<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: A message from the Wikimedia UK Board	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-board/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-board/</link>
	<description>Open access to knowledge</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:46:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Martin Poulter		</title>
		<link>https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-board/#comment-161</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martin Poulter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:46:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/?p=1083#comment-161</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Andrew, it may well be unintentional, but your message frames this as though the problems were solely with the Wikimedia UK Board. I agree that people are frustrated and upset with certain negative coverage and certain rumours, but that does not equate to being upset by events. Some media outlets and individuals have jumped to conclusions without even basic critical thinking or fact-checking (and that&#039;s assuming good faith). Criticisms in the on-wiki discussion have gone far beyond conflict of interest allegations about one particular person, and even challenged the ideas of collaborating with outside entities, of promoting Wikipedia, or of having &quot;Wikiprojects&quot; to improve Wikipedia&#039;s coverage of specific topics. Some users are trying to portray successful projects as embarrassments and punish new, enthusiastic users for adding to free knowledge. Those opinions may be coming from an extreme fringe, but that the debates are even happening at all shows the rest of us need to reaffirm our belief in what we&#039;re doing. Those of us who believe in what Wikimedia is trying to achieve and its transformative power, and know that we can&#039;t achieve it fully without collaboration with many different people and organisations, need to speak up and take pride in the outreach work that is happening. That seems to be the intention behind this statement from the Board. Looking at the events calendar, Wikimedia UK is doing much more actual work now and having more impact than it ever has. It&#039;s easy to lose that big picture.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew, it may well be unintentional, but your message frames this as though the problems were solely with the Wikimedia UK Board. I agree that people are frustrated and upset with certain negative coverage and certain rumours, but that does not equate to being upset by events. Some media outlets and individuals have jumped to conclusions without even basic critical thinking or fact-checking (and that&#8217;s assuming good faith). Criticisms in the on-wiki discussion have gone far beyond conflict of interest allegations about one particular person, and even challenged the ideas of collaborating with outside entities, of promoting Wikipedia, or of having &#8220;Wikiprojects&#8221; to improve Wikipedia&#8217;s coverage of specific topics. Some users are trying to portray successful projects as embarrassments and punish new, enthusiastic users for adding to free knowledge. Those opinions may be coming from an extreme fringe, but that the debates are even happening at all shows the rest of us need to reaffirm our belief in what we&#8217;re doing. Those of us who believe in what Wikimedia is trying to achieve and its transformative power, and know that we can&#8217;t achieve it fully without collaboration with many different people and organisations, need to speak up and take pride in the outreach work that is happening. That seems to be the intention behind this statement from the Board. Looking at the events calendar, Wikimedia UK is doing much more actual work now and having more impact than it ever has. It&#8217;s easy to lose that big picture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Stevie Benton		</title>
		<link>https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-board/#comment-160</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stevie Benton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/?p=1083#comment-160</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for your comment Andrew. We&#039;re expecting to be able to publish more details of the review next week.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment Andrew. We&#8217;re expecting to be able to publish more details of the review next week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Andrew Turvey		</title>
		<link>https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-board/#comment-159</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Turvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/?p=1083#comment-159</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for this statement. There are lots of people in Wikimedia UK who have put a lot of effort into the chapter and have been very frustrated - angry even - at recent events and the damage it appears to have done. It means a lot that the board is willing to acknowledge that mistakes have been made and understand that damage has been caused and it is most appreciated.

I&#039;m glad you also &quot;reaffirm [your] commitment to transparency and openness&quot;. In that spirit will you now publish the terms of reference of the review?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this statement. There are lots of people in Wikimedia UK who have put a lot of effort into the chapter and have been very frustrated &#8211; angry even &#8211; at recent events and the damage it appears to have done. It means a lot that the board is willing to acknowledge that mistakes have been made and understand that damage has been caused and it is most appreciated.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad you also &#8220;reaffirm [your] commitment to transparency and openness&#8221;. In that spirit will you now publish the terms of reference of the review?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
