[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
de10011 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 10 06:35:38 UTC 2010
I didn't like the assumption of bad faith earlier on part of the team, the
fundraising team  as you would note, consists of Community members from
different locations and backgrounds. I am from India, Moushirah is from
Egypt, Dan and James are community members who also work remotely, all of us
are community members working on the fundraiser together. Philippe himself
has been a long-standing community member for the past few years before
joining the foundation. The implication of an Us Vs. them mentality here, is
counter-productive to our common goal.
The banner in question was created yesterday and barely went live for a very
short time before MZ mentioned it on the list. It was rectified within hours
once there was an objection raised, this I thought, was an example of the
community working together.
Also, as someone who has a different background than the majority of people
on the list, I can speak to the recognizability factor of Wikipedia Vs.
Wikimedia. I can personally attest to uncertainty between the association of
Wikimedia with Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I agree that the we should
inform the readers about the difference and the relation between the two,
but you also must understand that there are constraints to what we can do
with a banner. We have a limited amount of space on each banner to connect
with our readers, Jimmy's appeal as the Wikipedia Founder has worked
incredibly well so far, so have the editor appeals, we took some liberty
with the intoduction and took the shorter approach in light of direct
statistical evidence between our options. It was never our intention
to deceive or imply anything beyond the facts.
My only issue is with the assumption of Bad faith on our part, we did the
best considering the data that was available. In light of the reaction,
changes were made as quickly as possible and the differences clarified.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM, KIZU Naoko <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Zack Exley <zexley at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.
> > I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never
> > the word "Wikimedia". There are millions and millions of them. Luckily
> > simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We
> > continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient
> > explanations.
> I'm pretty sympathetic with you. I got same kind emails on OTRS queues
> I'm taking care of too.
> How about having Jimmy (in the next time? Or right now?) add one line
> to his personal message for donors something to try clarification on
> that, on Wikimedia Foundation is founded for fostering Wikipedia and
> other sister projects? Donors may notice - at least some of them
> > --
> > Zack Exley
> > Chief Community Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow <wikipedia at frontier.com>
> >> >>> While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with
> >> >>> variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that
> >> a
> >> >>> project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as
> >> >>> possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a
> >> >>> level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money
> >> >>> might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a
> >> >>> messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing.
> >> >>> That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic.
> >> >>
> >> >> That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you.
> >> >
> >> > And mine. My thanks too.
> >> >
> >> > To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a
> >> > falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia
> >> > community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from
> >> > Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that
> >> > Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power
> >> > over editorial content.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Delphine
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is
> >> understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding
> >> that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's
> >> independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and
> >> its projects.
> >> Nathan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
> member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the wikimedia-l