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 i
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 thei
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 the impression
> (accurately o
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. H
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 the world at large in wa
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
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 Meta.[3]
> >
>
> I would love to find some time
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 my end. Time, whether it
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. But I think the underlying suggestion that Andreas or non-staff
readers should identify ways in which this report has changed WMF prac
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
comments/thoughts and share
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
MinassianM
11 matches
Mail list logo