Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Hi Robert, > > > > Simply highlighting the ~1 page of arguably controversial stuff in a 67 > > page document is also unlikely to be optimal, because it creates a biased > > and misleading impression of the whole document, and gives the impression > > (accurately or not) that one's main interest

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Hello Rogol, > > > > Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond > > in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a > > judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend > their > > time replying to. However, if I was in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > > > Simply highlighting the ~1 page of arguably controversial stuff in a 67 > page document is also unlikely to be optimal, because it creates a biased > and misleading impression of the whole document, and gives

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Chris On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, you wrote: > > Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond > in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a > judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend their > time replying to.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Dear Rogol, On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > > 1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes > to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the > volunteers, whose work is being presented to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Chris Your points 1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the volunteers, whose work is being presented to the world at large in ways that might not always be consistent with their values and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have > summarised > > my concerns on the related talk page on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Hi Rogol, On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Leila, > > I am sorry to hear that your management have not seen fit to allow you the > ​ > time to read this report since it is on a topic that is key to work that > you do. ​This is not a concern on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Hi Andreas, On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have summarised > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3] > ​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your

[Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

For the past couple of days, there has been a discussion[1] of the 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy[2] and the associated recommendations for WMF messaging in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. The audit was performed by, or in collaboration with, political consultants