Could we have some facts please? * What proportion of attendees at the conference were women? * - Several emails in this thread have claimed it was high, nobody has provided evidence. As Wikimedia funded conferences measure diversity, publicly reporting this figure should be *a good thing*.
* What proportion of attendees were Wikimedia Chapter or Foundation contractors or employees and attending the conference could be considered part of their employment? * - At least one email here claimed that volunteers broke their backs running the conference, which seems to overlook that a high proportion of registered attendees were employees and probably did most of the preparation. I asked this question last year about another conference, it was never answered properly, as it was never measured. Again, this ought to be *a good thing* to report on, as our values are to keep the volunteer at the centre of everything we do and driving our movement rather than paying Executives six-figure sums to tell us what we should believe in. Lastly, this appears a yellow journalism fluff-piece. I prefer to see volunteers wearing hoodies rather than corporate black suits, regardless of their gender or orientation, these are the people most likely to make a meaningful difference to open knowledge within the Wikimedia movement. So good luck to pizza stained t-shirts, wear them with pride. Let's not fall into the trap of indulging corporate style PR paranoia, let's stick to the *facts* of what gets measured and reported. Of course, if you are responsible for publicly reporting and measuring, then /shame/ on you if you are failing to do so in a mistaken belief that this is a way to manipulate public perception, or our perception. Fae On 07/06/2014, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > Craig Franklin wrote: >>I think there's something of a lesson here for people: don't trust the >>press. > > The part of the piece I found most striking was that the author readily, > and almost boastfully, admits to speaking to "a minority of the minority > of the minority," but she seems to have no issue using this very limited > sample size to evaluate Wikipedia on the whole. Even if we assumed that > there are 22,000 registered Wikipedians, is a sample size of five or six > appropriate? If she meant 22,000,000, it seems like an even crazier leap. > > After re-reading the piece, I'd probably stand by a lot of it. It's not a > great reflection of Wikipedia, but I also wouldn't call at least many > parts of it inaccurate, per se, just crudely distorted and manipulated. > > The author used the tactic where you mention that Mandela was a convicted > criminal that spent 27 years in prison, but fail to mention that he won > the Nobel Peace Prize and was the revered president of South Africa. > > This tactic is an easy way to create a distorted, but technically > accurate, impression. Some of the fine folks at Wikipediocracy are very > good at employing this tactic as well. :-) > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
