on 2/24/12 1:35 PM, Nathan at [email protected] wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Marc Riddell > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I agree with you, Yaroslav, that repeated and indiscriminate use of the >> method would dilute its impact; and could come back to bite the Project. >> But >> I think it unwise and unfair to put a flatly negative spin on the idea. >> >> Marc >> >> > I was actually against both the Italian blackout and the subsequent > blackout of en.wp. I don't think a reference work (which is what Wikipedia > aims to be) should take political positions. A core pillar of the project > is its neutrality; neutrality underlies our articles so that they, and by > extension the project and its participants, do not take and aren't seen to > take a position on content. > > There ought to be a distinction between advocacy by the Foundation and > advocacy by content projects, in the same way we wouldn't expect Britannica > to argue its point of view in the pages of its encyclopedia but wouldn't > blink if it filed a legal brief or wrote to a lawmaker.
Nathan, I do not agree with your characterization that the Project is arguing its point of view "on its pages". The neutrality/objectivity of the content of the Encyclopedia is not involved here. You appear more concerned with the Project's image, than confronting head-on an issue that could directly affect its content. Marc _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
