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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The UNWTO report you link to refers to 1186M "torist arrivals".  That is
not the same as 1186M diffeent people.  Did your correspondant explicitly
address that difference, or are you assuming that every tourist makes just
one trip abroad in a year, and if so, why, since it is patently not correct?

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Zachary McCune 
wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> Wanted to follow up on my message from last Thursday, March 2nd.[1] As
> detailed, we are making changes to the Annual Report site that should be
> reflected today.[2]
>
> Per suggestions we are exploring randomization of the facts displayed in
> the index page carousel. The ordering on the Consider the Facts page will
> be updated to begin, as discussed, with "Wikipedia is updated almost 350
> times a minute". [3]
>
> I also want to share that in adding citations to the "One in six people
> visited a foreign country in 2016" fact, I followed SJ's advices and
> emailed the UNWTO to explicitly confirm their 1186 million international
> tourist statistic.[4] This morning I received a response from Ruth Gomez
> Sobrino, Media Officer stating "Yes, this is true….and it will be 1,800 in
> 2030." So we are keeping this fact as is, and adding a citation note to add
> proper context.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zack
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> March/086699.html
>
> [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151798
>
> [3] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>
> [4] http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:47 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you believe truth and accuracy are to be found only
> > > at one ppint on the spectrum of political belief?
> >
> > There is a very strong correlation which has, since November, become
> > much stronger. Compare for example:
> >
> > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (16% "True" or
> > "Mostly true") with
> >
> > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ (48% "True" or
> > "Mostly true.")
> >
> > > Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> > > identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
> >
> > No, but if people around the world are misled because we fail in our
> > mission to collect, develop, and disseminate educational content
> > effectively, then they are likely to have much different goals than if
> > they were able to access accurate information.
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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,
> 
>
___
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 all -

Wanted to follow up on my message from last Thursday, March 2nd.[1] As
detailed, we are making changes to the Annual Report site that should be
reflected today.[2]

Per suggestions we are exploring randomization of the facts displayed in
the index page carousel. The ordering on the Consider the Facts page will
be updated to begin, as discussed, with "Wikipedia is updated almost 350
times a minute". [3]

I also want to share that in adding citations to the "One in six people
visited a foreign country in 2016" fact, I followed SJ's advices and
emailed the UNWTO to explicitly confirm their 1186 million international
tourist statistic.[4] This morning I received a response from Ruth Gomez
Sobrino, Media Officer stating "Yes, this is true….and it will be 1,800 in
2030." So we are keeping this fact as is, and adding a citation note to add
proper context.

Thanks,

Zack

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-March/086699.html

[2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151798

[3] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html

[4] http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145



On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:47 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> >
> > Do you believe truth and accuracy are to be found only
> > at one ppint on the spectrum of political belief?
>
> There is a very strong correlation which has, since November, become
> much stronger. Compare for example:
>
> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (16% "True" or
> "Mostly true") with
>
> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ (48% "True" or
> "Mostly true.")
>
> > Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> > identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
>
> No, but if people around the world are misled because we fail in our
> mission to collect, develop, and disseminate educational content
> effectively, then they are likely to have much different goals than if
> they were able to access accurate information.
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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, 

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

[Stephen Philbrick]

Three points:

When I first saw the document, I was exceedingly unhappy, but fortuitously,
I was unable to respond at the time due to RL travel. Fortuitous, because
my writeup would have been a pale version of Risker's excellent response,
so if anyone hasn't managed to read all the posts on this subject, please
make sure to read that one. In short, this is an exceedingly bad idea.

My small contribution is to make a positive point - I'm impressed at the
number of people who observed that the content very much mirrored their own
beliefs, yet they were adamant that this should not be a Wikimedia
Foundation document. It might well be an award-winning presentation for
some advocacy group, but it doesn't feel right for this Foundation. Some
has asked what aspects are disconsonant with the Wikimedia Mission, but
that's the wrong question. When one's prime directive is to "given free
access to the sum of all human knowledge", almost by definition, no subject
is "outside" our mission. It is a different question to determine which
subjects best summarize our core mission.

Third, while this discussion has been most illuminating, I share the
concerns of those who wonder where we go from here. I don't even know if we
are viewing a draft, and there is a potential for change, or if it has
already been finalized and we are merely evaluating the mistakes.

Sphilbrick
___
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"

[James Salsman]

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
>
> Do you believe truth and accuracy are to be found only
> at one ppint on the spectrum of political belief?

There is a very strong correlation which has, since November, become
much stronger. Compare for example:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (16% "True" or
"Mostly true") with

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ (48% "True" or
"Mostly true.")

> Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

No, but if people around the world are misled because we fail in our
mission to collect, develop, and disseminate educational content
effectively, then they are likely to have much different goals than if
they were able to access accurate information.

___
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]

Fighting against an inhumane stance is entirely a political move.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Amir Ladsgroup
Sent: Wednesday, 08 March 2017 9:33 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

We are not taking a stand in different positions each party is taking on 
economical matters. No one here wearing a donkey hat. Problem begins when a 
party takes inhumane stance, fighting against it should not be considered a 
political move. Trust me, that's exactly what happened in Iran.

Best

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, 10:50 AM Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> James
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with 
> > remaining accurate?
> >
>
> I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you 
> believe truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the 
> spectrum of political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how 
> the world is) are identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
>
> "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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14074 - Release Date: 03/08/17


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

Some political philosophies are more amenable to truth and accuracy than 
others. Facts about how the world is do not have any necessary connection to 
beliefs about how the world should be. Beliefs are not constrained by reality, 
facts are. Any overlap is coincidental.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Wednesday, 08 March 2017 9:20 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:

>
> Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with 
> remaining accurate?
>

I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you believe 
truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of 
political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are 
identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

"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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14074 - Release Date: 03/08/17


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Amir Ladsgroup]

We are not taking a stand in different positions each party is taking on
economical matters. No one here wearing a donkey hat. Problem begins when a
party takes inhumane stance, fighting against it should not be considered a
political move. Trust me, that's exactly what happened in Iran.

Best

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, 10:50 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> James
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
> > remaining accurate?
> >
>
> I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you believe
> truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of
> political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
>
> "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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:

>
> Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
> remaining accurate?
>

I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you believe
truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of
political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

"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"

[James Salsman]

Pine,

Which facts do you think the "facts matter" theme should have emphasized?

Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
remaining accurate?

To what extent does staying focused on mission involve pointing out
issues with freedom and accuracy in society, in your view?


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> Hi Heather,
>
> Thanks for commenting.
>
> The theme of "facts matter" seems good to me, and I generally like Victor's
> video. However, the way that this report comes across to me is that it
> advocates for certain points of view on issues which, however important
> they may be (I happen to think global warming is a very important issue),
> are not integral to Wikipedia's mission. Also, I found it strange that the
> "front page" of the report has a "Facts matter" section that leads off with
> information about refugees and the Earth's temperature trends. On the
> whole, that section comes across to me as being off-message. I would
> encourage revising the report so that it's more consistent with the themes
> and tone of Victor's video.
>
> Social impact in the form of informing public dialogue is a valuable
> attribute to Wikipedia, and I would encourage a more neutral approach to
> articulating that attribute as has been discussed in this thread. It's
> possible to highlight social impact while remaining compatible with NPOV
> and staying focused on mission.
>
> Thanks for engaging here.
>
> Pine
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Heather Walls  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This has become an interesting and important conversation. First, many
>> thanks to everyone as they bring their intellect, experience, and
>> thoughtfulness to this topic. And thanks to Zack for many months of work
>> organizing a complex project, with a theme that became increasingly
>> sensitive due to external public discourse, and especially for making a
>> tremendous and honest effort to hear feedback and to respond quickly here.
>> I’d also like to thank all the people who helped read, write, edit, and
>> consider this report.
>>
>> We chose this theme in October, and have used it successfully in messaging
>> since then. It was part of the December English-language fundraising
>> campaign, in emails and banners to donors, and received very positive
>> response. It was the theme of a video, shared in December,[1] that became a
>> featured video on Commons.[2] We also shared our work and development
>> process on this report publicly when we published the Communications
>> department’s check-in slides covering the 2nd fiscal quarter (Sep - Dec
>> 2016).[3]
>>
>> Social impact is a very important part of Wikimedia that is hard to
>> understand from the outside, but that impact is one of the things that
>> makes your work so meaningful, and helps us find contributors and partners
>> around the world. As Zack mentioned, our annual reports are created for an
>> audience that includes ongoing financial contributors and people new to us.
>> They are intended to be timely and relevant to the interests of people who
>> are not as deeply involved in Wikimedia as the rest of us. They tell the
>> story of what Wikimedians have achieved in the context of the world, and
>> are related to topics in international conversations. Some of those stories
>> are efforts supported by the Foundation, and many are celebrations of the
>> importance and timeliness of independent work of members of the movement.
>> Wikimedia is rich and complex, and we revise our theme each year to share
>> new facets. The Foundation has been making these since 2008.[4]
>>
>> Yes, our report was meant to bring up relevant topics for a global
>> audience, and to tie important facts to the work of Wikimedians. It was
>> meant to focus on the range of things people can learn from Wikipedia, from
>> the historical to the social to the controversial. But it was not a
>> response to anything that occurred in recent weeks, or in any one country.
>> We debated the relationship between the theme and public discourse as that
>> discourse changed, but decided that Wikimedia’s relationship with facts
>> hadn’t changed. The report is not perfect, and many people have pointed out
>> excellent alternative directions we might have taken. We’re listening, and
>> we will learn from your suggestions and ideas in our continuing work.
>>
>> I am proud of the intentions, hard work, experience, and many difficult
>> decisions my colleagues on the Communications team and our collaborators
>> across the Foundation and community make every day. I hope the abridged
>> timeline of events, below, will help make some our process more visible to
>> you as well.
>>
>> -Heather
>>
>>
>> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/27/not-post-fact-world/
>> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_-_
>> FactsMatter2016.webm
>> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
>> 

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

[Pine W]

Hi Heather,

Thanks for commenting.

The theme of "facts matter" seems good to me, and I generally like Victor's
video. However, the way that this report comes across to me is that it
advocates for certain points of view on issues which, however important
they may be (I happen to think global warming is a very important issue),
are not integral to Wikipedia's mission. Also, I found it strange that the
"front page" of the report has a "Facts matter" section that leads off with
information about refugees and the Earth's temperature trends. On the
whole, that section comes across to me as being off-message. I would
encourage revising the report so that it's more consistent with the themes
and tone of Victor's video.

Social impact in the form of informing public dialogue is a valuable
attribute to Wikipedia, and I would encourage a more neutral approach to
articulating that attribute as has been discussed in this thread. It's
possible to highlight social impact while remaining compatible with NPOV
and staying focused on mission.

Thanks for engaging here.

Pine

Pine


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Heather Walls  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This has become an interesting and important conversation. First, many
> thanks to everyone as they bring their intellect, experience, and
> thoughtfulness to this topic. And thanks to Zack for many months of work
> organizing a complex project, with a theme that became increasingly
> sensitive due to external public discourse, and especially for making a
> tremendous and honest effort to hear feedback and to respond quickly here.
> I’d also like to thank all the people who helped read, write, edit, and
> consider this report.
>
> We chose this theme in October, and have used it successfully in messaging
> since then. It was part of the December English-language fundraising
> campaign, in emails and banners to donors, and received very positive
> response. It was the theme of a video, shared in December,[1] that became a
> featured video on Commons.[2] We also shared our work and development
> process on this report publicly when we published the Communications
> department’s check-in slides covering the 2nd fiscal quarter (Sep - Dec
> 2016).[3]
>
> Social impact is a very important part of Wikimedia that is hard to
> understand from the outside, but that impact is one of the things that
> makes your work so meaningful, and helps us find contributors and partners
> around the world. As Zack mentioned, our annual reports are created for an
> audience that includes ongoing financial contributors and people new to us.
> They are intended to be timely and relevant to the interests of people who
> are not as deeply involved in Wikimedia as the rest of us. They tell the
> story of what Wikimedians have achieved in the context of the world, and
> are related to topics in international conversations. Some of those stories
> are efforts supported by the Foundation, and many are celebrations of the
> importance and timeliness of independent work of members of the movement.
> Wikimedia is rich and complex, and we revise our theme each year to share
> new facets. The Foundation has been making these since 2008.[4]
>
> Yes, our report was meant to bring up relevant topics for a global
> audience, and to tie important facts to the work of Wikimedians. It was
> meant to focus on the range of things people can learn from Wikipedia, from
> the historical to the social to the controversial. But it was not a
> response to anything that occurred in recent weeks, or in any one country.
> We debated the relationship between the theme and public discourse as that
> discourse changed, but decided that Wikimedia’s relationship with facts
> hadn’t changed. The report is not perfect, and many people have pointed out
> excellent alternative directions we might have taken. We’re listening, and
> we will learn from your suggestions and ideas in our continuing work.
>
> I am proud of the intentions, hard work, experience, and many difficult
> decisions my colleagues on the Communications team and our collaborators
> across the Foundation and community make every day. I hope the abridged
> timeline of events, below, will help make some our process more visible to
> you as well.
>
> -Heather
>
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/27/not-post-fact-world/
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_-_
> FactsMatter2016.webm
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
> 3AWikimedia_Foundation_Communications_Q2_(Oct-Dec_
> 2016)_-_Jan_2017_quarterly_check-in.pdf=13
> [4] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
>
> *Our fact criteria:*
> Global, relevant to general readers and to 2016, verifiable, related to the
> work of Wikimedians, surprising or interesting
>
> *2016*
> 13 Oct: Meeting where “Facts Matter” was established, our deadline for a
> full draft was December 15
> 28 Oct: First design review of website mockups.
> 7 Nov: Design team 

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

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

I can see how it can attract AND repel volunteers overall, just as we see it 
attractive and off-putting to people discussing on this list.


From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of James 
Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:17:19 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Equally James, how is this advocacy "extremely helpful"? How does it help the 
> building and maintainence of Wikimedia projects? How does it help the many 
> volunteers who work on these projects?

Taking a stand for personal freedom attracts volunteers in support of
free culture, just as supporting scientific consensus opposed by money
in politics attracts those who value accuracy.

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[James Salsman]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter  wrote:
>
> Equally James, how is this advocacy "extremely helpful"? How does it help the 
> building and maintainence of Wikimedia projects? How does it help the many 
> volunteers who work on these projects?

Taking a stand for personal freedom attracts volunteers in support of
free culture, just as supporting scientific consensus opposed by money
in politics attracts those who value accuracy.

___
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"

[Heather Walls]

Hello,

This has become an interesting and important conversation. First, many
thanks to everyone as they bring their intellect, experience, and
thoughtfulness to this topic. And thanks to Zack for many months of work
organizing a complex project, with a theme that became increasingly
sensitive due to external public discourse, and especially for making a
tremendous and honest effort to hear feedback and to respond quickly here.
I’d also like to thank all the people who helped read, write, edit, and
consider this report.

We chose this theme in October, and have used it successfully in messaging
since then. It was part of the December English-language fundraising
campaign, in emails and banners to donors, and received very positive
response. It was the theme of a video, shared in December,[1] that became a
featured video on Commons.[2] We also shared our work and development
process on this report publicly when we published the Communications
department’s check-in slides covering the 2nd fiscal quarter (Sep - Dec
2016).[3]

Social impact is a very important part of Wikimedia that is hard to
understand from the outside, but that impact is one of the things that
makes your work so meaningful, and helps us find contributors and partners
around the world. As Zack mentioned, our annual reports are created for an
audience that includes ongoing financial contributors and people new to us.
They are intended to be timely and relevant to the interests of people who
are not as deeply involved in Wikimedia as the rest of us. They tell the
story of what Wikimedians have achieved in the context of the world, and
are related to topics in international conversations. Some of those stories
are efforts supported by the Foundation, and many are celebrations of the
importance and timeliness of independent work of members of the movement.
Wikimedia is rich and complex, and we revise our theme each year to share
new facets. The Foundation has been making these since 2008.[4]

Yes, our report was meant to bring up relevant topics for a global
audience, and to tie important facts to the work of Wikimedians. It was
meant to focus on the range of things people can learn from Wikipedia, from
the historical to the social to the controversial. But it was not a
response to anything that occurred in recent weeks, or in any one country.
We debated the relationship between the theme and public discourse as that
discourse changed, but decided that Wikimedia’s relationship with facts
hadn’t changed. The report is not perfect, and many people have pointed out
excellent alternative directions we might have taken. We’re listening, and
we will learn from your suggestions and ideas in our continuing work.

I am proud of the intentions, hard work, experience, and many difficult
decisions my colleagues on the Communications team and our collaborators
across the Foundation and community make every day. I hope the abridged
timeline of events, below, will help make some our process more visible to
you as well.

-Heather


[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/27/not-post-fact-world/
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_-_FactsMatter2016.webm
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
3AWikimedia_Foundation_Communications_Q2_(Oct-Dec_
2016)_-_Jan_2017_quarterly_check-in.pdf=13
[4] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report

*Our fact criteria:*
Global, relevant to general readers and to 2016, verifiable, related to the
work of Wikimedians, surprising or interesting

*2016*
13 Oct: Meeting where “Facts Matter” was established, our deadline for a
full draft was December 15
28 Oct: First design review of website mockups.
7 Nov: Design team meeting, notes include:

   - “Reaffirm facts matter”
   - “Reacting to present moment is antithetical to the WMF movement”
   - “We care just as much about facts as we did a year ago, 10 years ago,
   and will care in five years”

14 Dec: Facts final, content drafted
27 Dec: Facts matter video posted

*2017*
6 Jan: Site and content review with other departments (locked to major
changes)
17 Jan: Print layout of all content
27 Jan: Communications quarterly review[3] posted Feb 7
1 Mar: Sharing the Facts Matter site


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Yair Rand  wrote:

> Risker has outlined many of the issues with the report much better than I
> would have been able to. While I'm happy to hear there will be some
> reordering and that one of the images will be replaced, the report still
> has many very serious problems.
>
> How can we fix this? I can think of a few options:
> * The report could be made open to edits from the community. (I was hopeful
> when the report was posted on Meta that it would be editable, but it was
> apparently posted primarily for translation purposes and is not editable.)
> Over the course of a few weeks much of the content could be rewritten to be
> close enough to neutral.
> * We could continue discussing specific problems in tone 

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

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Equally James, how is this advocacy "extremely helpful"? How does it help the 
building and maintainence of Wikimedia projects? How does it help the many 
volunteers who work on these projects?


From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of James 
Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:53:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Yair,

Would you please explain what you mean by damaging?

> To have a huge banner placed over every article on
> the whole project linking to 43px-font blatant political
> advocacy which can't be reverted, is really damaging.

My opinion remains that 43pt blatant advocacy in support of both
personal freedom of movement and scientific consensus disputed by
fossil fuel interests is extremely helpful to the Foundation, its
Mission, and in attracting additional volunteers, especially because
those issues have been disfavored by recent political trends brought
about by political leveraging of xenophobia and lobbyist money.

Why do people think it is reasonable to claim that such advocacy is
damaging without presenting any evidence in support of their opinion?
Clearly many people do, but why?

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[James Salsman]

Yair,

Would you please explain what you mean by damaging?

> To have a huge banner placed over every article on
> the whole project linking to 43px-font blatant political
> advocacy which can't be reverted, is really damaging.

My opinion remains that 43pt blatant advocacy in support of both
personal freedom of movement and scientific consensus disputed by
fossil fuel interests is extremely helpful to the Foundation, its
Mission, and in attracting additional volunteers, especially because
those issues have been disfavored by recent political trends brought
about by political leveraging of xenophobia and lobbyist money.

Why do people think it is reasonable to claim that such advocacy is
damaging without presenting any evidence in support of their opinion?
Clearly many people do, but why?

___
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"

[Yair Rand]

Risker has outlined many of the issues with the report much better than I
would have been able to. While I'm happy to hear there will be some
reordering and that one of the images will be replaced, the report still
has many very serious problems.

How can we fix this? I can think of a few options:
* The report could be made open to edits from the community. (I was hopeful
when the report was posted on Meta that it would be editable, but it was
apparently posted primarily for translation purposes and is not editable.)
Over the course of a few weeks much of the content could be rewritten to be
close enough to neutral.
* We could continue discussing specific problems in tone and focus, errors,
and general issues with the report here on this mailing list or on Meta
while the relevant people implement fixes and rewrites (hopefully in a
transparent manner), including the large content changes/replacements
required.
* The entire "Consider the facts" section could be removed/replaced. The
rest of the report probably could stand on its own, but that may not be
ideal. I don't know whether rewriting it from scratch is doable, or whether
there may be relevant time constraints here.

I'd like to reiterate the seriousness of displaying non-Wikimedia-related
political advocacy over Wikimedia projects. Many editors work very hard at
removing any biases in articles. To have a huge banner placed over every
article on the whole project linking to 43px-font blatant political
advocacy which can't be reverted, is really damaging.

-- Yair Rand

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Well, Erik...I really don't think my personal beliefs have a role in this
> discussion, except as they very narrowly apply to the Wikimedia mission,
> vision and "values". That's actually one of my issues with this report - it
> reads as though it's been written by a bunch of well-paid, talented people
> who've been given rein to express personal and cultural beliefs unrelated
> to Wikimedia.  And my personal belief in relation to that is that this
> annual report has positioned political advocacy far ahead of the mission
> and vision of the movement, starting with the selection and ordering of the
> "facts".  Let's go through them one by one.
>
> The focus on the value of education is an entirely valid, even necessary,
> part of the annual report; it is entirely central to our mission.  The
> focus on refugees is out of place, though.  The fact that there is a single
> page on one WMF-hosted site that links to a refugee handbook created by
> other groups that include some Wikimedians (and the support of WMDE, which
> we all know is NOT the same thing as the WMF) isn't justification for
> making  "REFUGEES!1!!!11!" a big headline.  It's peripheral to the
> educational activities of the WMF, and ignores or downplays many of the
> actual WMF-supported initiatives. There's something wrong when the WMF is
> so busy touting someone else's project that it forgets to talk about its
> own.  But why show a bunch of Uruguayan kids actually using Wikipedia, when
> you can make a political statement using a photo of very adorable refugee
> children who, generally speaking, aren't accessing any WMF projects?
>
> Am I impressed by Andreas' images?  of course!  Look at the amazing iceberg
> images [featured image example at 1] - which illustrate climate change
> issues much better than the photo of a starving polar bear.  We don't
> actually know why that bear is dying - is he sick or injured, the most
> common cause of wild animal deaths? Has he consumed (anthropogenic) harmful
> chemicals or materials such as plastic wastes - increasingly common in
> arctic animals?  Or did he miss the ever-narrowing migration window to the
> prey-rich northern arctic ice fields (due to climate change)?  We can't be
> sure.  But we can be a lot more sure that the iceberg images are
> illustrating something that can be linked more directly to climate change.
> Of course, nobody is getting a lump in their throat by looking at icebergs;
> it's not any where near as good an emotional button-presser that a dying
> animal is.   There's also the trick of referring to "the hottest year on
> record" instead of giving the *whole* truth, which is it is the hottest
> year since these types of records started being kept beginning just a few
> hundred years ago - and it's that long only if you count all types of
> record keeping.  Yes, it's much more impressive to imply that we're talking
> about all of history rather than just the last few centuries.  A lot of
> people reading this list have been creating articles for years; we know
> those tricks too. And none of this explains why climate change is even a
> factor in the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report.  It would be worth
> including if the WMF was a major contributor to anthropogenic climate
> change (I am quite sure it isn't!), or was taking major, active steps to
> reduce its carbon footprint and 

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

[Pine W]

Andrew, I somewhat agree. This is a discussion list. The people who are
here tend to be especially well-informed, and discussions can be very
informative and useful. RfCs and surveys have their own limitations, so
getting a "representative slice of community sentiment" is a bit of a
challenge, especially given the number of RfCs and discussions that take
place around the wikiverse.

Pine


On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:46 AM, George William Herbert <
> george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is
> > excellent.  We may not have reached universal consensus yet but
> everything
> > we needed to have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and
> > under consideration.
> >
>
> I truly hope no one takes any discussion here as indicating anything
> approaching “universal consensus.”
>
> Wikimedia-L is a self-selected set of participants who are wiling to
> tolerate the culture on the list. It should not be assumed to be a
> representative slice of community sentiment.
>
> -Andrew
> ___
> 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"

[Andrew Lih]

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:46 AM, George William Herbert <
george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is
> excellent.  We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything
> we needed to have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and
> under consideration.
>

I truly hope no one takes any discussion here as indicating anything
approaching “universal consensus.”

Wikimedia-L is a self-selected set of participants who are wiling to
tolerate the culture on the list. It should not be assumed to be a
representative slice of community sentiment.

-Andrew
___
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]

You're welcome, Rogol.
Smiley face,
/a

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
> Thanks.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Rogol,
> > I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes.
> > /a
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anna
> > >
> > > I'm glad to hear that everything is all right and that you don't need
> our
> > > help after all.  When you return from your break, it would be of value
> to
> > > the community for you to let them know what those "actual changes"
> were.
> > > That way we can help you even better next time.
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Anna Stillwell <
> astillw...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Rogol,
> > > >
> > > > I think the process on this particular count already took place.
> > > > We wrote a report in good faith.
> > > > We responded to critique in good faith.
> > > > We're making actual changes in good faith.
> > > >
> > > > Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> > > > Warmly,
> > > > /a
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anna,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what
> resources
> > > you
> > > > > expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and
> > > > responsive
> > > > > that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and
> > scope
> > > of
> > > > > our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of
> it
> > > > being
> > > > > a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no
> > new
> > > > > resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above
> what
> > > you
> > > > > have already?
> > > > >
> > > > > "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,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> 
>
___
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: 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

Thanks.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hey Rogol,
> I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes.
> /a
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that everything is all right and that you don't need our
> > help after all.  When you return from your break, it would be of value to
> > the community for you to let them know what those "actual changes" were.
> > That way we can help you even better next time.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Anna Stillwell  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Rogol,
> > >
> > > I think the process on this particular count already took place.
> > > We wrote a report in good faith.
> > > We responded to critique in good faith.
> > > We're making actual changes in good faith.
> > >
> > > Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> > > Warmly,
> > > /a
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anna,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources
> > you
> > > > expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and
> > > responsive
> > > > that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and
> scope
> > of
> > > > our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it
> > > being
> > > > a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no
> new
> > > > resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what
> > you
> > > > have already?
> > > >
> > > > "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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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"

[Anna Stillwell]

Hey Rogol,
I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes.
/a

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
> I'm glad to hear that everything is all right and that you don't need our
> help after all.  When you return from your break, it would be of value to
> the community for you to let them know what those "actual changes" were.
> That way we can help you even better next time.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Rogol,
> >
> > I think the process on this particular count already took place.
> > We wrote a report in good faith.
> > We responded to critique in good faith.
> > We're making actual changes in good faith.
> >
> > Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> > Warmly,
> > /a
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anna,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources
> you
> > > expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and
> > responsive
> > > that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope
> of
> > > our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it
> > being
> > > a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> > > resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what
> you
> > > have already?
> > >
> > > "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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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"

[David Gerard]

+1

On 4 March 2017 at 10:17, Ido ivri <i...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
> A little late into the discussion I just want to note that aside from the
> factual reservations, which seem to make sense, the overall tone, context
> and setting of the WMF Annual report is something I wholeheartedly agree
> with, and I feel that it conveys a sense of urgency on a few fronts that
> could benefit from more truthfulness.
>
> The world looks quite different when you're contributing to Wiki projects
> just kilometers away from the bloody civil war in Syria, in a country where
> freedom of speech is continuously threatened. I for one am happy to be a
> part of a Movement that will not stay silent in the face of "post-truths"
> and the growing impediments to basic civic (and other) freedoms.
>
> If this is considered a political statement, so be it.
>
> Ido
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of George William Herbert
>> Sent: Saturday, 04 March 2017 10:47 AM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
>>
>> I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is
>> excellent.  We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything
>> we needed to have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and
>> under consideration.
>>
>> Have a good weekend everyone.
>>
>> -george
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Rogol,
>> >
>> > I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is
>> > all right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That
>> > comment comes across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful.
>> >
>> > It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation
>> > rather than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the
>> > improvement process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be
>> > grateful that WMF is trying to make the situation better. I would
>> > rather see a thoughtfully re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour
>> > gasoline on the fire and have another report come out on Monday that
>> also has problems.
>> >
>> > 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,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14054 - Release Date: 03/04/17
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine

We were asked for help.  I posted a message asking how we could help in
this process.  We got a reply saying the process "already took place".  I
interpret that as meaning that our help is not needed after all.  Perhaps
you read it differently.  I don't think that makes my response, or yours
for that matter, "inflammatory and unhelpful".  I think it shows that there
is a need for clarification, which no doubt will come at some future time.

"Rogol"


On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is all
> right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That comment comes
> across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful.
>
> It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather
> than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the improvement
> process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be grateful that WMF
> is trying to make the situation better. I would rather see a thoughtfully
> re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour gasoline on the fire and have
> another report come out on Monday that also has problems.
>
> 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"

[Ido ivri]

A little late into the discussion I just want to note that aside from the
factual reservations, which seem to make sense, the overall tone, context
and setting of the WMF Annual report is something I wholeheartedly agree
with, and I feel that it conveys a sense of urgency on a few fronts that
could benefit from more truthfulness.

The world looks quite different when you're contributing to Wiki projects
just kilometers away from the bloody civil war in Syria, in a country where
freedom of speech is continuously threatened. I for one am happy to be a
part of a Movement that will not stay silent in the face of "post-truths"
and the growing impediments to basic civic (and other) freedoms.

If this is considered a political statement, so be it.

Ido

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of George William Herbert
> Sent: Saturday, 04 March 2017 10:47 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
>
> I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is
> excellent.  We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything
> we needed to have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and
> under consideration.
>
> Have a good weekend everyone.
>
> -george
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 4, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rogol,
> >
> > I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is
> > all right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That
> > comment comes across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful.
> >
> > It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation
> > rather than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the
> > improvement process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be
> > grateful that WMF is trying to make the situation better. I would
> > rather see a thoughtfully re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour
> > gasoline on the fire and have another report come out on Monday that
> also has problems.
> >
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14054 - Release Date: 03/04/17
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
George William Herbert
Sent: Saturday, 04 March 2017 10:47 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is excellent.  
We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything we needed to 
have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and under consideration.

Have a good weekend everyone.

-george 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Rogol,
> 
> I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is 
> all right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That 
> comment comes across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful.
> 
> It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation 
> rather than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the 
> improvement process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be 
> grateful that WMF is trying to make the situation better. I would 
> rather see a thoughtfully re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour 
> gasoline on the fire and have another report come out on Monday that also has 
> problems.
> 
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14054 - Release Date: 03/04/17


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[George William Herbert]

I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is excellent.  
We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything we needed to 
have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and under consideration.

Have a good weekend everyone.

-george 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Rogol,
> 
> I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is all
> right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That comment comes
> across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful.
> 
> It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather
> than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the improvement
> process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be grateful that WMF
> is trying to make the situation better. I would rather see a thoughtfully
> re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour gasoline on the fire and have
> another report come out on Monday that also has problems.
> 
> 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"

[Craig Franklin]

On 4 March 2017 at 18:38, Pine W  wrote:

> It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather
> than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the improvement
> process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be grateful that WMF
> is trying to make the situation better. I would rather see a thoughtfully
> re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour gasoline on the fire and have
> another report come out on Monday that also has problems.
>
>
Indeed.  I have to say that for the most part this conversation has been
*exactly* how I think these sometimes difficult discussions should take
place.  Everyone has been respectful, everyone has been willing to give up
a little ground, and we're moving towards a situation that more people are
happy with.  Anna and the Communications folks deserve credit for that.

Cheers,
Craig
___
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]

Rogol,

I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is all
right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That comment comes
across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful.

It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather
than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the improvement
process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be grateful that WMF
is trying to make the situation better. I would rather see a thoughtfully
re-designed report in 2 weeks than pour gasoline on the fire and have
another report come out on Monday that also has problems.

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"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

I'm glad to hear that everything is all right and that you don't need our
help after all.  When you return from your break, it would be of value to
the community for you to let them know what those "actual changes" were.
That way we can help you even better next time.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello Rogol,
>
> I think the process on this particular count already took place.
> We wrote a report in good faith.
> We responded to critique in good faith.
> We're making actual changes in good faith.
>
> Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> > expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and
> responsive
> > that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> > our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it
> being
> > a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> > resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> > have already?
> >
> > "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,
> 
>
___
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 Rogol,

I think the process on this particular count already took place.
We wrote a report in good faith.
We responded to critique in good faith.
We're making actual changes in good faith.

Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
Warmly,
/a

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > 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.
>
>
> It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
> that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
> a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> have already?
>
> "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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Dan Andreescu]

I want to express respect for this discussion and re-iterate two favorite
points:

Erik says:

"I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world."

And Risker points out that scientific consensus changes and offers some
great examples (too long to paste, timestamp on the message is Fri, Mar 3,
2017 at 1:41 AM).

We are part of a small group of people that's figured out how to document
human consciousness and awareness, as dynamic as it is.  I think it's a lot
to ask to capture this fairly in the annual report, but it seems we're
giving it an honest try.  I'm really honestly in awe of this collaborative
effort.  And I had similar initial reactions to the annual report as others
on this thread.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > 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.
>
>
> It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
> that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
> a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> have already?
>
> "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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:

> [...]
> 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.


It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
have already?

"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"

[Yaroslav Blanter]

gt; >
> > > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> > mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> > is
> > > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> > possible).
> > > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > > things
> > > > I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/
> > > Synthesis>
> > > > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > > > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain*
> the
> > > > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> > > >
> > > > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do
> > so,
> > > > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and
> > the
> > > > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like
> “2016
> > > was
> > > > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may
> > sound
> > > > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > > > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > > > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> > > refugee
> > > > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects
> > of
> > > > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> > > >
> > > > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we
> need
> > > to
> > > > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > > > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand
> > each
> > > > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to
> mind
> > > for
> > > > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues.
> If
> > > > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > > > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> > > >
> > > > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take
> sides,
> > > but
> > > > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This
> > applies
> > > > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> > > >
> > > > Mz7
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
> > (“this
> > > > page in a nutshell”)
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in
> > contact
> > > > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to
> > ignore
> > > > politics only until they affect you directly.
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> > > > >
> > > > > Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come
> > here
> > > > to get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the
> WMF
> > > get
> > > > so overtly political even though part of me revels in the
> sentiments. I
> > > too
> > > > worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the
> > politics
> > > > presented.
> > > > >
> > > > > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject
> > before
> > > > I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able
> to
> > > get
> > > > my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> > > > movement. The concern about the 

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

[Chris Keating]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at
> the time of publishing.
> Cheers,
> Peter


I've not seen anyone say that these topics (rather than the general
approach) was decided on in October.

Even if they had been, it would be reasonable to review these things to
avoid appearing unnecessarily partisan.

Chris
___
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]

n refugees on a nation’s economy.
> > >
> > > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need
> > to
> > > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand
> each
> > > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind
> > for
> > > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> > > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> > >
> > > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides,
> > but
> > > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This
> applies
> > > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> > >
> > > Mz7
> > >
> > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
> (“this
> > > page in a nutshell”)
> > >
> > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in
> contact
> > > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to
> ignore
> > > politics only until they affect you directly.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> > > >
> > > > Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come
> here
> > > to get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF
> > get
> > > so overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I
> > too
> > > worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the
> politics
> > > presented.
> > > >
> > > > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject
> before
> > > I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to
> > get
> > > my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> > > movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to
> > the
> > > level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who
> have
> > > been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
> > > staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
> > > been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
> > > restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
> > > visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are
> known
> > > to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the
> WMF
> > is
> > > being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers;
> > neither
> > > would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as
> the
> > > > 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since
> > > Buenos Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about
> travel,
> > I
> > > would like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every
> other
> > > Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem
> with
> > > the second sentence:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> > > increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
> > > > This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in
> > > the same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence
> was
> > > about a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly
> > activity.
> > > So it reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure.
> But
> > > the stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From
> my
> > > knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase

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

[Peter Southwood]

Is the WMF actually focusing its annual report on a country's political system, 
or is that mainly a perception influenced by the country in which many of the 
critics happen to live? 
Also, why would the WMF be so different if it was headquartered outside the US? 
Should the country it is based in make a difference? I think not, but it seems 
that it does, and I don’t think this is a good thing.
Both these questions address a basic US centric attitude which is prevalent 
here. An assumption that comes over to some of us who are not American, as 
rather biased and condescending, 
So the US now has a democratically elected president who is as embarrassing as 
our democratically elected president. Welcome to the other half of the world. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Risker
Sent: Friday, 03 March 2017 8:22 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a 
very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its 
annual report on some other country's political system.

Risker/Anne

On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> Let me put it another way,
> If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be 
> the same?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood < 
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this 
> > argument
> is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid 
> offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be 
> uncontroversial at the time of publishing.
>
> The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending 
> politicians or be uncontroversial.
>
> Understanding how a message will be received is the core of 
> communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the 
> communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 
> 'publish'
> button is clicked.
>
> In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is 
> quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order 
> of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
> politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including 
> these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  
> e.g.
> How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
>
> If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing 
> up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.
> Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF 
> to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the 
> significance of those issues.  The cynic in me feels that the WMF 
> projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of the 
> typical "Wikipedia"
> donors.
>
> Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds 
> population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come 
> online usually do not have access to education resources online in 
> their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts 
> as critical for the WMF's mission.  Those facts can also very 
> uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political 
> leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those facts are also 
> very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education 
> and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own 
> language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from 
> reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and 
> make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on 
> mission.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 201

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

[Risker]

Well, Erik...I really don't think my personal beliefs have a role in this
discussion, except as they very narrowly apply to the Wikimedia mission,
vision and "values". That's actually one of my issues with this report - it
reads as though it's been written by a bunch of well-paid, talented people
who've been given rein to express personal and cultural beliefs unrelated
to Wikimedia.  And my personal belief in relation to that is that this
annual report has positioned political advocacy far ahead of the mission
and vision of the movement, starting with the selection and ordering of the
"facts".  Let's go through them one by one.

The focus on the value of education is an entirely valid, even necessary,
part of the annual report; it is entirely central to our mission.  The
focus on refugees is out of place, though.  The fact that there is a single
page on one WMF-hosted site that links to a refugee handbook created by
other groups that include some Wikimedians (and the support of WMDE, which
we all know is NOT the same thing as the WMF) isn't justification for
making  "REFUGEES!1!!!11!" a big headline.  It's peripheral to the
educational activities of the WMF, and ignores or downplays many of the
actual WMF-supported initiatives. There's something wrong when the WMF is
so busy touting someone else's project that it forgets to talk about its
own.  But why show a bunch of Uruguayan kids actually using Wikipedia, when
you can make a political statement using a photo of very adorable refugee
children who, generally speaking, aren't accessing any WMF projects?

Am I impressed by Andreas' images?  of course!  Look at the amazing iceberg
images [featured image example at 1] - which illustrate climate change
issues much better than the photo of a starving polar bear.  We don't
actually know why that bear is dying - is he sick or injured, the most
common cause of wild animal deaths? Has he consumed (anthropogenic) harmful
chemicals or materials such as plastic wastes - increasingly common in
arctic animals?  Or did he miss the ever-narrowing migration window to the
prey-rich northern arctic ice fields (due to climate change)?  We can't be
sure.  But we can be a lot more sure that the iceberg images are
illustrating something that can be linked more directly to climate change.
Of course, nobody is getting a lump in their throat by looking at icebergs;
it's not any where near as good an emotional button-presser that a dying
animal is.   There's also the trick of referring to "the hottest year on
record" instead of giving the *whole* truth, which is it is the hottest
year since these types of records started being kept beginning just a few
hundred years ago - and it's that long only if you count all types of
record keeping.  Yes, it's much more impressive to imply that we're talking
about all of history rather than just the last few centuries.  A lot of
people reading this list have been creating articles for years; we know
those tricks too. And none of this explains why climate change is even a
factor in the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report.  It would be worth
including if the WMF was a major contributor to anthropogenic climate
change (I am quite sure it isn't!), or was taking major, active steps to
reduce its carbon footprint and talked about that.  But that's not what's
in the report.

A brief word about scientific consensus.  In my lifetime, we have seen
plate tectonics go from being considered complete nonsense (the scientific
consensus!) to being routinely taught in schools. We have seen the
scientific consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and dietary
habits deprecated by the evidence that most gastrointestinal ulcers are
caused by Helicobacter pylori; the theory that micro-organisms could cause
stomach ulcers was long derided as being promoted only by those paid by the
pharmaceutical industry.  (Oops!)  There was a mercifully short-lived
consensus that AIDS was caused by the lifestyle habits of gay men. And even
as I write, the long-held scientific consensus that has led to the
recommended dietary intake in western countries is coming into serious
question, at least in part because of the discovery that the baseline
research was funded by an industry that greatly benefited from these
guidelines - although it has taken researchers years to make headway
against a theory so ingrained. I have no doubt that the scientific
consensus that cigarette smoking is directly linked to lung cancer is going
to hold, and I am certain that the scientific consensus that asbestosis is
caused by inhaling asbestos fibers will outlive me by many generations.
But, just like on Wikipedia, consensus can, and does, change - and it
should be routinely re-examined and reconsidered. (Incidentally, the
climate change topic on English Wikipedia has historically been one of the
most contentious, resulting in several Arbcom cases, removal of advanced
privileges, blocks, bans, sockpuppetry and trolling, mass violations of the

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

[Risker]

Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a
very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its
annual report on some other country's political system.

Risker/Anne

On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> Let me put it another way,
> If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the
> same?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument
> is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at
> the time of publishing.
>
> The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending
> politicians or be uncontroversial.
>
> Understanding how a message will be received is the core of
> communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications
> team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish'
> button is clicked.
>
> In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite
> U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order of the
> first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
> politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these
> first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  e.g.
> How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
>
> If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up
> to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.
> Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to
> take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of
> those issues.  The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image
> will resonate well with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia"
> donors.
>
> Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population
> is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually
> do not have access to education resources online in their own language, an
> International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's
> mission.  Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across
> the world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on
> books.  Those facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who
> have had a good education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality
> Wikipedia in their own language.  Those facts also underscore how far we
> are away from reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the
> mission and make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are
> not clearly on mission.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

Let me put it another way, 
If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the same?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Mark Vandenberg
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 
wrote:
> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at 
> the time of publishing.

The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending 
politicians or be uncontroversial.

Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and 
should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a 
project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.

In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. 
focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order of the first few 
facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first 
few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  e.g. How did 
WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?

If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to 
support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.  Like 
others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but 
I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. 
 The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well 
with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.

Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is 
still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not 
have access to education resources online in their own language, an 
International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's 
mission.  Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the 
world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those 
facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good 
education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their 
own language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching 
our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause 
before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.

--
John Vandenberg

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at 
> the time of publishing.

The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending
politicians or be uncontroversial.

Understanding how a message will be received is the core of
communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the
communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the
final 'publish' button is clicked.

In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is
quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order
of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including
these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally
strained.  e.g. How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking
photos of polar bears?

If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing
up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those
fights.  Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction
for the WMF to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate
the significance of those issues.  The cynic in me feels that the WMF
projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of
the typical "Wikipedia" donors.

Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds
population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come
online usually do not have access to education resources online in
their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts
as critical for the WMF's mission.  Those facts can also very
uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political
leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those facts are also
very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education
and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own
language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from
reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and
make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not
clearly on mission.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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]

Would your objections have been as strong if the controversy was created by a 
politician in a different country?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nathan
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 3:58 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

I have a really hard time accepting on good faith that the themes of the annual 
report were etched in stone in October, or that refugees, freedom of travel and 
immigration and "true facts" were the main thematic elements at that time with 
no additional emphasis added since. Even if that were completely true in all 
respects, the report was not issued in October, it was issued in 
February/March. These themes are political now; there is no space for claiming 
otherwise, and Zach's post did not try.

I totally understand that people at the Foundation who are working hard and 
doing their best to always do the right thing, to serve the right mission and 
to please the right people feel attacked by criticism and complaints that they 
have failed. But the Foundation courts controversy when it jumps into political 
debates a

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

[Peter Southwood]

If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the 
time of publishing.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Chris Keating
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 12:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

So my 2p:

The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of each 
topic.

I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with different 
standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly natural.

But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things  (half of 
which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that does 
read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to give 
Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.

Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem to 
believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue  our mission is 
fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots at him.

Chris
(The Land)



On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer" <tba...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers < 
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem 
> with
the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites 
> increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in 
> the same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence 
> was about a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly 
> activity. So
it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But 
> the stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From 
> my knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw 
> downloads of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. 
> Any of those would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile 
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for 
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from December 
2015 <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_
Product=2399861#Reading_Audience>).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious 
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and 
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ 
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact the 
last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews dashboard 
maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[George William Herbert]

I agree with Pine's comments.  Lots of good things happening and great content, 
and that should not be minimized in all this.  If I left that impression then 
my apologies to the content creators and annual report staff on those points.


-george 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Speaking generally, I think that telling stories about Wikimedia content
> and platforms, and how content is created, delivered, or used, are all
> likely to be compatible with WMF's mission when the stories are written in
> an NPOV way. I must have missed the link to Andreas' arctic photography,
> but I can imagine how a story about a Wikimedian's work taking photos of
> icebergs and arctic wildlife could be written in such a way as to be
> compatible with the WMF mission to share knowledge of factual information
> (as opposed to analyses of that information or advocacy to take political
> action based on that information). Similarly, a story about the use of
> Wikimedia resources to assist refugees could likely be written in a way
> that is NPOV and compatible with the mission to share knowledge.
> 
> WMF, the affiliates, and the communities do good work that is not advocacy,
> and informs discussions of public interest, and contributes to the public
> good. I think that sharing those stories can likely be done in a way that
> is compatible with the WMF mission.
> 
> Pine
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
>>> issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
>>> 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
>>> ?
>>> [1] 
>>> Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.
>> 
>> It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and
>> presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly
>> communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and
>> fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to
>> enable many communities to collect and develop educational content.
>> 
>> If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to
>> shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the
>> organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to
>> promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts
>> about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than
>> communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers
>> alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately
>> conservative about its own role.
>> 
>> I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
>> Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
>> change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
>> politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
>> such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
>> control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
>> tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
>> WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world.
>> 
>> I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic
>> photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks
>> like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern
>> about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those
>> stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report?
>> 
>> 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,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> 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"

[Nathan]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

I have a really hard time accepting on good faith that the themes of the
annual report were etched in stone in October, or that refugees, freedom of
travel and immigration and "true facts" were the main thematic elements at
that time with no additional emphasis added since. Even if that were
completely true in all respects, the report was not issued in October, it
was issued in February/March. These themes are political now; there is no
space for claiming otherwise, and Zach's post did not try.

I totally understand that people at the Foundation who are working hard and
doing their best to always do the right thing, to serve the right mission
and to please the right people feel attacked by criticism and complaints
that they have failed. But the Foundation courts controversy when it jumps
into political debates and involves itself in subject matter that is
further and further from its core educational mission, and I hope that your
leadership isn't surprised that criticism and complaints from some quarters
are the result.

I think your insinuation that people objecting to political statements by
the WMF object to the values of the scientific method, climate science,
"valuing people" etc. verges on insulting. We can share those values
without believing that the WMF is the right vehicle or context for
expressing them or that doing so benefits the WMF's core mission as we
understand it.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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

[Samuel Klein]

edia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> > because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> > categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> > motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> > sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> > deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> > opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about
> all
> > sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
> >
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> > [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family
> are
> > heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all
> of
> > you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> > thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when
> we
> > meet in person. :)
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> > mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> > is
> > > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> > possible).
> > > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > > things
> > > > I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/
> > > Synthesis>
> > > > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > > > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain*
> the
> > > > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> > > >
> > > > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do
> > so,
> > > > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and
> > the
> > > > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like
> “2016
> > > was
> > > > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may
> > sound
> > > > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > > > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > > > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> > > refugee
> > > > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects
> > of
> > > > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> > > >
> > > > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we
> need
> > > to
> > > > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > > > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand
> > each
> > > > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to
> mind
> > > for
> > > > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues.
> If
> > > > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > > > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> > > >
> > > > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take
> sides,
> > > but
> > > > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This
> > applies
> > > > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> > > >
> > > > Mz7
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
> > (“this
> > > > page in a nutshell”)
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in
> > contact
> > > > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to
> > ignore
> > > > politics only until they affect you directly.
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun..

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

[Pine W]

Hi Eric,

Speaking generally, I think that telling stories about Wikimedia content
and platforms, and how content is created, delivered, or used, are all
likely to be compatible with WMF's mission when the stories are written in
an NPOV way. I must have missed the link to Andreas' arctic photography,
but I can imagine how a story about a Wikimedian's work taking photos of
icebergs and arctic wildlife could be written in such a way as to be
compatible with the WMF mission to share knowledge of factual information
(as opposed to analyses of that information or advocacy to take political
action based on that information). Similarly, a story about the use of
Wikimedia resources to assist refugees could likely be written in a way
that is NPOV and compatible with the mission to share knowledge.

WMF, the affiliates, and the communities do good work that is not advocacy,
and informs discussions of public interest, and contributes to the public
good. I think that sharing those stories can likely be done in a way that
is compatible with the WMF mission.

Pine


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior
>  wrote:
>
> > As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
> > issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
> > 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
> > ?
> > [1] 
> > Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.
>
> It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and
> presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly
> communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and
> fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to
> enable many communities to collect and develop educational content.
>
> If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to
> shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the
> organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to
> promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts
> about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than
> communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers
> alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately
> conservative about its own role.
>
> I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
> Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
> change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
> politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
> such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
> control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
> tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
> WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world.
>
> I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic
> photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks
> like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern
> about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those
> stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report?
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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 Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior
 wrote:

> As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
> issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
> 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
> ?
> [1] 
> Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.

It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and
presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly
communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and
fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to
enable many communities to collect and develop educational content.

If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to
shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the
organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to
promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts
about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than
communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers
alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately
conservative about its own role.

I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world.

I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic
photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks
like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern
about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those
stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report?

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"

[Jytdog at Wikipedia]

 and educate
> themselves.
> >
> > * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct
> answer
> > (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project
> such
> > as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> > explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> > Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> > because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> > categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> > motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> > sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> > deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> > opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about
> all
> > sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
> >
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> > [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family
> are
> > heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all
> of
> > you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> > thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when
> we
> > meet in person. :)
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> > mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> > is
> > > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> > possible).
> > > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > > things
> > > > I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/
> > > Synthesis>
> > > > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > > > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain*
> the
> > > > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> > > >
> > > > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do
> > so,
> > > > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and
> > the
> > > > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like
> “2016
> > > was
> > > > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may
> > sound
> > > > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > > > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > > > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> > > refugee
> > > > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects
> > of
> > > > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> > > >
> > > > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we
> need
> > > to
> > > > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > > > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand
> > each
> > > > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to
> mind
> > > for
> > > > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues.
> If
> > > > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > > > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> > > >
> > > > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take
> sides,
> > > but
> > > > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This
> > applies
> > > > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> > > >
> > > > Mz7
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
> > (“this
> > > > page in a nutshell”)
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in
> > 

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

[Zachary McCune]

mily are
> heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
> you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
> meet in person. :)
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> is
> > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> possible).
> > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > things
> > > I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/
> > Synthesis>
> > > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> > > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> > >
> > > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do
> so,
> > > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and
> the
> > > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016
> > was
> > > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may
> sound
> > > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> > refugee
> > > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects
> of
> > > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> > >
> > > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need
> > to
> > > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand
> each
> > > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind
> > for
> > > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> > > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> > >
> > > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides,
> > but
> > > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This
> applies
> > > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> > >
> > > Mz7
> > >
> > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
> (“this
> > > page in a nutshell”)
> > >
> > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in
> contact
> > > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to
> ignore
> > > politics only until they affect you directly.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> > > >
> > > > Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come
> here
> > > to get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF
> > get
> > > so overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I
> > too
> > > worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the
> politics
> > > presented.
> > > >
> > > > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject
> before
> > > I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to
> > get
> > > my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> > > movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to
> > the
> > > level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who
> have
> > > been unable to get visas to

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

[Leila Zia]

Hi Gerard,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
>

It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:

* Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.

* In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
(at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]

Leila


[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
[2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
meet in person. :)


> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
>
> > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> things
> > I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/
> Synthesis>
> > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> >
> > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016
> was
> > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> refugee
> > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> >
> > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need
> to
> > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind
> for
> > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> >
> > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides,
> but
> > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> >
> > Mz7
> >
> > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this
> > page in a nutshell”)
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> > 

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

[Chris Keating]

So my 2p:

The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of
each topic.

I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with
different standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly
natural.

But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things  (half
of which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that
does read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to
give Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.

Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem
to believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue  our mission
is fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots
at him.

Chris
(The Land)



On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with
the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So
it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
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"

[Tilman Bayer]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
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]

If you stand far enough to the right, everyone has a left bias.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
George William Herbert
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"



On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
> 
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence supporting 
> it.
> 
>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community 
>> and organizational motives.
> 
> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear 
> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some 
> Wikipedia content dispute?


Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia which 
in no small part claims we have a left bias.

We are always able to come back and point to (usually) functional neutrality.  
But then we go and do this.


-george

Sent from my iPhone


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.

No, we do not have to show the other side when this is based on a lie. We
can inform about the lie but it is not as if we have to present it for
anything but a lie.
Thanks,
 GerardM


Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>

> I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the things
> I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis>
> is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
>
> The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was
> the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the refugee
> crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
>
> We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to
> find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind for
> me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
>
> In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides, but
> should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
>
> Mz7
>
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this
> page in a nutshell”)
>
> > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> politics only until they affect you directly.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> >
> > Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here
> to get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get
> so overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too
> worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics
> presented.
> >
> > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before
> I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get
> my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the
> level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have
> been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
> staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
> been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
> restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
> visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are known
> to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is
> being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
> would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
> > 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since
> Buenos Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I
> would like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other
> Wikimania in countries where

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

[James Salsman]

>>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community 
>>> and organizational motives.
>>
>> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
>> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
>> Wikipedia content dispute?
>
> Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia 
> which in no small part claims we have a left bias.

We get the exact same thing from both sides:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikipedia-accused-of-us-centric-bias-3039292772/

http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2012/05/how-right-wingers-took-over-wikipedia.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-battle-for-wikipedia/

Do you think the side vociferously opposed to scientific consensus
makes the more compelling case?

___
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"

[Stuart Prior]

​My 2¢​ The avoidance of politically sensitive issues is not the same as
being politically neutral.

Political neutrality isn’t about shifting your politics to wherever your
local Overton window currently sits. It involves a longer, broader, global
view of what accepted political norms are.

Political neutrality also sits in relation to your movement’s or
organisation’s other values, which shouldn’t be compromised or undermined
for the sake of maintaining it.

As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
​?​
[1] 
Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.

And child refugees. They are politically sensitive in light of the current
situation of various government’s policies on accepting them. But the
rights of the child are internationally agreed upon and have been for
decades, in treaties such as UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
 there
is consensus on basic things like a child’s right to education, with a
special focus on child refugees. Omitting to talk about your work on the
above topics accepts a narrative of controversy about the issues that is
quite extreme.

Our movement values neutrality, but it also values evidence and consensus.
If following the two latter principles leads WMF to a position where it is
not politically neutral, I’d suggest it is not WMF that has adopted an
extreme or partisan position. Thinking
​ ​
longer term, and more globally,
​
seems
​ ​
sensible here.

​S​


On 2 March 2017 at 20:08, George William Herbert 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> >> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
> >
> > Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence
> supporting it.
> >
> >> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our
> community and organizational motives.
> >
> > Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
> > exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
> > Wikipedia content dispute?
>
>
> Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia
> which in no small part claims we have a left bias.
>
> We are always able to come back and point to (usually) functional
> neutrality.  But then we go and do this.
>
>
> -george
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
*Stuart Prior*
*Project Coordinator*
*Wikimedia UK*
+44 20 7065 0990

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
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"

[George William Herbert]

On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

>> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
> 
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence supporting 
> it.
> 
>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community 
>> and organizational motives.
> 
> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
> Wikipedia content dispute?


Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia which 
in no small part claims we have a left bias.

We are always able to come back and point to (usually) functional neutrality.  
But then we go and do this.


-george

Sent from my iPhone


___
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]

Perhaps we could refer this question to the Advancement department.  Does
appealing for money for one thing and spending it on another damage the
Foundation's ability to raise funds in the future?

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:13 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> > politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
>
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence
> supporting it.
>
> > It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our
> community and organizational motives.
>
> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
> Wikipedia content dispute?
>
> ___
> 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"

[George William Herbert]

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:22 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 
> I note this discussion is leaning "I totally am not offended myself,
> but unspecified others might be." I think some posters need to own
> their own discomfort more.
> 
> The trouble with liberality is a tendency to shy away from wishing to
> assert oneself even when actually it's quite important.

*I* an engaged and asserting myself on these issues and in support of 
appropriate organizations in each area.

The WMF is not the appropriate organization to do that.  It detracts from what 
the WMF is chartered to do for it to go rolling in the mud with the pigs on 
specific issues not related to creating and maximally sharing neutral 
encyclopedic knowledge.

We have enough problems in the core mission, communities, and Foundation that 
we're no good at solving yet.  I do not want the Foundation going off mission.  
We haven't got the mission solved yet, and going off mission into politics 
damages our brand in real and serious ways.

No matter how much I agree with all the specific positions implied, it was 
wrong to go there.

It may feel good, but it's a net negative to neutral and conservative readers 
and our position in the US social and political spectrum to move off 
organizational neutrality.  Liberals don't need us patting them on the head 
saying we agree with their views.  It's more ammunition for everyone else's 
distrust and fear of our community and organizational motives.

-george

Sent from my iPhone
___
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"

[David Gerard]

On 2 March 2017 at 12:07, Steinsplitter Wiki
 wrote:

> This WMF Annual Report has imho a obvious political connotation. Wikimedia 
> should remain politically neutral in any regard. WP:POV;


In 2017, literally the concept of factual information is an active
matter of political dispute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

I note this discussion is leaning "I totally am not offended myself,
but unspecified others might be." I think some posters need to own
their own discomfort more.

The trouble with liberality is a tendency to shy away from wishing to
assert oneself even when actually it's quite important.


- d.

___
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]

Thanks for jumping in Zach.

Good explanations and contextual background. Thanks.

Bunch of suggestions for fixes and small improvement (sourcing, legend) 
have been offered on this list by others. Good.



I have another easy to implement suggestion that might help to decrease 
potential confusion.


Currently, the default fact displayed at the top of the fact page and on 
every other page is the "half of refugees are of school-age".


Typically, this fact is not so obviously related to Wikipedia and it is 
probably a bit confusing to see it appear so proeminently in the annual 
report.


When jumping into the fact page, the refugee fact is still at the top 
and followed by the global warming one (maybe again not so Wikipedia 
obviously related)


Maybe a pick for the default top fact, more directly related to 
Wikipedia, would have been a good idea, such as "most wikipedia articles 
are in languages other than English" or "wikipedia is updated 350 times 
per minute".


I think the "wikipedia is updated 350 times per minute" might be the one 
which makes the more sense to put first as it explains faked news concept.


In short... maybe reshuffling the order of "facts" and choosing another 
default one.



What do you think ? Makes sense ? Or was there a specific thought behind 
putting the refugee first ? (aside from putting a pict of children that is).


And adding perhaps a one-liner to explain this "facts" approach.


A question... is translation of the annual report considered ?

Florence


PS: Otherwise, I think Risker makes a good point.


Le 02/03/2017 à 02:26, Zachary McCune a écrit :

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 <fdevou...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.o

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

[Mz7 Wikipedia]

I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is to 
say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible). One of 
our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many different 
perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the things I think 
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis> is trying to 
get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in politics, or even to 
declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the politics and to explain what 
different people think the truth is.

The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so, I 
think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the letters 
from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was the hottest 
year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound good on the 
surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid complexity" of the 
issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are school-age” isn’t significant 
to someone who already recognizes the refugee crisis’s impact on families, but 
is concerned about, say, the effects of taking in refugees on a nation’s 
economy.

We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to find 
a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the diversity of 
opinions, that we value working together to understand each others’ opinions 
and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind for me is linking 
directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If Wikipedia is truly 
the place that is "there when you need factual information, not opinion or 
advocacy” [1], why not show it off?

In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides, but 
should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to 
both what you say and how you say it.” [2]

Mz7

[1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this page 
in a nutshell”)

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
> civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics 
> only until they affect you directly. 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of WereSpielChequers
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> 
> Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to get 
> away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so 
> overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too 
> worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics 
> presented.
> 
> I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I 
> wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get my 
> wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this movement. The 
> concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the level of fuss 
> the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have been unable to 
> get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF staff were caught by 
> the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have been unable to attend 
> Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa restrictions. It wouldn't 
> surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused visas to attend Wikimania in DC 
> whilst Obama was President than are known to have been caught by the Trump 
> ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is being political, or that it cares 
> more about staff than volunteers; neither would be a good message. One of the 
> good things about South Africa as the
> 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos 
> Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would 
> like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other Wikimania 
> in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.
> 
> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the 
> second sentence:
> 
> 
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites increased 
> by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the 
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about a 
> whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it 
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But

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

[Gordon Joly]

On 02/03/17 13:55, David Gerard wrote:
> There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not
> personally reminded of the discomfort of others".
> 
> 
> - d.


Channelling Margaret Thatcher, David?

:-)

Gordo



___
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"

[Gordon Joly]

On 02/03/17 13:30, Peter Southwood wrote:
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
> civilisation. 
>Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics only
until they affect you directly.
> Cheers,
> Peter


The real world (laws and customs) has always be the supervisor of the
virtual world.

Gordo


___
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"

[Vi to]

In short, wiki projects existence itself is a political act.
Furthermore, it's a "liberal" (in wide sense) political act: you may
attribute values as free and universal access to knowledge to various
political factions, but these values are the founding principle of this
virtual place.

Also, even neutrality is a political act. Without bringing Orwell into our
small mess, *aiming at* saying the truth (or whatever it might be) becomes
a revolutionary act.

I may agree some wordings/choices are questionable in consideration of
WMF's mission but neutrality is not algebraic zero. Actually neutrality
implies protecting our interests.


Vito

2017-03-02 14:55 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :

> On 2 March 2017 at 13:30, Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
> > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> politics only until they affect you directly.
>
>
> Well, yes. Who are these people with lives of such privilege that they
> don't have to think about politics?
>
> Literally everything Wikimedia has ever done is heavily political.
> Here in 2017, the following are political:
>
> * scientific fact
> * acknowledging scientific fact
> * spreading knowledge without permission
> * the fact of education
> * availability of education
>
> That's just going off what's come out of the White House in the last
> month, off the top of my head.
>
> There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not
> personally reminded of the discomfort of others".
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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"

[David Gerard]

On 2 March 2017 at 13:30, Peter Southwood  wrote:
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
> civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics 
> only until they affect you directly.


Well, yes. Who are these people with lives of such privilege that they
don't have to think about politics?

Literally everything Wikimedia has ever done is heavily political.
Here in 2017, the following are political:

* scientific fact
* acknowledging scientific fact
* spreading knowledge without permission
* the fact of education
* availability of education

That's just going off what's come out of the White House in the last
month, off the top of my head.

There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not
personally reminded of the discomfort of others".


- d.

___
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]

It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics 
only until they affect you directly. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
WereSpielChequers
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to get 
away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so overtly 
political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too worry how 
unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics presented.

I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I wound 
up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get my wife a 
visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this movement. The concern 
about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the level of fuss the WMF has 
made in the past about the many people who have been unable to get visas to 
attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF staff were caught by the travel 
ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have been unable to attend Wikimanias in the 
last few years due to visa restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more 
Wikimedians were refused visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was 
President than are known to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either 
looks like the WMF is being political, or that it cares more about staff than 
volunteers; neither would be a good message. One of the good things about South 
Africa as the
2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos 
Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would like 
to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other Wikimania in 
countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.

Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the 
second sentence:


*Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites increased by 
170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the same 
league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about a whole 
year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it reads like 
an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the stats it links to 
imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my knowledge of the stats I 
suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads of 170m a day or week or 
unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those would actually be rather 
impressive.

Can I suggest that for next year there be a more community based process to 
write the next version of this.



WereSpielChequers


>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:51:04 -0500
> From: Risker <risker...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> Message-ID:
> <CAPXs8yQdJ+X+QwE3LB2XRuuKerSgMD5OKKhJJn1opLA9yyFj+w@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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 supp

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

[WereSpielChequers]

Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to
get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so
overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too
worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics
presented.

I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I
wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get
my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the
level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have
been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are known
to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is
being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos
Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would
like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other
Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.

Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the
second sentence:


*Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it
reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
would actually be rather impressive.

Can I suggest that for next year there be a more community based process to
write the next version of this.



WereSpielChequers


>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:51:04 -0500
> From: Risker <risker...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> Message-ID:
> <CAPXs8yQdJ+X+QwE3LB2XRuuKerSgMD5OKKhJJn1opLA9yyFj+w@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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 f

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

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Haven't seen the banner, but i think it is: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_South_Africa/SOPA=AR2016_ipd_long=en=1


Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von 
Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 21:15
An: Wikimedia Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

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 <jsed...@wikimedia.org>:

> 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 <jsals...@gmail.com> 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 <yyairr...@gmail.com> 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] photograph

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

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

I agree with Florence.


This WMF Annual Report has imho a obvious political connotation. Wikimedia 
should remain politically neutral in any regard. WP:POV;


--Steinsplitter


Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von 
Florence Devouard <fdevou...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. März 2017 00:44
An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

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 <jsed...@wikimedia.org>:
>
>> 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 <jsals...@gmail.com> 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 <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rathe

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

[George William Herbert]

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 1:14 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> 
> On the contrary, the left-wing is the only source of credible,
> trustworthy, and bias-free information on a wide variety of topics
> such as climate change.  Equating neutrality with credibility and
> trustworthiness is a clear mistake, because political bias is not
> orthogonal to factual bias.

I think there's an excellent argument to be made as to the underlying factual 
validity of the stance(s).

None of which addresses the point that it's off mission and a distraction from 
the mission, and will attract even further off-mission criticism and attacks 
and resentment.

Someone out there (and not just a tiny minority) is going to disagree strongly 
with the position; I don't.  But I care that we made them our enemies here and 
in this manner.  I donate to and support the ACLU and immigration lawyer groups 
when I want to make those points.  The WMF picking this fight hurts the WMF.


-george


Sent from my iPhone
___
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]

I just wanted to add one last thing; thanks to Zachary McCune as well for
coming and engaging with the community on this.  I imagine that it may have
felt like marching into the jaws of the beast to come and deal with the
criticism, so I have to give him much respect for coming and engaging.  I
hope to see more of this rather than less in the future.

Cheers,
Craig

On 2 March 2017 at 19:09, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> Thanks for offering your thoughts on this (and I mean that sincerely).
> Lord knows that sometimes the temperature on this list and in other venues
> rises to a point where no communication of substance can occur, and all
> that is achieved is that everyone walks away with bruised egos and hurt
> feelings.  Obviously this is not good.
>
> But, let me turn around your email; it's also pretty demoralising for us
> on the other side of the equation when we're described as a bunch who
> 'wants great talent to walk' because we see 'no point to the foundation
> anyway'.  Especially in this particular thread where I see naught but
> respectful yet widespread criticism of the tone of some of the annual
> report.  I *know* you're not trying to shut down the discussion here, or
> retreat into a defensive position with your fingers stick in your ears, but
> that is what it *felt* like reading your email, and that is just as much a
> problem.
>
> I concur with you that the way that the community communicates with the
> Foundation needs to improve.  But from the Foundation's side, you need to
> make it easier for us to communicate in a constructive way.  That includes
> not having discussions around things like values sequestered away on some
> corner at Meta in a densely written essay that might be difficult for
> non-English speakers or those not familiar with the philosophical issues
> around values and corporate ethics to engage fully.
>
> To make this email not all doom-and-gloom, I want to agree with something
> that SJ said; the actual visual presentation and layout of the report is
> fantastic.  Very striking, easy to read, minimalist without being sparse.
> My hat is off to whomever in the Communication team was involved with that
> side of things.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:46, Anna Stillwell  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
___
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"

[James Salsman]

> Refugees ... don't have anything to do with the WMF

Someone forgot to tell that to the Foundation volunteers working on

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/24/refugee-phrasebook/

which is directly linked from that section of the Annual Report.

> messages like this "empower" only those who agree with them

Should the Mission be amended to exclude those who government
officials have decided are no longer allowed to have freedom of
movement across borders?

> This sort of thing can be pretty exclusionary and disempowering if
> you do not agree with the rather unsubtle political stances being taken.

Is there any actual evidence of this? People said the same thing about
the SOPA/PIPA protest, but there was no change to editing levels and
the responses from the community and donors were very strongly
positive when they were asked directly. There was just a familiar
vocal minority who were adamantly complaining that the Foundation's
purity of essence had been corrupted.

> 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.

On the contrary, the left-wing is the only source of credible,
trustworthy, and bias-free information on a wide variety of topics
such as climate change.  Equating neutrality with credibility and
trustworthiness is a clear mistake, because political bias is not
orthogonal to factual bias.

> imagine it is October 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 But America went another direction
> and now things that could have been considered normalish suddenly
> look like a shot fired round the world.

Exactly; well put, Anna!

>  it's ultimately not mission aligned

This, again, is the real dispute, whether the word "empower" in the
Mission means anything about actual power beyond mere facilitation.

___
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]

Hi Anna,

Thanks for offering your thoughts on this (and I mean that sincerely).
Lord knows that sometimes the temperature on this list and in other venues
rises to a point where no communication of substance can occur, and all
that is achieved is that everyone walks away with bruised egos and hurt
feelings.  Obviously this is not good.

But, let me turn around your email; it's also pretty demoralising for us on
the other side of the equation when we're described as a bunch who 'wants
great talent to walk' because we see 'no point to the foundation anyway'.
Especially in this particular thread where I see naught but respectful yet
widespread criticism of the tone of some of the annual report.  I *know*
you're not trying to shut down the discussion here, or retreat into a
defensive position with your fingers stick in your ears, but that is what
it *felt* like reading your email, and that is just as much a problem.

I concur with you that the way that the community communicates with the
Foundation needs to improve.  But from the Foundation's side, you need to
make it easier for us to communicate in a constructive way.  That includes
not having discussions around things like values sequestered away on some
corner at Meta in a densely written essay that might be difficult for
non-English speakers or those not familiar with the philosophical issues
around values and corporate ethics to engage fully.

To make this email not all doom-and-gloom, I want to agree with something
that SJ said; the actual visual presentation and layout of the report is
fantastic.  Very striking, easy to read, minimalist without being sparse.
My hat is off to whomever in the Communication team was involved with that
side of things.

Cheers,
Craig

On 2 March 2017 at 17:46, Anna Stillwell  wrote:

> 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.
___
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"

[George William Herbert]

My two cents.

I agree with the sentiments in the statement/report.

I don't feel comfortable seeing them from the WMF.  I would not be comfortable 
seeing them from a PBS mission statement or report, a Humane Society report, 
the Red Cross, ... ok, the ACLU has about said as much.  But I feel that the 
Foundation let "We are good people, these are good ideas" get a bit out of hand.

It's not political context.  It stands out a bit more but that's not the nature 
of the problem.

I don't want the WMF as ACLU-lite, or advocating for health like Medcin Sans 
Frontieres or the Red Cross, or doing everything for internet freedom the EFF 
does.

These things become contextually controversial, and attract negative attention. 
 Each one may individually be morally or mission justifiable, but you end up 
with a pattern generating controversy and attacks that are totally off axis to 
WMF's actual point of existence.  As Pine and others mentioned, it's ultimately 
not mission aligned, and that does add up and hurt us.

When we take mission aligned stances we have to and should and we are owning 
that value and any criticism that comes back.  That's our point.  That's our 
community fight and point of existence.  But we don't own human rights or 
immigration policy.  We may consensus agree on a good moral platform but we 
don't own the problem or solutions.

I understand that the planning process for this may have been open and public 
(have not looked myself yet but believe you).  But WP and WMF are *immense* and 
have more corners with stuff going on than any human can comprehend and follow 
even dedicated to it full time, which frankly most can't be.  Many unfortunate 
things are done in the open but practically escaping wide enough audience to 
get the peer review they really needed.  This is a community problem mostly but 
hit the Foundation here.


-george

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Anna Stillwell  wrote:
> 
> Pine,
> You and I have a call scheduled and we can begin to think together on this
> issue. Thank you.
> /a
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>> 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,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> 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"

[Anna Stillwell]

Pine,
You and I have a call scheduled and we can begin to think together on this
issue. Thank you.
/a

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> 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,
> 
>
___
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 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] 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 <wiki.p...@gmail.com> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 <meta...@gmail.com> 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-re

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, 

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 <fdevou...@gmail.com>
> 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 <fdevou...@gmail.com>
>> 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
__

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] 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,