Contracting expanding

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:44 pm

A WMF blog post by Jessica Clark and Sarah Lutman from the two latest recipients of the WMF's largesse with donor monies: Dot Connector Studio and Lutman & Associates. I don't know why two small outfits in the USA are the best places in the world to go for "thoughts and speculations about the world Wikimedia projects and participants will inhabit in 2030, and how best to prepare". What we can see about these two rather small consultancies is that they are connected, not only to each other – the two compnaies have worked together – but there are some familiar names. Clark was a Knight Fellow and has worked with the Berkman Center. The two companies seem to have fairly self-consciously "progressive" profiles. But they are more about advising grant-making and grant-seeking bodies in the arts and media. Not obviously well-placed to advise on, for example, "Demographics: Who is in the world in 2030?" or "What are threats–and what are hopes–for the free flow of knowledge?" or "What can be done to make the knowledge we seek more trustworthy?". I might have suggested, say, Oxford University's Internet Institute or its Martin School, but perhaps I'm prejudiced in favour of actual expertise. Or even consult the Wikimedia community. But no. Can anyone join up a few more dots?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:19 am

Dot Connector Studio's website has an Alexa ranking in the top 11.5 million of all websites. Quite impressive.

Lutman and Associates is not even ranked.

(As a comparison, lots of Wikipediots -- like David Gerard and Guy Chapman, especially -- used to mock me about how terrible and worthless the MyWikiBiz.com website was. Weird, then, how I haven't even spent more than 5 hours in the past two years on it... yet, somehow Alexa ranks it about 10 million sites higher than Dot Connector. I wonder how the Wikipediots feel about these up and coming consultants, based on the Alexa factor alone?)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:27 am

Also of note, only 14% of Dot Connector staff is male. None of Lutman's staff are male, and their eleven "collaborators" are completely bereft of Y chromosomes. That should help predict the future for an organization whose primary project attracts about four males for every female, right?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:29 am

I have $10 here for anyone who can get reliable information pertaining to how much money either of these two organizations are being paid by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:57 am

Another contractor mentioned in the 2015 Form 990 is Minassian Media (highlighted at WR by Kumioko). This is a rather surprising firm to receive just under half a million dollars from the WMF. Firstly, for a media consultancy they keep a rather low profile. The people who designed their logo said Minassian Media has two facets: the first is that of a political communications consultancy. The second is that of a television content developer. So not an obvious choice for WMF largesse, but that largesse must be keeping the company going. Perhaps the Twitter channel of Craig Minassian, otherwise @MinassianMedia, gives a clue. Yes, he's Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation. So not only a political communications consultancy, but one rather firmly aligned to the Democrats, just like other recepients of donors' monies.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:50 am

A search on the Wikimedia-l mailing list shows no hits for "Minassian". The search is not entirely reliable.

Perhaps someone should ask the WMF how these entities are selected and why. One can also reference this old thread; Rogol's and Andreas' emails are pertinent to this issue.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:12 am

Thank you, Rogol.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:53 am

An interesting recommendation in this Communications audit by Minassian media:

Talk neutrality post-election

Given the record levels of partisanship/polarization and POV/opinion media (embodied perhaps most of all in the U.S. election), we have an opportunity to build on the neutrality message. The post-election space gives us an opportunity to do this, but does anyone think this is likely to change anytime soon?

Recommendations:

Think about a post-election gag about getting "back to facts now."
Bring Wikipedia’s "Citation needed" to the media (both mainstream and fringe) by pushing out our balanced coverage of the most controversial subjects.
Think about introducing a breaking news Twitter feed that pushes out neutral content when controversy breaks.

I have earlier mentioned how Jimbo's fundraising letter and recently Maher as well are focusing on this "fake news" and "facts" theme. Jimbo has, of course, parlayed this into a new business venture.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:23 pm

Minassian is apparently mentioned in the Podesta emails, where it is claimed that in 2013 he influenced the content of the Colbert Report. In December 2012, Minassian visited WMF headquarters. I wonder what he wanted them to say?

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:46 am

Kingsindian wrote:An interesting recommendation in this Communications audit by Minassian media:
Talk neutrality post-election
[...]
Bring Wikipedia’s "Citation needed" to the media (both mainstream and fringe) by pushing out our balanced coverage of the most controversial subjects.
Think about introducing a breaking news Twitter feed that pushes out neutral content when controversy breaks.

It is not lost on me that I was useful to the WMF; I seem to have played the noob dutifully drinking Kool Aid if you read the WMF blog article on the DAPL protests. (published 48 hours before Dennis Brown blocked me)

What was interesting in my response is what they didn't print (about the Clinton coteries and how much easier it was to edit DAPL because they didn't GAF about that). ^^

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:00 pm

Yet another snout in the trough: Mule Design, "working with the Wikimedia Foundation to research into the communication goals and practices of the Foundation". They were responsible for the truly unreadable Annual Report. Although they're some sort of design outfit, they've been lobbed a further sweetner to run a survey. You'ld think the WMF knew how to do that, but no.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:21 pm

A followup on the Clinton connection. Whitney Williams, of Williamsworks, the consultancy which provides the bulk of the Movement Strategy Core Team, used to work for Hillary Clinton as Trips Director. (Her parents were both Democrat politicians.)

Whitney Williams is co-founder of the Eastern Congo Initiative. Advisers to that include Pam Omidyar and Jacqueline Fuller, in charge of Google’s philanthropic work and advocacy. Omidyar and Google are major donors to WMF.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:57 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:You'ld think the WMF knew how to do that, but no.

Most people here assume that the WMF is incapable of doing almost anything you care to mention. We've certainly had plenty of cause in the past to criticise surveys they have undertaken.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:05 pm

You know they're bad at it – I know they're bad at it – but do they know they're bad at it?

Disgruntled haddock · Unread post by **Disgruntled haddock** » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:16 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Yet another snout in the trough: Mule Design, "working with the Wikimedia Foundation to research into the communication goals and practices of the Foundation". They were responsible for the truly unreadable Annual Report. Although they're some sort of design outfit, they've been lobbed a further sweetner to run a survey. You'ld think the WMF knew how to do that, but no.

The guys who run Mule Design have always struck me as, err, unfriendly, but they do have lots of connections in the tech industry (particularly in Apple-related circles), so it's not surprising that they would get a gig like this. Still, that annual report does not bode well for the quality of their work.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:54 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:You know they're bad at it – I know they're bad at it – but do they know they're bad at it?

The organization that puts this in one of its public-facing presentation decks?

Not likely to be self-aware enough to recognize how bad they are at doing most of what they do.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:11 am

That WikiLove Live slide is just a bit worse on the eyes than Japanese eel porn.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:51 pm

Zoloft wrote:That WikiLove Live slide is just a bit worse on the eyes than Japanese eel porn.

Amazingly, there seems to be no article on Wikipedia about Japanese eel porn.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:31 pm

Kingsindian wrote:A search on the Wikimedia-l mailing list shows no hits for "Minassian". The search is not entirely reliable.

Perhaps someone should ask the WMF how these entities are selected and why. One can also reference this old thread; Rogol's and Andreas' emails are pertinent to this issue.

"Define associated with..."

Clicking next message one finds a

Senior Wikimedia Foundation Research Scientist encouraging participants of the ML to remain focused on the communication strategy.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:46 pm

On the mailing list to which I'm not allowed to post...

Andreas asks... wrote:Could anyone name major donors or consultants to the Wikimedia Foundation
who are associated with, or open supporters of, –

1. the United States' Republican party?
2. a major conservative, or at least slightly right-of-centre, party in any
other country?

Two come to my mind... the John Templeton Foundation and the Qatar Foundation (which may be somewhat liberal by Qatari standards, but would be considered right-of-center by probably 80% of the world).

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:51 pm

Interesting, Sarasota is close to St. Pete ... and the second is financing Tariq Ramadan's chair at Oxford (partially), and the Research Centre for Islamic Legislation and Ethics. I'm not sure that the Qatar Foundation would necessarily be considered *right* of center in the Arabic-speaking world. ^^

Le Qatar n’a pas d’idéologie très forte, si ce n’est être influent : comme ils ont acheté le PSG, ils sont venus s'acheter Ramadan "
...
Ramadan ne rate d'ailleurs pas non plus une occasion de critiquer l'Arabie saoudite et son idéologie « littéraliste » wahhabite.

source <-- a bit of a hit piece on Ramadan (part 5 of 5) (in French)

translation wrote:Qatar doesn't have a strong ideology other than being influential: just as they bought Paris Saint Germain (football), they came and bought themselves Ramadan. (ndlr: the theologian, not the period of fast and reflection)
...
Ramadan never misses an occasion to criticize Saudi Arabia and its literalist wahhabite ideology. (ndlr: he's banned from entry there of course. The Democrats lifted his Bush era US travel ban.)

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:02 am

thekohser wrote:On the mailing list to which I'm not allowed to post...
Andreas asks... wrote:Could anyone name major donors or consultants to the Wikimedia Foundation
who are associated with, or open supporters of, –

1. the United States' Republican party?
2. a major conservative, or at least slightly right-of-centre, party in any
other country?
Two come to my mind... the John Templeton Foundation and the Qatar Foundation (which may be somewhat liberal by Qatari standards, but would be considered right-of-center by probably 80% of the world).

Which party is the Templeton Foundation associated with, or an open supporter of?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:17 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Which party is the Templeton Foundation associated with, or an open supporter of?

These sources may help:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... alist.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/john- ... -universe/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 100893760/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/billionair ... reme-court

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/08/131 ... rs-are-men

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... arian.html

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:11 pm

I read through those, and found that while the Templeton Foundation is mentioned in some of them as having supported some causes that you might described as (small-c) conservative, in none of them could I see the Templeton Foundation described as being associated with, or an open supporter of, a political party. Individual members of the Templeton family, yes. The Foundation, no.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:19 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:I read through those, and found that while the Templeton Foundation is mentioned in some of them as having supported some causes that you might described as (small-c) conservative, in none of them could I see the Templeton Foundation described as being associated with, or an open supporter of, a political party. Individual members of the Templeton family, yes. The Foundation, no.

Maybe because that would be illegal, Rogol.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:32 pm

I commend Rogol for his honesty and his good faith in assuming that everyone is as honest as he is.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:20 pm

Ah, I see. The proof that the Templeton Foundation is doing something which would be illegal for them to do is that there is no proof, because it would be illegal.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:50 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Ah, I see. The proof that the Templeton Foundation is doing something which would be illegal for them to do is that there is no proof, because it would be illegal.

I guess you're struggling with the concept of "being associated with". I hope you can get through that particularly vexing challenge.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:33 pm

Your guess is wide of the mark – I'm struggling to see any evidence of association in the undigested pile of links you posted. I'm also struggling to see anything constructive in your sarcasm. Next time you make an assertion that is called into question, you might wish to try either answering that question, or saying that you do not have an answer, or even just saying nothing. Posting a pile of stuff as if were an answer when it plainly is not, is apt to waste your and other peoples time, vex your interlocutors and reduce the quality of the discussion. It also tends to diminish the level of credibility of any other assertions you make wthout obvious justification.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:18 pm

Rogol don't be cross. I used the word vexillology the other day, it may be on Greg's mind (and "define associated with" was mentioned above). I personally laughed quite a bit reading the post GK is citing... and am doing some regular mechanics at the moment in honor of KItt.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:37 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Your guess is wide of the mark – I'm struggling to see any evidence of association in the undigested pile of links you posted. I'm also struggling to see anything constructive in your sarcasm. Next time you make an assertion that is called into question, you might wish to try either answering that question, or saying that you do not have an answer, or even just saying nothing. Posting a pile of stuff as if were an answer when it plainly is not, is apt to waste your and other peoples time, vex your interlocutors and reduce the quality of the discussion. It also tends to diminish the level of credibility of any other assertions you make wthout obvious justification.

There are several ways in which a Foundation can support small-c conservative causes without directly being associated with a political party. To make the matter clearer, let's first look at the opposite phenomenon: a foundation which is associated with liberal causes. For instance, let's take a look at the Tides Foundation (also a past WMF donor). Here's an article from the right (Michelle Malkin) which says the following:

In July 2014, syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin wrote an expose of liberal dark money hypocrisy that included revealing information on Tides. “The Tides Center and its parent, the Tides Foundation, in turn have seeded some of the country’s most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice, the jihadist-friendly National Lawyers Guild and the grievance-mongering Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

In other words, Malkin considers the Foundation sponsoring a liberal organization like the National Lawyer's Guild to be evidence of supporting liberal causes. This is super-bad, according to her, because the govt. actually gives money to the Tides Foundation.

Now, let's look at the Templeton Foundation. It has awarded grants to the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank. According to this paper,

On a more particular level, the Templeton Foundation is a key player in the funding of right-wing organizations, including two that have served as active agents of mobilization for the tea party movement.

According to this Daily Beast article, the Templeton Foundation has funded groups working on LGBT issues (of a conservative orientation), and work together with many other conservative philanthropic groups.

Now, you may or may not accept these criteria for association. I am wary of doing too much of this stuff myself: pretty soon one can turn into Glenn Beck or DiscoverTheNetworks. That's fine: you can read the evidence someone provides you, not agree with it, and move on.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:46 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:...I'm struggling... ...I'm also struggling...

As I hinted earlier, this doesn't surprise me. You seem to enjoy generating false struggles. It's amusing for a little while, but then it gets really old.

What's a little puzzling to me is why, when you have here before you in my person, someone who could be one of your biggest allies, you make the repeated choice to be difficult with him, just for the sake of making difficulty? Whatever the reason, it's a game I'll play no longer.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:08 am

Greg, if you look at the post above yours, you'll see a full and interesting response from Kingsindian which addresses the question I actually asked about Templeton Foundation being associated with a political party. It's not just about throwing out a mass of stuff which vaguely suggests that John Templeton Senior, or Junior supported some party; nor is it stuff about the Templeton Foundation supporting projects which you think vaguely small-c conservative; it makes specific links. The paper in question makes a bare assertion but it is at least specific and does address the question I asked.

Your notion that I or anyone else on this forum need or want you or anyone else as an "ally" is odd. This is not a MMORPG in which we form guilds and gain points while pretending to do something else – that's how Wikipedia works. If you or anyone else makes assertions with no immediately obvious justification then they may reasonably be expected to be challenged. If you or anyone else respond to challenge with unhelpful comments like "I guess you're struggling with the concept" then they may reasonably expect to be chided for an unconstructive attitude. If you or anyone else behave as if they have some special rights or privileges in discourse unavilable to others, then they may reasonably expect to have that behaviour commented on..

Returning now to the topic in hand. Andreas asked about major donors and consultants who who are associated with, or open supporters of the Republicans or some other right-wing political party. The summary of what has been stated so far appears to be as follows. All major donors with a clear political association are left-wing but at least one medium donor is right-wing. All consultants with a clear political association are left-wing. Is that a correct summary of the discussion so far?

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:53 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote: Your notion that I or anyone else on this forum need or want you or anyone else as an "ally" is odd. This is not a MMORPG in which we form guilds and gain points while pretending to do something else – that's how Wikipedia works. If you or anyone else makes assertions with no immediately obvious justification then they may reasonably be expected to be challenged. If you or anyone else respond to challenge with unhelpful comments like "I guess you're struggling with the concept" then they may reasonably expect to be chided for an unconstructive attitude. If you or anyone else behave as if they have some special rights or privileges in discourse unavilable to others, then they may reasonably expect to have that behaviour commented on..

Here is another way to handle it, which I prefer. Greg gave an example of a WMF donor which he believed was associated with the right-wing. You asked him for links, he provided some, which were sufficient to convince Greg. It was not sufficient to convince you, and you said why it didn't convince you. Ok, fine.

The point was simply that someone (Greg) provided a data point for investigation where previously there were none; it is in this sense that they are an "ally". I did not know much about the Templeton Foundation, for instance, so I couldn't have provided the data. You can, of course, look at the data and come to different conclusions. That's fine. I have found that it is usually not constructive to expect everyone to come to the same conclusions by looking at some piece of data. It depends on one's priors, one's temperament, and so on.

One can just accept this fact and move on. For instance, I don't expect Poetlister to agree with me on many things which are Israel-related. They, of course, know a fair bit about Israel; so I can get information which I didn't know before. But I can't expect them to agree on the conclusions which I derive from the data. That's why I usually keep the back-and-forth with them to a couple of posts. Otherwise, it just irritates everyone for no reason at all (the rest of the people just want the posts to be split to another thread

).

Returning now to the topic in hand. Andreas asked about major donors and consultants who who are associated with, or open supporters of the Republicans or some other right-wing political party. The summary of what has been stated so far appears to be as follows. All major donors with a clear political association are left-wing but at least one medium donor is right-wing. All consultants with a clear political association are left-wing. Is that a correct summary of the discussion so far?

I think it is roughly correct: this was the upshot on the original discussion on the mailing list. Andreas was just wondering if even one exception to the general pattern exists.

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:35 am

Kingsindian wrote:An interesting recommendation in this Communications audit by Minassian media:

Excellent find, Kingsindian! Here's a link to the full pdf file.

That document is worth perusing in full, as Minassian's recommendations for engaging with the press provide insight into the blatantly corporate mindset of the Foundation's leadership.

There's talk of planning ahead for "big news" to get "big results" and "media hits." Suggestions include promoting greater involvement by the local chapters in future press campaigns, to the point of providing media training (i.e. teaching key people how to avoid uncomfortable questions).

Minassian also came up with a detailed analysis of the past year's press coverage and a list of "friendly" and "unfriendly" journalists.

Motherboard's Jason Koebler is mentioned *six* times. It's probably safe to assume he won't be talking to Katherine Maher any time soon.

Finally, the Communications team currently provides comment on articles infrequently, generally based on the tier of the outlet (i.e., we prefer upper-tier outlets over lower-tier publications and blogs), and whether a comment would shed positive light on our organization. In the future, it is suggested that we begin to check the sentiment, tone and the author and outlet’s history with Wikipedia. This will help us gauge whether it is worthwhile to offer a comment, should one be requested. For instance, given the articles written by Jason Koebler (Motherboard) recently, offering a comment would most likely do little to advance our messaging strategy.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:00 pm

Yes, before I gave my Open Letter to you and Andreas, Jason Koebler is the only press agent I'd sent the story to.

Yesterday I added the following post to Wikipedia Weekly

sashi wrote:The current and the former Chief Communications Officers of the Clinton Foundation both work for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

Bonus: the curious story of a POV editor who created 19 articles in 20 days (20K each), and some POV categories to boot...

http://ling.creoliste.fr/index.php?titl ... _to_ArbCom

Unsurprisingly, I was blocked from Oui-Oui (which presumably is meant to replace the Signpost) within the hour. I guess they don't want people to know about this. ^^

(I should have been more precise and mentioned that they worked for the WMF during the 2016 US election.)

The original discussion grew out of Andreas' El Reg article on golden handshakes (discussion on Wikipedia Review). It was a good example of the two fora working together. It has been covered at gamergate HQ and (peripherally) at wikiinaction.

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:24 pm

Bezdomni wrote:Yes, before I gave my Open Letter to you and Andreas, Jason Koebler is the only press agent I'd sent the story to.

What Open Letter, dear? I received an email notification about a message from you, but when I logged in and checked my PM folder, there was nothing. Probably just as well, as I cannot currently devote it the time it deserves. My apologies.

Anyhow, congratulations on producing some of the most quirky and interesting posts on here and on the other site.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:24 pm

It's in the message just above (in the quote box). You're right, the message appears to have disappeared from my mailbox too. Weird.

In re: quirks mode

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:02 pm

As I just said on Wikipedia Weekly, there is an inescapable irony in the fact that the WMF employs a political spinmeister (who's worked on two presidential election campaigns, among other things) to help it come up with the following strategy (page 35):

Given today’s record levels of partisanship and polarization, and the continued rise of opinion-based media (perhaps embodied most in the U.S. election), we have an opportunity to bolster our messaging around neutrality.
One strategy to introduce more messaging around neutrality would be to pursue a post-election gag along the lines of “The election is over: it’s time to get back to the facts now.” Another option would be to bring back “Citation needed” messaging to both mainstream and fringe media. One way to achieve this is pushing out our balanced coverage of the most controversial subjects. A novel strategy to achieve this goal would be to introduce a breaking news Twitter feed that pushes out neutral content when controversial events transpire.

For background on Minassian, see https://www.disruptorawards.com/fellows ... -minassian

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:38 pm

Interesting also that this advice is about doing something that Wikipedia claims not to do, namely be a newspaper. So the marketing strategy isn't going to be much help to Wikipedia, but the messages it proposes about the need for reliable news will be useful to a for-proft company founded by one of the Trustees shortly after the publication of this report.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:17 pm

Hmm... the fact that this WMF trustee's project is "for profit" was not mentioned in the French, German and Spanish Wikipedia articles on it, until very recently. The Spanish one went so far as to describe it as "non-profit".

Ah, Wikipedia. Ever reliable.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:57 pm

Thank you very much for looking into this in such depth and reposting it Andreas. I had to log out of FB to even view the discussion, which, of course, contains lots of ad hominem / smear attacks against Wikipediocracy instead of treating the content.

Still can't get my head around why nobody seems to really get the COI problem... the report was published in September of 2016, two months before a national election. Not one but two CCOs from the CF seem to have worked on it (Jove Oliver + Craig Minassian). And yet reading the comments there, one would think that this doesn't mean a thing...

Of course, any mention of the fact that the WP Clinton Foundation article caused dozens a good number of blocks / topic bans as people tried to add well sourced info to the article is not possible because a lot of those people all have a little line through their names on Wikipedia now, suggesting they are deceased. The rest are gagged by the topic-ban rules at en.wp. (such gagging, unless I'm mistaken, is not done on fr.wp, not sure about nl.wp or de.wp, etc.)

Edit: maybe not dozens... (link added) ^^

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:20 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Hmm... the fact that this WMF trustee's project is "for profit" was not mentioned in the French, German and Spanish Wikipedia articles on it, until very recently. The Spanish one went so far as to describe it as "non-profit".

The Spanish site now describes it as "una organización lucrativa" which Google Translate obligingly renders as "a lucrative organisation". Maybe one day ...

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:31 am

One strategy to introduce more messaging around neutrality would be to pursue a post-election gag along the lines of “The election is over: it’s time to get back to the facts now.”

Or, perhaps: "We lost the election in humiliating fashion: it's time to bring that same magic to Wikipedia now."

On another note, I was a bit surprised to see that Caitlin Dewey made it onto the "friendly reporter" side in Minassian's assessment, given that (out of the top 10 reporters) she was second-most likely to offer a negative viewpoint of Wikipedia.

The report is also loaded with typographical errors and mistakes.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:36 am

Craig Minassian brings a unique background in strategic communications, content development and brand marketing

Sounds terribly unique.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:45 am

Bezdomni wrote:I had to log out of FB to even view the discussion...

Which discussion? Where? Could you provide a link? (I'm not seeing one above that had anything to do with Facebook.)

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:09 am

thekohser wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:I had to log out of FB to even view the discussion...
Which discussion? Where? Could you provide a link? (I'm not seeing one above that had anything to do with Facebook.)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/

(It's the top story at the moment.)
(If you can't find it when logged in to FB, try logging out... they may have blocked you from reading their newsfeed as a precaution.)

The young Liam Wyatt basically won the thread with ad hominem, earning likes from Katherine Maher and 9 others (so far) for saying:

Liam Wyatt wrote:But, since this is coming from Wikipediocracy, then that this is being spun as a conspiracy theory where the WMF is simultaneously Machiavellian and incompetent, is utterly unsurprising.

Personally, I think it's pretty straightforward: hiring the Clinton Foundation for your public relations during the 2016 presidential campaign is just a remarkably silly public relations move if you intend to portray yourself as a neutral source. It's a bit like having Chelsea Clinton on the board of directors of IAC, which owns The Daily Beast. I remember quite well when an article written under a pseudonym by Yashar Hedayat -- a rich kid from Chicago who worked on HRC's 2008 campaign -- was added to Jill Stein's Wikipedia page at the same time it appeared in print in the IAC-owned Daily Beast.

Of course the account that added it -- a certain "Snooganssnoogans" -- has since had a slap on the wrist for mass-POV editing, though they were never blocked for this particular copyright violation. Who knows, maybe Snoog *is* that rich kid from Chicago (Rahm Emmanuel's fief), which means it wasn't exactly a copyright violation after all! (It should be noted that Snoog did not offer that defense at the time.)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:41 am

Bezdomni wrote: https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/

(It's the top story at the moment.)

Yes, of course I am blocked from that group -- in the spirit of sentiment over truth, ironically enough.

A permanent link to the discussion in question:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikiped ... 440057850/

It's cringe-worthy seeing how a few assholes (like David Gerard) can get away with taunting and shunning Andreas... and their stay is welcomed and extended there, but for some reason, I'm banned (though I may be an asshole, too).