Indeed, I have to agree too. I don't disagree with the notion that the themes covered (providing educational materials to vulnerable young people, providing our information in many languages, and are important, but the way they come across is pretty preachy and overtly political. We're not here to directly solve the problem of climate change or fight visa revocations, we're about providing free and neutral information to people in their own languages. This sort of thing can be pretty exclusionary and disempowering if you do not agree with the rather unsubtle political stances being taken. It also just provides more fuel for those arguing that Wikipedia is a left-wing advocacy organisation rather than a credible, neutral, and trustworthy source of bias-free information.
In this case, I'm afraid that if the Communications team wanted to highlight the interesting work being done by Wikimedians, they have gotten it wrong, because they've highlighted the causes rather than the individuals. I suspect that it is too late to change the 2016 report, but I hope that they are a little more mindful for the 2017 report.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 2 March 2017 at 10:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Why should that feature in the WMF's annual report, though?
I also agree that this has been over-politicised, whether intentionally or not. :-(
Thanks, Mike
On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:13, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate at all. In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and executed the executive order was in the first place.
Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate question.
Dan Rosenthal
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the
policies
of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for
this
report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should continue in this vein. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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