Let me put it another way, 
If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the same?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Mark Vandenberg
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 
wrote:
> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at 
> the time of publishing.

The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending 
politicians or be uncontroversial.

Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and 
should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a 
project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.

In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. 
focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order of the first few 
facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first 
few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  e.g. How did 
WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?

If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to 
support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.  Like 
others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but 
I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. 
 The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well 
with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.

Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is 
still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not 
have access to education resources online in their own language, an 
International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's 
mission.  Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the 
world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those 
facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good 
education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their 
own language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching 
our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause 
before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
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: 4756/14048 - 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>

Reply via email to