Risker has outlined many of the issues with the report much better than I
would have been able to. While I'm happy to hear there will be some
reordering and that one of the images will be replaced, the report still
has many very serious problems.

How can we fix this? I can think of a few options:
* The report could be made open to edits from the community. (I was hopeful
when the report was posted on Meta that it would be editable, but it was
apparently posted primarily for translation purposes and is not editable.)
Over the course of a few weeks much of the content could be rewritten to be
close enough to neutral.
* We could continue discussing specific problems in tone and focus, errors,
and general issues with the report here on this mailing list or on Meta
while the relevant people implement fixes and rewrites (hopefully in a
transparent manner), including the large content changes/replacements
* The entire "Consider the facts" section could be removed/replaced. The
rest of the report probably could stand on its own, but that may not be
ideal. I don't know whether rewriting it from scratch is doable, or whether
there may be relevant time constraints here.

I'd like to reiterate the seriousness of displaying non-Wikimedia-related
political advocacy over Wikimedia projects. Many editors work very hard at
removing any biases in articles. To have a huge banner placed over every
article on the whole project linking to 43px-font blatant political
advocacy which can't be reverted, is really damaging.

-- Yair Rand

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> [1] 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
> > > ?
> > > [1] <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: 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/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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to