Well, Erik...I really don't think my personal beliefs have a role in this discussion, except as they very narrowly apply to the Wikimedia mission, vision and "values". That's actually one of my issues with this report - it reads as though it's been written by a bunch of well-paid, talented people who've been given rein to express personal and cultural beliefs unrelated to Wikimedia. And my personal belief in relation to that is that this annual report has positioned political advocacy far ahead of the mission and vision of the movement, starting with the selection and ordering of the "facts". Let's go through them one by one.
The focus on the value of education is an entirely valid, even necessary, part of the annual report; it is entirely central to our mission. The focus on refugees is out of place, though. The fact that there is a single page on one WMF-hosted site that links to a refugee handbook created by other groups that include some Wikimedians (and the support of WMDE, which we all know is NOT the same thing as the WMF) isn't justification for making "REFUGEES!1!!!11!" a big headline. It's peripheral to the educational activities of the WMF, and ignores or downplays many of the actual WMF-supported initiatives. There's something wrong when the WMF is so busy touting someone else's project that it forgets to talk about its own. But why show a bunch of Uruguayan kids actually using Wikipedia, when you can make a political statement using a photo of very adorable refugee children who, generally speaking, aren't accessing any WMF projects? Am I impressed by Andreas' images? of course! Look at the amazing iceberg images [featured image example at 1] - which illustrate climate change issues much better than the photo of a starving polar bear. We don't actually know why that bear is dying - is he sick or injured, the most common cause of wild animal deaths? Has he consumed (anthropogenic) harmful chemicals or materials such as plastic wastes - increasingly common in arctic animals? Or did he miss the ever-narrowing migration window to the prey-rich northern arctic ice fields (due to climate change)? We can't be sure. But we can be a lot more sure that the iceberg images are illustrating something that can be linked more directly to climate change. Of course, nobody is getting a lump in their throat by looking at icebergs; it's not any where near as good an emotional button-presser that a dying animal is. There's also the trick of referring to "the hottest year on record" instead of giving the *whole* truth, which is it is the hottest year since these types of records started being kept beginning just a few hundred years ago - and it's that long only if you count all types of record keeping. Yes, it's much more impressive to imply that we're talking about all of history rather than just the last few centuries. A lot of people reading this list have been creating articles for years; we know those tricks too. And none of this explains why climate change is even a factor in the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report. It would be worth including if the WMF was a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change (I am quite sure it isn't!), or was taking major, active steps to reduce its carbon footprint and talked about that. But that's not what's in the report. A brief word about scientific consensus. In my lifetime, we have seen plate tectonics go from being considered complete nonsense (the scientific consensus!) to being routinely taught in schools. We have seen the scientific consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and dietary habits deprecated by the evidence that most gastrointestinal ulcers are caused by Helicobacter pylori; the theory that micro-organisms could cause stomach ulcers was long derided as being promoted only by those paid by the pharmaceutical industry. (Oops!) There was a mercifully short-lived consensus that AIDS was caused by the lifestyle habits of gay men. And even as I write, the long-held scientific consensus that has led to the recommended dietary intake in western countries is coming into serious question, at least in part because of the discovery that the baseline research was funded by an industry that greatly benefited from these guidelines - although it has taken researchers years to make headway against a theory so ingrained. I have no doubt that the scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is directly linked to lung cancer is going to hold, and I am certain that the scientific consensus that asbestosis is caused by inhaling asbestos fibers will outlive me by many generations. But, just like on Wikipedia, consensus can, and does, change - and it should be routinely re-examined and reconsidered. (Incidentally, the climate change topic on English Wikipedia has historically been one of the most contentious, resulting in several Arbcom cases, removal of advanced privileges, blocks, bans, sockpuppetry and trolling, mass violations of the Biography of Living Persons policy, and the largest number of rangeblocks on any Wikimedia project before 2010 - at one point about a quarter of all California IPs were blocked from account creation. It's not a good example of how to deal with a contentious subject.) I like that a "fact" was included about the rate of edits on Wikipedia, although it would be helpful to provide a bit more context to explain why the Paris attack was the article highlighted. My gut instinct is that it was the current event that had the most edits on the largest number of Wikimedia projects - in which case it was a great choice to feature, and these would be really interesting facts to have included. (If another article met that definition, I'd hope it would have been the one featured.) I'm a lot less comfortable with the "fake news" part of this particular "fact" - it lists media that have reported "major" stories that turned out to be flat-out wrong in just the last two months, which doesn't support the case being made. It would probably be more useful to point out the methods by which editors keep fake news out of our projects rather than giving the appearance of lauding specific media organizations. (And yes, the selection of the media organizations identified is politicized, too. Why the Washington Post (perceived to be "liberal") instead of the more editorially conservative Wall Street Journal ?) The "Fact" about Indic languages is really good. My first thought was that it might have been an opportunity to talk about how new Wikipedias come to be, but on reflection that would have been a distraction. Perhaps editors from the Indian subcontinent might find some level of politicization, but it's not visible to me with my limited cultural knowledge. Similarly, the "fact" about biographies of women is good, too. I think there's perhaps an over-emphasis on the low percentage - a pretty significant percentage of biographical articles are of men who became notable at a time when women were much more socially restrained (if not physically prevented) from making the same mark as men - but I believe that the focus on our outstanding contributors in this area, and their excellent work, makes this a really important addition to the report. There is a political element to this issue, but its exploration is entirely tied to the content, the activities of the editing community, and the seeking out and sharing of knowledge - all within scope. I am rather ashamed that the "fact" about photos starts off with a grammatical error. (It's the NUMBER of photos, not the AMOUNT of photos.) Otherwise this is an on-topic section worthy of highlighting in the Annual report. Missing a lot of information though - such as how many photos come from mobile phones and similar platforms, which are the focus of the first paragraph. Given that focus, including a smartphone photo of something more historic, or at least an image that was actually used in an article, might have been a better choice. The languages "Fact" is well written and informative, and highlights some really important means of knowledge sharing, enabled by the WMF. Entirely on-topic and mission-related. I can't see any reason at all why the "Travel" fact was included. It does not include, for example, a link to Wikivoyage, the logical link to include when talking about travel. There's no reasonable explanation why there's a link to Wikimania 2016, which isn't even vaguely referred to in the text. But we do have a very big political statement with the image - one that was actually quite off-topic; in fact, the photo shows a bunch of people actively seeking to disrupt travel, which is the opposite of the written message. We have thousands of photos on Commons that could have illustrated this theme better, if we had to include it at all. Even a shot of a bunch of people hiking with backpacks would have been more appropriate. The harassment fact ("OK")...very important message. I think the WMF could have done much better in labeling this fact; this title is almost deceptive, because it doesn't actually talk about "OK" or common words - the subject isn't what the title implies. This kind of deception is part of the "fake news" motif, and it's unfortunate to use when just a few facts before the same report is decrying fake facts and fake news. (Incidentally, the claim that OK is the most widely understood word, globally, is referenced in English Wikipedia to a personal opinion piece. Just as well there's no link to the article.) The new internet users fact is really good, highlighting important work by the WMF, filled with facts, and sharing the longer-range vision with readers. But this is one area where the WMF could have done some political advocacy that was entirely within scope; shame to have missed this opportunity. So....I disagree with what Anna said (that "3/11 fact stories are about issues that have become politicized"). I count 6/11 facts that are politicized (refugees, climate change, the selection of media outlets on the "rate of edits" fact, biographies of women, travel, and the "OK" fact with the misleading fake-news style title that was actually about harassment), only one of which logically links the politicization effectively with both the topic of the fact (biographies of women) and the WMF mission. And starting off with two of the three most politicized facts skews the entire presentation. The strain to include this political advocacy cluttered the useful and informative discussion and links to WMF activities. It took the focus away from the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects, omitting obvious connections. If the WMF wanted to be more political in its annual report, there were opportunities that were actually mission-focused. To be honest, given the level of politicization of other peripheral topics, the absence of an effort to really increase focus on the lack of online accessibility - something that dovetails strongly with our mission - is a glaring omission. On this point, I agree with John Vandenberg. And I'm sorry, Zack, but given the fact that so many of these issues are directly linked to real-world activities that have happened in just the last few weeks, I'm not buying that this was more or less laid out back in late 2016. Risker/Anne  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_look_inside_an_ iceberg_(2),_Liefdefjord,_Svalbard.jpg. On 2 March 2017 at 19:12, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior > <stuart.pr...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > > > As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive > > issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that > > 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence > > ? > >  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change> > > Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position. > > It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and > presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly > communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and > fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to > enable many communities to collect and develop educational content. > > If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to > shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the > organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to > promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts > about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than > communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers > alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately > conservative about its own role. > > I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major > Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate > change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of > politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how > such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial > control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia > tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for > WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world. > > I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic > photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks > like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern > about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those > stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report? > > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>