I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is to say, try to
avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible). One of our values as a movement
is recognizing that there are many different perspectives on many different issues (which
is one of the things I think
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis> is trying to get
at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in politics, or even to declare what the
“truth” is, but to *explain* the politics and to explain what different people think the
truth is.
The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so, I think, with
headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the letters from Katherine Maher
and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was the hottest year on record” are exactly the
kind of things that may sound good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the
“context amid complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the refugee crisis’s
impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of taking in refugees on a
nation’s economy.
We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to find a way to
convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the diversity of opinions, that we
value working together to understand each others’ opinions and present them fairly. One
thing that comes to mind for me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these
issues. If Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides, but should explain
the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how
you say it.” [2]
Mz7
[1]
On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood
<peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with
civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics only until
they affect you directly.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
WereSpielChequers
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here to get away from
politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get so overtly political even though
part of me revels in the sentiments. I too worry how unsettling that would be for those
who don't share the politics presented.
I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before I wound up with
an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get my wife a visa to join me in
London, but that's irrelevant to this movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban
is a stark contrast to the level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many
people who have been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many
WMF staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have been unable to
attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa restrictions. It wouldn't surprise
me if more Wikimedians were refused visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was
President than are known to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like
the WMF is being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since Buenos Aires. If as
a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I would like to see that lead by a
commitment to at least host every other Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian
could get a visa.
Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the second
sentence:
*Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites increased by 170
million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the same league as
most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about a whole year's activity
and the following one about monthly activity. So it reads like an annual figure or an
increase on an annual figure. But the stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly
figure. From my knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those would actually be
rather impressive.
Can I suggest that for next year there be a more community based process to write the
next version of this.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:51:04 -0500
From: Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
Message-ID:
<CAPXs8yQdJ+X+QwE3LB2XRuuKerSgMD5OKKhJJn1opLA9yyFj+w@mail.
gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Okay, so I'll say what Sam said, except in stronger language, and with
some additional emphasis.
This is a very obviously liberally biased document -- and I say that
as someone who lives in a country so liberal that it makes
Californians look like they're still back in the early 1960s. Maybe it
takes an outsider to see this.
If you're going to try to play the "facts" game, you have to have your
facts bang on - and you have to admit that there is more than one side
to the story. This "report" reads as though the authors chose their
favourite advocacy positions and then twisted and turned and did some
more contortions to make it look as though it had something to do with
the Wikimedia family of projects. (Seriously. Refugees and global
warming don't have anything to do with the WMF.) It is so biased that
most of those "fact" pages would have to be massively rewritten in
order to meet the neutrality expectations of just about every
Wikipedia regardless of the language.
And that is my biggest concern. It is not neutral by any stretch of
the imagination. And if the WMF can't write neutrally about these
topics in its annual report, there is no reason for the average reader
to think that Wikipedia and other projects will be written neutrally,
fairly, based on references, and including the significant other
opinions. This document is a weapon that can be used against
Wikimedia projects by any tinpot dictator or other suppressive
government because it "proves" that WMF projects are biased. It gives
ammunition to the very movements that create "alternative facts" - it
sure doesn't help when the WMF is coming up with a few of its own.
That does a huge disservice to the hundreds of thousands of editors
who have worked for years to create accurate, neutral, well-referenced
educational material and information. It doesn't do any good to those
editors contributing from countries where participation in an
international web-based information project is already viewed with a
jaundiced eye. And for those editors who don't adhere to the political
advocacy positions being put forward in this "annual report", or
simply believe that the WMF should not be producing political advocacy
documents, it may well cause them to reflect whether or not they want to keep
contributing.
I really hope that Craig is wrong, that this can be pulled back and
edited properly, preferably by a bunch of actual Wikipedia editors who
know how to write neutrally on controversial topics. I've volunteered
in the Wikimedia movement for more than a decade at least in part
because it was not a political advocacy organization, so I find this
annual report to be very disturbing.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14045 - Release Date: 03/02/17
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>