On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi Andreas, > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have > summarised > > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3] > > > > I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your > comments/thoughts and share mine. As someone who has in fact read the whole 67 pages (twice now), I am happy to share my conclusions: 1) The communications audit is only of interest to people with a particular interest in Wikimedia movement communications and does not have wider significance. 2) Given that the audit was finished in September 2016 and was greeted by a marked lack of fanfare, anything that the Foundation was going to do differently as a result of the audit has probably already happened. (It's difficult to tell from Meta whether anything has actually changed, but the report made a number of very sensible recommendations like WMF Comms working more with chapters, engaging more with non-English language audiences, and trying to avoid coverage about vandalism - hopefully those have all been picked up!) 3) If one reads any 67-page document related to the Wikimedia movement determined to find points of criticism, then it's probably possible to do so. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the longer the document, the easier it is to find selective quotes to support an arbitrary level of outrage about its contents. Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ 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>
