[Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
103 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Yair Rand
An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it starts
off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are school-age",
followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities, and
their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique, but
every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision and
how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have an
entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written in
a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting statistics
about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
founder linked.

So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to assume
good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago specifically
calling for a change in refugee policy.

Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does not
accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.

This is a serious problem.

-- Yair Rand

[1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

James Salsman-2
The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
"empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html

Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf

Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
-- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
meet?


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]> wrote:

> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it starts
> off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are school-age",
> followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities, and
> their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique, but
> every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
> them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision and
> how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have an
> entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written in
> a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
> Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting statistics
> about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> founder linked.
>
> So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
> politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to assume
> good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago specifically
> calling for a change in refugee policy.
>
> Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does not
> accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
>
> This is a serious problem.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Joseph Seddon-6
Hi James.

You can find out more about the Endowment here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment

Seddon

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>
> Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
>
> Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> meet?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> starts
> > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> school-age",
> > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
> and
> > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
> but
> > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
> > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
> and
> > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
> an
> > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written
> in
> > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
> > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> statistics
> > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > founder linked.
> >
> > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
> > politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
> assume
> > good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
> specifically
> > calling for a change in refugee policy.
> >
> > Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does
> not
> > accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> > avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
> >
> > This is a serious problem.
> >
> > -- Yair Rand
> >
> > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> > WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Lodewijk
I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.

I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
(visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).

Is this perhaps still work in progress?

On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
Wikipedians as a background.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>:

> Hi James.
>
> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> >
> > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> >
> > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > meet?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > starts
> > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > school-age",
> > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
> > and
> > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
> > but
> > > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
> of
> > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
> > and
> > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
> > an
> > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> written
> > in
> > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> Andreas
> > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > statistics
> > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > founder linked.
> > >
> > > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and
> not
> > > politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
> > assume
> > > good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
> > specifically
> > > calling for a change in refugee policy.
> > >
> > > Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does
> > not
> > > accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> > > avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
> > >
> > > This is a serious problem.
> > >
> > > -- Yair Rand
> > >
> > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> > > WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Rogol Domedonfors
It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>
> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>
> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>
> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
> Wikipedians as a background.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi James.
> >
> > You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> > >
> > > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> > >
> > > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > > meet?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a
> rather
> > > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > > starts
> > > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > > school-age",
> > > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic:
> "That
> > > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their
> communities,
> > > and
> > > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is
> unique,
> > > but
> > > > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
> > of
> > > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's
> vision
> > > and
> > > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we
> have
> > > an
> > > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> > written
> > > in
> > > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> > Andreas
> > > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,”
> he
> > > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > > statistics
> > > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the
> world,
> > > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > > founder linked.
> > > >
> > > > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and
> > not
> > > > politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
> > > assume
> > > > good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
> > > specifically
> > > > calling for a change in refugee policy.
> > > >
> > > > Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF
> does
> > > not
> > > > accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block
> CentralNotices,
> > > > avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
> > > >
> > > > This is a serious problem.
> > > >
> > > > -- Yair Rand
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> > > > WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Seddon
> >
> > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Please explain..
To me it is not politica but Common sense.
Thanks,
        GerardM

Op wo 1 mrt. 2017 om 22:18 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>

It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>
> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>
> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>
> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
> Wikipedians as a background.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi James.
> >
> > You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> > >
> > > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> > >
> > > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > > meet?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a
> rather
> > > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > > starts
> > > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > > school-age",
> > > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic:
> "That
> > > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their
> communities,
> > > and
> > > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is
> unique,
> > > but
> > > > every single one loses time from their important learning years.
Many
> > of
> > > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages
and

> > > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's
> vision
> > > and
> > > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we
> have
> > > an
> > > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> > written
> > > in
> > > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> > Andreas
> > > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,”
> he
> > > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > > statistics
> > > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the
> world,
> > > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > > founder linked.
> > > >
> > > > So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices,
and

> > not
> > > > politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
> > > assume
> > > > good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
> > > specifically
> > > > calling for a change in refugee policy.
> > > >
> > > > Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF
> does
> > > not
> > > > accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block
> CentralNotices,
> > > > avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly
fork/leave.

> > > >
> > > > This is a serious problem.
> > > >
> > > > -- Yair Rand
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> > > > WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Seddon
> >
> > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Florence Devouard-6
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
I must say I also find the political message behind this a bit too
heavy. It lets me a bit unconfortable.

That most of the themes reported here are not Mr Trump cup of tea is
quite obvious. That the whole page is a message against the president, I
get it.

But in some cases, I think it is really lacking subtility or a bit too
manipulative. And that is not so cool.

For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are
released. Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"

Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
"immigrating".

I think the choice of picture inappropriate.

Florence


Le 01/03/2017 à 21:15, Lodewijk a écrit :

> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>
> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>
> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>
> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
> Wikipedians as a background.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi James.
>>
>> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
>>> "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
>>> or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
>>> very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
>>> https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>>>
>>> Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
>>> eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
>>> the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
>>> should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
>>> volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
>>> understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
>>> Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
>>> raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
>>> culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
>>> censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
>>> given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
>>> personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
>>> in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
>>> Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
>>> Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
>>>
>>> Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
>>> income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
>>> it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
>>> equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
>>> -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
>>> investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
>>> meet?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
>>>> bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
>>> starts
>>>> off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
>>> school-age",
>>>> followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
>>>> means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
>>> and
>>>> their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
>>> but
>>>> every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
>> of
>>>> them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
>>>> cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
>>> and
>>>> how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
>>> an
>>>> entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
>> written
>>> in
>>>> a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
>> Andreas
>>>> Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
>>>> declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
>>>> says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
>>> statistics
>>>> about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
>>>> followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
>>>> founder linked.
>>>>
>>>> So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and
>> not
>>>> politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
>>> assume
>>>> good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
>>> specifically
>>>> calling for a change in refugee policy.
>>>>
>>>> Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does
>>> not
>>>> accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
>>>> avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
>>>>
>>>> This is a serious problem.
>>>>
>>>> -- Yair Rand
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
>>>> WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Seddon
>>
>> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
>> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Nathan Awrich
It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
"everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies
of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for this
report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
continue in this vein.
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Leigh Thelmadatter
In reply to this post by Yair Rand
Yair is right because messages like this "empower" only those who agree with them. Taking sides in the name of the Foundation, which has the money and therefore power, is not inclusive.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 01/03/2017, at 12:58 p.m., Yair Rand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it starts
> off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are school-age",
> followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities, and
> their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique, but
> every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many of
> them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision and
> how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have an
> entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly written in
> a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian Andreas
> Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting statistics
> about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> founder linked.
>
> So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and not
> politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to assume
> good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago specifically
> calling for a change in refugee policy.
>
> Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does not
> accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
> avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
>
> This is a serious problem.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
> WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
at all.  In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
executed the executive order was in the first place.

Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
question.


Dan Rosenthal

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies
> of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for this
> report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
> honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
> reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
> continue in this vein.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-6
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>
> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
> "immigrating".

The caption is in fact misleading because it uses the phrase
"immigration ban", which is a mischaracterization of the ban. The
Executive Order was not an immigration ban; it (temporarily) banned
people from those countries from entering the United States, even for
visits, with some exceptions. See:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Visitors.2C_immigrants_and_refugees

If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
"travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
article.

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Michael Peel-2
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
Why should that feature in the WMF's annual report, though?

I also agree that this has been over-politicised, whether intentionally or not. :-(

Thanks,
Mike

> On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:13, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
> non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
> at all.  In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
> executed the executive order was in the first place.
>
> Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
> question.
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
>> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies
>> of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
>> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
>> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for this
>> report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
>> honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
>> reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
>> continue in this vein.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Florence Devouard-6
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-3
Le 02/03/2017 à 01:15, Erik Moeller a écrit :

> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
>> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
>> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
>> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>>
>> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
>> "immigrating".
>
> The caption is in fact misleading because it uses the phrase
> "immigration ban", which is a mischaracterization of the ban. The
> Executive Order was not an immigration ban; it (temporarily) banned
> people from those countries from entering the United States, even for
> visits, with some exceptions. See:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Visitors.2C_immigrants_and_refugees
>
> If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
> "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
> article.
>
> Erik

Nod. Erik and Dan, what you say make sense.

Florence



_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Zachary McCune
In reply to this post by Yair Rand
Hi everyone -

Zack here from the Communications team at the Foundation. I want to say
some more about the theme for the Foundation’s annual report and why we
picked it.

We chose the theme in early October as a way to remind the world how
Wikipedia works and why our movement matters. By that time, and before the
U.S. elections, the state of fact-based information had become a
highly-discussed topic internationally. We received questions from the
media about how and why Wikipedia was able to avoid the fake news
phenomenon, while many other companies had become amplifiers for false
information. We heard from donors about the importance of Wikipedia in a
world where verifiable information is not promised. We saw, as always, an
unwavering commitment from the community to presenting the facts.

International conversations around fake news and facts only serve to
reinforce how the Wikimedia movement’s commitment to verifiability and
neutrality are indispensable.[1] This is not just an American or a
political phenomenon. Last year in India, a false story about a
surveillance chip in a new 2,000 rupee bill spread widely on WhatsApp,
which has 50 million monthly users in India (the news was eventually
debunked).[2] Just this week, 37 French news organizations came together to
launch CrossCheck a collaboration to address the spread of false
information online.[3]

In this year’s annual report we offer 10 facts as ways into our communities
and our work. They are introductions for Wikimedians who document climate
change, increase the number of women’s biographies, offer language and
learning to refugees, or add new languages to Wikipedia (welcome Tulu!).
They are stories, as are always included in the annual report, that show
who Wikimedians are and why their work is so powerful. The stories are
meant to appeal to even the most general and non-Wikimedia-familiar reader.
So we consciously work to show how the big data points of 2016 last year
are evaluated and interpreted by Wikimedians.

The 10 facts are also ways to examine the impact of Foundation projects.
From Support & Safety to understanding New Readers, there are stories of
how collaborations between communities and departments make amazing things
happen.

Concerning the banners, we crafted that language as a broad thank you and
an invitation for the curious to learn more about the Wikimedia movement
and the Wikimedia Foundation. Quite consciously we sought language that is
not political. If you have copy ideas on how to relate that message better,
I would be happy to work with you! -> zmccune [at] wikimedia [dot] org

Yair, Florence, and everyone, I am grateful that you opened this
discussion. And I hope I can help explain more things as questions come up.

- Zack

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

[2]
http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/nope-rs-2000-note-does-not-have-a-gps-nano-chip-inside-it/
[3]
http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/02/28/lutte-contre-les-fausses-informations-le-monde-partenaire-du-projet-crosscheck_5086731_4355770.html


> From: Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> To: [hidden email]
>
>
> Le 02/03/2017 à 01:15, Erik Moeller a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
>>> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
>>> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
>>> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>>>
>>> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
>>> "immigrating".
>>>
>>
>> The caption is in fact misleading because it uses the phrase
>> "immigration ban", which is a mischaracterization of the ban. The
>> Executive Order was not an immigration ban; it (temporarily) banned
>> people from those countries from entering the United States, even for
>> visits, with some exceptions. See:
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/t
>> rump-immigration-ban-groups.html
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Visitors
>> .2C_immigrants_and_refugees
>>
>> If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
>> "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
>> article.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>
> Nod. Erik and Dan, what you say make sense.
>
> Florence
>
>
--
Zachary McCune
Global Audiences
Wikimedia Foundation

[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Michael Peel-2
Indeed, I have to agree too. I don't disagree with the notion that the
themes covered (providing educational materials to vulnerable young people,
providing our information in many languages, and  are important, but the
way they come across is pretty preachy and overtly political.  We're not
here to directly solve the problem of climate change or fight visa
revocations, we're about providing free and neutral information to people
in their own languages.  This sort of thing can be pretty exclusionary and
disempowering if you do not agree with the rather unsubtle political
stances being taken.  It also just provides more fuel for those arguing
that Wikipedia is a left-wing advocacy organisation rather than a credible,
neutral, and trustworthy source of bias-free information.

In this case, I'm afraid that if the Communications team wanted to
highlight the interesting work being done by Wikimedians, they have gotten
it wrong, because they've highlighted the causes rather than the
individuals.  I suspect that it is too late to change the 2016 report, but
I hope that they are a little more mindful for the 2017 report.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 2 March 2017 at 10:31, Michael Peel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why should that feature in the WMF's annual report, though?
>
> I also agree that this has been over-politicised, whether intentionally or
> not. :-(
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:13, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
> > non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
> > at all.  In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
> > executed the executive order was in the first place.
> >
> > Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
> > question.
> >
> >
> > Dan Rosenthal
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
> >> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the
> policies
> >> of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
> >> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
> >> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for
> this
> >> report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
> >> honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
> >> reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
> >> continue in this vein.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

metasj
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-3
Dear reporters,

I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the
non-linear presentation online.  Lovely work; you are wonderful.


> If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
> "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
> article.
>

Yes.

The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a protest
photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose, but reasonably
on topic (with a corrected caption).

In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in to the
facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied context is "Facts
Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report could be even more
powerful if it were presented with another half-step of remove.  The most
unparalleled success of Wikipedia is not that it summarizes topics like
"scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere.
It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such
important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major
controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically
accepted conclusions.

My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as I
can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this mote
of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)

Wikilove,
SJ

[1]
http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf


[2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and even
citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going out to a
large audience.  You have access to plentiful world-class fact checkers,
you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Risker
Okay, so I'll say what Sam said, except in stronger language, and with some
additional emphasis.

This is a very obviously liberally biased document --  and I say that as
someone who lives in a country so liberal that it makes Californians look
like they're still back in the early 1960s. Maybe it takes an outsider to
see this.

If you're going to try to play the "facts" game, you have to have your
facts bang on - and you have to admit that there is more than one side to
the story. This "report" reads as though the authors chose their favourite
advocacy positions and then twisted and turned and did some more
contortions to make it look as though it had something to do with the
Wikimedia family of projects. (Seriously. Refugees and global warming don't
have anything to do with the WMF.) It is so biased that most of those
"fact" pages would have to be massively rewritten in order to meet the
neutrality expectations of just about every Wikipedia regardless of the
language.

And that is my biggest concern. It is not neutral by any stretch of the
imagination. And if the WMF can't write neutrally about these topics in its
annual report, there is no reason for the average reader to think that
Wikipedia and other projects will be written neutrally, fairly, based on
references, and including the significant other opinions.  This document is
a weapon that can be used against Wikimedia projects by any tinpot dictator
or other suppressive government because it "proves" that WMF projects are
biased.  It gives ammunition to the very movements that create "alternative
facts" - it sure doesn't help when the WMF is coming up with a few of its
own.

That does a huge disservice to the hundreds of thousands of editors who
have worked for years to create accurate, neutral, well-referenced
educational material and information.  It doesn't do any good to those
editors contributing from countries where participation in an international
web-based information project is already viewed with a jaundiced eye. And
for those editors who don't adhere to the political advocacy positions
being put forward in this "annual report", or simply believe that the WMF
should not be producing political advocacy documents, it may well cause
them to reflect whether or not they want to keep contributing.

I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and edited
properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors who know how to
write neutrally on controversial topics. I've volunteered in the Wikimedia
movement for more than a decade at least in part because it was not a
political advocacy organization, so I find this annual report to be very
disturbing.

Risker/Anne

On 1 March 2017 at 23:23, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear reporters,
>
> I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the
> non-linear presentation online.  Lovely work; you are wonderful.
>
>
> > If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either
> > "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia
> > article.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a protest
> photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose, but reasonably
> on topic (with a corrected caption).
>
> In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in to the
> facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied context is "Facts
> Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report could be even more
> powerful if it were presented with another half-step of remove.  The most
> unparalleled success of Wikipedia is not that it summarizes topics like
> "scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere.
> It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such
> important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major
> controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically
> accepted conclusions.
>
> My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as I
> can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
> passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
> 3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this mote
> of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)
>
> Wikilove,
> SJ
>
> [1]
> http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-
> growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
> http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
> https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/
> documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf
>
>
> [2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and even
> citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going out to a
> large audience.  You have access to plentiful world-class fact checkers,
> you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-6
Hoi,
Visiting the United States is no longer an option for many people. The
current situation is absolutely not only about immigration it is also about
visiting. When a nationalised person of Iranian ancestry has family in
Iran. Can he or she still visit his family and come back? Can his family
still visit him? The situation is reminiscent of what happens in North and
South Korea.

Really, people do not appreciate half of what is happening in the USA. I
seriously ask myself if I could visit the USA and not be harassed. I am
Caucasian, from the Netherlands and I am a Muslim. When we do not see that
a large part of our community can no longer visit "the land of the free"
and call this political, we do not appreciate what we stand for. When
people find that the position they take is one where the notion that
America is no longer the land of the free, where white extremism is free to
burn mosques and kill based on the difference in the colour of their skin
is acceptable, they are welcome to find a problem with what Wikimedia as a
worldwide movement stands for.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 2 March 2017 at 00:44, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I must say I also find the political message behind this a bit too heavy.
> It lets me a bit unconfortable.
>
> That most of the themes reported here are not Mr Trump cup of tea is quite
> obvious. That the whole page is a message against the president, I get it.
>
> But in some cases, I think it is really lacking subtility or a bit too
> manipulative. And that is not so cool.
>
> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>
> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
> "immigrating".
>
> I think the choice of picture inappropriate.
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 01/03/2017 à 21:15, Lodewijk a écrit :
>
>> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>>
>> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
>> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
>> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
>> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
>> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
>> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
>> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
>> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
>> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>>
>> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>>
>> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
>> Wikipedians as a background.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> Hi James.
>>>
>>> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
>>>> "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
>>>> or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
>>>> very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
>>>> https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>>>>
>>>> Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
>>>> eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
>>>> the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
>>>> should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
>>>> volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
>>>> understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
>>>> Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
>>>> raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
>>>> culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
>>>> censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
>>>> given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
>>>> personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
>>>> in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
>>>> Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
>>>> Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
>>>> income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
>>>> it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
>>>> equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
>>>> -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
>>>> investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
>>>> meet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
>>>>> bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
>>>>>
>>>> starts
>>>>
>>>>> off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
>>>>>
>>>> school-age",
>>>>
>>>>> followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
>>>>> means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
>>>>>
>>>> but
>>>>
>>>>> every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>>
>>>> them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
>>>>> cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
>>>>>
>>>> an
>>>>
>>>>> entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
>>>>>
>>>> written
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
>>>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>> Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
>>>>> declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
>>>>> says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
>>>>>
>>>> statistics
>>>>
>>>>> about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
>>>>> followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
>>>>> founder linked.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, this could be a mix of coincidence and bad stylistic choices, and
>>>>>
>>>> not
>>>
>>>> politically motivated at all, but it is getting increasingly hard to
>>>>>
>>>> assume
>>>>
>>>>> good faith on this, especially with the blog post a month ago
>>>>>
>>>> specifically
>>>>
>>>>> calling for a change in refugee policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using Wikimedia projects to push politics is not okay. If the WMF does
>>>>>
>>>> not
>>>>
>>>>> accept this, I suspect many projects will simply block CentralNotices,
>>>>> avoid associating with WMF statements, and quite possibly fork/leave.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a serious problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Yair Rand
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/?pk_campaign=
>>>>> WikiBanners&pk_kwd=AR2016_dsk_short
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
>>> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Risker
Agree that citations are needed.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Risker
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 7:51 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Okay, so I'll say what Sam said, except in stronger language, and with some additional emphasis.

This is a very obviously liberally biased document --  and I say that as someone who lives in a country so liberal that it makes Californians look like they're still back in the early 1960s. Maybe it takes an outsider to see this.

If you're going to try to play the "facts" game, you have to have your facts bang on - and you have to admit that there is more than one side to the story. This "report" reads as though the authors chose their favourite advocacy positions and then twisted and turned and did some more contortions to make it look as though it had something to do with the Wikimedia family of projects. (Seriously. Refugees and global warming don't have anything to do with the WMF.) It is so biased that most of those "fact" pages would have to be massively rewritten in order to meet the neutrality expectations of just about every Wikipedia regardless of the language.

And that is my biggest concern. It is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. And if the WMF can't write neutrally about these topics in its annual report, there is no reason for the average reader to think that Wikipedia and other projects will be written neutrally, fairly, based on references, and including the significant other opinions.  This document is a weapon that can be used against Wikimedia projects by any tinpot dictator or other suppressive government because it "proves" that WMF projects are biased.  It gives ammunition to the very movements that create "alternative facts" - it sure doesn't help when the WMF is coming up with a few of its own.

That does a huge disservice to the hundreds of thousands of editors who have worked for years to create accurate, neutral, well-referenced educational material and information.  It doesn't do any good to those editors contributing from countries where participation in an international web-based information project is already viewed with a jaundiced eye. And for those editors who don't adhere to the political advocacy positions being put forward in this "annual report", or simply believe that the WMF should not be producing political advocacy documents, it may well cause them to reflect whether or not they want to keep contributing.

I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and edited properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors who know how to write neutrally on controversial topics. I've volunteered in the Wikimedia movement for more than a decade at least in part because it was not a political advocacy organization, so I find this annual report to be very disturbing.

Risker/Anne

On 1 March 2017 at 23:23, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear reporters,
>
> I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the
> non-linear presentation online.  Lovely work; you are wonderful.
>
>
> > If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use
> > either "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the
> > Wikipedia article.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a
> protest photo from the US for the story about travel.  On the nose,
> but reasonably on topic (with a corrected caption).
>
> In general, I like the spirit and content of this report.  A lead-in
> to the facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied
> context is "Facts Matter!"  However I feel this claim and the report
> could be even more powerful if it were presented with another
> half-step of remove.  The most unparalleled success of Wikipedia is
> not that it summarizes topics like "scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere.
> It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such
> important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major
> controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically
> accepted conclusions.
>
> My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong.  As far as
> I can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals"
> passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country"
> 3+ times per year.[1][2]  If the publishers find a way to retract this
> 3+ mote
> of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)
>
> Wikilove,
> SJ
>
> [1]
> http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-
> growth-international-tourism-despite-challenges
> http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm
> https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/
> documents/visa-global-travel-and-tourism-study-infographic.pdf
>
>
> [2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and
> even citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going
> out to a large audience.  You have access to plentiful world-class
> fact checkers, you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14045 - 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Pine W
I've written several drafts today in response to this thread, all of which
came out as as rather energetic.

There are some reputable organizations for which I like and for which the
tone of the "main page" of this report would be appropriate. WMF is not one
of them. I would ask the people who approved the final version of this
publication (particularly those in senior management) to carefully reflect
on whether they are working for the organization that is right for them. If
they want to continue to work for WMF, I would ask them to carefully read
and focus on the WMF mission, and be religious about staying on that
mission when making decisions on behalf of WMF. Outside of WMF it's fine to
engage in many kinds of advocacy, but inside of WMF, this kind of tilt is a
strategic liability both to WMF and to Wikipedia.

Pine
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234 ... 6