate statement:

I respect what the Wikimedia Foundation has accomplished so far with limited resources and many forces pulling on it. I want to fill some of the gaps and make it a more functional organization. Finances are a constant issue, as Wikimedia must bring in more money and find new donation sources. Brand name value can help support operating funds, but this must be done carefully to preserve neutrality and also protect brands from outsiders trying to exploit them. Relationships with each project and its diverse participants need to be cultivated. The board must listen carefully to reflect the will of the community and not just the loudest voices.

Beyond working on Wikipedia articles, my Wikimedia experience has covered a variety of areas. For many, if you recognize my name it may be because I started The Wikipedia Signpost at the beginning of 2005. Although not intended as a universal news source for Wikimedia issues, it's perhaps as useful as any other source, and it has many readers from languages and projects other than just the English Wikipedia. My other Wikimedia involvement has included serving as chair of the Communications committee. As a lawyer, I have also given occasional advice to the Wikimedia Foundation, when its legal needs coincide with my ability to help. I believe that I understand the challenges and would bring a valuable perspective to the board.

What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects?

I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I've been urged to become a bureaucrat there as well, but chose not to. I declined partly because I didn't want to pursue it simply to collect a status marker — also because I dislike the name, although I understand it was chosen so the position would seem less like a status marker. I have avoided other positions primarily because they might be incompatible with my ongoing work on The Wikipedia Signpost.

Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?

I work in educational publishing, specializing in professional training related to real estate. I write textbooks and supplemental course materials, and also design online courses, which are a popular choice for students in this field. As an attorney, I focus on the legal issues involved in working in the industry.

What languages do you speak?

English, French, and German.

'''Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?'''

I've put a considerable amount of effort into the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. I believe it has noble ambitions and want to help it succeed. In terms of what I personally have to offer, I think I can add a greater degree of professionalism, along with the knowledge and skills I have from my legal training.

About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?

Elsewhere I estimated roughly 15-20 hours a week, based on the current situation and the kind of activity the board is involved in. This is substantially more than a board position should normally require, and I would like to make progress in scaling this back, but it may be necessary at least in the near term.

Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?

I think it should be in a better position to actively grow its projects and promote them externally (especially those other than the largest Wikipedia languages), instead of simply maintaining an operational status quo. This requires better organization, funding and cooperation with partners. Another long-term goal is establishing an endowment to ensure greater financial stability for the Wikimedia Foundation.

As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?

Many public bodies have obligations to conduct business openly and allow their actions to be subject to scrutiny. The standard procedure they use for business that cannot be completely public is to conduct it privately in "executive session" using established criteria to determine when private deliberation is called for. When using such arrangements, votes are normally held in public even when dealing with issues that were discussed in executive session. For everything else, full records can be examined as well as proper summaries. I think a model along these lines would address concerns in this area.

'''Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?'''

I think developing a more distinctive visual presentation for each project/brand, and addressing some of the individualized technical needs on those projects, has the potential to strengthen all of the brands, especially those other than Wikipedia.

'''Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?'''

The first step would have to be a study to identify the obstacles to broader adoption. Some of these, such as limited internet access, can't be directly addressed by Wikimedia, although alternate methods of distribution can serve as a work-around. For any barriers that the Wikimedia Foundation is capable of dealing with, the next step would be to identify what resources can be devoted to the effort of overcoming them.

What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?

Along the lines of my response to one of the earlier questions, I think fostering a more distinctive identity for them will increase the motivation of people to participate. Trying to recruit people who don't already have some natural enthusiasm for a project is unlikely to help much, but each project draws a somewhat distinctive profile of participants, and strengthening the project's individuality will make it more attractive to people who fit that profile.

As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?

Large donations and substantial grants, in particular. The pool of small individual contributions is a helpful base to start from, and has done much to get the Wikimedia Foundation this far, but as financial needs increase in scale, the tools to address them must scale up as well. Strategies to increase the small-contribution pool, other than any natural growth, seem likely to have low yields and be relatively unattractive options. The typical example is soliciting potential donors externally — work that other nonprofits often contract out to professional fundraising companies, with the result that the organization nets much less than is ostensibly donated.

What else do you want to say to voters?

Anyone who has edited enough to be eligible to vote is, based on that alone, more personally involved in the activity of the Wikimedia Foundation than the average person gets personally involved in the work of their national government. Assuming you think it's important to cast an informed vote in a national election (presuming you're eligible to vote), this suggests you would have just as many reasons to participate in this election. Please consider the candidates carefully, and I hope you'll support me as someone well-qualified to serve on the board. -->

Mindspillage
Mindspillage hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Oscar
Oscar hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

SarekOfVulcan
SarekOfVulcan hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Sean Heron
Sean Heron hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

UninvitedCompany
[Übersetzung folgt.] <!-- Candidate statement:

I've been involved for over four years, now, and have held a variety of volunteer posts with ENWP and with the Foundation. I was probably best known for my OTRS work up until my recent election to the ENWP arbitration committee. I work as a software development manager and as a semiprofessional musician in addition to my volunteer work.

In essence, the purpose of my candidacy is to bring a higher degree of professionalism to the Board of Trustees and the daily operations of the Foundation. The Foundation needs to attract large donors to maintain solvency without resorting to advertising. To attract large donors, the leadership of the Foundation from the Board on down must be professional and responsible, and must be able to reconcile the unique values of the constituent projects with the expectations of the donor community. This will involve bylaws changes to assure donors that future boards will be well qualified. It will also require that we make the Executive Director position an attractive one to the top-flight talent we want. That will mean more delegation and will require a board that is comfortable leading rather than doing. As a member of the Board of Trustees, my work would be directed almost exclusively towards making these changes.

What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects?

On the English Wikipedia, I'm a current and past member of the arbitration committee, an administrator, and a "bureaucrat." I also have access to the checkuser tool. Elsewhere, I am an OTRS admin, and an admin on Meta.

Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?

I work as a software engineering manager for a large corporation. I am also a semi-professional musician.

What languages do you speak?

I speak English, and a little bit of Spanish.

'''Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?'''

I want to join the board because I care deeply about Wikipedia and its sister projects, and because I'm increasingly concerned about the direction the Foundation has taken. I believe that I can make a difference because I have the business and organizational background, and because I know my way around the projects and the Foundation due to my involvement.

About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?

More than I should.

Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?

I would like to see it fully funded and organizationally stable, with a clear plan for the ensuing five years.

As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?

I don't think the board engages with the community enough at present. Part of this is that there is little to share with the community because the board has such a difficult time arriving at decisions that the community finds significant. There's too much board involvement in minor matters which by their nature require more confidentiality. The board should rise above that, work in larger brushstrokes, and have a strategy for working with the various communities it serves.

'''Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?'''

I think that the name of the WikiMedia Foundation should be changed due to the ongoing public confusion with Wikipedia, MediaWiki, wikis in general, and Wikia. I would think that a name that contains neither "Wiki," "Pedia," nor "Media" would be best (I don't have a specific suggestion).

'''Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?'''

I believe that they should be spun out to a foundation of their own because the WMF is unable to care for them properly and is unlikely to be able to do so any time in the foreseeable future. Alternatively, large projects like ENWP, DEWP, FRWP, and JAWP could be spun out so that the remaining organization can focus on the projects still in their growth stages.

What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?

By the board? Nothing, although again some of these should be spun out so that they can have a decisionmaking body that is accountable to them. Any time a smaller sister project has to compete with the large Wikipedias for management attention or technical work, they will lose. The smaller projects suffer for this.

As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?

Make the foundation more attractive to large donors by improving accountability and predictability. I have an essay on this here.

What else do you want to say to voters?

The turnout at past elections has been limited. I truly hope that every editor at ENWP will take the time to review the candidates' qualifications and background and cast their votes. There are some excellent candidates running this time who have the background to make a difference and move the foundation forward, and they deserve our support. -->

WarX
WarX hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

Yann
Yann hat noch nicht auf die Fragen geantwortet.

^demon
[Übersetzung folgt.] <!-- Candidate statement:

Wikipedia is an absolutely phenomenal thing. The Wikimedia Foundation exists to support both Wikipedia and its many sister projects by providing both financial and infrastructural support. It stands to reason that we need people on the Board who understand what we're really here for--providing as much freely-licensed content to as many people as possible in their own native language. The Board of Directors should have, nay, needs to have people who are as closely aligned with this guiding principle as possible. As a board member, I would strive to play towards my individual strengths of management, technical know-how, and my ability to communicate with others. However, none of us must ever be too proud to not stop and ask for help; be it from outside help, developers, local administrators, and even the normal day-to-day contributors--both registered and anonymous. I believe many times those involved "higher-up" in the running of the Foundation can, at times, lose sight of that core policy I highlighted. This is something I promise to never do.

I believe that the Foundation is currently making a major mistake on what has recently to me become a very major issue. The WMF has long held a policy of "No Open Proxies" allowed for editing. The feeling has often been that quite a large amount of vandalism is coming from such proxies. The ability has long existed for us to be able to soft-block those proxies (in that registered users can edit, but anonymous ones cannot). For quite some time, Tor was soft-blocked. However, earlier this year, unilateral action was taken to hard block all of these proxies, preventing even valuable users from being able to contribute. When Board members were contacted, they did nothing. Rather, Jimbo encouraged discussion, which got nowhere due to a set mindset that is impossible to break. In the meantime, other users were mowed down for this same issue. Are we to allow the projects to lose highly valuable and valued contributors simply because the Foundation will not act? If I am elected, I would like to have the issue visited at a Foundation-level. While we may not see the results I would prefer, I would like to see the Foundation at least exert effort to see if this policy does in fact need revising, rather than the lack of action by anyone.

What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects?

Only user right I've ever had is sysop on enwiki.

Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?

Part time student, part time computer programmer.

What languages do you speak?

English, and some French.

'''Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?'''

Honestly, I want to be on the Board to serve the community. I know how cliché that sounds, but it's really my reason for running. I don't have ulterior motives. I don't care about power, I simply wish to represent the community and have our voice heard on the Board.

About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?

As much as it takes. Honestly, I am willing to devote as much time of my life as required of me. I spend inordinate amounts of time on Wikipedia as is, so redirecting my activities to the Foundation wouldn't be a hassle for me.

Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?

I would love to see the Foundation providing even more content to even more people. I think this is our primary goal and something we should strive for. Multimedia would be nice, so we can provide videos and audio to users to enrich the original textual content.

As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?

There are some things that should be open, and some things that should be private. Given the open nature of our work, I believe we can be more open in terms of finances, policy, and things of that nature. However, issues such as legal disputes with individuals or the setup of the server cluster's security are things that obviously should be kept private for what I see as uncontroversial reasons.

'''Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?'''

I think the brands obviously need protection. They are highly recognizable and need to be shielded from potential misuse. That being said, I think they should not be changed, as they are so recognizable. To change the well-known Wikipedia logo would be a mistake, in my opinion.

'''Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?'''

I think this is something that falls to the communities themselves. Without a strong community to support a language, there cannot be substantial growth. I believe it is up to the speakers of that language to branch out to other members of their families and local communities to encourage participation.

What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?

I think they need to be more greatly advertised. I'm not saying posting banner ads on websites, as Wikipedia's growth has been entirely word of mouth. However, I think their prominence should be increased in media coverage of the Foundation's activities, if possible.

As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?

I believe the current methods of fund raisers has been highly successful, and I believe it should be continued and encouraged. In addition, federal and private grants could be considered, provided they have no strings attached, as I would not wish to encroach on our policy of Neutral Point of View.

What else do you want to say to voters?

I think the Board needs a new face to it. That's not to say that I have a lack of faith in the current Board, however I think that we've reached a point where we can say "Ok, you've served your turn, time for some fresh faces." While I may not have a degree in law or accounting, I am an intelligent individual dedicated to the ideals of the project. -->