[Foundation-l] Communications issues (was Re: This is not an Advertisement @ pgunn)

[Gatto Nero]

2007/1/3, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>:

> Part of the problem is a lack of resources, both human and technical, in
> the communications area as much as in any other. That sort of thing is,
> of course, exactly what this fundraiser is trying to address.

I'm sorry, 'cause of language differences maybe I've not understood:
are you saying that "lack of resources" is one of the reasons why are
we collecting money?
This means, "people needs to be payed"? (I'm asking, 'cause I'm not
sure, that's not an accusation)
Cause if so, it seems to me a "standard excuse" ("jolly excuse",
translating an italian phrase): everyone could say so, but this is not
enough to explain how communication failed so much, in this and other
occasions.

> The
> community seems much more inclined to give feedback when the Foundation
> does something as opposed to when it talks about planning things.

This is a problem of communication, too. Community doesn't feel
involved in planning things. Users are not asked their opinions.
Moreover, when they express it anyway, they're answered in a bitter way.
In the recent past, I remember a user answering to me and other
italians "Communities doesn't matter. Funding does. Capisce?".
How does this phrase should be interpreted?
Let's think about a new user who's starting to communicate with the
Foundation, and he's been answered in this way.
Obviously, I don't think this is an isolated case.
Community doesn't think its opinion is welcome. If community's opinion
is welcome, then there's a problem of communication.

> Wikimedia is committed to maintaining a neutral point of view, as is
> well known, and I believe that value has not been compromised in any
> material way.

There are many ways to compromise anything.
Neutrality is strongly linked with independence.
In this very case, neutrality is strongly linked with independence by
any type of commercial reality (explicit or implied, as Virgin
United).
This mine opinion could be - maybe - a cultural heritage, 'cause is
shared by other people inside the italian community, and - as far as
I've seen - outside the italian community too. But - always thinking
about cultural differences - this opinion seems not to be shared by
the en: or the east communities.

> What is advertising and whether we should have
> it are important considerations, and have been debated at length, but
> it's not a fundamental value in the same way that free content or
> neutrality are.

Let's return to the begin. How this phrase is going to demonstrate
interest in community's opinon?
"Advertising is not a fundamental value". Who did decide this?
Lots of users think advertising is a fundamental value, indeed. If you
say that, you seem no to respect other opinions.
That's an important duty for the CommComm: *hearing*, *listening*,
*considering*.
As far as I've studied Communication is made by a sender and a
reveicer, and they often interchange their roles.

> Anyone who's convinced that our actual content has been
> compromised already by the recent decisions is welcome to try and
> demonstrate how that's the case.

I should not consider this question, 'cause I could make the same
reflected: "Anyone who's convinced that our actual content has not
been compromised already by the recent decisions is welcome to try and
demonstrate how that's the case".

But simply, anyone (at least: anyone who made mediacommunication or
psychology studies) is aware that noone is immune to influences. Both
in a positive or a negative way, no matter.
Moreover, communication's results are heavily influenced by perception.

Let's make an example.
We have an academical audit.
A man talks about the importance of sobriety in the political duties.
First case scenario: the man is wearing an elegant suit, he's well
cleaned, speaks calmly.
Second case scenario: same content, but the man is wearing a jeans and
a shirt, has a not-perfect-hairdo, speaks loudly and gesticulating.

They say perfectly the same things, with the same words.
But in the first scenario, the man will be listened with more
attention, and his communication is going to be more effective.

Same content, different perception.

> Communicating with the project communities is also a challenge, because
> they are so widely distributed. There is no central place to reach
> everyone, and many differing expectations about what "affects" the
> community and how it should be notified. (I use quotes because
> everything affects the community, but notice doesn't seem to be expected
> every time we buy servers, as long as the site runs.) The solution is
> for the community to help spread the word about anything that might be
> of importance. Some people may be familiar with The Wikipedia Signpost
> on en.wikipedia, or the Kurier on de.wikipedia. These are community
> efforts to grow and build on, and more like them should be encouraged. I
> know the TIME honor is so last year, but "You" are the only way
> Wikimedia can ever communicate with its projects. Contributions like
> Walter's Wikizine or Improv's LSS are invaluable (and as we regret the
> latter's departure, thanks to BirgitteSB for committing to keep it going).

And here we are at the end of this mail.
Personally, I'm a bit saddened. This email is titled "Communication
issues" but doesn't seem to talk that much about communication (it
talks more about how people should not complain about advertising).

We *must* discuss about our communication problems. And we must decide
which is our "starting point" in this discussion.
Personally: sorry to say this, but mine is "Communication Committee
totally failed in internal communication".
As far as I remember, I have no memories at all of reading a
communication "signed" by the CommComm. Better: I have no memories at
all of reading a communicaton about Foundation's issues or problem.
(Apart from Wikizine, but that's not about Foundation)

Why has there not been a periodical mail/message/zine/whatever
summarizing what's going the Foundation?

"This week/month the Foundation did..."
"This week/month the Foundation talked about..."
"Foundation told we have some problems with..."

This is an internal communication. This express the will to be
transparent, to involve communities in what's going on, to inform
about the problems etc etc.
Periodical information is really, really important.

And I think we can start discuss about how to improve it.