3 ms·

The former Wikimedia CEO (she left in 2021) is now on the Atlantic Council and currently serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board: h

by akolbe 4y ago

The former Wikimedia CEO (she left in 2021) is now on the Atlantic Council and currently serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/katherine-maher/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/katherine-maher/ Then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent Richard Boly as a representative of the Office of eDiplomacy to the 2012 Wikimania conference. At the time, Boly was "leading an ambitious State Department initiative that uses social media and online platforms to change the way employees communicate and reach outside their boundaries to advance U.S. foreign policy interests" according to the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/federal-faces-richard-boly/2012/06/25/gJQAz2r82V_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/federal-fac... Boly's Wikimania speech is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0NsY48OQdc&t=457s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0NsY48OQdc&t=457s A few years later, the person put in charge of facilitating the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 process was Hillary Clinton's former Trips Director, Whitney Williams: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/People/Core_team https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/... The PR company that has looked after Wikimedia for the past decade or so is Minassian Media, run by the chief communications and marketing officer of the Clinton Foundation, who formerly was assistant press secretary and director of television news in the White House for President Bill Clinton: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-d... The Chief Advancement Officer at Wikimedia is the politically very well connected lady here: https://sfgov.org/civilservice/sites/default/files/Documents/civil_service/FINAL_Annual_Report10_11.pdf#page=13 https://sfgov.org/civilservice/sites/default/files/Documents... The current CEO is Maryana Iskander; she has been a speaker at the Clinton Global Initiative and presented her work to Bill Clinton when he visited South Africa: https://www.itnewsafrica.com/2018/11/harambees-exceeds-youth-employment-commitment-to-clinton-global-initiative/ https://www.itnewsafrica.com/2018/11/harambees-exceeds-youth... Wikimedia also partners extensively with the Tides Foundation and Tides Advocacy ... So there are very significant political connections in the US.

wpietri 4y ago
Since I can't post the Pepe Silva/Red String Guy meme here directly, I'd be much obliged if you'd just imagine it for me. Thanks!
- akolbe 4y ago
  Each of the above is true and verifiable by the links posted. You can make of it what you will.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Yes and what I make of it in relation to information quality on Wikipedia is the red string meme. Classic conspiracy-theory boogeyman nonsense, all allusion and vaguery.
    - akolbe 4y ago
      The Wikimedia Foundation does not edit Wikipedia. So what I said above has got little to do with the information quality on the level of an individual article. I still find it interesting though that the organisation attracts so many politicos. And as far as the Wikimedia Foundation's Strategy 2030 is concerned, it's absolutely relevant. A lot of people in the volunteer community felt that the result of the strategy discussions was kind of preordained, rather than a reflection of the community's will. ("By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us ..." etc.) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/... There is more indirect influence on content by the Wikimedia Foundation nowadays, where they fund community organizers to increase coverage in a particular topic area. An early example that taught them how not to do this (as well as a clear example of undue donor influence) was the Belfer Center scandal: https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-beginners-guide-to-the-biggest-wikipedia-controversy-youve-probably-never-heard-of/ https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-be... That was a scandal only because the Wikipedia volunteer community paid attention. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-paid-editing-scanda... A more recent example that seems unobjectionable is this one: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab-beta/ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab...

by akolbe 4y ago

wpietri 4y ago

Since I can't post the Pepe Silva/Red String Guy meme here directly, I'd be much obliged if you'd just imagine it for me. Thanks!

akolbe 4y ago
Each of the above is true and verifiable by the links posted. You can make of it what you will.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Yes and what I make of it in relation to information quality on Wikipedia is the red string meme. Classic conspiracy-theory boogeyman nonsense, all allusion and vaguery.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    The Wikimedia Foundation does not edit Wikipedia. So what I said above has got little to do with the information quality on the level of an individual article. I still find it interesting though that the organisation attracts so many politicos. And as far as the Wikimedia Foundation's Strategy 2030 is concerned, it's absolutely relevant. A lot of people in the volunteer community felt that the result of the strategy discussions was kind of preordained, rather than a reflection of the community's will. ("By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us ..." etc.) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/... There is more indirect influence on content by the Wikimedia Foundation nowadays, where they fund community organizers to increase coverage in a particular topic area. An early example that taught them how not to do this (as well as a clear example of undue donor influence) was the Belfer Center scandal: https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-beginners-guide-to-the-biggest-wikipedia-controversy-youve-probably-never-heard-of/ https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-be... That was a scandal only because the Wikipedia volunteer community paid attention. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-paid-editing-scanda... A more recent example that seems unobjectionable is this one: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab-beta/ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab...