Chris
Your points 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. 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. 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. 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. Suggesting that Andreas selected quotes to support an arbitrary level of outrage is, to use Leila's word, disrespectful.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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:
- The communications audit is only of interest to people with a particular
interest in Wikimedia movement communications and does not have wider significance.
- 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!)
- 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe