So my 2p:
The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of each topic.
I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with different standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly natural.
But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things (half of which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that does read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to give Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.
Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem to believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue our mission is fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots at him.
Chris (The Land)
On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer" tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from December 2015 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_ Product&oldid=2399861#Reading_Audience). Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis on_(since_May_2013).png ).
BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact the last numbers date from August 2016. Here is a current pageviews dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics. wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).
For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ 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
If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the time of publishing. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 12:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
So my 2p:
The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of each topic.
I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with different standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly natural.
But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things (half of which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that does read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to give Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.
Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem to believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue our mission is fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots at him.
Chris (The Land)
On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer" tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from December 2015 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_ Product&oldid=2399861#Reading_Audience). Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis on_(since_May_2013).png ).
BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact the last numbers date from August 2016. Here is a current pageviews dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics. wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).
For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the time of publishing.
The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending politicians or be uncontroversial.
Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.
In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump. The selection and order of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S. politics. Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained. e.g. How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights. Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.
Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not have access to education resources online in their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's mission. Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books. Those facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own language. Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.
Let me put it another way, If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the same? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the time of publishing.
The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending politicians or be uncontroversial.
Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.
In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump. The selection and order of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S. politics. Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained. e.g. How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights. Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.
Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not have access to education resources online in their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's mission. Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books. Those facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own language. Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.
-- John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________ 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17
Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its annual report on some other country's political system.
Risker/Anne
On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Let me put it another way, If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the same? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument
is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the time of publishing.
The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending politicians or be uncontroversial.
Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.
In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump. The selection and order of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S. politics. Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained. e.g. How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights. Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.
Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not have access to education resources online in their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's mission. Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books. Those facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own language. Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.
-- John Vandenberg
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
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Is the WMF actually focusing its annual report on a country's political system, or is that mainly a perception influenced by the country in which many of the critics happen to live? Also, why would the WMF be so different if it was headquartered outside the US? Should the country it is based in make a difference? I think not, but it seems that it does, and I don’t think this is a good thing. Both these questions address a basic US centric attitude which is prevalent here. An assumption that comes over to some of us who are not American, as rather biased and condescending, So the US now has a democratically elected president who is as embarrassing as our democratically elected president. Welcome to the other half of the world. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: Friday, 03 March 2017 8:22 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
Please Peter. If the WMF was based in either of those places, it would be a very different organization. And in neither case would it be focusing its annual report on some other country's political system.
Risker/Anne
On 3 March 2017 at 01:20, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Let me put it another way, If the WMF was based in Reykjavik, or Abidjan, would the response be the same? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 7:47 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument
is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the time of publishing.
The arguments being made here are not that WMF should avoid offending politicians or be uncontroversial.
Understanding how a message will be received is the core of communications, and should be reviewed and rechecked by the communications team throughout a project, and even re-evaluated as the final 'publish' button is clicked.
In this case I feel the message of the Annual Report is that WMF is quite U.S. focused, and is overly anti-Trump. The selection and order of the first few facts mostly aligns with the key issues in U.S. politics. Those stories/examples/photos used to justify including these first few facts in the WMF Annual Report seems occasionally strained. e.g. How did WMF support Wikimedian Andreas Weith taking photos of polar bears?
If the WMF wants to project that image, those fact pages need beefing up to support the WMF staking out a claim to get involved in those fights. Like others here, I dont think this is the right direction for the WMF to take, but I agree with all the positions and appreciate the significance of those issues. The cynic in me feels that the WMF projecting that image will resonate well with a large percentage of the typical "Wikipedia" donors.
Given the facts (in the Annual Report) that most of the worlds population is still not online, and those coming online or yet to come online usually do not have access to education resources online in their own language, an International focus would highlight those facts as critical for the WMF's mission. Those facts can also very uncomfortable for politicians across the world, of all political leanings, who spend more on guns than on books. Those facts are also very uncomfortable for a lot of liberals who have had a good education and very comfortable lives, with a high quality Wikipedia in their own language. Those facts also underscore how far we are away from reaching our mission, and encourage us to re-focus on the mission and make us pause before getting too involved in problems that are not clearly on mission.
-- John Vandenberg
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
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - 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@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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14048 - Release Date: 03/02/17
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at the time of publishing. Cheers, Peter
I've not seen anyone say that these topics (rather than the general approach) was decided on in October.
Even if they had been, it would be reasonable to review these things to avoid appearing unnecessarily partisan.
Chris
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org