Indeed, I have to agree too. I don't disagree with the notion that the
themes covered (providing educational materials to vulnerable young people,
providing our information in many languages, and are important, but the
way they come across is pretty preachy and overtly political. We're not
here to directly solve the problem of climate change or fight visa
revocations, we're about providing free and neutral information to people
in their own languages. This sort of thing can be pretty exclusionary and
disempowering if you do not agree with the rather unsubtle political
stances being taken. It also just provides more fuel for those arguing
that Wikipedia is a left-wing advocacy organisation rather than a credible,
neutral, and trustworthy source of bias-free information.
In this case, I'm afraid that if the Communications team wanted to
highlight the interesting work being done by Wikimedians, they have gotten
it wrong, because they've highlighted the causes rather than the
individuals. I suspect that it is too late to change the 2016 report, but
I hope that they are a little more mindful for the 2017 report.
Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On 2 March 2017 at 10:31, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
Why should that feature in the WMF's annual
report, though?
I also agree that this has been over-politicised, whether intentionally or
not. :-(
Thanks,
Mike
On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:13, Dan Rosenthal
<swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Florence -- Trump's executive orders also involved the revocation of
non-immigrant visas. I don't think the choice of picture is inappropriate
at all. In fact, I think it highlights just how poorly planned and
executed the executive order was in the first place.
Whether the sitenotice is a good idea in the first place, separate
question.
Dan Rosenthal
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
> "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the
policies
> of a single national government as
promulgated by a head of state and
> supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
> political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for
this
report
will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to
honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well
reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should
continue in this vein.
_______________________________________________
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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>