On 2 March 2017 at 13:30, Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics only until they affect you directly. Well, yes. Who are these people with lives of such privilege that they don't have to think about politics? Literally everything Wikimedia has ever done is heavily political. Here in 2017, the following are political: * scientific fact * acknowledging scientific fact * spreading knowledge without permission * the fact of education * availability of education That's just going off what's come out of the White House in the last month, off the top of my head. There is no such thing as "no politics", there is only "I am not personally reminded of the discomfort of others". - d. _______________________________________________ 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>

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

Cheers, Peter

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] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this page in a nutshell”) peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics only until they affect you directly. Behalf Of WereSpielChequers 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 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 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. the second sentence: increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.* 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. to write the next version of this. to keep contributing. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> 03/02/17 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/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>

Hi Gerard, On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. :) mz7.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; is possible). so, the sound of each applies (“this contact ignore On here politics before have known WMF the travel, other with was But my downloads those with that it your side some with that reader neutrally, gives it well-referenced those political advocacy want who volunteered mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ 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>

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] http://emojipedia.org/call-me-hand/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Annual_Report [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/travel/international-tourists-2015/ On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Leila Zia &lt;leila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: references). themselves. answer such all are of we the “2016 need mind If sides, WMF sentiments. I to to WMF have refused since in Maybe their of editors with a and this ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, -- Zachary McCune Global Audiences Wikimedia Foundation zmccune(a)wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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>

Hi Gerard, On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. :) mz7.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; is possible). so, the sound of each applies (“this contact ignore On here politics before have known WMF the travel, other with was But my downloads those with that it your side some with that reader neutrally, gives it well-referenced those political advocacy want who volunteered mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ 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>