Is the WMF actually focusing its annual report on a country's political system, or is that mainly a perception influenced by the country in which many of the critics happen to live? Also, why would the WMF be so different if it was headquartered outside the US? Should the country it is based in make a difference? I think not, but it seems that it does, and I don’t think this is a good thing. Both these questions address a basic US centric attitude which is prevalent here. An assumption that comes over to some of us who are not American, as rather biased and condescending, So the US now has a democratically elected president who is as embarrassing as our democratically elected president. Welcome to the other half of the world. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: Friday, 03 March 2017 8:22 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report" Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its annual report on some other country's political system. Risker/Anne On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
