[Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening

[geni]

On 2 March 2011 00:53, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to
> persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell
> our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well
> is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those
> who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it
> takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way
> that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the
> inside.

Erik wikipedians do know their history. The English term is
propaganda. Please use it. If you feel completely unable to use it
"public relations" is the closest to an acceptable alturnative.


> We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October
> 2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling
> specifically in fundraising:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431
>
> In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling,
> and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since
> then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en
>
> Is not going to persuade anyone to support us.

Well lets face it. Your problem is not that you don't have a
propaganda line it's that the old one (bare bones foundation
struggling on a minimal budget) is no longer remotely credible.

So you are now looking for someone to create new propaganda lines that
allows for greater foundation growth with a larger budget.

Now it's possible that that could be a lot of fun. Spreading twitter
like propaganda about how we are helping with whatever moderately good
news story there is this week (hey no journalist is going to go to the
effort to prove it is false). Trying to get pro wikipedia statements
out of random role models that kind of thing (although if a football
WAG ever tuns up in a donate to wikipedia T-shit there is going to be
trouble with a capital Z).

However it is understandable that people are going to be concerned
about what this means with regards to the direction the foundation is
taking.

> As Zack said, in the
> context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points
> effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public
> outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing
> meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to
> scientists, to students).

Which I seem to recall is a role that has largely been left to the
chapters. Now thats a choice the foundation is free to make but it
does rather render your position inconsistent with events.

> People have made attempts at telling
> success stories of public outreach here, for example:
>
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories
>
> But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to
> telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental
> ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a
> regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in
> the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in
> full:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841

Why? Have Edward Bernays works been banned or something?

> He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at
> telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences.
> There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story
> effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an
> important story poorly.

Oh nice try. Great set of appeals to emotions and attempts to falsely
frame the debate. Just one tiny problem. We are wikipedians. Not only
do we tend not to see the world in terms of stories (See wikipedia's
house style sometime) but a big part of NPOV is shattering stories.

-- 
geni