On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by >>> assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work >>> out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website >>> appearing to take sides in a major international dispute. >>> >> >> What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides >> with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: >> U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism >> would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine >> if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable >> hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly >> politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and >> in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow >> political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia >> Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in >> that region. > > I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are > likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding > area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about > the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be. > Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know > what the consequences will be seems like a very bad idea to me. >
Ah, I just that that when you wrote "very real risks" you had some in mind. Thanks for clarifying. ~Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
