Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Pine W]

Hi Anna,

Thanks for chiming in.

As someone who is personally feeling a lot of strain between myself and WMF
-- and I think I'm not the only one -- I would like to figure out how to do
something so that all of us can get on with mission-aligned work instead of
having conversations about what's wrong for the nth time.

I think that problem will take some effort to solve, and it probably won't
be solved in this thread. It's certainly a ripe issue for discussion, and
I'd like to see that happen.

I'd like to hear suggestions about how to make that happen. I can't
continue to participate here tonight, but perhaps others will. When I loop
back here -- hopefully tomorrow, and certainly within a few days -- I'd
like to hear suggestions about how to get better alignment between WMF and
the community. This has been a problem for a long time, and I find it
really frustrating. I know we can do better, and I'm glad you're giving
some thought to this.

Thanks,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Anna Stillwell]

Hello everybody,

I want to thank everyone for offering their considered thoughts. I mean
that genuinely. There are many legitimate views expressed in this thread,
many by generous, constructive, wise, and delightful members of our
communities. That's good.

And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.

We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that. *And*
the cumulative impact of the way people at the Foundation get this feedback
begins to feel like public, collective punishment. And that dynamic, one
that we all tend to participate in, is driving talented people away from
the foundation.

Now some here may not care about that. Some of us think there is no point
to the foundation anyway, so it's great that talent wants to walk.

Others may believe that I am saying that "we should all just be kind" and
that I am terribly polyannish (of course I am, I work in HR) and that I am
saying that we should not tell each other difficult truths. But that's a
forced false choice. I'm decidedly not saying that we should not tell one
another difficult truths. I'm saying that when we add it all up the way we
tell each other the truth has damaging effects on many people I talk
to—employees, volunteers from around the world, board members... and it
hits women and minorities particularly hard. No one single person intends
for it to be so. Of course they don't. But add it all up, put it out in
public, everyone chimes in, and overall morale goes down the toilet.

What do we do? How can we find ways to tell each other difficult truths
while remembering that we are talking about and to *people *in public and
in large groups?

---
As a separate issue and a different interpretation on how this report
likely came about...

In this report 3/11 fact stories are about issues that have become
politicized. (Yes, sadly I included some facts about biographies of women
political). If travel is also a political issue now, I think I’m glad they
legalized cannabis in this state.

But imagine it is October. Sure, Brexit has happened and large portions of
the world are closing, not opening. There is a turn away from a global
mindset and a turning toward clamping down on freedoms. But a good portion
of Americans believe that we don't really have anything to worry about.

The Comms team begins writing a report. If Hillary Clinton had won, it's
likely that these would not have looked so terribly much like political
statements. It may have looked like a normal affirmation of acceptable
values (because, 3/11). But America went another direction and now things
that could have been considered normalish suddenly look like a shot fired
round the world.

I'm not saying that this makes any of the legitimate views expressed here
invalid. I'm just saying that the context has changed radically. Some of
that change now makes acceptable values (valuing the scientific method /
valuing climate science, valuing people of other nations, particularly
those in distress, valuing biographies about women), look fringe.

/a









On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I've written several drafts today in response to this thread, all of which
> came out as as rather energetic.
>
> There are some reputable organizations for which I like and for which the
> tone of the "main page" of this report would be appropriate. WMF is not one
> of them. I would ask the people who approved the final version of this
> publication (particularly those in senior management) to carefully reflect
> on whether they are working for the organization that is right for them. If
> they want to continue to work for WMF, I would ask them to carefully read
> and focus on the WMF mission, and be religious about staying on that
> mission when making decisions on behalf of WMF. Outside of WMF it's fine to
> engage in many kinds of advocacy, but inside of WMF, this kind of tilt is a
> strategic liability both to WMF and to Wikipedia.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Pine W]

Rogol,

Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect. Try
asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page.

I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it more
difficult than it is already, OK?

Pine


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for
> Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
> explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in force.
> Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that, andI
> there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly have
> any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
>
> Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Peter Southwood]

Try asking the community. This mailing list is a small subset of the community. 
Or is that a rhetorical question?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 9:32 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for 
Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so explicitly, 
I assume that his current position is that it is now in force.
Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that, andI 
there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly have any 
practical effect until it is published.  But first --

Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?

"Rogol"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14042 - Release Date: 03/01/17


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Pine W]

Hi Rogol,

While the values changed, my understanding is that the mission statement
did not.

I think that the entirety of the values statement is educational read (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis), and I
mean that mostly in a positive way. I am OK with the new values statement,
and not with the annual report.

I would prefer not to be in the position of feeling like 3/4ths of my
emails on this list are criticizing WMF, because I think that the
organization has a noble purpose and that at its best it does a lot of good
for the world. Unfortunately, I am feeling strained in my relationship with
WMF, and this kind of drama is a distraction from other things that all of
us could be doing that would be more beneficial.

Pine


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Pine,
>
> Recall that the Foundation have rewritten their values to include "we seek
> to continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our
> world.", see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis
>
> The previous version
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Values=16352103 was all
> about knowledge.
>
> But now, "Our vision is about more than providing universal access to all
> forms of knowledge. It’s about creating an inclusive culture"
>
> WMF has taken on an explicitly political mission, to improve the word not
> merely by the dissemination of knowledge, but by direct intervention.  I do
> not recall that being discussed with the Community, and I wonder what the
> donors think?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I've written several drafts today in response to this thread, all of
> which
> > came out as as rather energetic.
> >
> > There are some reputable organizations for which I like and for which the
> > tone of the "main page" of this report would be appropriate. WMF is not
> one
> > of them. I would ask the people who approved the final version of this
> > publication (particularly those in senior management) to carefully
> reflect
> > on whether they are working for the organization that is right for them.
> If
> > they want to continue to work for WMF, I would ask them to carefully read
> > and focus on the WMF mission, and be religious about staying on that
> > mission when making decisions on behalf of WMF. Outside of WMF it's fine
> to
> > engage in many kinds of advocacy, but inside of WMF, this kind of tilt
> is a
> > strategic liability both to WMF and to Wikipedia.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Peter Southwood]

I would guess that about 90% of the donors have never been aware of the values, 
but have no data to support that guess. Do you have better data?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 9:23 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Pine,

Recall that the Foundation have rewritten their values to include "we seek to 
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world.", see 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis

The previous version
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Values=16352103 was all 
about knowledge.

But now, "Our vision is about more than providing universal access to all forms 
of knowledge. It’s about creating an inclusive culture"

WMF has taken on an explicitly political mission, to improve the word not 
merely by the dissemination of knowledge, but by direct intervention.  I do not 
recall that being discussed with the Community, and I wonder what the donors 
think?

"Rogol"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I've written several drafts today in response to this thread, all of 
> which came out as as rather energetic.
>
> There are some reputable organizations for which I like and for which 
> the tone of the "main page" of this report would be appropriate. WMF 
> is not one of them. I would ask the people who approved the final 
> version of this publication (particularly those in senior management) 
> to carefully reflect on whether they are working for the organization 
> that is right for them. If they want to continue to work for WMF, I 
> would ask them to carefully read and focus on the WMF mission, and be 
> religious about staying on that mission when making decisions on 
> behalf of WMF. Outside of WMF it's fine to engage in many kinds of 
> advocacy, but inside of WMF, this kind of tilt is a strategic liability both 
> to WMF and to Wikipedia.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14042 - Release Date: 03/01/17


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for
Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in force.
Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that, andI
there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly have
any practical effect until it is published.  But first --

Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?

"Rogol"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

Recall that the Foundation have rewritten their values to include "we seek
to continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our
world.", see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis

The previous version
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Values=16352103 was all
about knowledge.

But now, "Our vision is about more than providing universal access to all
forms of knowledge. It’s about creating an inclusive culture"

WMF has taken on an explicitly political mission, to improve the word not
merely by the dissemination of knowledge, but by direct intervention.  I do
not recall that being discussed with the Community, and I wonder what the
donors think?

"Rogol"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I've written several drafts today in response to this thread, all of which
> came out as as rather energetic.
>
> There are some reputable organizations for which I like and for which the
> tone of the "main page" of this report would be appropriate. WMF is not one
> of them. I would ask the people who approved the final version of this
> publication (particularly those in senior management) to carefully reflect
> on whether they are working for the organization that is right for them. If
> they want to continue to work for WMF, I would ask them to carefully read
> and focus on the WMF mission, and be religious about staying on that
> mission when making decisions on behalf of WMF. Outside of WMF it's fine to
> engage in many kinds of advocacy, but inside of WMF, this kind of tilt is a
> strategic liability both to WMF and to Wikipedia.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Pine W]

I've written several drafts today in response to this thread, all of which
came out as as rather energetic.

There are some reputable organizations for which I like and for which the
tone of the "main page" of this report would be appropriate. WMF is not one
of them. I would ask the people who approved the final version of this
publication (particularly those in senior management) to carefully reflect
on whether they are working for the organization that is right for them. If
they want to continue to work for WMF, I would ask them to carefully read
and focus on the WMF mission, and be religious about staying on that
mission when making decisions on behalf of WMF. Outside of WMF it's fine to
engage in many kinds of advocacy, but inside of WMF, this kind of tilt is a
strategic liability both to WMF and to Wikipedia.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Peter Southwood]

Agree that citations are needed.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Risker
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 7:51 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Okay, so I'll say what Sam said, except in stronger language, and with some 
additional emphasis.

This is a very obviously liberally biased document --  and I say that as 
someone who lives in a country so liberal that it makes Californians look like 
they're still back in the early 1960s. Maybe it takes an outsider to see this.

If you're going to try to play the "facts" game, you have to have your facts 
bang on - and you have to admit that there is more than one side to the story. 
This "report" reads as though the authors chose their favourite advocacy 
positions and then twisted and turned and did some more contortions to make it 
look as though it had something to do with the Wikimedia family of projects. 
(Seriously. Refugees and global warming don't have anything to do with the 
WMF.) It is so biased that most of those "fact" pages would have to be 
massively rewritten in order to meet the neutrality expectations of just about 
every Wikipedia regardless of the language.

And that is my biggest concern. It is not neutral by any stretch of the 
imagination. And if the WMF can't write neutrally about these topics in its 
annual report, there is no reason for the average reader to think that 
Wikipedia and other projects will be written neutrally, fairly, based on 
references, and including the significant other opinions.  This document is a 
weapon that can be used against Wikimedia projects by any tinpot dictator or 
other suppressive government because it "proves" that WMF projects are biased.  
It gives ammunition to the very movements that create "alternative facts" - it 
sure doesn't help when the WMF is coming up with a few of its own.

That does a huge disservice to the hundreds of thousands of editors who have 
worked for years to create accurate, neutral, well-referenced educational 
material and information.  It doesn't do any good to those editors contributing 
from countries where participation in an international web-based information 
project is already viewed with a jaundiced eye. And for those editors who don't 
adhere to the political advocacy positions being put forward in this "annual 
report", or simply believe that the WMF should not be producing political 
advocacy documents, it may well cause them to reflect whether or not they want 
to keep contributing.

I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and edited 
properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors who know how to 
write neutrally on controversial topics. I've volunteered in the Wikimedia 
movement for more than a decade at least in part because it was not a political 
advocacy organization, so I find this annual report to be very disturbing.

Risker/Anne

On 1 March 2017 at 23:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dear reporters,
>
> I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the 
> non-linear presentation online.  Lovely work; you are wonderful.
>
>
> > If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use 
> > either "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the 
> > Wikipedia article.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a 
> protest photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose, 
> but reasonably on topic (with a corrected caption).
>
> In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in 
> to the facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied 
> context is "Facts Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report 
> could be even more powerful if it were presented with another 
> half-step of remove.  The most unparalleled success of Wikipedia is 
> not that it summarizes topics like "scientific consensus on global warming" — 
> that, one can find elsewhere.
> It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such 
> important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major 
> controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically 
> accepted conclusions.
>
> My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as 
> I can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
> passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
> 3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this 
> 3+ mote
> of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)
>
> Wikilove,
> SJ
>
> [1]
> http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-
> growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
> http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
> https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/
> documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf
>
>
> [2] A quick round 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Visiting the United States is no longer an option for many people. The
current situation is absolutely not only about immigration it is also about
visiting. When a nationalised person of Iranian ancestry has family in
Iran. Can he or she still visit his family and come back? Can his family
still visit him? The situation is reminiscent of what happens in North and
South Korea.

Really, people do not appreciate half of what is happening in the USA. I
seriously ask myself if I could visit the USA and not be harassed. I am
Caucasian, from the Netherlands and I am a Muslim. When we do not see that
a large part of our community can no longer visit "the land of the free"
and call this political, we do not appreciate what we stand for. When
people find that the position they take is one where the notion that
America is no longer the land of the free, where white extremism is free to
burn mosques and kill based on the difference in the colour of their skin
is acceptable, they are welcome to find a problem with what Wikimedia as a
worldwide movement stands for.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 2 March 2017 at 00:44, Florence Devouard  wrote:

> I must say I also find the political message behind this a bit too heavy.
> It lets me a bit unconfortable.
>
> That most of the themes reported here are not Mr Trump cup of tea is quite
> obvious. That the whole page is a message against the president, I get it.
>
> But in some cases, I think it is really lacking subtility or a bit too
> manipulative. And that is not so cool.
>
> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>
> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
> "immigrating".
>
> I think the choice of picture inappropriate.
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 01/03/2017 à 21:15, Lodewijk a écrit :
>
>> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>>
>> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
>> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
>> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
>> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
>> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
>> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
>> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
>> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
>> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>>
>> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>>
>> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
>> Wikipedians as a background.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :
>>
>> Hi James.
>>>
>>> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
 "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
 or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
 very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
 https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html

 Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
 eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
 the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
 should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
 volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
 understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
 Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
 raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
 culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
 censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
 given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
 personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
 in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
 Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
 Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf

 Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
 income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
 it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
 equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
 -- Are people waiting for the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Risker]

Okay, so I'll say what Sam said, except in stronger language, and with some
additional emphasis.

This is a very obviously liberally biased document --  and I say that as
someone who lives in a country so liberal that it makes Californians look
like they're still back in the early 1960s. Maybe it takes an outsider to
see this.

If you're going to try to play the "facts" game, you have to have your
facts bang on - and you have to admit that there is more than one side to
the story. This "report" reads as though the authors chose their favourite
advocacy positions and then twisted and turned and did some more
contortions to make it look as though it had something to do with the
Wikimedia family of projects. (Seriously. Refugees and global warming don't
have anything to do with the WMF.) It is so biased that most of those
"fact" pages would have to be massively rewritten in order to meet the
neutrality expectations of just about every Wikipedia regardless of the
language.

And that is my biggest concern. It is not neutral by any stretch of the
imagination. And if the WMF can't write neutrally about these topics in its
annual report, there is no reason for the average reader to think that
Wikipedia and other projects will be written neutrally, fairly, based on
references, and including the significant other opinions.  This document is
a weapon that can be used against Wikimedia projects by any tinpot dictator
or other suppressive government because it "proves" that WMF projects are
biased.  It gives ammunition to the very movements that create "alternative
facts" - it sure doesn't help when the WMF is coming up with a few of its
own.

That does a huge disservice to the hundreds of thousands of editors who
have worked for years to create accurate, neutral, well-referenced
educational material and information.  It doesn't do any good to those
editors contributing from countries where participation in an international
web-based information project is already viewed with a jaundiced eye. And
for those editors who don't adhere to the political advocacy positions
being put forward in this "annual report", or simply believe that the WMF
should not be producing political advocacy documents, it may well cause
them to reflect whether or not they want to keep contributing.

I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and edited
properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors who know how to
write neutrally on controversial topics. I've volunteered in the Wikimedia
movement for more than a decade at least in part because it was not a
political advocacy organization, so I find this annual report to be very
disturbing.

Risker/Anne

On 1 March 2017 at 23:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dear reporters,
>
> I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the
> non-linear presentation online.  Lovely work; you are wonderful.
>
>
> > If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
> > "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
> > article.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a protest
> photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose, but reasonably
> on topic (with a corrected caption).
>
> In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in to the
> facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied context is "Facts
> Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report could be even more
> powerful if it were presented with another half-step of remove.  The most
> unparalleled success of Wikipedia is not that it summarizes topics like
> "scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere.
> It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such
> important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major
> controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically
> accepted conclusions.
>
> My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as I
> can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
> passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
> 3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this mote
> of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)
>
> Wikilove,
> SJ
>
> [1]
> http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-
> growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
> http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
> https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/
> documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf
>
>
> [2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and even
> citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going out to a
> large audience.  You have access to plentiful world-class fact checkers,
> you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

[Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[rupert THURNER]

on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].

but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
work.

as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
sides.

[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
[4] 
https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-interview-mit-simplicius/

best
rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Asaf Bartov]

As promised, Gerard has been unmoderated, FYI.

   A.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:56 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> It's okay that some people disagree with this moderation action (others
> agree, even if they do not say so on-list).  This list is not moderated by
> whole-list-consensus.
>
> I have provided the reason for moderation, without going into details.  To
> do so would be to invite drama, which moderation exists to reduce.  The
> reason is informed by more than one incident, and not necessarily focused
> on cultural differences, as some assumed.
>
> Gerard will be unmoderated on March 1st.  As always, he is (and other
> moderated users are) welcome to submit posts to the list before then, and
> if the posts are respectful and on-topic, they would be let through.
>
>A.
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:50 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > There are words in other languages that have a rude, upleasant,
> > disrespectful or pejorative meaning in British English.  For an amusing
> > list of examples, see the Oxford Dictionary blog at
> > http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/02/words-that-sound-rude/
> >
> > I presume that I'm entitled to be complain when they are used in email
> list
> > exchanges, even when those exchanges are being conducted primarily in
> those
> > other languages?
> >
> > Returning now to the subject of the thread, I have no problem with
> Gerard's
> > posts, even if I have not always found them easy to understand, and see
> no
> > special reason to restrict his access to this list.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Florence Devouard 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Same in French...
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 13/02/2017 à 12:35, John Erling Blad a écrit :
> > >
> > >> It is common to refer to those that cooperated with the Nazis during
> > WWII
> > >> as "kollaboratører" (kollaborators) in Norwegian too.
> > >> https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kollaborat%C3%B8r
> > >>
> > >> Translating between languages are fun! =)
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> 13. feb. 2017 09.08 skrev "Jane Darnell" :
> > >>
> > >> … The only disrespectful
> > >> thing I could find in his recent edits was his remark that he is not a
> > >> collaborator because his cultural heritage assumes "collaborators" are
> > >> "nazis", which is offensive in English. I would like to point out here
> > >> that
> > >> the word collaborator really does mean nazi in Dutch. It's one of many
> > >> translation challenges, so there is even a Wikipedia article that
> spells
> > >> it
> > >> all out:
> > >> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboratie
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please explain..
To me it is not politica but Common sense.
Thanks,
GerardM

Op wo 1 mrt. 2017 om 22:18 schreef Rogol Domedonfors 

It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>
> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>
> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>
> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
> Wikipedians as a background.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :
>
> > Hi James.
> >
> > You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> > >
> > > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> > >
> > > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > > meet?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand 
> wrote:
> > > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a
> rather
> > > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > > starts
> > > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > > school-age",
> > > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic:
> "That
> > > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their
> communities,
> > > and
> > > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is
> unique,
> > > but
> > > > every single one loses time from their important learning years.
Many
> > of
> > > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages
and
> > > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's
> vision
> > > and
> > > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we
> have
> > > an
> > > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> > written
> > > in
> > > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> > Andreas
> > > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,”
> he
> > > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > > statistics
> > > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the
> world,
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Samuel Klein]

Dear reporters,

I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the
non-linear presentation online.  Lovely work; you are wonderful.


> If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
> "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
> article.
>

Yes.

The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a protest
photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose, but reasonably
on topic (with a corrected caption).

In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in to the
facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied context is "Facts
Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report could be even more
powerful if it were presented with another half-step of remove.  The most
unparalleled success of Wikipedia is not that it summarizes topics like
"scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere.
It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such
important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major
controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically
accepted conclusions.

My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as I
can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this mote
of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)

Wikilove,
SJ

[1]
http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf


[2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and even
citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going out to a
large audience.  You have access to plentiful world-class fact checkers,
you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Craig Franklin]

Indeed, I have to agree too. I don't disagree with the notion that the
themes covered (providing educational materials to vulnerable young people,
providing our information in many languages, and  are important, but the
way they come across is pretty preachy and overtly political.  We're not
here to directly solve the problem of climate change or fight visa
revocations, we're about providing free and neutral information to people
in their own languages.  This sort of thing can be pretty exclusionary and
disempowering if you do not agree with the rather unsubtle political
stances being taken.  It also just provides more fuel for those arguing
that Wikipedia is a left-wing advocacy organisation rather than a credible,
neutral, and trustworthy source of bias-free information.

In this case, I'm afraid that if the Communications team wanted to
highlight the interesting work being done by Wikimedians, they have gotten
it wrong, because they've highlighted the causes rather than the
individuals.  I suspect that it is too late to change the 2016 report, but
I hope that they are a little more mindful for the 2017 report.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 2 March 2017 at 10:31, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Why should that feature in the WMF's annual report, though?
>
> I also agree that this has been over-politicised, whether intentionally or
> not. :-(
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:13, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:
> >
> > Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
> > non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
> > at all.  In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
> > executed the executive order was in the first place.
> >
> > Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
> > question.
> >
> >
> > Dan Rosenthal
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> >> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
> >> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the
> policies
> >> of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
> >> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
> >> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for
> this
> >> report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
> >> honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
> >> reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
> >> continue in this vein.
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Zachary McCune]

Hi everyone -

Zack here from the Communications team at the Foundation. I want to say
some more about the theme for the Foundation’s annual report and why we
picked it.

We chose the theme in early October as a way to remind the world how
Wikipedia works and why our movement matters. By that time, and before the
U.S. elections, the state of fact-based information had become a
highly-discussed topic internationally. We received questions from the
media about how and why Wikipedia was able to avoid the fake news
phenomenon, while many other companies had become amplifiers for false
information. We heard from donors about the importance of Wikipedia in a
world where verifiable information is not promised. We saw, as always, an
unwavering commitment from the community to presenting the facts.

International conversations around fake news and facts only serve to
reinforce how the Wikimedia movement’s commitment to verifiability and
neutrality are indispensable.[1] This is not just an American or a
political phenomenon. Last year in India, a false story about a
surveillance chip in a new 2,000 rupee bill spread widely on WhatsApp,
which has 50 million monthly users in India (the news was eventually
debunked).[2] Just this week, 37 French news organizations came together to
launch CrossCheck a collaboration to address the spread of false
information online.[3]

In this year’s annual report we offer 10 facts as ways into our communities
and our work. They are introductions for Wikimedians who document climate
change, increase the number of women’s biographies, offer language and
learning to refugees, or add new languages to Wikipedia (welcome Tulu!).
They are stories, as are always included in the annual report, that show
who Wikimedians are and why their work is so powerful. The stories are
meant to appeal to even the most general and non-Wikimedia-familiar reader.
So we consciously work to show how the big data points of 2016 last year
are evaluated and interpreted by Wikimedians.

The 10 facts are also ways to examine the impact of Foundation projects.
From Support & Safety to understanding New Readers, there are stories of
how collaborations between communities and departments make amazing things
happen.

Concerning the banners, we crafted that language as a broad thank you and
an invitation for the curious to learn more about the Wikimedia movement
and the Wikimedia Foundation. Quite consciously we sought language that is
not political. If you have copy ideas on how to relate that message better,
I would be happy to work with you! -> zmccune [at] wikimedia [dot] org

Yair, Florence, and everyone, I am grateful that you opened this
discussion. And I hope I can help explain more things as questions come up.

- Zack

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

[2]
http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/nope-rs-2000-note-does-not-have-a-gps-nano-chip-inside-it/
[3]
http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/02/28/lutte-contre-les-fausses-informations-le-monde-partenaire-du-projet-crosscheck_5086731_4355770.html


> From: Florence Devouard 
> Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> Le 02/03/2017 à 01:15, Erik Moeller a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Florence Devouard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
>>> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
>>> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
>>> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>>>
>>> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
>>> "immigrating".
>>>
>>
>> The caption is in fact misleading because it uses the phrase
>> "immigration ban", which is a mischaracterization of the ban. The
>> Executive Order was not an immigration ban; it (temporarily) banned
>> people from those countries from entering the United States, even for
>> visits, with some exceptions. See:
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/t
>> rump-immigration-ban-groups.html
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Visitors
>> .2C_immigrants_and_refugees
>>
>> If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
>> "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
>> article.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>
> Nod. Erik and Dan, what you say make sense.
>
> Florence
>
>
-- 
Zachary McCune
Global Audiences
Wikimedia Foundation

zmcc...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Florence Devouard]

Le 02/03/2017 à 01:15, Erik Moeller a écrit :

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Florence Devouard  wrote:

For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"

Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
"immigrating".


The caption is in fact misleading because it uses the phrase
"immigration ban", which is a mischaracterization of the ban. The
Executive Order was not an immigration ban; it (temporarily) banned
people from those countries from entering the United States, even for
visits, with some exceptions. See:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Visitors.2C_immigrants_and_refugees

If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
"travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
article.

Erik


Nod. Erik and Dan, what you say make sense.

Florence



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Michael Peel]

Why should that feature in the WMF's annual report, though?

I also agree that this has been over-politicised, whether intentionally or not. 
:-(

Thanks,
Mike

> On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:13, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:
> 
> Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
> non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
> at all.  In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
> executed the executive order was in the first place.
> 
> Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
> question.
> 
> 
> Dan Rosenthal
> 
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> 
>> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
>> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies
>> of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
>> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
>> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for this
>> report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
>> honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
>> reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
>> continue in this vein.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Florence Devouard  wrote:
> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>
> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
> "immigrating".

The caption is in fact misleading because it uses the phrase
"immigration ban", which is a mischaracterization of the ban. The
Executive Order was not an immigration ban; it (temporarily) banned
people from those countries from entering the United States, even for
visits, with some exceptions. See:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Visitors.2C_immigrants_and_refugees

If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
"travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
article.

Erik

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Dan Rosenthal]

Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
at all.  In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
executed the executive order was in the first place.

Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
question.


Dan Rosenthal

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies
> of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for this
> report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
> honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
> reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
> continue in this vein.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Yair is right because messages like this "empower" only those who agree with 
them. Taking sides in the name of the Foundation, which has the money and 
therefore power, is not inclusive. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 01/03/2017, at 12:58 p.m., Yair Rand  wrote:
> 
> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it starts
> off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are school-age",
> followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities, and
> their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique, but
> every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
> them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision and
> how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have an
> entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written in
> a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
> Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting statistics
> about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> founder linked.
> 
> So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
> politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to assume
> good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago specifically
> calling for a change in refugee policy.
> 
> Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does not
> accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
> 
> This is a serious problem.
> 
> -- Yair Rand
> 
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> WikiBanners_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Florence Devouard]

I must say I also find the political message behind this a bit too 
heavy. It lets me a bit unconfortable.


That most of the themes reported here are not Mr Trump cup of tea is 
quite obvious. That the whole page is a message against the president, I 
get it.


But in some cases, I think it is really lacking subtility or a bit too 
manipulative. And that is not so cool.


For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in 
2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban. 
Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are 
released. Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"


Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from 
"immigrating".


I think the choice of picture inappropriate.

Florence


Le 01/03/2017 à 21:15, Lodewijk a écrit :

I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.

I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
(visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).

Is this perhaps still work in progress?

On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
Wikipedians as a background.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :


Hi James.

You can find out more about the Endowment here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment

Seddon

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman  wrote:


The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
"empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html

Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf

Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
-- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
meet?


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand  wrote:

An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it

starts

off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are

school-age",

followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,

and

their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,

but

every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many

of

them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision

and

how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have

an

entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly

written

in

a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian

Andreas

Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting

statistics

about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
followed by a call to donate. There are also letters 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>
> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>
> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>
> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
> Wikipedians as a background.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :
>
> > Hi James.
> >
> > You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> > >
> > > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> > >
> > > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > > meet?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand 
> wrote:
> > > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a
> rather
> > > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > > starts
> > > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > > school-age",
> > > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic:
> "That
> > > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their
> communities,
> > > and
> > > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is
> unique,
> > > but
> > > > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
> > of
> > > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's
> vision
> > > and
> > > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we
> have
> > > an
> > > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> > written
> > > in
> > > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> > Andreas
> > > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,”
> he
> > > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > > statistics
> > > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the
> world,
> > > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > > founder linked.
> > > >
> > > > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Lodewijk]

I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.

I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
(visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).

Is this perhaps still work in progress?

On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
Wikipedians as a background.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :

> Hi James.
>
> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> >
> > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> >
> > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > meet?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand  wrote:
> > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > starts
> > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > school-age",
> > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
> > and
> > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
> > but
> > > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
> of
> > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
> > and
> > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
> > an
> > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> written
> > in
> > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> Andreas
> > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > statistics
> > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > founder linked.
> > >
> > > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and
> not
> > > politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
> > assume
> > > good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
> > specifically
> > > calling for a change in refugee policy.
> > >
> > > Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does
> > not
> > > accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> > > avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[James Salsman]

Patrik wrote:

>... I'd refer you to Loren, Building a Reliable Semicommons of
> Creative Works, 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 271, 318-28 (2007) (arguing that
> section 203 is inapplicable to CC licenses under a suggested doctrine of
> limited copyright abandonment); Armstrong, Shrinking the Commons, 47 Harv.
> J. on Legis. 359, 405-09 (2010) (expressing skepticism as to whether courts
> would adopt Professor Loren's approach, suggesting, alternatively, an
> analogy to the abandonment provisions of the Patent Act to justify limits
> on the termination of open-content licenses); and Greenberg, More than Just
> a Formality, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 1028, 1060-63 (2012) (suggesting legislative
> action). All three articles are also freely available online (in one case
> at least in a pre-publication version), at 
> ,
> ,
> and , respectively.

Here is a potentially more accessible popular treatment, which
directly addresses the motivation for expiring copyright grant terms:
 
http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/articles/1558/_res/id=Files/index=0/1558.pdf

The reason Congress mandated the expiration of copyright grants was
specifically to address the common case of the value of a work far
exceeding the authors' original compensation, for whatever reasons.
Isn't this a very pertinent ethics issue for the Foundation? If the
law of the land is designed to compensate authors' for windfalls in
the value of their effort, do we want to be in support of or opposed
to that goal, and why or why not?

This law review article may be considerably more mainstream than
Professor Loren's:
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/64395/OSLJ_V48N3_0897.pdf

> (None of them are touching upon the derivative work issue, which is a
> rather Wikimedia-specific consideration. It could arguably not provide a
> universal solution to the potential problem, since the availability of a
> derivative work is the exception, rather than the norm, even in an
> open-content world. I have therefore not looked into this.)
>
> Best,
> Patrik
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Joseph Seddon]

Hi James.

You can find out more about the Endowment here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment

Seddon

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>
> Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
>
> Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> meet?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand  wrote:
> > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> starts
> > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> school-age",
> > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
> and
> > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
> but
> > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
> > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
> and
> > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
> an
> > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written
> in
> > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
> > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> statistics
> > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > founder linked.
> >
> > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
> > politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
> assume
> > good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
> specifically
> > calling for a change in refugee policy.
> >
> > Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does
> not
> > accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> > avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
> >
> > This is a serious problem.
> >
> > -- Yair Rand
> >
> > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> > WikiBanners_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[James Salsman]

The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
"empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html

Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf

Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
-- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
meet?


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand  wrote:
> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it starts
> off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are school-age",
> followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities, and
> their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique, but
> every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
> them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision and
> how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have an
> entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written in
> a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
> Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting statistics
> about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> founder linked.
>
> So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
> politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to assume
> good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago specifically
> calling for a change in refugee policy.
>
> Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does not
> accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
>
> This is a serious problem.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> WikiBanners_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Yair Rand]

An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it starts
off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are school-age",
followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities, and
their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique, but
every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision and
how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have an
entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written in
a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting statistics
about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
founder linked.

So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to assume
good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago specifically
calling for a change in refugee policy.

Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does not
accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.

This is a serious problem.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
WikiBanners_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Opening the 2016 Values discussion

[Michael Jahn]

Excellent process and results. Thanks for sharing (the presentation)!
Michael

---
Michael Jahn
Leiter Kommunikation & Partnerschaften
Head of Communications & Partnerships

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260

http://wikimedia.de 

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.



2017-02-28 6:07 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Paumier :

> Hello,
>
> The discussion is now wrapping up. The process and its outcome were
> presented last week at the Metrics and activities meeting; you're
> encouraged to watch the segment in this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blWUhkm8g4=17m18s
>
> You can read the full transcripts of the discussions on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Transcripts
>
> as well as browse through the main themes that emerged:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Themes
>
> and their synthesis:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis
>
> The discussion on the talk page of the synthesis is open until March 4
> to finalize the language of the descriptions.
>
> I want to thank everyone who participated in the discussions, and
> everyone who helped with the organization. It was truly a joy to see
> the interest of the participants and the deep, thoughtful discussions
> that resulted from it.
>
> I believe the values that have emerged as part of this process
> constitute a part of our organizational identity that we had not
> entirely codified, or even been conscious of, before. As our friend
> Ray aptly put it in 2007, "The values were already there. Perhaps they
> might have been poorly codified. Had they not been there, neither you
> nor I would have stuck around for over five years."
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2007-
> September/079180.html
>
> I hope that this exercise has helped us realize why we're here, and
> that its outcome resonates with many members of our communities, both
> present and future.
>
>
> 2016-10-18 11:27 GMT-07:00 Guillaume Paumier :
> > Greetings,
> >
> > As a community, we've talked a lot about values in the past year. The
> > core values of the Wikimedia Foundation were first formulated in
> > 2007−2008 and have not really been discussed in depth since then. In
> > 2013, we also developed Guiding principles, a list of more practical
> > norms and expected behaviors that guide our day-to-day work at the
> > Foundation. Combined with our vision and mission statements, those
> > documents represent the core facets of our organizational identity.
> >
> > Both staff and volunteers have expressed concerns that there isn't
> > currently a shared understanding (among the staff and other
> > constituents) of what our core values are, and how we express them in
> > our work. We've also talked about a need to revisit or reinforce them.
> >
> > A few months ago, a working group formed to organize a series of new
> > discussions about the WMF's values. The goal is to reflect on what is
> > bringing us together, identify the core beliefs that motivate our
> > vision, refine our list of values, and clarify our organizational
> > identity.
> >
> > Discussions about values in nonprofit organizations are usually done
> > internally. Given the open and collaborative nature of the Wikimedia
> > movement, such a closed, internal process wouldn't make sense for the
> > WMF. The Foundation is part of an integrated ecosystem of individuals
> > and organizations that contribute to defining its identity. Input
> > should be collected not just from staff and Board members, but also
> > from volunteers, affiliates, and partners who wish to participate in
> > this process.
> >
> > On behalf of the Values working group, I would therefore like to
> > invite you to this discussion on Meta. There, you will find more
> > information about the process, as well as a page to share your
> > perspective on the Wikimedia Foundation's values. The framing that
> > we're using for this discussion is one that considers values as the
> > core intrinsic beliefs that drive our participation in the movement.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion
> >
> > The discussion will be open for a month, i.e. until November 20.
> > Comments added after that date will still be welcome, but may not be
> > included in the summary process.
> >
> > I hope many of you take this opportunity to help define (or refine)
> > the Foundation's organizational identity.
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume Paumier
> > Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> --
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[pajz]

On 28 February 2017 at 06:11, James Salsman  wrote:

> > 17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses
> > granted by the author
>

I don't usually post to this list and hope this isn't too off-topic, but,
coincidentally, I've looked into that matter a bit last year as a
tangential issue (from a comparative law perspective). So, I don't know if
you're aware and interested, but there are some articles dealing with this
termination issue under U.S. copyright law in the context of open-content
licenses.

Specifically, I'd refer you to Loren, Building a Reliable Semicommons of
Creative Works, 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 271, 318-28 (2007) (arguing that
section 203 is inapplicable to CC licenses under a suggested doctrine of
limited copyright abandonment); Armstrong, Shrinking the Commons, 47 Harv.
J. on Legis. 359, 405-09 (2010) (expressing skepticism as to whether courts
would adopt Professor Loren's approach, suggesting, alternatively, an
analogy to the abandonment provisions of the Patent Act to justify limits
on the termination of open-content licenses); and Greenberg, More than Just
a Formality, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 1028, 1060-63 (2012) (suggesting legislative
action). All three articles are also freely available online (in one case
at least in a pre-publication version), at , , and <
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/59-4-4.pdf>, respectively.

(None of them are touching upon the derivative work issue, which is a
rather Wikimedia-specific consideration. It could arguably not provide a
universal solution to the potential problem, since the availability of a
derivative work is the exception, rather than the norm, even in an
open-content world. I have therefore not looked into this.)

Best,
Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,