There isn't a lot in there, that wasn't already posted on this forum. She came along late in the history. By that time I'd given up on keeping track of the endless revolving door of obscure figures. But here's the main gist of it. She UNQUESTIONABLY lied about her salary, for one thing.Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:51 amEric, can you dig up your book wiki notes about Katherine Maher?
And don't forget Daniel Brandt's thread from last year:Ms. Maher was hired as the Communications Officer for the WMF on 30 March 2014, to replace the much loved Jay Walsh. She quickly rose to the top of the heap -- lasting seven years as a WMF employee, unusually for someone who habitually chased high positions at nonprofit organizations for most of her working life.
Her history prior to the WMF
It is a very "interesting and colorful" history. Starting with internship at the Council on Foreign Relations (notorious for its dark reputation among political conspiracists), she has flitted from one public-relations and "technology advisor" job to another since 2004. Her longest period was as "Innovation and Communication Officer" for UNICEF, a whole 2 years and 8 months. Megabank HSBC and an assortment of nonprofits also appear in her CV. She had some relationship with Star Apartments, having edited its (badly written) Wikipedia article heavily.
The arrival
From the snarky Wikipediocracy thread, which quoted Sue Gardner's email:
> "I'm pleased to announce we've hired a Chief Communications Officer for the Wikimedia Foundation, replacing Jay Walsh who left us in October. Our new head of communications will be Katherine Maher, and she will join us on 14 April, reporting to me."
> "Katherine comes to the WMF from Washington DC, where she was Advocacy Director for the global digital rights organization Access. At Access, she was responsible for all media and communications work, including communications between the organization and its 350,000 members. She also handled coalition work and advocacy efforts and urgent global threats to digital rights, participated in the organization's strategic planning, and was deeply involved with the production of RightsCon."
> "Before Access, Katherine worked on the launch of the Open Development Technology Alliance at the World Bank, and was a program manager for internet freedom projects at the National Democratic Institute. Earlier, she worked on the UniWiki initiative for the UNICEF Innovation team, intended to improve MediaWiki's usability for people who were new to computer use, using early-model technology, or connecting in low-bandwidth environments. Through her career she's been a frequent media spokesperson and writer of op-eds and other media materials."
> "Katherine has lived and worked in nine countries and visited many more. She is a native speaker of English, and has a basic knowledge of French, Arabic and German."
> "The purpose of the CCO role is to ensure fast, easy information flow about Wikimedia in multiple languages, both internally within the movement and outside of it, and I think Katherine will be a wonderful fit for that work. Her experiences advocating for the rights of ordinary internet users and communicating with a large global volunteer community are both rare and directly relevant. She's got a solid understanding of internet technologies. She's a crisp, clear communicator, and an experienced spokesperson."
> "I want to thank the people who helped with the interviewing process: Geoff Brigham, Jove Oliver, Gayle Karen Young, David Gerard, Erik Moeller, Lisa Gruwell, Frank Schulenburg, and Jimmy Wales. A special thanks to Geoff, who's ably overseen our communications functions for the past several years, and to Jay, who's generously filled in when it took us longer than we expected to hire for this role. Geoff and Jay will be helping Katherine get on-boarded, and I know she'll benefit enormously from their guidance and support."
As Kelly Martin said: "So they have a new Mouth of Sauron? How exciting, we get to listen to someone else lie to us."
She gets a promotion
Due to the sudden resignation of Lila Tretikov in early March 2016, Katherine was swiftly appointed to the post as an "interim" director, most likely by the Board of Trustees, with Jimbo suspected of pulling strings to "insure success". One lovely side effect was that she was suddenly considered "notable" enough to get her own Wikipedia biography, created 11 March by patroller, OTRS volunteer, and Wikiproject Military History member Ktr101, and subsequently messed with by Wikipedia insiders Mike Peel and Andy Mabbett.
And in June 2016 Maher was made the "permanent" WMF Director. [1]
Posted on the now-defunct Wikirev forum, 2017:
> "Well let's see. Jimmy is 51 now so he would have been about 36 when Wikipedia got started. Maher is 34."
> "I'm not so much against her age or her looks/mannerisms but I don't think she brings much to the table. Her resume is really weak, consisting of a bunch of bouncing around from one nonprofit to another. She hardly ever spent more than a year or two anywhere. How are we supposed to expect her to have any long-term vision?"
> "Likewise her education is not very extensive. For this level position I would expect either a really impressive work experience, which she doesn't have, or a doctorate in something relevant."
> "She doesn't seem like she even recognizes the problem. At least Jimmy was savvy enough to hire Larry Sanger to be the "brains" and lend some credibility to the enterprise."
> "Right now I see Wikipedia as being completely run by nonprofit money-raising experts with little or no attachment to the vision of the community. The appointment of Maher as leader is proof."
Defends six-figures WMF salaries and lying fundraising banners
Hacker News thread (archive) from June 2021. Katherine spins, Andreas Kolbe shows up to call her out for prevarication, she denies and denies.
Says her compensation when she left was a little over $400,000.
> it isn't sustainable (or arguably ethical) to ask people to work for significantly less than the value of their labor.
Tell that to the volunteers!
On the fundraising banners that consistently paint a picture of a Wikipedia in dire need of financial rescue:
> I agree that there were some problems with the fundraising messaging in India. It's an example of where the initial message testing worked, but when it went to a full campaign, the press ran with stories that were misleading and alarmist. In fact, WMF staff then worked extensively with the communities in India and did a significant amount of press, including television interviews, to clarify the purpose of the fundraiser and dispel concerns.
> You continue to push for messaging that you personally believe to be more truthful to your belief about how fundraising works. Okay. That's fair, and you are entirely welcome to continue to do that. However, years of research and focus groups and testing has continuously demonstrated that the primary reason people donate to Wikipedia isn't a fear it will go away, nor is it a strategic interest in the future. The overwhelming reason is gratitude that it exists, and the opportunity to have contribute in their own way.
> Would I personally respond to a message about mission and strategy? Yes, I would. But most people do not. Instead, millions of people find the donation banners acceptable and even inspirational -- far more so than messages about product and feature improvements. So despite the loyal opposition of you and others, I'm fairly certain that the WMF will continue to fundraise with messages that work on the level of what people care the most about, which is what Wikipedia means to them in their own lives.
Hector Martin replies:
> the primary reason people donate to Wikipedia isn't a fear it will go away
> I'm fairly certain that the WMF will continue to fundraise with messages that work on the level of what people care the most about, which is what Wikipedia means to them in their own lives.
> Those two are obviously contradictory. WMF's messaging is clearly, blatantly aimed at presenting the Foundation as having a problem staying afloat. If you didn't think the primary reason people donate to Wikipedia was a fear of it going away, you wouldn't be pushing messaging that is designed to cause people to have precisely that fear.
> Quite frankly, your messaging reads like typical corporate doublespeak, and does nothing but further make me lose trust in the foundation.
Andreas replies:
> I've lost count of the number of donors who've said they felt stung by learning just how well off the WMF is financially, felt they'd been lied to, wished they had donated to someone else, said they'd now cancelled their monthly donation, etc.
> The implication is that for them, the sense of urgency was precisely the reason they donated. They believed they were helping "a friend in need". That's what made them feel good. Being used, not so much.
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3101
