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 <le...@wikimedia.org> 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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/ > > 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" > > > > > > > > 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 <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.* > > > > 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 <risker...@gmail.com> > > > >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report" > > > >> Message-ID: > > > >> <CAPXs8yQdJ+X+QwE3LB2XRuuKerSgMD5OKKhJJn1opLA9yyFj+w@mail. > > > >> 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 "annual report", or > > > >> simply believe that the WMF should not be producing political > advocacy > > > >> documents, it may well cause them to reflect whether or not they > want > > > to keep contributing. > > > >> > > > >> I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and > > > >> edited properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors > who > > > >> know how to write neutrally on controversial topics. I've > volunteered > > > >> in the Wikimedia movement for more than a decade at least in part > > > >> because it was not a political advocacy organization, so I find this > > > >> annual report to be very disturbing. > > > >> > > > >> Risker/Anne > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > No virus found in this message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14045 - Release Date: > > > 03/02/17 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Zachary McCune Global Audiences Wikimedia Foundation zmcc...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
