1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes
to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the
volunteers, whose work is being presented to the world at large in ways
that might not always be consistent with their values and practices.
2: If the things that were already going to happen have already happened,
then presumably somebody made them happen and those people would find it
quick and easy to explain to the community what those things were (I take
it from your wording that you are not one of those people). Explaining to
the donors what $436K of their money bought would rarely come amiss.
2': Andreas made the point that "trying to avoid coverage" about a problem
is not necessarily the best strategy. Being open about a problem may be
better, and/or more consistent with community values. But that is a
discussion for another location. The point of this thread is to encourage
participation in that debate.
3: Quotes are by their nature "selective" since otherwise one would simply
repeat the entire document, which is unlikely to be optimal. If you
believe those quotes are not representative, have the courage to say so –
you have read the whole document, after all. Suggesting that Andreas
selected quotes to support an arbitrary level of outrage is, to use Leila's
Post by Chris Keating
Post by Leila Zia
Post by Andreas Kolbe
I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have
Post by Andreas Kolbe
my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.
I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your
comments/thoughts and share mine.
As someone who has in fact read the whole 67 pages (twice now), I am happy
1) The communications audit is only of interest to people with a particular
interest in Wikimedia movement communications and does not have wider
2) Given that the audit was finished in September 2016 and was greeted by a
marked lack of fanfare, anything that the Foundation was going to do
differently as a result of the audit has probably already happened.
(It's difficult to tell from Meta whether anything has actually changed,
but the report made a number of very sensible recommendations like WMF
Comms working more with chapters, engaging more with non-English language
audiences, and trying to avoid coverage about vandalism - hopefully those
have all been picked up!)
3) If one reads any 67-page document related to the Wikimedia movement
determined to find points of criticism, then it's probably possible to do
so. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the longer the document, the
easier it is to find selective quotes to support an arbitrary level of
outrage about its contents.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/