Hoi,
Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.

No, we do not have to show the other side when this is based on a lie. We
can inform about the lie but it is not as if we have to present it for
anything but a lie.
Thanks,
     GerardM


Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>

> I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the things
> I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis>
> is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
>
> The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was
> the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the refugee
> crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
>
> We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to
> find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind for
> me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> Wikipedia is truly the place 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 sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
>
> Mz7
>
> [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.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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
> >
> > -----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: "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 unsettling to see the WMF get
> so overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too
> worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics
> presented.
> >
> > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before
> I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get
> my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the
> level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have
> been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
> staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
> been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
> restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
> visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are known
> to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is
> being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
> would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
> > 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since
> Buenos Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I
> would like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other
> Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.
> >
> > 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 <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
> > This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in
> the same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was
> about a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity.
> So it reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But
> the stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
> >
> > Can I suggest that for next year there be a more community based process
> to 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 politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> >> Message-ID:
> >>        <CAPXs8yQdJ+X+QwE3LB2XRuuKerSgMD5OKKhJJn1opLA9yyFj+w@mail.
> >> gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14045 - Release Date:
> 03/02/17
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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