Dear Rogol,

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <>

> 1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes
> to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the
> volunteers, whose work is being presented to the world at large in ways
> that might not always be consistent with their values and practices.

Your mileage may vary, but usually I find that the large majority of donors
and volunteers have little interest in reading a document this detailed.

> 2: If the things that were already going to happen have already happened,
> then presumably somebody made them happen and those people would find it
> quick and easy to explain to the community what those things were (I take
> it from your wording that you are not one of those people).  Explaining to
> the donors what $436K of their money bought would rarely come amiss.

Well, hopefully someone at WMF knows what happened as a result and how
things have changed. There is a very brief bit of documentation for 16-17
messaging strategy still marked as a work in progress, so certainly the
outcomes could be better documented on Meta.

Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond
in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a
judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend their
time replying to. However, if I was in their position, looking at the
nature of comments on Wikipedia Weekly, on Meta and in this thread, I would
probably not be leaping to provide a full and thorough response.

> 2': Andreas made the point that "trying to avoid coverage" about a problem
> is not necessarily the best strategy.  Being open about a problem may be
> better, and/or more consistent with community values.  But that is a
> discussion for another location. The point of this thread is to encourage
> participation in that debate.

Yes, indeed, there is a legitimate question about how bullish WMF Comms
ought to be about Wikipedia. Generally however I think they get it about

> 3: Quotes are by their nature "selective" since otherwise one would simply
> repeat the entire document, which is unlikely to be optimal.  If you
> believe those quotes are not representative, have the courage to say so –
> you have read the whole document, after all.

Simply highlighting the ~1 page of arguably controversial stuff in a 67
page document is also unlikely to be optimal, because it creates a biased
and misleading impression of the whole document, and gives the impression
(accurately or not) that one's main interest is stirring up controversy.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to