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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Sources may take sides. Absolutely. It is exactly by producing
"alternative" facts that some sources define themselves. Once it has been
established that a sourced statement is actually a lie, it becomes clear
cut. We do not write articles to accommodate whoever, when they lie and it
is clear, it is what we are to report. When people have an opinion where
you can disagree but where there is no established absence of truth it
follows that we should provide a NPOV, a neutral point of view.

We may indicate given positions but to deny the truth is to deny for
instance that slavery was at the basis of many US universities, and and and.

When 25% of our public are students learning about the world, we have to
have our facts straight. We know many things for instance that measles can
kill and we should never say otherwise. To accommodate that point of view
is being complicit in the consequences.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 March 2017 at 23:37, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> >
>
> It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
>
> * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
> This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.
>
> * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
> (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
> as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
> sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
>
> Leila
>
>
> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
> heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
> you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
> meet in person. :)
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> is
> > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> possible).
> > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > things
> > > I think  > Synthesis>
> > > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> > > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> > >
> > > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do
> so,
> > > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and
> the
> > > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016
> > was
> > > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may
> sound
> > > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> > refugee
> > > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects
> of
> > > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> > >
> > > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need
> > to
> > > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand
> each
> > > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind
> > for
> > > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> > > 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Is the WMF actually focusing its annual report on a country's political system, 
or is that mainly a perception influenced by the country in which many of the 
critics happen to live? 
Also, why would the WMF be so different if it was headquartered outside the US? 
Should the country it is based in make a difference? I think not, but it seems 
that it does, and I don’t think this is a good thing.
Both these questions address a basic US centric attitude which is prevalent 
here. An assumption that comes over to some of us who are not American, as 
rather biased and condescending, 
So the US now has a democratically elected president who is as embarrassing as 
our democratically elected president. Welcome to the other half of the world. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Risker
Sent: Friday, 03 March 2017 8:22 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a 
very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its 
annual report on some other country's political system.

Risker/Anne

On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Let me put it another way,
> If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be 
> the same?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood < 
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this 
> > argument
> is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid 
> offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be 
> uncontroversial at the time of publishing.
>
> The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending 
> politicians or be uncontroversial.
>
> Understanding how a message will be received is the core of 
> communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the 
> communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 
> 'publish'
> button is clicked.
>
> In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is 
> quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order 
> of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
> politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including 
> these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  
> e.g.
> How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
>
> If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing 
> up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.
> Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF 
> to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the 
> significance of those issues.  The cynic in me feels that the WMF 
> projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of the 
> typical "Wikipedia"
> donors.
>
> Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds 
> population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come 
> online usually do not have access to education resources online in 
> their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts 
> as critical for the WMF's mission.  Those facts can also very 
> uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political 
> leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those facts are also 
> very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education 
> and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own 
> language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from 
> reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and 
> make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on 
> mission.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 
> 03/02/17
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New 

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

[Risker]

Well, Erik...I really don't think my personal beliefs have a role in this
discussion, except as they very narrowly apply to the Wikimedia mission,
vision and "values". That's actually one of my issues with this report - it
reads as though it's been written by a bunch of well-paid, talented people
who've been given rein to express personal and cultural beliefs unrelated
to Wikimedia.  And my personal belief in relation to that is that this
annual report has positioned political advocacy far ahead of the mission
and vision of the movement, starting with the selection and ordering of the
"facts".  Let's go through them one by one.

The focus on the value of education is an entirely valid, even necessary,
part of the annual report; it is entirely central to our mission.  The
focus on refugees is out of place, though.  The fact that there is a single
page on one WMF-hosted site that links to a refugee handbook created by
other groups that include some Wikimedians (and the support of WMDE, which
we all know is NOT the same thing as the WMF) isn't justification for
making  "REFUGEES!1!!!11!" a big headline.  It's peripheral to the
educational activities of the WMF, and ignores or downplays many of the
actual WMF-supported initiatives. There's something wrong when the WMF is
so busy touting someone else's project that it forgets to talk about its
own.  But why show a bunch of Uruguayan kids actually using Wikipedia, when
you can make a political statement using a photo of very adorable refugee
children who, generally speaking, aren't accessing any WMF projects?

Am I impressed by Andreas' images?  of course!  Look at the amazing iceberg
images [featured image example at 1] - which illustrate climate change
issues much better than the photo of a starving polar bear.  We don't
actually know why that bear is dying - is he sick or injured, the most
common cause of wild animal deaths? Has he consumed (anthropogenic) harmful
chemicals or materials such as plastic wastes - increasingly common in
arctic animals?  Or did he miss the ever-narrowing migration window to the
prey-rich northern arctic ice fields (due to climate change)?  We can't be
sure.  But we can be a lot more sure that the iceberg images are
illustrating something that can be linked more directly to climate change.
Of course, nobody is getting a lump in their throat by looking at icebergs;
it's not any where near as good an emotional button-presser that a dying
animal is.   There's also the trick of referring to "the hottest year on
record" instead of giving the *whole* truth, which is it is the hottest
year since these types of records started being kept beginning just a few
hundred years ago - and it's that long only if you count all types of
record keeping.  Yes, it's much more impressive to imply that we're talking
about all of history rather than just the last few centuries.  A lot of
people reading this list have been creating articles for years; we know
those tricks too. And none of this explains why climate change is even a
factor in the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report.  It would be worth
including if the WMF was a major contributor to anthropogenic climate
change (I am quite sure it isn't!), or was taking major, active steps to
reduce its carbon footprint and talked about that.  But that's not what's
in the report.

A brief word about scientific consensus.  In my lifetime, we have seen
plate tectonics go from being considered complete nonsense (the scientific
consensus!) to being routinely taught in schools. We have seen the
scientific consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and dietary
habits deprecated by the evidence that most gastrointestinal ulcers are
caused by Helicobacter pylori; the theory that micro-organisms could cause
stomach ulcers was long derided as being promoted only by those paid by the
pharmaceutical industry.  (Oops!)  There was a mercifully short-lived
consensus that AIDS was caused by the lifestyle habits of gay men. And even
as I write, the long-held scientific consensus that has led to the
recommended dietary intake in western countries is coming into serious
question, at least in part because of the discovery that the baseline
research was funded by an industry that greatly benefited from these
guidelines - although it has taken researchers years to make headway
against a theory so ingrained. I have no doubt that the scientific
consensus that cigarette smoking is directly linked to lung cancer is going
to hold, and I am certain that the scientific consensus that asbestosis is
caused by inhaling asbestos fibers will outlive me by many generations.
But, just like on Wikipedia, consensus can, and does, change - and it
should be routinely re-examined and reconsidered. (Incidentally, the
climate change topic on English Wikipedia has historically been one of the
most contentious, resulting in several Arbcom cases, removal of advanced
privileges, blocks, bans, sockpuppetry and trolling, mass violations of the

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

[Risker]

Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a
very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its
annual report on some other country's political system.

Risker/Anne

On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Let me put it another way,
> If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the
> same?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument
> is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at
> the time of publishing.
>
> The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending
> politicians or be uncontroversial.
>
> Understanding how a message will be received is the core of
> communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications
> team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish'
> button is clicked.
>
> In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite
> U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order of the
> first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
> politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these
> first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  e.g.
> How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
>
> If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up
> to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.
> Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to
> take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of
> those issues.  The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image
> will resonate well with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia"
> donors.
>
> Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population
> is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually
> do not have access to education resources online in their own language, an
> International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's
> mission.  Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across
> the world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on
> books.  Those facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who
> have had a good education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality
> Wikipedia in their own language.  Those facts also underscore how far we
> are away from reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the
> mission and make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are
> not clearly on mission.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Let me put it another way, 
If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the same?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Mark Vandenberg
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood  
wrote:
> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at 
> the time of publishing.

The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending 
politicians or be uncontroversial.

Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and 
should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a 
project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.

In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. 
focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order of the first few 
facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first 
few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained.  e.g. How did 
WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?

If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to 
support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights.  Like 
others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but 
I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. 
 The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well 
with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.

Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is 
still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not 
have access to education resources online in their own language, an 
International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's 
mission.  Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the 
world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those 
facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good 
education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their 
own language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching 
our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause 
before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at 
> the time of publishing.

The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending
politicians or be uncontroversial.

Understanding how a message will be received is the core of
communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the
communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the
final 'publish' button is clicked.

In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is
quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump.  The selection and order
of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S.
politics.  Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including
these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally
strained.  e.g. How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking
photos of polar bears?

If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing
up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those
fights.  Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction
for the WMF to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate
the significance of those issues.  The cynic in me feels that the WMF
projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of
the typical "Wikipedia" donors.

Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds
population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come
online usually do not have access to education resources online in
their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts
as critical for the WMF's mission.  Those facts can also very
uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political
leanings, who spend more on guns than on books.  Those facts are also
very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education
and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own
language.  Those facts also underscore how far we are away from
reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and
make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not
clearly on mission.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Would your objections have been as strong if the controversy was created by a 
politician in a different country?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nathan
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 3:58 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> I want to thank everyone for offering their considered thoughts. I 
> mean that genuinely. There are many legitimate views expressed in this 
> thread, many by generous, constructive, wise, and delightful members 
> of our communities. That's good.
>
> And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that 
> I don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
>
> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And 
> I actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that. 
> *And* the cumulative impact of the way people at the Foundation get 
> this feedback begins to feel like public, collective punishment. And 
> that dynamic, one that we all tend to participate in, is driving 
> talented people away from the foundation.
>
> Now some here may not care about that. Some of us think there is no 
> point to the foundation anyway, so it's great that talent wants to walk.
>
> Others may believe that I am saying that "we should all just be kind" 
> and that I am terribly polyannish (of course I am, I work in HR) and 
> that I am saying that we should not tell each other difficult truths. 
> But that's a forced false choice. I'm decidedly not saying that we 
> should not tell one another difficult truths. I'm saying that when we 
> add it all up the way we tell each other the truth has damaging 
> effects on many people I talk to—employees, volunteers from around the 
> world, board members... and it hits women and minorities particularly 
> hard. No one single person intends for it to be so. Of course they 
> don't. But add it all up, put it out in public, everyone chimes in, and 
> overall morale goes down the toilet.
>
> What do we do? How can we find ways to tell each other difficult 
> truths while remembering that we are talking about and to *people *in 
> public and in large groups?
>
> ---
> As a separate issue and a different interpretation on how this report 
> likely came about...
>
> In this report 3/11 fact stories are about issues that have become 
> politicized. (Yes, sadly I included some facts about biographies of 
> women political). If travel is also a political issue now, I think I’m 
> glad they legalized cannabis in this state.
>
> But imagine it is October. Sure, Brexit has happened and large 
> portions of the world are closing, not opening. There is a turn away 
> from a global mindset and a turning toward clamping down on freedoms. 
> But a good portion of Americans believe that we don't really have anything to 
> worry about.
>
> The Comms team begins writing a report. If Hillary Clinton had won, 
> it's likely that these would not have looked so terribly much like 
> political statements. It may have looked like a normal affirmation of 
> acceptable values (because, 3/11). But America went another direction 
> and now things that could have been considered normalish suddenly look 
> like a shot fired round the world.
>
> I'm not saying that this makes any of the legitimate views expressed 
> here invalid. I'm just saying that the context has changed radically. 
> Some of that change now makes acceptable values (valuing the 
> scientific method / valuing climate science, valuing people of other 
> nations, particularly those in distress, valuing biographies about women), 
> look fringe.
>
> /a
>
>
>
>
>

I have a really hard time accepting on good faith that the themes of the annual 
report were etched in stone in October, or that refugees, freedom of travel and 
immigration and "true facts" were the main thematic elements at that time with 
no additional emphasis added since. Even if that were completely true in all 
respects, the report was not issued in October, it was issued in 
February/March. These themes are political now; there is no space for claiming 
otherwise, and Zach's post did not try.

I totally understand that people at the Foundation who are working hard and 
doing their best to always do the right thing, to serve the right mission and 
to please the right people feel attacked by criticism and complaints that they 
have failed. But the Foundation courts controversy when it jumps into political 
debates and involves itself in subject matter that is further and further from 
its core educational mission, and I hope that your leadership isn't surprised 
that criticism and complaints from some quarters are the result.

I think your insinuation that people 

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

[Peter Southwood]

If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is 
either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending 
politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the 
time of publishing.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Chris Keating
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 12:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

So my 2p:

The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of each 
topic.

I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with different 
standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly natural.

But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things  (half of 
which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that does 
read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to give 
Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.

Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem to 
believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue  our mission is 
fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots at him.

Chris
(The Land)



On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers < 
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem 
> with
the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites 
> increased by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in 
> the same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence 
> was about a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly 
> activity. So
it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But 
> the stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From 
> my knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw 
> downloads of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. 
> Any of those would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile 
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for 
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from December 
2015 ).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious 
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and 
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ 
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact the 
last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews dashboard 
maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George William Herbert]

I agree with Pine's comments.  Lots of good things happening and great content, 
and that should not be minimized in all this.  If I left that impression then 
my apologies to the content creators and annual report staff on those points.


-george 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Speaking generally, I think that telling stories about Wikimedia content
> and platforms, and how content is created, delivered, or used, are all
> likely to be compatible with WMF's mission when the stories are written in
> an NPOV way. I must have missed the link to Andreas' arctic photography,
> but I can imagine how a story about a Wikimedian's work taking photos of
> icebergs and arctic wildlife could be written in such a way as to be
> compatible with the WMF mission to share knowledge of factual information
> (as opposed to analyses of that information or advocacy to take political
> action based on that information). Similarly, a story about the use of
> Wikimedia resources to assist refugees could likely be written in a way
> that is NPOV and compatible with the mission to share knowledge.
> 
> WMF, the affiliates, and the communities do good work that is not advocacy,
> and informs discussions of public interest, and contributes to the public
> good. I think that sharing those stories can likely be done in a way that
> is compatible with the WMF mission.
> 
> Pine
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
>>> issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
>>> 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
>>> ?
>>> [1] 
>>> Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.
>> 
>> It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and
>> presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly
>> communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and
>> fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to
>> enable many communities to collect and develop educational content.
>> 
>> If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to
>> shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the
>> organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to
>> promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts
>> about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than
>> communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers
>> alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately
>> conservative about its own role.
>> 
>> I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
>> Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
>> change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
>> politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
>> such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
>> control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
>> tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
>> WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world.
>> 
>> I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic
>> photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks
>> like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern
>> about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those
>> stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report?
>> 
>> Erik
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image
or comply with the license before legal action is taken.

Peter does this work better
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=gbs_navlinks_s

J

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

>  Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
>
> I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to
> attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James
> mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
> quite right.
>
> If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
> about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith
> effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
> acceptable.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Todd,
> >
> > as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> > wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
> indeed
> > what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> > (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
> > that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
> the
> > license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
> > that use, and they send them a bill.
> >
> > If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
> > caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
> still
> > be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
> > you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
> which
> > is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
> >
> > The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers
> to
> > attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> > images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
> > using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
> >
> > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> > discussion)
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :
> >
> > > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> > acknowledgement
> > > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> > >
> > > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a
> caption.
> > It
> > > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
> can
> > > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very
> minimal
> > > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > > material.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > > > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > > > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> > > >
> > > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > > > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last
> 10
> > > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > > > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > > > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > > > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > > > sides.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > > > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> > Wolf_im_Wald
> > > > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

[James Heilman]

Yes surveys are useful if set up properly. Having a group of volunteers
interested in doing this work would be amazing. Not seeing why we could not
manage this in house. Surveys could be developed collaboratively on meta.

James

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I agree with the general concepts raised here, far too many surveys (in
> general, not pointing fingers at anyone specific)are appallingly badly set
> up, with leading questions, irrelevant options, insufficient options etc.
> Much of this could be avoided by extra scrutiny before finalisation.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Cardy
> Sent: Sunday, 26 February 2017 2:44 PM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community
> opinion
>
> I'm keen on surveys, used to work in that line a few years ago, and the
> first we did was I think at least in part a response to a proposal I made
> on the 2009 Strategy wiki. In hindsight the big mistakes of that survey
> were that we didn't repeat it annually, and the lack of community input in
> setting and analysing the questions.
>
> I'm not convinced that we need to move to a monthly survey, I could live
> with quarterly but still prefer annual as the ideal interval - long enough
> to avoid survey fatigue, short enough that we can plan around it and use it
> to answer questions worth addressing. As for recruiting people, make it
> annual and I'd hope we could get consensus for a site notice. I'd like that
> site notice to be tailored to ask different and relevant questions based on
> people's number of edits. - not much point asking someone with less than a
> 1000 edits if they are an admin.
>
> The place to set the questions is on meta, not on some external site.
>
> There are of course biases in self reported surveys, there could even be a
> seasonal bias, but biases tend to even out as your sample size grows, and
> an annual survey of the editing community could get a very high turnout.
> Also biases don't necessarily hide trends, provided the biases are
> consistent. If we were doing an annual survey of the editing community I
> suspect we wouldn't need many years before we knew whether our gender skew
> was stable, growing or improving.
>
> As well as the gender skew, it would be good to have an updated age
> profile of the community. We still sometimes see people referring to
> teenage admins without realising that the adolescents who were our youngest
> crats and admins ten years ago are now mostly graduates. I suspect that a
> new survey would confirm the theory of the greying of the pedia - our
> growing number of silver surfers combined with our near total failure to
> recruit very active editors from tablet/smartphone only users means that
> the average age of our most active editors is going up by more than a year
> a year.
>
> I'm happy with most of Will's suggestions re questions, but instead of
> date people started editing you really want month or quarter to keep the
> survey anonymous. On smaller wikis that would need to be year.
>
> It would also be good to survey former editors and particularly those who
> left after only a brief period of activity. We have a long tail of people
> who probably don't consider themselves Wikipedians but who have fixed one
> or two things while they are reading Wikipedia. But we also have a huge
> attrition rate among editors who have started out and done 50 or 500 edits.
> Many will have gone because sourcing edits is too much like hard work,
> their view on notability was different to ours or because they couldn't
> work out how to deal with an edit conflict. But it would be good to get an
> idea of the ratio between those main reasons, and also to find out if there
> are other significant reasons for losing goodfaith newbies.
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:18:47 -0700
> > From: Bill Takatoshi 
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community
> >   opinion
> > Message-ID:
> >   

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

[Nathan]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> I want to thank everyone for offering their considered thoughts. I mean
> that genuinely. There are many legitimate views expressed in this thread,
> many by generous, constructive, wise, and delightful members of our
> communities. That's good.
>
> And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
>
> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
> actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that. *And*
> the cumulative impact of the way people at the Foundation get this feedback
> begins to feel like public, collective punishment. And that dynamic, one
> that we all tend to participate in, is driving talented people away from
> the foundation.
>
> Now some here may not care about that. Some of us think there is no point
> to the foundation anyway, so it's great that talent wants to walk.
>
> Others may believe that I am saying that "we should all just be kind" and
> that I am terribly polyannish (of course I am, I work in HR) and that I am
> saying that we should not tell each other difficult truths. But that's a
> forced false choice. I'm decidedly not saying that we should not tell one
> another difficult truths. I'm saying that when we add it all up the way we
> tell each other the truth has damaging effects on many people I talk
> to—employees, volunteers from around the world, board members... and it
> hits women and minorities particularly hard. No one single person intends
> for it to be so. Of course they don't. But add it all up, put it out in
> public, everyone chimes in, and overall morale goes down the toilet.
>
> What do we do? How can we find ways to tell each other difficult truths
> while remembering that we are talking about and to *people *in public and
> in large groups?
>
> ---
> As a separate issue and a different interpretation on how this report
> likely came about...
>
> In this report 3/11 fact stories are about issues that have become
> politicized. (Yes, sadly I included some facts about biographies of women
> political). If travel is also a political issue now, I think I’m glad they
> legalized cannabis in this state.
>
> But imagine it is October. Sure, Brexit has happened and large portions of
> the world are closing, not opening. There is a turn away from a global
> mindset and a turning toward clamping down on freedoms. But a good portion
> of Americans believe that we don't really have anything to worry about.
>
> The Comms team begins writing a report. If Hillary Clinton had won, it's
> likely that these would not have looked so terribly much like political
> statements. It may have looked like a normal affirmation of acceptable
> values (because, 3/11). But America went another direction and now things
> that could have been considered normalish suddenly look like a shot fired
> round the world.
>
> I'm not saying that this makes any of the legitimate views expressed here
> invalid. I'm just saying that the context has changed radically. Some of
> that change now makes acceptable values (valuing the scientific method /
> valuing climate science, valuing people of other nations, particularly
> those in distress, valuing biographies about women), look fringe.
>
> /a
>
>
>
>
>

I have a really hard time accepting on good faith that the themes of the
annual report were etched in stone in October, or that refugees, freedom of
travel and immigration and "true facts" were the main thematic elements at
that time with no additional emphasis added since. Even if that were
completely true in all respects, the report was not issued in October, it
was issued in February/March. These themes are political now; there is no
space for claiming otherwise, and Zach's post did not try.

I totally understand that people at the Foundation who are working hard and
doing their best to always do the right thing, to serve the right mission
and to please the right people feel attacked by criticism and complaints
that they have failed. But the Foundation courts controversy when it jumps
into political debates and involves itself in subject matter that is
further and further from its core educational mission, and I hope that your
leadership isn't surprised that criticism and complaints from some quarters
are the result.

I think your insinuation that people objecting to political statements by
the WMF object to the values of the scientific method, climate science,
"valuing people" etc. verges on insulting. We can share those values
without believing that the WMF is the right vehicle or context for
expressing them or that doing so benefits the WMF's core mission as we
understand it.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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

[Samuel Klein]

A gracious, substantive, thorough & fast response to public feedback...
I find your methods intriguing and would like to subscribe to your
newsletter.

Thank you, Zack.
SJ

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Zachary McCune 
wrote:

> Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1]
>
> SJ, Florence, George,  you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration
> for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet
> that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much
> earlier this year (planning will begin in April) so we are well positioned
> to gather more input and direction on the next iteration. Activity will be
> linked on Meta.[2] Florence, this is also where we post the full site
> content when it is final (which is not quite true at present) so it is
> available for translation.
>
> I also want to directly engage and act on some of the ideas presented here
> for how to improve the Annual Report site.
>
> First, on fact ordering, we are going to make “Wikipedia is update 350
> times a minute” the first fact displayed. Great idea Florence, and one that
> better articulates what we want to impart: our volunteers are active,
> Wikipedia is a living thing, and facts are constantly checked.
>
> Second, on photography, we are going to change the photo that accompanies
> the travel fact. We hear and understand that this photo has overstepped the
> mark. Moreover, we are fortunate to work with millions of freely-licensed
> alternatives so… expect a change.
>
> Third, on fact-checking ourselves. SJ, going forward we will take you up on
> that offer and find fact-checkers outside the Foundation. Risker, you are
> right, we already know where we can find some. I will detail that coming
> into this Report, we have had 40+ reviewers from across departments,
> cultures, and experiences in an effort to do proper due diligence. We can
> do better, so we will.
>
> Many have reached out to me asking how we can facilitate a more
> participatory, and active review cycle for the next report. Keep those
> ideas coming. We are up for it.
>
> Also SJ, on the travel stat, we were using the CNN source that interprets
> the UNWTO data you are citing.[3] Let’s discuss this off-thread, I want to
> make sure we have our math clear here and can confirm CNN is in error.
>
> Generally, the site can offer more explicit citations. Nearly all of the
> facts are cited within the stories that contextualize them, but we will go
> through and see what can be further emphasized.
>
> On Report promotion, we have paused site banners entirely to allow this
> conversation to continue. Yair, I pinged you about this in response to your
> Village Pump discussion. Our Piwik analytics show that around 8,000 people
> visited the site yesterday to give some idea on the current reach of the
> Report.
>
> Both the Foundation and the Communications team are listening, working, and
> acting.
>
> Thank you for working with us. Thanks for *thinking* with us.
>
>-
>
>Zack
>
>
>
> [1] http://emojipedia.org/call-me-hand/
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Annual_Report
>
> [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/travel/international-tourists-2015/
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> > >
> >
> > It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
> >
> > * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> > decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> > supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the
> references).
> > This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> > notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> > exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> > which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate
> themselves.
> >
> > * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct
> answer
> > (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project
> such
> > as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> > explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> > Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> > because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> > categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> > motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> > sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> > deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, 

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

[Pine W]

Hi Eric,

Speaking generally, I think that telling stories about Wikimedia content
and platforms, and how content is created, delivered, or used, are all
likely to be compatible with WMF's mission when the stories are written in
an NPOV way. I must have missed the link to Andreas' arctic photography,
but I can imagine how a story about a Wikimedian's work taking photos of
icebergs and arctic wildlife could be written in such a way as to be
compatible with the WMF mission to share knowledge of factual information
(as opposed to analyses of that information or advocacy to take political
action based on that information). Similarly, a story about the use of
Wikimedia resources to assist refugees could likely be written in a way
that is NPOV and compatible with the mission to share knowledge.

WMF, the affiliates, and the communities do good work that is not advocacy,
and informs discussions of public interest, and contributes to the public
good. I think that sharing those stories can likely be done in a way that
is compatible with the WMF mission.

Pine


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior
>  wrote:
>
> > As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
> > issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
> > 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
> > ?
> > [1] 
> > Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.
>
> It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and
> presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly
> communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and
> fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to
> enable many communities to collect and develop educational content.
>
> If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to
> shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the
> organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to
> promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts
> about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than
> communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers
> alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately
> conservative about its own role.
>
> I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
> Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
> change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
> politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
> such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
> control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
> tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
> WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world.
>
> I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic
> photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks
> like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern
> about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those
> stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report?
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stuart Prior
 wrote:

> As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
> issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
> 97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
> ?
> [1] 
> Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.

It isn't, but I think it's still worth thinking about context and
presentation. There are organizations whose job it is to directly
communicate facts, both journalistic orgs like ProPublica and
fact-checkers like Snopes/Politifact. In contrast, WMF's job is to
enable many communities to collect and develop educational content.

If the scientific consensus on climate change suddenly starts to
shift, we expect our projects to reflect that, and we expect that the
organization doesn't get involved in those community processes to
promote a specific outcome. The more WMF directly communicates facts
about the world (especially politicized ones), rather than
communicating _about_ facts, the more people (editors and readers
alike) may question whether the organization is appropriately
conservative about its own role.

I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world.

I do think stories like the refugee phrasebook and Andreas' arctic
photography are amazing and worth telling. I'm curious whether folks
like Risker, George, Pine, Chris, and others who've expressed concern
about the report agree with that. If so, how would you tell those
stories in the context of, e.g., an Annual Report?

Erik

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Jytdog at Wikipedia]

Just a quick note on the 350 edits per minute.  Zach described that
somewhat as "facts are constantly checked."

In general many edits are vandalism and add false, defamatory, or nonsense
content, and many edits add content that may or may not be factual
(unsourced or otherwise flaky).   Wikipedia is is living thing.  Living
things are constantly fending off predators or parasites or just random,
damaging interactions or events... constantly repairing and recovering even
as they try to grow or just stay alive.

Of course, many edits are good, too.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Zachary McCune 
wrote:

> Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1]
>
> SJ, Florence, George,  you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration
> for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet
> that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much
> earlier this year (planning will begin in April) so we are well positioned
> to gather more input and direction on the next iteration. Activity will be
> linked on Meta.[2] Florence, this is also where we post the full site
> content when it is final (which is not quite true at present) so it is
> available for translation.
>
> I also want to directly engage and act on some of the ideas presented here
> for how to improve the Annual Report site.
>
> First, on fact ordering, we are going to make “Wikipedia is update 350
> times a minute” the first fact displayed. Great idea Florence, and one that
> better articulates what we want to impart: our volunteers are active,
> Wikipedia is a living thing, and facts are constantly checked.
>
> Second, on photography, we are going to change the photo that accompanies
> the travel fact. We hear and understand that this photo has overstepped the
> mark. Moreover, we are fortunate to work with millions of freely-licensed
> alternatives so… expect a change.
>
> Third, on fact-checking ourselves. SJ, going forward we will take you up on
> that offer and find fact-checkers outside the Foundation. Risker, you are
> right, we already know where we can find some. I will detail that coming
> into this Report, we have had 40+ reviewers from across departments,
> cultures, and experiences in an effort to do proper due diligence. We can
> do better, so we will.
>
> Many have reached out to me asking how we can facilitate a more
> participatory, and active review cycle for the next report. Keep those
> ideas coming. We are up for it.
>
> Also SJ, on the travel stat, we were using the CNN source that interprets
> the UNWTO data you are citing.[3] Let’s discuss this off-thread, I want to
> make sure we have our math clear here and can confirm CNN is in error.
>
> Generally, the site can offer more explicit citations. Nearly all of the
> facts are cited within the stories that contextualize them, but we will go
> through and see what can be further emphasized.
>
> On Report promotion, we have paused site banners entirely to allow this
> conversation to continue. Yair, I pinged you about this in response to your
> Village Pump discussion. Our Piwik analytics show that around 8,000 people
> visited the site yesterday to give some idea on the current reach of the
> Report.
>
> Both the Foundation and the Communications team are listening, working, and
> acting.
>
> Thank you for working with us. Thanks for *thinking* with us.
>
>-
>
>Zack
>
>
>
> [1] http://emojipedia.org/call-me-hand/
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Annual_Report
>
> [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/travel/international-tourists-2015/
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> > >
> >
> > It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
> >
> > * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> > decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> > supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the
> references).
> > This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> > notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> > exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> > which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate
> themselves.
> >
> > * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct
> answer
> > (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project
> such
> > as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> > explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> > Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for 

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

[Zachary McCune]

Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1]

SJ, Florence, George,  you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration
for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet
that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much
earlier this year (planning will begin in April) so we are well positioned
to gather more input and direction on the next iteration. Activity will be
linked on Meta.[2] Florence, this is also where we post the full site
content when it is final (which is not quite true at present) so it is
available for translation.

I also want to directly engage and act on some of the ideas presented here
for how to improve the Annual Report site.

First, on fact ordering, we are going to make “Wikipedia is update 350
times a minute” the first fact displayed. Great idea Florence, and one that
better articulates what we want to impart: our volunteers are active,
Wikipedia is a living thing, and facts are constantly checked.

Second, on photography, we are going to change the photo that accompanies
the travel fact. We hear and understand that this photo has overstepped the
mark. Moreover, we are fortunate to work with millions of freely-licensed
alternatives so… expect a change.

Third, on fact-checking ourselves. SJ, going forward we will take you up on
that offer and find fact-checkers outside the Foundation. Risker, you are
right, we already know where we can find some. I will detail that coming
into this Report, we have had 40+ reviewers from across departments,
cultures, and experiences in an effort to do proper due diligence. We can
do better, so we will.

Many have reached out to me asking how we can facilitate a more
participatory, and active review cycle for the next report. Keep those
ideas coming. We are up for it.

Also SJ, on the travel stat, we were using the CNN source that interprets
the UNWTO data you are citing.[3] Let’s discuss this off-thread, I want to
make sure we have our math clear here and can confirm CNN is in error.

Generally, the site can offer more explicit citations. Nearly all of the
facts are cited within the stories that contextualize them, but we will go
through and see what can be further emphasized.

On Report promotion, we have paused site banners entirely to allow this
conversation to continue. Yair, I pinged you about this in response to your
Village Pump discussion. Our Piwik analytics show that around 8,000 people
visited the site yesterday to give some idea on the current reach of the
Report.

Both the Foundation and the Communications team are listening, working, and
acting.

Thank you for working with us. Thanks for *thinking* with us.

   -

   Zack



[1] http://emojipedia.org/call-me-hand/

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Annual_Report

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/travel/international-tourists-2015/


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> >
>
> It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
>
> * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
> This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.
>
> * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
> (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
> as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
> sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
>
> Leila
>
>
> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
> heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
> you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> 

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

[Leila Zia]

Hi Gerard,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
>

It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:

* Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.

* In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
(at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]

Leila


[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
[2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
meet in person. :)


> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia 
>
> > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> things
> > I think  Synthesis>
> > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> >
> > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016
> was
> > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> refugee
> > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> >
> > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need
> to
> > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind
> for
> > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> >
> > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides,
> but
> > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> >
> > Mz7
> >
> > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this
> > page in a nutshell”)
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> > politics only until they affect you directly.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> > >
> > > 

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

[Chris Keating]

So my 2p:

The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of
each topic.

I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with
different standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly
natural.

But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things  (half
of which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that
does read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to
give Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.

Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem
to believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue  our mission
is fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots
at him.

Chris
(The Land)



On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with
the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So
it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Tilman Bayer]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

If you stand far enough to the right, everyone has a left bias.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
George William Herbert
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"



On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

>> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
> 
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence supporting 
> it.
> 
>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community 
>> and organizational motives.
> 
> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear 
> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some 
> Wikipedia content dispute?


Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia which 
in no small part claims we have a left bias.

We are always able to come back and point to (usually) functional neutrality.  
But then we go and do this.


-george

Sent from my iPhone


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.

No, we do not have to show the other side when this is based on a lie. We
can inform about the lie but it is not as if we have to present it for
anything but a lie.
Thanks,
 GerardM


Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia 

> I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the things
> I think 
> is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
>
> The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was
> the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the refugee
> crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
>
> We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to
> find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind for
> me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
>
> In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides, but
> should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
>
> Mz7
>
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this
> page in a nutshell”)
>
> > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> politics only until they affect you directly.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> >
> > Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here
> to get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get
> so overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too
> worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics
> presented.
> >
> > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before
> I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get
> my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the
> level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have
> been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
> staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
> been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
> restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
> visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are known
> to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is
> being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
> would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
> > 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since
> Buenos Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I
> would like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other
> Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.
> >
> > Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with
> the second sentence:
> >
> >
> > *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> > This needs a time element, 

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

[James Salsman]

>>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community 
>>> and organizational motives.
>>
>> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
>> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
>> Wikipedia content dispute?
>
> Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia 
> which in no small part claims we have a left bias.

We get the exact same thing from both sides:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikipedia-accused-of-us-centric-bias-3039292772/

http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2012/05/how-right-wingers-took-over-wikipedia.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-battle-for-wikipedia/

Do you think the side vociferously opposed to scientific consensus
makes the more compelling case?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Stuart Prior]

​My 2¢​ The avoidance of politically sensitive issues is not the same as
being politically neutral.

Political neutrality isn’t about shifting your politics to wherever your
local Overton window currently sits. It involves a longer, broader, global
view of what accepted political norms are.

Political neutrality also sits in relation to your movement’s or
organisation’s other values, which shouldn’t be compromised or undermined
for the sake of maintaining it.

As an example, anthropogenic climate change is a politically sensitive
issue, but how can a consensus-driven movement not take into account that
97% of climate scientists acknowledge its existence
​?​
[1] 
Accepting a scientific consensus just isn’t a political position.

And child refugees. They are politically sensitive in light of the current
situation of various government’s policies on accepting them. But the
rights of the child are internationally agreed upon and have been for
decades, in treaties such as UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
 there
is consensus on basic things like a child’s right to education, with a
special focus on child refugees. Omitting to talk about your work on the
above topics accepts a narrative of controversy about the issues that is
quite extreme.

Our movement values neutrality, but it also values evidence and consensus.
If following the two latter principles leads WMF to a position where it is
not politically neutral, I’d suggest it is not WMF that has adopted an
extreme or partisan position. Thinking
​ ​
longer term, and more globally,
​
seems
​ ​
sensible here.

​S​


On 2 March 2017 at 20:08, George William Herbert 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> >> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
> >
> > Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence
> supporting it.
> >
> >> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our
> community and organizational motives.
> >
> > Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
> > exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
> > Wikipedia content dispute?
>
>
> Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia
> which in no small part claims we have a left bias.
>
> We are always able to come back and point to (usually) functional
> neutrality.  But then we go and do this.
>
>
> -george
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Stuart Prior*
*Project Coordinator*
*Wikimedia UK*
+44 20 7065 0990

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George William Herbert]

On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

>> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
> 
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence supporting 
> it.
> 
>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community 
>> and organizational motives.
> 
> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
> Wikipedia content dispute?


Surely you haven't missed the spectrum of external criticism of Wikipedia which 
in no small part claims we have a left bias.

We are always able to come back and point to (usually) functional neutrality.  
But then we go and do this.


-george

Sent from my iPhone


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Perhaps we could refer this question to the Advancement department.  Does
appealing for money for one thing and spending it on another damage the
Foundation's ability to raise funds in the future?

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:13 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> > politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
>
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence
> supporting it.
>
> > It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our
> community and organizational motives.
>
> Are there any actual reasons to believe that such distrust and fear
> exists apart from those upset about being on the losing end of some
> Wikipedia content dispute?
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George William Herbert]

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:22 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 
> I note this discussion is leaning "I totally am not offended myself,
> but unspecified others might be." I think some posters need to own
> their own discomfort more.
> 
> The trouble with liberality is a tendency to shy away from wishing to
> assert oneself even when actually it's quite important.

*I* an engaged and asserting myself on these issues and in support of 
appropriate organizations in each area.

The WMF is not the appropriate organization to do that.  It detracts from what 
the WMF is chartered to do for it to go rolling in the mud with the pigs on 
specific issues not related to creating and maximally sharing neutral 
encyclopedic knowledge.

We have enough problems in the core mission, communities, and Foundation that 
we're no good at solving yet.  I do not want the Foundation going off mission.  
We haven't got the mission solved yet, and going off mission into politics 
damages our brand in real and serious ways.

No matter how much I agree with all the specific positions implied, it was 
wrong to go there.

It may feel good, but it's a net negative to neutral and conservative readers 
and our position in the US social and political spectrum to move off 
organizational neutrality.  Liberals don't need us patting them on the head 
saying we agree with their views.  It's more ammunition for everyone else's 
distrust and fear of our community and organizational motives.

-george

Sent from my iPhone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Joseph Seddon]

This list is *a* community but it certainly does not constitute The
Community™ nor are we the community affected by this code of conduct.

I suggest raising this in venues appropriate to the particular community in
question, in this case the technical community. Before bringing this topic
here it would have been far more appropriate to raise your concerns on a
more aligned mailing list such as wikitech-l. All of whom would be affected
by the code of conduct and who have been notified regularly about it.

I also suggest you keep in mind that the technical community does have a
higher percentage of staff members from many organisations in comparison to
the number of volunteers. Simply being staff members does not preclude them
from being a part of that community and does not preclude their ability to
participate in their own self-governance.

It would be hypercritical of us if we as the wikimedia-l list were to
parachute into the governance of a community relatively few of us are a
part of.

Seddon



On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> This assumes the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
> which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
> nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
> from forum shopping.
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> > I'm not asking Matt.  I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very
> > list.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Rogol,
> >>
> >> Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect. Try
> >> asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page.
> >>
> >> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it
> more
> >> difficult than it is already, OK?
> >>
> >> Pine
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct
> for
> >> > Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
> >> > explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in
> >> force.
> >> > Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that,
> >> andI
> >> > there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly
> have
> >> > any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
> >> >
> >> > Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?
> >> >
> >> > "Rogol"
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

David

Forum shopping is usually considered to be taking an issue from one forum
to another hoping to get the answer you want.  I do not believe I have
raised this question in any other forum.  I hope that helps you make the
distinction your are having difficulty with.  Please explain what you
believe to be the relevant community and where you would expect to
publicise these issues in order to engage with them.

If the Code is to be imposed by WMF fiat, then this forum seems an
approrpiate place for the Foundation to publish their instructions.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> This assumes the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
> which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
> nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
> from forum shopping.
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> > I'm not asking Matt.  I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very
> > list.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Rogol,
> >>
> >> Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect. Try
> >> asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page.
> >>
> >> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it
> more
> >> difficult than it is already, OK?
> >>
> >> Pine
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct
> for
> >> > Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
> >> > explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in
> >> force.
> >> > Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that,
> >> andI
> >> > there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly
> have
> >> > any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
> >> >
> >> > Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?
> >> >
> >> > "Rogol"
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[David Gerard]

This assumes the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
from forum shopping.

On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> I'm not asking Matt.  I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very
> list.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Rogol,
>>
>> Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect. Try
>> asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page.
>>
>> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it more
>> difficult than it is already, OK?
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for
>> > Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
>> > explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in
>> force.
>> > Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that,
>> andI
>> > there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly have
>> > any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
>> >
>> > Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?
>> >
>> > "Rogol"
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[David Gerard]

On 2 March 2017 at 12:07, Steinsplitter Wiki
 wrote:

> This WMF Annual Report has imho a obvious political connotation. Wikimedia 
> should remain politically neutral in any regard. WP:POV;


In 2017, literally the concept of factual information is an active
matter of political dispute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

I note this discussion is leaning "I totally am not offended myself,
but unspecified others might be." I think some posters need to own
their own discomfort more.

The trouble with liberality is a tendency to shy away from wishing to
assert oneself even when actually it's quite important.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I'm not asking Matt.  I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very
list.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect. Try
> asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page.
>
> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it more
> difficult than it is already, OK?
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for
> > Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
> > explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in
> force.
> > Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that,
> andI
> > there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly have
> > any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
> >
> > Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Florence Devouard]

Thanks for jumping in Zach.

Good explanations and contextual background. Thanks.

Bunch of suggestions for fixes and small improvement (sourcing, legend) 
have been offered on this list by others. Good.



I have another easy to implement suggestion that might help to decrease 
potential confusion.


Currently, the default fact displayed at the top of the fact page and on 
every other page is the "half of refugees are of school-age".


Typically, this fact is not so obviously related to Wikipedia and it is 
probably a bit confusing to see it appear so proeminently in the annual 
report.


When jumping into the fact page, the refugee fact is still at the top 
and followed by the global warming one (maybe again not so Wikipedia 
obviously related)


Maybe a pick for the default top fact, more directly related to 
Wikipedia, would have been a good idea, such as "most wikipedia articles 
are in languages other than English" or "wikipedia is updated 350 times 
per minute".


I think the "wikipedia is updated 350 times per minute" might be the one 
which makes the more sense to put first as it explains faked news concept.


In short... maybe reshuffling the order of "facts" and choosing another 
default one.



What do you think ? Makes sense ? Or was there a specific thought behind 
putting the refugee first ? (aside from putting a pict of children that is).


And adding perhaps a one-liner to explain this "facts" approach.


A question... is translation of the annual report considered ?

Florence


PS: Otherwise, I think Risker makes a good point.


Le 02/03/2017 à 02:26, Zachary McCune a écrit :

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 
Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Le 02/03/2017 à 01:15, Erik Moeller a écrit :


On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Todd Allen]

 Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to
attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James
mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
quite right.

If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith
effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
acceptable.

Todd

On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
> what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
> that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
> license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
> that use, and they send them a bill.
>
> If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
> caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
> be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
> you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
> is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
>
> The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
> attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
> using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
>
> (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> discussion)
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :
>
> > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> acknowledgement
> > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> >
> > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption.
> It
> > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > material.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> > >
> > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > > work.
> > >
> > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> Wolf_im_Wald
> > > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-
> abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > > interview-mit-simplicius/
> > >
> > > best
> > > rupert
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Hi Todd,

as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
(presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
that use, and they send them a bill.

If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.

The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.

(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
discussion)

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

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

[Mz7 Wikipedia]

I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is to 
say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible). One of 
our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many different 
perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the things I think 
 is trying to 
get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in politics, or even to 
declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the politics and to explain what 
different people think the truth is.

The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so, I 
think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the letters 
from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was the hottest 
year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound good on the 
surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid complexity" of the 
issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are school-age” isn’t significant 
to someone who already recognizes the refugee crisis’s impact on families, but 
is concerned about, say, the effects of taking in refugees on a nation’s 
economy.

We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to find 
a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the diversity of 
opinions, that we value working together to understand each others’ opinions 
and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind for me is linking 
directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If Wikipedia is truly 
the place that is "there when you need factual information, not opinion or 
advocacy” [1], why not show it off?

In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides, but 
should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to 
both what you say and how you say it.” [2]

Mz7

[1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this page 
in a nutshell”)

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood  
> wrote:
> 
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
> civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics 
> only until they affect you directly. 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of WereSpielChequers
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> 
> Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to get 
> away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so 
> overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too 
> worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics 
> presented.
> 
> I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I 
> wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get my 
> wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this movement. The 
> concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the level of fuss 
> the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have been unable to 
> get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF staff were caught by 
> the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have been unable to attend 
> Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa restrictions. It wouldn't 
> surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused visas to attend Wikimania in DC 
> whilst Obama was President than are known to have been caught by the Trump 
> ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is being political, or that it cares 
> more about staff than volunteers; neither would be a good message. One of the 
> good things about South Africa as the
> 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos 
> Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would 
> like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other Wikimania 
> in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.
> 
> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the 
> second sentence:
> 
> 
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites increased 
> by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the 
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about a 
> whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it 
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the stats 
> it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my knowledge of 
> the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads of 170m a day or 
> week or unique 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Peter Southwood]

I cant get there through your link, maybe something is happening
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
James Heilman
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 4:47 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on 
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100

They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a CC 
BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and are 
selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out to them 
and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.

Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we should 
ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they refuse than we 
should follow through with enforcement.

James

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an 
> acknowledgement to the person who graciously let you use their work totally 
> free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a 
> caption. It takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC 
> licensed. I can see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do 
> these very minimal things in exchange for a rich library of free (as 
> in speech and beer) material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who 
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas 
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which 
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs 
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own) 
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people 
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small 
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even 
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, 
> > the discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the 
> > last 10 years. a digital divide between persons supporting the 
> > original mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, 
> > unrestricted, as success, and the ones who think it is not desired 
> > to incorrectly reference, or feel that others should not make money 
> > out of their work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in 
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses 
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to 
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a 
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both 
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and 
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more, 
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both 
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] 
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] 
> > https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100

They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a
CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out
to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.

Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.

James

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gordon Joly]

On 02/03/17 13:55, David Gerard wrote:
> There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not
> personally reminded of the discomfort of others".
> 
> 
> - d.


Channelling Margaret Thatcher, David?

:-)

Gordo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gordon Joly]

On 02/03/17 13:30, Peter Southwood wrote:
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
> civilisation. 
>Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics only
until they affect you directly.
> Cheers,
> Peter


The real world (laws and customs) has always be the supervisor of the
virtual world.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Vi to]

In short, wiki projects existence itself is a political act.
Furthermore, it's a "liberal" (in wide sense) political act: you may
attribute values as free and universal access to knowledge to various
political factions, but these values are the founding principle of this
virtual place.

Also, even neutrality is a political act. Without bringing Orwell into our
small mess, *aiming at* saying the truth (or whatever it might be) becomes
a revolutionary act.

I may agree some wordings/choices are questionable in consideration of
WMF's mission but neutrality is not algebraic zero. Actually neutrality
implies protecting our interests.


Vito

2017-03-02 14:55 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :

> On 2 March 2017 at 13:30, Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
> > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> politics only until they affect you directly.
>
>
> Well, yes. Who are these people with lives of such privilege that they
> don't have to think about politics?
>
> Literally everything Wikimedia has ever done is heavily political.
> Here in 2017, the following are political:
>
> * scientific fact
> * acknowledging scientific fact
> * spreading knowledge without permission
> * the fact of education
> * availability of education
>
> That's just going off what's come out of the White House in the last
> month, off the top of my head.
>
> There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not
> personally reminded of the discomfort of others".
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[David Gerard]

On 2 March 2017 at 13:30, Peter Southwood  wrote:
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
> civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics 
> only until they affect you directly.


Well, yes. Who are these people with lives of such privilege that they
don't have to think about politics?

Literally everything Wikimedia has ever done is heavily political.
Here in 2017, the following are political:

* scientific fact
* acknowledging scientific fact
* spreading knowledge without permission
* the fact of education
* availability of education

That's just going off what's come out of the White House in the last
month, off the top of my head.

There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not
personally reminded of the discomfort of others".


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Todd Allen]

The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.

It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
material.

Todd

On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:

> on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>
> but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> work.
>
> as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> sides.
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> interview-mit-simplicius/
>
> best
> rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with 
civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics 
only until they affect you directly. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
WereSpielChequers
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to get 
away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so overtly 
political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too worry how 
unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics presented.

I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I wound 
up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get my wife a 
visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this movement. The concern 
about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the level of fuss the WMF has 
made in the past about the many people who have been unable to get visas to 
attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF staff were caught by the travel 
ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have been unable to attend Wikimanias in the 
last few years due to visa restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more 
Wikimedians were refused visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was 
President than are known to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either 
looks like the WMF is being political, or that it cares more about staff than 
volunteers; neither would be a good message. One of the good things about South 
Africa as the
2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos 
Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would like 
to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other Wikimania in 
countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.

Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the 
second sentence:


*Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites increased by 
170 million .*
This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the same 
league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about a whole 
year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it reads like 
an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the stats it links to 
imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my knowledge of the stats I 
suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads of 170m a day or week or 
unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those would actually be rather 
impressive.

Can I suggest that for next year there be a more community based process to 
write the next version of this.



WereSpielChequers


>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:51:04 -0500
> From: Risker 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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 

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

[WereSpielChequers]

Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to
get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so
overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too
worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics
presented.

I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I
wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get
my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the
level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have
been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are known
to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is
being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos
Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would
like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other
Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.

Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the
second sentence:


*Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
increased by 170 million .*
This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it
reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
would actually be rather impressive.

Can I suggest that for next year there be a more community based process to
write the next version of this.



WereSpielChequers


>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:51:04 -0500
> From: Risker 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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 

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

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Haven't seen the banner, but i think it is: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_South_Africa/SOPA=AR2016_ipd_long=en=1


Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag von 
Lodewijk 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 21:15
An: Wikimedia Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

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 :

> 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  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  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 

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

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

I agree with Florence.


This WMF Annual Report has imho a obvious political connotation. Wikimedia 
should remain politically neutral in any regard. WP:POV;


--Steinsplitter


Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag von 
Florence Devouard 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. März 2017 00:44
An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

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 :
>
>> 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  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  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 

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

[George William Herbert]

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 1:14 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> 
> On the contrary, the left-wing is the only source of credible,
> trustworthy, and bias-free information on a wide variety of topics
> such as climate change.  Equating neutrality with credibility and
> trustworthiness is a clear mistake, because political bias is not
> orthogonal to factual bias.

I think there's an excellent argument to be made as to the underlying factual 
validity of the stance(s).

None of which addresses the point that it's off mission and a distraction from 
the mission, and will attract even further off-mission criticism and attacks 
and resentment.

Someone out there (and not just a tiny minority) is going to disagree strongly 
with the position; I don't.  But I care that we made them our enemies here and 
in this manner.  I donate to and support the ACLU and immigration lawyer groups 
when I want to make those points.  The WMF picking this fight hurts the WMF.


-george


Sent from my iPhone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Craig Franklin]

I just wanted to add one last thing; thanks to Zachary McCune as well for
coming and engaging with the community on this.  I imagine that it may have
felt like marching into the jaws of the beast to come and deal with the
criticism, so I have to give him much respect for coming and engaging.  I
hope to see more of this rather than less in the future.

Cheers,
Craig

On 2 March 2017 at 19:09, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> Thanks for offering your thoughts on this (and I mean that sincerely).
> Lord knows that sometimes the temperature on this list and in other venues
> rises to a point where no communication of substance can occur, and all
> that is achieved is that everyone walks away with bruised egos and hurt
> feelings.  Obviously this is not good.
>
> But, let me turn around your email; it's also pretty demoralising for us
> on the other side of the equation when we're described as a bunch who
> 'wants great talent to walk' because we see 'no point to the foundation
> anyway'.  Especially in this particular thread where I see naught but
> respectful yet widespread criticism of the tone of some of the annual
> report.  I *know* you're not trying to shut down the discussion here, or
> retreat into a defensive position with your fingers stick in your ears, but
> that is what it *felt* like reading your email, and that is just as much a
> problem.
>
> I concur with you that the way that the community communicates with the
> Foundation needs to improve.  But from the Foundation's side, you need to
> make it easier for us to communicate in a constructive way.  That includes
> not having discussions around things like values sequestered away on some
> corner at Meta in a densely written essay that might be difficult for
> non-English speakers or those not familiar with the philosophical issues
> around values and corporate ethics to engage fully.
>
> To make this email not all doom-and-gloom, I want to agree with something
> that SJ said; the actual visual presentation and layout of the report is
> fantastic.  Very striking, easy to read, minimalist without being sparse.
> My hat is off to whomever in the Communication team was involved with that
> side of things.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:46, Anna Stillwell  wrote:
>
>> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
>> We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
>> actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that. *And*
>> the cumulative impact of the way people at the Foundation get this
>> feedback
>> begins to feel like public, collective punishment. And that dynamic, one
>> that we all tend to participate in, is driving talented people away from
>> the 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[James Salsman]

> Refugees ... don't have anything to do with the WMF

Someone forgot to tell that to the Foundation volunteers working on

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/24/refugee-phrasebook/

which is directly linked from that section of the Annual Report.

> messages like this "empower" only those who agree with them

Should the Mission be amended to exclude those who government
officials have decided are no longer allowed to have freedom of
movement across borders?

> This sort of thing can be pretty exclusionary and disempowering if
> you do not agree with the rather unsubtle political stances being taken.

Is there any actual evidence of this? People said the same thing about
the SOPA/PIPA protest, but there was no change to editing levels and
the responses from the community and donors were very strongly
positive when they were asked directly. There was just a familiar
vocal minority who were adamantly complaining that the Foundation's
purity of essence had been corrupted.

> 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.

On the contrary, the left-wing is the only source of credible,
trustworthy, and bias-free information on a wide variety of topics
such as climate change.  Equating neutrality with credibility and
trustworthiness is a clear mistake, because political bias is not
orthogonal to factual bias.

> imagine it is October The Comms team begins writing a report. If
> Hillary Clinton had won, it's likely that these would not have looked so
> terribly much like political statements. It may have looked like a normal
> affirmation of acceptable values But America went another direction
> and now things that could have been considered normalish suddenly
> look like a shot fired round the world.

Exactly; well put, Anna!

>  it's ultimately not mission aligned

This, again, is the real dispute, whether the word "empower" in the
Mission means anything about actual power beyond mere facilitation.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Anna,

Thanks for offering your thoughts on this (and I mean that sincerely).
Lord knows that sometimes the temperature on this list and in other venues
rises to a point where no communication of substance can occur, and all
that is achieved is that everyone walks away with bruised egos and hurt
feelings.  Obviously this is not good.

But, let me turn around your email; it's also pretty demoralising for us on
the other side of the equation when we're described as a bunch who 'wants
great talent to walk' because we see 'no point to the foundation anyway'.
Especially in this particular thread where I see naught but respectful yet
widespread criticism of the tone of some of the annual report.  I *know*
you're not trying to shut down the discussion here, or retreat into a
defensive position with your fingers stick in your ears, but that is what
it *felt* like reading your email, and that is just as much a problem.

I concur with you that the way that the community communicates with the
Foundation needs to improve.  But from the Foundation's side, you need to
make it easier for us to communicate in a constructive way.  That includes
not having discussions around things like values sequestered away on some
corner at Meta in a densely written essay that might be difficult for
non-English speakers or those not familiar with the philosophical issues
around values and corporate ethics to engage fully.

To make this email not all doom-and-gloom, I want to agree with something
that SJ said; the actual visual presentation and layout of the report is
fantastic.  Very striking, easy to read, minimalist without being sparse.
My hat is off to whomever in the Communication team was involved with that
side of things.

Cheers,
Craig

On 2 March 2017 at 17:46, Anna Stillwell  wrote:

> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
> actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that. *And*
> the cumulative impact of the way people at the Foundation get this feedback
> begins to feel like public, collective punishment. And that dynamic, one
> that we all tend to participate in, is driving talented people away from
> the 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George William Herbert]

My two cents.

I agree with the sentiments in the statement/report.

I don't feel comfortable seeing them from the WMF.  I would not be comfortable 
seeing them from a PBS mission statement or report, a Humane Society report, 
the Red Cross, ... ok, the ACLU has about said as much.  But I feel that the 
Foundation let "We are good people, these are good ideas" get a bit out of hand.

It's not political context.  It stands out a bit more but that's not the nature 
of the problem.

I don't want the WMF as ACLU-lite, or advocating for health like Medcin Sans 
Frontieres or the Red Cross, or doing everything for internet freedom the EFF 
does.

These things become contextually controversial, and attract negative attention. 
 Each one may individually be morally or mission justifiable, but you end up 
with a pattern generating controversy and attacks that are totally off axis to 
WMF's actual point of existence.  As Pine and others mentioned, it's ultimately 
not mission aligned, and that does add up and hurt us.

When we take mission aligned stances we have to and should and we are owning 
that value and any criticism that comes back.  That's our point.  That's our 
community fight and point of existence.  But we don't own human rights or 
immigration policy.  We may consensus agree on a good moral platform but we 
don't own the problem or solutions.

I understand that the planning process for this may have been open and public 
(have not looked myself yet but believe you).  But WP and WMF are *immense* and 
have more corners with stuff going on than any human can comprehend and follow 
even dedicated to it full time, which frankly most can't be.  Many unfortunate 
things are done in the open but practically escaping wide enough audience to 
get the peer review they really needed.  This is a community problem mostly but 
hit the Foundation here.


-george

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Anna Stillwell  wrote:
> 
> Pine,
> You and I have a call scheduled and we can begin to think together on this
> issue. Thank you.
> /a
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Anna,
>> 
>> Thanks for chiming in.
>> 
>> As someone who is personally feeling a lot of strain between myself and WMF
>> -- and I think I'm not the only one -- I would like to figure out how to do
>> something so that all of us can get on with mission-aligned work instead of
>> having conversations about what's wrong for the nth time.
>> 
>> I think that problem will take some effort to solve, and it probably won't
>> be solved in this thread. It's certainly a ripe issue for discussion, and
>> I'd like to see that happen.
>> 
>> I'd like to hear suggestions about how to make that happen. I can't
>> continue to participate here tonight, but perhaps others will. When I loop
>> back here -- hopefully tomorrow, and certainly within a few days -- I'd
>> like to hear suggestions about how to get better alignment between WMF and
>> the community. This has been a problem for a long time, and I find it
>> really frustrating. I know we can do better, and I'm glad you're giving
>> some thought to this.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gnangarra]

noting:for give my missing any finer point my German isnt sufficient to
read the discussion without the aid of google translate

The question your asking is should the author of the image have the right
to enforce the licensing of work they have uploaded.  The position you take
is that they dont have that right which means you want all media uploaded
under an effective Public Domain License.

The de.community voted  to accept the proposal outcome based on a majority
not an absolute 2/3rd majority.When the was discussion closed the
proposal was rejected, you have come here to Wikimedia-l to ask for a
second Common to be established to exclude work by authors who exercise
their right to uphold the license under which the work was provided and ask
that this new commons has the right to relicense an authors work under
other licenses.

As side issue is what looks like an external forum presented one side of
the argument while the discussion was on going,  your using this as
justification for asking here.

Commons has a very clear licensing page
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing of whats acceptable
licensing with media uploaded there.

To me what I see here basic forum shopping after the de.community rejected
your proposal IMHO if you want to change or put limitations on
licensing then discussing it on Commons would be a first step. Doing so
without a direct proposal to change licensing or delete(exclude) the works
of others would enable a wider view and other possible suitable outcomes.
I would suggest that when starting the discussion that evidence be
presented to support the accusations being made, if the google translators
choice of words are accurate then it needs to be well substantiated 


On 2 March 2017 at 13:44, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>
> but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> work.
>
> as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> sides.
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> interview-mit-simplicius/
>
> best
> rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Anna Stillwell]

Pine,
You and I have a call scheduled and we can begin to think together on this
issue. Thank you.
/a

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> Thanks for chiming in.
>
> As someone who is personally feeling a lot of strain between myself and WMF
> -- and I think I'm not the only one -- I would like to figure out how to do
> something so that all of us can get on with mission-aligned work instead of
> having conversations about what's wrong for the nth time.
>
> I think that problem will take some effort to solve, and it probably won't
> be solved in this thread. It's certainly a ripe issue for discussion, and
> I'd like to see that happen.
>
> I'd like to hear suggestions about how to make that happen. I can't
> continue to participate here tonight, but perhaps others will. When I loop
> back here -- hopefully tomorrow, and certainly within a few days -- I'd
> like to hear suggestions about how to get better alignment between WMF and
> the community. This has been a problem for a long time, and I find it
> really frustrating. I know we can do better, and I'm glad you're giving
> some thought to this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,