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?
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
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
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/
] 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
-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,
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
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
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
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
ent: 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 hel
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
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
rg> 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 place
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
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:
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,
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
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
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
> >
> >
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,
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
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
-
> 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 thin
-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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
inion 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
> > appli
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
[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.so
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
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
g
> 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 com
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 th
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
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. The
: 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 pr
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
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
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
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
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]
e 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
al_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 i
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
> > >
> >
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
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
: [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.
>
&g
; > 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:
>>> 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
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.
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
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
> 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
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
l
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 &
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
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
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
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
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
...@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 unsettl
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 pol
gt;
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
orence 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.
T
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
> --
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
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
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
: 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 worl
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
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
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&q
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
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
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,
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
>
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
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"
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
100 matches
Mail list logo