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

Hoi, Sources may take sides. Absolutely. It is exactly by producing "alternative" facts that some sources define themselves. Once it has been established that a sourced statement is actually a lie, it becomes clear cut. We do not write articles to accommodate whoever, when they lie and it is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image or comply with the license before legal action is taken. Peter does this work better https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=gbs_navlinks_s J On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

Yes surveys are useful if set up properly. Having a group of volunteers interested in doing this work would be amazing. Not seeing why we could not manage this in house. Surveys could be developed collaboratively on meta. James On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Peter Southwood <

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

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

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

A gracious, substantive, thorough & fast response to public feedback... I find your methods intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Thank you, Zack. SJ On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Zachary McCune wrote: > Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be

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

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

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

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]

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

Just a quick note on the 350 edits per minute. Zach described that somewhat as "facts are constantly checked." In general many edits are vandalism and add false, defamatory, or nonsense content, and many edits add content that may or may not be factual (unsourced or otherwise flaky). Wikipedia

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

Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1] SJ, Florence, George, you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much

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

Hi Gerard, On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen 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. :)

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

>>> 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

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

​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.

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

This list is *a* community but it certainly does not constitute The Community™ nor are we the community affected by this code of conduct. I suggest raising this in venues appropriate to the particular community in question, in this case the technical community. Before bringing this topic here it

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

David Forum shopping is usually considered to be taking an issue from one forum to another hoping to get the answer you want. I do not believe I have raised this question in any other forum. I hope that helps you make the distinction your are having difficulty with. Please explain what you

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

This assumes the relevant Community is here now on this very list, which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish from forum shopping. On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors

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

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

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

I'm not asking Matt. I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very list. "Rogol" On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W wrote: > Rogol, > > Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect. Try > asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page. >

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

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

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

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it quite right. If someone is using

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

Hi Todd, as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed what they are). These people would upload material under a free license (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope

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

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

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

I cant get there through your link, maybe something is happening Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Heilman Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 4:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a

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

We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100 They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free. It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can see

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

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

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

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

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 im Auftrag von Lodewijk Gesendet:

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

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 im Auftrag von Florence

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

> 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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

noting:for give my missing any finer point my German isnt sufficient to read the discussion without the aid of google translate The question your asking is should the author of the image have the right to enforce the licensing of work they have uploaded. The position you take is that they dont

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

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 > --