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 takes an outsider to
see this.

If you're going to try to play the "facts" game, you have to have your
facts bang on - and you have to admit that there is more than one side to
the story. This "report" reads as though the authors chose their favourite
advocacy positions and then twisted and turned and did some more
contortions to make it look as though it had something to do with the
Wikimedia family of projects. (Seriously. Refugees and global warming don't
have anything to do with the WMF.) It is so biased that most of those
"fact" pages would have to be massively rewritten in order to meet the
neutrality expectations of just about every Wikipedia regardless of the
language.

And that is my biggest concern. It is not neutral by any stretch of the
imagination. And if the WMF can't write neutrally about these topics in its
annual report, there is no reason for the average reader to think that
Wikipedia and other projects will be written neutrally, fairly, based on
references, and including the significant other opinions.  This document is
a weapon that can be used against Wikimedia projects by any tinpot dictator
or other suppressive government because it "proves" that WMF projects are
biased.  It gives ammunition to the very movements that create "alternative
facts" - it sure doesn't help when the WMF is coming up with a few of its
own.

That does a huge disservice to the hundreds of thousands of editors who
have worked for years to create accurate, neutral, well-referenced
educational material and information.  It doesn't do any good to those
editors contributing from countries where participation in an international
web-based information project is already viewed with a jaundiced eye. And
for those editors who don't adhere to the political advocacy positions
being put forward in this "annual report", or simply believe that the WMF
should not be producing political advocacy documents, it may well cause
them to reflect whether or not they want to keep contributing.

I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and edited
properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors who know how to
write neutrally on controversial topics. I've volunteered in the Wikimedia
movement for more than a decade at least in part because it was not a
political advocacy organization, so I find this annual report to be very
disturbing.

Risker/Anne

On 1 March 2017 at 23:23, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> > article.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a protest
> photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose, but reasonably
> on topic (with a corrected caption).
>
> In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in to the
> facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied context is "Facts
> Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report could be even more
> powerful if it were presented with another half-step of remove.  The most
> unparalleled success of Wikipedia is not that it summarizes topics like
> "scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere.
> It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such
> important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major
> controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically
> accepted conclusions.
>
> My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as I
> can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
> passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
> 3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this mote
> of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)
>
> Wikilove,
> SJ
>
> [1]
> http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-
> growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
> http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
> https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/
> documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf
>
>
> [2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and even
> citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going out to a
> large audience.  You have access to plentiful world-class fact checkers,
> you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to