A gracious, substantive, thorough & fast response to public feedback...
I find your methods intriguing and would like to subscribe to your
newsletter.

Thank you, Zack.
SJ

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Zachary McCune <zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1]
>
> SJ, Florence, George,  you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration
> for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet
> that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much
> earlier this year (planning will begin in April) so we are well positioned
> to gather more input and direction on the next iteration. Activity will be
> linked on Meta.[2] Florence, this is also where we post the full site
> content when it is final (which is not quite true at present) so it is
> available for translation.
>
> I also want to directly engage and act on some of the ideas presented here
> for how to improve the Annual Report site.
>
> First, on fact ordering, we are going to make “Wikipedia is update 350
> times a minute” the first fact displayed. Great idea Florence, and one that
> better articulates what we want to impart: our volunteers are active,
> Wikipedia is a living thing, and facts are constantly checked.
>
> Second, on photography, we are going to change the photo that accompanies
> the travel fact. We hear and understand that this photo has overstepped the
> mark. Moreover, we are fortunate to work with millions of freely-licensed
> alternatives so… expect a change.
>
> Third, on fact-checking ourselves. SJ, going forward we will take you up on
> that offer and find fact-checkers outside the Foundation. Risker, you are
> right, we already know where we can find some. I will detail that coming
> into this Report, we have had 40+ reviewers from across departments,
> cultures, and experiences in an effort to do proper due diligence. We can
> do better, so we will.
>
> Many have reached out to me asking how we can facilitate a more
> participatory, and active review cycle for the next report. Keep those
> ideas coming. We are up for it.
>
> Also SJ, on the travel stat, we were using the CNN source that interprets
> the UNWTO data you are citing.[3] Let’s discuss this off-thread, I want to
> make sure we have our math clear here and can confirm CNN is in error.
>
> Generally, the site can offer more explicit citations. Nearly all of the
> facts are cited within the stories that contextualize them, but we will go
> through and see what can be further emphasized.
>
> On Report promotion, we have paused site banners entirely to allow this
> conversation to continue. Yair, I pinged you about this in response to your
> Village Pump discussion. Our Piwik analytics show that around 8,000 people
> visited the site yesterday to give some idea on the current reach of the
> Report.
>
> Both the Foundation and the Communications team are listening, working, and
> acting.
>
> Thank you for working with us. Thanks for *thinking* with us.
>
>    -
>
>    Zack
>
>
>
> [1] http://emojipedia.org/call-me-hand/
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Annual_Report
>
> [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/travel/international-tourists-2015/
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> > >
> >
> > It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
> >
> > * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> > decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> > supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the
> references).
> > This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> > notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> > exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> > which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate
> themselves.
> >
> > * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct
> answer
> > (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project
> such
> > as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> > explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> > Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> > because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> > categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> > motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> > sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> > deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> > opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about
> all
> > sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
> >
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> > [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family
> are
> > heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all
> of
> > you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> > thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when
> we
> > meet in person. :)
> >
> >
> > > 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/ma
> ilman/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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Zachary McCune
> Global Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> zmcc...@wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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>
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
<(617)%20529-4266>
_______________________________________________
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