[Foundation-l] WMF and the press

[Florence Devouard]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>   
>>>  b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
>>>  it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
>>>  press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
>>>  atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear of
>>>  being repeated
>>>     
>> Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't understand this fear of the press.
>>  It's especially ironic considering that the Wikimedia Foundation is
>> dedicated to providing free access to knowledge, and the press is
>> heavily used in obtaining and sourcing that knowledge.  Is the claim
>> that the press often gets it wrong, and that the general public is
>> stupid enough to believe whatever the press tells them, and won't
>> change its mind when presented with the truth?  I might buy that (the
>> first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
>> at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
>> Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
>> from the chaff, and get to the truth).
>>
>> If you sneeze, and a journalist reports you caught the flu and are
>> dying, what's the big problem?  Doesn't going to great lengths to make
>> sure no one ever sees you sneeze again only serve to compound the
>> problem?  You seem to suggest the problem is the atmosphere of
>> distrust, but I don't see how that problem was caused by the press.
>>
>> The WMF has an odd relationship with the press.  And this isn't a new
>> thing.  I didn't notice it until recently, but when I look back I see
>> this fear of (or aversion to) the press has been there for years.  And
>> it's not just you, Florence, though yours was the first one I noticed.
>>  I see David Gerard has also made some particularly negative comments
>> about the press.  And that's without really looking to see if it's
>> something systemic within the organization.
> I'm inclined to agree with this analysis.  Concern with the press is 
> about concern with image instead of identity.  It puts looking good in a 
> higher place than being good.  We've been looking over our shoulder ever 
> since the Seigenthaler incident.  Ironically, going out of our way to 
> avoid such things only draws attention to their possibility, and may 
> even be counterproductive.  An organization the size of WMF cannot 
> completely avoid these fumbles.  Most of the time it's only one person 
> who has screwed up in a unique way (like EssJay), and yet we get all up 
> in knots establishing policies that will keep these one-off incidents 
> from ever happening again. 
> 
> When we look to the press as the source for an atmosphere of distrust, 
> we completely miss the point.  Leaks to the press are not initiated by 
> the press.  That kind of problem isn't so easily dismissed.  Trying to 
> solve these problems by being even more secretive, and being afraid to 
> engage in discussions will just make things worse.  When the public 
> hears a lot of half-truth rumours they are only too willing to read them 
> negatively.
> 
> Ec

I certainly do not look at the press as the source for an atmosphere of 
distrust, and this is not the issue.
The issue is that the press makes a big mountain of every little 
disagreement shared between us. These big mountains reflect badly on 
donors, in particular big donors, who dislike public controversies. So, 
the issue is not so much fear of the press itself, but fear of the 
consequences it may have on our ability to fundraise, which is an 
essential consideration for survival of the websites.

As such, it is recommanded that we always show a public face of full 
agreement. Discussions, sometimes heated, could have been preserved on 
private lists and a common front presented to the press.

Unfortunately, due to leaks initiated by participants themselves, the 
privacy is not maintained, and set up an atmosphere of suspicion.

If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in 
control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels 
of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has 
control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in 
reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.

There are certainly mainy good arguments for trying to solve 
disagreement with discretion. However, collateral damages are
* decrease of discussion with a large audience (an issue that is real; 
that's for example decrease of discussions on key issues on this very list)
* power struggle over communication channels (who says what to who)

ant