[Wikimedia-l] Is there freedom to believe a lie? (it was: "Wikitribune!")

[David Cuenca Tudela]

The recent Wikitribune initiative seems to be based on the premise that the
antidote to fake news is a collaborative news outlet. According to this
premise, readers would confer authority to Wikitribune since they would be
able to participate in the reviewing/reporting process. As a result fake
news would be debunked. The end. Or is it?

In my opinion the problem runs deeper than that. In the Wikipedias there is
a tight control on which sources are given credibility. This
consensus-building is possible because the active community represents a
very particular subset of the general population, and as such it is
possible to create a cultural hegemony (cf. Gramsci). When smaller groups
have not been able to fit into that cultural hegemony they have created
their own projects where that is possible for them (for instance,
Conservapedia).

Rational beings tend to agree that it is in one's interest to follow the
same principles as the scientific thought (systematic observation,
measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification
of hypotheses). But what if a person chooses to step out of that framework?
What if a person chooses to believe a lie, or to believe another one
(person, newspaper) who tells a lie? This pattern of thought that seems so
alien to rational beings actually shouldn't come as a surprise when looking
at how lies (or "alternative facts/realities") have been used through all
human history to shape or challenge the distribution of power.

I think there is a deep philosophical issue that the Wikitribune initiative
failed to capture. And it is not just about fake news, it is also about
other topics like irrational anti-vax fears, climate change denial, etc.
If we want freedom of thought (and, as such, cannot be (en)forced), how
could we attract people "out of the cave into the light"? That the issue is
so old, suggests that there is no easy answer.

In general people tend to believe what benefits their perceived existential
image. If, for instance, that image is based on maintaining an
unsustainable lifestyle, that is problematic in the long run, specially
when reaching physical constraints (resource depletion, biosphere
destruction, etc). It is under those circumstances that anger is created
and directed to potential enemies of that self-created existential image.
"It must be the immigrants, or bad politicians, or stupid citizens, or a
previous generation". But few people would be ready to stop that train of
thought and ponder about it. In a way fake news are just a symptom of a
more serious disease.

Wikitribune is the right step in the direction of becoming more frustrated
with our fellow citizens. And even that might be a victory. Sometimes you
just need to fail in order to be able to go much deeper in understanding
the issue, and then change radically of approach.
I wish the initiative to be as successful as it can. And I also hope that
its participants do not lose sight of the end goal. It might be less about
the news themselves, and more about creating a better understanding between
human beings and how to enable them to make do without lies.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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] Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#14)

[Katherine Maher]

Hi all!

*Summary: The first cycle of strategy conversations has concluded, and
the second cycle will begin by May 5. Thanks!*

Thank you(!) to everyone that took the time to contribute your answer to
this question: "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next
15 years?"

Over the past month, we have collected more than 1,800 statements in more
than 20 languages from dozens of discussions across the movement.[1] This
includes the previously promised report from Wikimedia Conference, which
Wikimedia Deutschland has completed and published on Meta-Wiki.[2] I am
thrilled by reports from around the movement about groups coming together,
sometimes for the first time ever, to discuss our future. For example, we
heard this from our friends in Wikimedia Indonesia, "Thank you for
arranging these wonderful experiences, allowing us to get in touch with
several Wikipedians that we haven't met before, too."

The extended strategy team is compiling those statements and clustering the
common themes we will discuss in the next cycle of our conversation. We
have actually moved the start of cycle 2 from April 25th to allow more time
to go over everything and now plan to start it by May 5th.

Our efforts to collect feedback from partners and experts around the world
are on track! In fact, I was in Brussels this week, and had a dinner with
EU and internet policy experts who shared their ideas for our future. We
were able to organize this dinner thanks to help from community members
involved in the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU[3] and Wikimedia Belgium.
This meeting with people from around the European Union was an opportunity
to discuss the impact of Internet policy on the future of the free
knowledge and Wikimedia movements.

The feedback collected at events like these will be shared for us to
consider and integrate into future discussions around our movement
strategy. If you’re interested in interviewing potential partners yourself,
or organizing similar small-group discussions with experts, we encourage
it! The Foundation may be able to provide financial support for such
efforts. Please contact us on Meta-Wiki if you are interested.[4]

We have a lot of preparation work to do before the next discussion cycle,
so that’s all for now!

But while I have you, I want to remind people that this is the last week to
provide input on the annual plan grants submitted to the Funds
Dissemination Committee, including next year's annual plan for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Your input is helpful not only to the Funds
Dissemination Committee, but also the organizations who submitted plans.
Please consider taking a look and providing constructive feedback if you
have time before the April 30 deadline.[5]

À plus (French translation: “Until later”),
Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6]

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2017/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017_round_2
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/28_April_2017_-_Update_14_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikitribune!

[Erik Moeller]

Jimmy-

I think it's a great initiative! First, kudos for using the CC-BY
license. I have reviewed a large number of nonprofit journalism
outlets over the last few months [1], and this decision alone would
set the project apart from even the public interest media sphere.
There are only a few nonprofit news/journalism projects using a free
or semi-free license, e.g.:

- Common Dreams (lefty/progressive site) uses CC-BY-SA
- Mosaic (science publication) uses CC-BY
- The Conversation (sort of a nonprofit/academic Vox.com) uses CC-BY-ND
- ProPublica uses CC-BY-NC-ND
- Aeon (science/philosophy) uses CC-BY-ND for some content

But for the most part, even nonprofit publications tend to use
conventional copyright, making it difficult for Wikimedia and other
free culture projects to collaborate with them (and of course the more
restrictive CC licenses above are not Wikimedia-compatible either).

I hope the license will apply to photographs/videos as well as text,
since a lot of media files will be of immediate value to the free
culture world.

Second, kudos for not paywalling the content. A lot of people seem to
re-discover the idea of paywalls in 100 different forms and sell it as
innovative. Again, it prevents collaboration with other communities.

There's no mention in the FAQ as to whether WikiTribune will be
nonprofit or not, or whether that's even on the table. I am guessing
the answer is no, but it would be good to clarify that. Similarly, it
would be good to make any commitment to the development/use of open
source software beyond WordPress explicit.

Good luck raising the $/supporter goal and hopefully launching the
site, will definitely be keeping an eye on it. :)

Warmly,
Erik

[1] https://lib.reviews/team/nonprofit-media/feed

___
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,