Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
2009/2/19 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: I'm likely going to put the general issue of biographies on the board's next agenda, for what that's worth. Though as I say, there's no simple blanket solution, and I don't know if we can promise anything beyond more discussion and more awareness of the issues. What's the schedule on the flagged revisions trial on en:wp? (cc: to wikitech-l) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
2009/2/19 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com: I think a deeper point is that there are a lot of very problematic BLP's on Wikipedia, and this is an ongoing problem that we all have to be very serious about. In my anecdotal experience (as a UK phone contact), BLPs are our biggest public relations problem. I'm really really really hoping for the flagged revs on BLPs trial to work out well. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.netwrote: Sage Ross wrote: From my experience talking with people (mostly academics) who have Wikipedia articles, they are often unhappy with their articles but also either don't want to interfere in a community they aren't part of, or don't want to be seen as complaining on their own behalf and thus risk seeming vain. Most often it's not that there is something really wrong or negative, it's just that the article is so incomplete or imbalanced that it gives a misleading impression of who they are and what they do. I'd go so far as to say that the significant majority of BLPs for academics (at least) are not appreciated by their subjects. I'd guess that it probably holds across a fairly wide swath of people. I'm not sure what should be done about it, though. And another thing to consider, for those who have been the subject of media coverage, how many feel that was really representative and balanced? Dissatisfaction is common there as well, it's hard to say if we're qualitatively different. Especially when those are the sources we often draw upon. I think you're right that such dissatisfaction is common. Newspapers and magazines in particular, seem to get this kind of stuff wrong all the time. Encyclopedias probably ought to be held to a higher standard, though, and in theory Wikipedia with its neutrality policy ought to be held to an even higher standard than that. I have no idea how Wikipedia can get there. Flagged revisions might be able to reduce the blatant defamation, but it's not likely to address issues of balance or incompleteness (and might actually make things worse in that space). In this space, I think Citizendium's approved articles is the best a wiki can hope for. That has its own problems, and the articles don't always turn out well balanced, but at least you know who to blame. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
Sue Gardner wrote: Report to the Board: Davos Prepared by: Sue Gardner, Executive Director Prepared for: Wikimedia Board of Trustees Date: February 3, 2009 Interestingly, a number of people complained to me about their articles being overly negative. Obviously Jimmy gets this all the time, but I was surprised how often it was the first thing a person would say to me. All my conversations about Wikipedia were warm and friendly and positive, with the exception of people's pain/anger about BLP issues. I don't in the least wish to belittle this problem. Quite obviously it is a very real one. But perhaps a bit of perspective can be gained, by noting that at some times the general impression of wikipedia has been that it was all written by fan boys, and because of this it would never be able to throw a critical glance at all the content in it. And of course both things happen all the time, simultaneously. What you need to remember is that all the people who are secretly satisfied their article is remarkably fair to them, or even greatly relieved how merciful their article is about their various foibles; never mind those who won't say publicly they think their article is even far too laudatory ... well, those people won't be the first in line to talk about it to you, will they. Try to focus on that; when you get in those situations. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
Report to the Board: Davos Prepared by: Sue Gardner, Executive Director Prepared for: Wikimedia Board of Trustees Date: February 3, 2009 Background Context Every year, Jimmy is invited to Davos in his individual capacity as a Young Global Leader, and the Wikimedia Foundation receives one invitation to participate in the category of Technology Pioneer. Last year, Florence represented us: this year, Michael delegated participation to me so that I could explore Davos from a fundraising perspective. As always, Jimmy paid his own costs, and the Foundation paid mine. The main goals of the trip were to 1) present a funding proposal to a potential funder we've been speaking with, 2) increase awareness of Wikipedia as a charity among attendees (e.g., media, prospective donors, NGOs, etc.), and 3) actively move forward relationships with a few key major donor prospects. I was also able to meet briefly with some of the board members of the Swiss chapter, in Zurich. Summary From January 27 to February 1, Jimmy and I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In general, I would say the trip was fairly useful. From a fundraising perspective, Davos is not good for direct solicitation, but it does help with prospect cultivation, stewardship and relationship-building. It also helps us build general awareness of Wikimedia as a serious-minded non-profit organization. And because the WEF waives the entry fee for us, attendance is quite cheap: the major cost to Wikimedia is my time. In general, I am comfortable with us continuing to attend Davos, particularly in years during which we're actively cultivating one or more attendees. Additionally, I think we should try to get invited to other conferences that will give us access to potential funders and help establish us as a serious international non-profit. Experiences and Observations Davos is a great way to connect with a large number of people in a short period of time. I had dozens of good conversations with past and current funders as well as prospects and friends. There was lots of general good will and appreciation for our work. During Davos, I attended a dozen seminars and talks on topics ranging from the future of media, to leveraging mass innovation, to sustaining the nonprofit sector in a downturn, to digital Asia. I was a panelist in the session Youth Culture: A Heat Map. I attended a variety of dinners and parties, including a UN Millennium Development Goals dinner for women hosted by Wendi Murdoch and Indra Nooyi, which had as speakers Melinda Gates and Sarah Brown. In general, I found Davos wasn't great for direct solicitation: every room is noisy and crowded, and it's hard to have an uninterrupted conversation. Over the course of the conference, I experimented by directly soliciting six random people – tablemates at dinner, etc. The responses were neutral-to-warm, but I didn't get anything encouraging enough to warrant follow-up. There were some very interesting philanthropy/NGO-related panels and interviews, with some particularly interesting comments from people like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. The effects of the economic downturn on the non-profit sector was very much on people's minds, obviously, and there was useful discussion about it. I met with Soumitra Dutta from INSEAD, faculty director of e...@insead, INSEAD's center of excellence in teaching and research in the digital economy, and co-author with Matthew Fraser of Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World. He's interested in Wikipedia and Wikimedia, I believe particularly from an organizational behaviour standpoint, and we're exploring whether a partnership of some kind would make sense (e.g., a case study or research project). Interestingly, a number of people complained to me about their articles being overly negative. Obviously Jimmy gets this all the time, but I was surprised how often it was the first thing a person would say to me. All my conversations about Wikipedia were warm and friendly and positive, with the exception of people's pain/anger about BLP issues. A side note, but on the way back from Davos I was happy to be able to meet in Zurich with three people from the board of the Swiss chapter: Michael Bimmler, Rupert Thurner and Robin Schwab. We had a useful conversation about (among other things) chapters development and scope, strategy development, and the new Wikimedia Foundation chapters funding requests process. It was particularly great to finally meet face-to-face with Michael :-) Analysis Fundraising: Davos seems fairly useful for 1) relationship maintenance with current donors, and 2) relationship building with prospective donors - particularly with regards to donors and prospects who live outside the United States. I believe Davos is good at helping us develop closer relationships with people we already are connected to, but it is not suited to direct solicitation of
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but how was the skiing? ;) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
2009/2/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but how was the skiing? ;) Davos was actually hilariously gruelling: it started with breakfasts at 7.30 and ran past midnight every day. Any spare time I had, I spent commiserating with other newbies, and trading survival tips :-) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
