Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1]
SJ, Florence, George, you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration
for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet
that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much
earlier this year (planning will begin in April) so we are well positioned
to gather more input and direction on the next iteration. Activity will be
linked on Meta.[2] Florence, this is also where we post the full site
content when it is final (which is not quite true at present) so it is
available for translation.
I also want to directly engage and act on some of the ideas presented here
for how to improve the Annual Report site.
First, on fact ordering, we are going to make “Wikipedia is update 350
times a minute” the first fact displayed. Great idea Florence, and one that
better articulates what we want to impart: our volunteers are active,
Wikipedia is a living thing, and facts are constantly checked.
Second, on photography, we are going to change the photo that accompanies
the travel fact. We hear and understand that this photo has overstepped the
mark. Moreover, we are fortunate to work with millions of freely-licensed
alternatives so… expect a change.
Third, on fact-checking ourselves. SJ, going forward we will take you up on
that offer and find fact-checkers outside the Foundation. Risker, you are
right, we already know where we can find some. I will detail that coming
into this Report, we have had 40+ reviewers from across departments,
cultures, and experiences in an effort to do proper due diligence. We can
do better, so we will.
Many have reached out to me asking how we can facilitate a more
participatory, and active review cycle for the next report. Keep those
ideas coming. We are up for it.
Also SJ, on the travel stat, we were using the CNN source that interprets
the UNWTO data you are citing.[3] Let’s discuss this off-thread, I want to
make sure we have our math clear here and can confirm CNN is in error.
Generally, the site can offer more explicit citations. Nearly all of the
facts are cited within the stories that contextualize them, but we will go
through and see what can be further emphasized.
On Report promotion, we have paused site banners entirely to allow this
conversation to continue. Yair, I pinged you about this in response to your
Village Pump discussion. Our Piwik analytics show that around 8,000 people
visited the site yesterday to give some idea on the current reach of the
Report.
Both the Foundation and the Communications team are listening, working, and
acting.
Thank you for working with us. Thanks for *thinking* with us.
-
Zack
[1]
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Gerard,
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
* Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.
* In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
(at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
Leila
[1]
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
[2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
meet in person. :)
Thanks,
GerardM
Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
mz7.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
> 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
(“this
> page in a nutshell”)
>
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Zachary McCune
Global Audiences
Wikimedia Foundation
zmccune(a)wikimedia.org