Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2017-2018/Final

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It remains puzzling that a plan allegedly focused on under-served user populations and countries (dubbed "new readers" and "emerging communities") doesn't mention internationalisation or localisation even once. --Nemo 09:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That certainly seems an important point to have overlooked. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Minassian Media, Inc.[edit]

It remains surprising (to me at least) that there is no mention of the potential Conflict of Interest (COI) in continuing to work with the Clinton Foundation's Chief Communication Officer's Public Relations side business for 2017-2018. (In order to find this you really have to dig: it's in Department Programs > Communications > Program 2 (Lead the Narrative). You also need to happen to know that Craig Minassian is the CCO for the Clinton Foundation. Why all the secrecy? If you were upfront about it, that is to say if you were actually "leading the narrative" on this question rather than avoiding questions about it, I think a lot of us would be more sympathetic. (That said, any reasonably well-informed citizen can see that the page on the en:Clinton Foundation does not cover all that has been covered in reliable mainstream sources concerning the CF, and perusing the talk pages makes clear why.) Given that "neutrality" is a big part of the narrative you want to lead, I think it would be good for you to be a lot more forthcoming about your relationship with Jove Oliver & co. SashiRolls (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree and find this to be an example where the wiki brand has the potential to lose all credibility and become viewed as a political weapon. Kenloebel (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree but feel we should be less critical of the Wikimedia foundation. Potentally. Instead of assuming they will not, perhaps instead the problem is that not enough people have seemed interested?? Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Credibility vs Freedom to Source Anything[edit]

Where is the centralized location that participants can post concerns specific to posts that appear to be public relations attempts to be used as manipulation tools? Kenloebel (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I second this proposal. I believe the Wikimedia foundation has everything to gain here, despite the risks involved. Particularly, it might well serve to combat the few genuinely legitimate criticisms of the Wikimedia foundation itself (as opposed to aspects of Wikipedia with which it is closely associated). Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeking Commitment to Combating Toxic Editing Environment on Wikipedia[edit]

It is common knowledge within Wikipedia circles that an increasingly narrow and insular group of often abusing, consistantly POV pushing and rule misusing/abusing editors and admins have become the defacto rulers of Wikipedia. I feel that where entrenched users openly flout and deliberately misuse the rules on a day to day and unashamed basis, commonly severely degrading the quality of the encyclopedia and chasing away many new users on the process, Wikimedia should look at ways they can step in. Particularly in situations where even the severely compromised Arbitration Committee have had their powers openly ridiculed by entrenched members even when correctly rebuffing them, as has happened on at least one occasion to my knowledge. I am certain that Wikimedia are an ethical organisation with the best interests of their users at heart, but this annual plan comes off as generic and lacking in vision for the very real and serious problems with Wikipedia. Most seriously, Wikipedia is no-longer really The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit; it is, rather, the encyclopedia a few control the controversial content on, denying all contrary viewpoints. I am absolutely certain this isn't what your organisation wants. I really think that, regardless of any hands-off attitutes you may have, which are generally laudible in business where they can be reasonably sustained, you should be making more interventions and clamping down more on problem editors and administrators, including taking control of sections of the site if need be. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)