Dear Rogol, On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes > to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the > volunteers, whose work is being presented to the world at large in ways > that might not always be consistent with their values and practices. > Your mileage may vary, but usually I find that the large majority of donors and volunteers have little interest in reading a document this detailed. > 2: If the things that were already going to happen have already happened, > then presumably somebody made them happen and those people would find it > quick and easy to explain to the community what those things were (I take > it from your wording that you are not one of those people). Explaining to > the donors what $436K of their money bought would rarely come amiss. > Well, hopefully someone at WMF knows what happened as a result and how things have changed. There is a very brief bit of documentation for 16-17 messaging strategy still marked as a work in progress, so certainly the outcomes could be better documented on Meta. Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend their time replying to. However, if I was in their position, looking at the nature of comments on Wikipedia Weekly, on Meta and in this thread, I would probably not be leaping to provide a full and thorough response. > 2': Andreas made the point that "trying to avoid coverage" about a problem > is not necessarily the best strategy. Being open about a problem may be > better, and/or more consistent with community values. But that is a > discussion for another location. The point of this thread is to encourage > participation in that debate. > Yes, indeed, there is a legitimate question about how bullish WMF Comms ought to be about Wikipedia. Generally however I think they get it about right. > 3: Quotes are by their nature "selective" since otherwise one would simply > repeat the entire document, which is unlikely to be optimal. If you > believe those quotes are not representative, have the courage to say so – > you have read the whole document, after all. Simply highlighting the ~1 page of arguably controversial stuff in a 67 page document is also unlikely to be optimal, because it creates a biased and misleading impression of the whole document, and gives the impression (accurately or not) that one's main interest is stirring up controversy. 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>
