On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I found some of the audit's recommendations
troubling, and have
my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.
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
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.