Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Peter Southwood]

Objective evidence should always override hypothesis, opinion, bullshit and 
propaganda.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:52 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Hoi,
Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or sources. 
When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific practice, 
that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory", a theory that 
many generations of scientists have established, describing how it works and 
interconnections with observable fact. What do you do when someone says "I do 
not believe it" and asks for a neutral point of view?

What do you say when employees of the Wikimedia Foundation no longer can come 
to their head quarters, do you call it observable fact or do you call it 
politics because it is the consequence of a new president of the United States 
of America?

What am I to think when people call in doubt when we are told by the main man 
of the Wikimedia Foundation that this severely impacts our movement and we are 
told that she can not say so because some volunteers feel that they need to be 
consulted. Well, to be honest, I do not give a fuck and I applaud Katherine 
Maher for speaking out in a timely manner. When someone is to censure her, it 
is the board who can do so and I strongly doubt that this will ever happen.

When someone like Jerry Falwell Jr is to head an education task force. I wonder 
how this is possible. To be honest, I fear for what we will stand for. I fear 
for the relevance of all the science and students in the future of the United 
States. I doubt very much that the United States will remain relevant because 
of this and the unfortunate tendency of "alternative facts".

Really, I am not party to US politics. I am part of the Wikimedia movement and 
there is imho no room for alternative facts. These alternative facts stand in 
contrast to observable facts and scientific practice including the use of 
sources. They have nothing to do with Neutral point of View. At most 
"alternative facts" are not worth more than a paragraph at the bottom that 
includes a rebuttal.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3 February 2017 at 20:32, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we 
> want them at all.
>
> Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia 
> projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. 
> SOPA was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of 
> Wikimedia.
> In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting 
> ourselves into politics.
>
> Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. 
> We aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to 
> catalog what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying 
> that as someone who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.
>
> If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, 
> they have every right to do that. On their own time and their own 
> nickel, and without speaking as a representative of the organization.
>
> It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened 
> without consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for 
> all of us, without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally 
> unacceptable and I'd like to see further discussion of that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
> 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and all 
> > > discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is and isn't 
> > > appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
> >
> > Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia 
> > projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in 
> > the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts 
> > and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
> >
> > More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the 
> > past
> > weeks:
> >
> > * make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, 
> > no opposition, task created)
> >
> > * relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
> >
> > * assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or
> opposition
> > yet)
> >
> > * correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues 
> > (seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
> >
> > * turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of 
> > public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification 
> > questions were asked but have yet been answered)
> >
> > * issue a 

[Wikimedia-l] Call for Elections Committee members

[Katie Chan]

Hello all,


The Wikimedia Foundation StandingElections Committee is, from today 
until February 17, seeking additional members to help facilitate 
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee and Funds Dissemination Committee 
elections. This is a volunteer role and the appointment is for two 
years. Please note that, while you are a member of the Committee, you 
will not be able to run for any election overseen by the Committee – 
this includes the upcoming 2017 Board and FDC elections and any other 
election where the committee had already begun formal preparation before 
your departure. You will also be restricted in your ability to publicly 
advocate for community members running in those elections.



The Elections Committee has the following duties, as defined by a July 
2015 Board Resolution 
:


 *

   The Committee shall recommend the dates, rules, and regulation of
   the voting procedures for approval by the Board of Trustees pursuant
   to Article IV, Section 3(C) in the Foundation Bylaws
   .

 *

   The Committee shall recommend who is qualified to vote for the Board
   of Trustees pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(C) in the Wikimedia
   Foundation Bylaws .

 *

   The Committee shall be responsible for preparing recommendations for
   the dates, rules and regulation of the voting procedures for the
   Funds Dissemination Committee
   ,
   and the Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson, consistent with
   the charter of the Funds Dissemination Committee.

 *

   To the extent possible, the Committee shall consult with the wider
   Wikimedia community in developing and revising election procedures
   within the scope of this charter.

 *

   The Committee shall be a source of information to any member of the
   Wikimedia community interested in the community selection processes
   of the Wikimedia Foundation.

 *

   Under the direction of the Board Governance Committee, the Committee
   shall take actions as necessary to execute the selection process for
   the Board of Trustees, the Funds Dissemination Committee, and the
   Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson.

 *

   As needed, the Committee may assist with other duties as may be
   assigned by the Board or the Board Governance Committee.


In practice, a member's duties involve communicating with the global 
committee who help to steward Board and FDC Elections. During an 
election period – one of which is over the next three to four months – 
this will be especially important as you help to run the upcoming 
elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the Funds 
Dissemination Committee. During this period, members of the Elections 
Committee meet for semi-regular meetings to discuss the current election.



However, this appointment is not just for election periods. Outside of 
the election season you will lead community discussions on election 
process and advise the Board of Trustees Governance Committee 
as 
requested, such as in their search for appointed board members. The 
expected time commitment can range from around 10 hours a week during an 
election to one or two hours outside of the election period.



If you'd like to apply please send an email to 
bec-newmemb...@lists.wikimedia.org with:



 *

   Your username;

 *

   A brief summary of your Wikimedia related experience and any other
   experience you think may be useful along with;

 *

   Why you're interested in the role and a quick statement saying you
   understand the requirements.


Given the private information that committee members handle, candidates 
must be 18 years of age or older, and be willing to sign the 
confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information 
if 
they haven't already. You can view information on how to sign this on 
Meta-Wiki 
.



As much as possible we want the committee to represent the diversity of 
the Wikimedia movement so if you're interested please apply! If you know 
of others, not on this list, who may want to apply please feel free to 
forward.



KTC,

On behalf of the Elections Committee


--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is 
associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Wikimedia-l] Tech Talk: A Gentle Introduction to Wikidata for Absolute Beginners [including non-techies!]

[Rachel Farrand]

Please join for the following talk:

*Tech Talk**:* A Gentle Introduction to Wikidata for Absolute Beginners
[including non-techies!]
*Presenter:* Asaf Bartov
*Date:* February 09, 2017
*Time: *19:00 UTC

Link to live YouTube stream 
*IRC channel for questions/discussion:* #wikimedia-office

*Summary: *This talk will introduce you to the Wikimedia Movement's latest
major wiki project: Wikidata. We will cover what Wikidata is, how to
contribute, how to embed Wikidata into articles on other wikis, tools like
the Wikidata Game, and how to query Wikidata (including SPARQL examples).
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Robert Fernandez]

The same way I would respond any time they do something non-political
I strongly disagree with.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> You somewhat conveniently avoided addressing Nathan's point. If the
> Wikimedia Foundation issued a political statement with a view that you
> found deeply offensive and strongly disagreed with, how would you respond?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[MZMcBride]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
>On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> I guess this is referring to
>> .
>
>There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC,
>who would not have been able to attend under the current ban.
>
>I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a
>ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so.

Wikimania has taken place in many countries. In 2011 it was held in
Israel, in 2008 it was held in Egypt, etc. That doesn't make it
appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation to issue statements about various
national policies. That isn't its role or responsibility.

Simply because tenuous connections can be made doesn't suddenly make them
legitimate reasons for political action on behalf of the Wikimedia
Foundation or the Wikimedia movement. An unwanted pregnancy is a burden
and may reduce the ability of some women to edit Wikipedia. But that
(quite obviously, to me, anyway) does not mean that the Wikimedia
Foundation should be taking a position on abortion rights and access to
contraception. In my opinion, the risk of such political action is pretty
clear: it has a very real possibility to fracture and divide the Wikimedia
community over issues that are unrelated to Wikimedia's mission.

Robert Fernandez wrote:
>That is an obvious false equivalence.  The issue isn't people rooting
>for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own.  The
>issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission
>can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act
>appropriately.

You somewhat conveniently avoided addressing Nathan's point. If the
Wikimedia Foundation issued a political statement with a view that you
found deeply offensive and strongly disagreed with, how would you respond?

Todd Allen wrote:
>I don't think anyone is disputing the facts. I'm certainly not. And I am
>gravely concerned by what's being done, and I entirely oppose it.
>
>However, that doesn't mean I want to see WMF used as a political
>mouthpiece, even when what's being said happens to be things I fully agree
>with.

Agreed.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Todd Allen]

I don't think anyone is disputing the facts. I'm certainly not. And I am
gravely concerned by what's being done, and I entirely oppose it.

However, that doesn't mean I want to see WMF used as a political
mouthpiece, even when what's being said happens to be things I fully agree
with.

Todd
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] join the Wikimania program committee!

[phoebe ayers]

Dear all,

We are looking for members of the 2017 Wikimania program committee!
The committee will help put together the program and schedule for
Wikimania Montreal, to be held on 9-13 August 2017:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/

Committee member responsibilities include helping promote the call for
submissions and recruiting speakers, helping design the program and
reviewing program submissions. Review dates this year are April 2017
and mid-May through June 2017; program committee members should commit
to having availability for reviewing submissions and regular meetings
during those times.

If you are a Wikimedian interested in building a great Wikimania, you
are welcome to apply! We are especially looking for committee members
with experience with (one or more of) sister projects, non-English
speaking communities, technical projects, or GLAM and education
projects. We are also especially looking for French speakers who can
assist in recruiting and reviewing French-language submissions.

Please let us know if you are interested by contacting
wikimania-prog...@lists.wikimedia.org with your name, interest, and
availability. We will be forming the committee quickly. More
information on the program, including the call for submissions, will
be coming soon.

Thank you!
Marc-Andre Pelletier (Wikimania chair)
Phoebe Ayers (program co-chair)
Deror Lin (program co-chair)
Guillame Paumier (program co-chair)

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 gmail.com *

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or
sources. When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific
practice, that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory",
a theory that many generations of scientists have established, describing
how it works and interconnections with observable fact. What do you do when
someone says "I do not believe it" and asks for a neutral point of view?

What do you say when employees of the Wikimedia Foundation no longer can
come to their head quarters, do you call it observable fact or do you call
it politics because it is the consequence of a new president of the United
States of America?

What am I to think when people call in doubt when we are told by the main
man of the Wikimedia Foundation that this severely impacts our movement and
we are told that she can not say so because some volunteers feel that they
need to be consulted. Well, to be honest, I do not give a fuck and I
applaud Katherine Maher for speaking out in a timely manner. When someone
is to censure her, it is the board who can do so and I strongly doubt that
this will ever happen.

When someone like Jerry Falwell Jr is to head an education task force. I
wonder how this is possible. To be honest, I fear for what we will stand
for. I fear for the relevance of all the science and students in the future
of the United States. I doubt very much that the United States will remain
relevant because of this and the unfortunate tendency of "alternative
facts".

Really, I am not party to US politics. I am part of the Wikimedia movement
and there is imho no room for alternative facts. These alternative facts
stand in contrast to observable facts and scientific practice including the
use of sources. They have nothing to do with Neutral point of View. At most
"alternative facts" are not worth more than a paragraph at the bottom that
includes a rebuttal.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3 February 2017 at 20:32, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want
> them at all.
>
> Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia
> projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA
> was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of Wikimedia.
> In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting
> ourselves into politics.
>
> Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. We
> aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to catalog
> what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying that as someone
> who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.
>
> If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, they
> have every right to do that. On their own time and their own nickel, and
> without speaking as a representative of the organization.
>
> It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened without
> consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for all of us,
> without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally unacceptable and
> I'd like to see further discussion of that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and
> > > all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is
> > > and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
> >
> > Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia
> > projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in
> > the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts
> > and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
> >
> > More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past
> > weeks:
> >
> > * make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no
> > opposition, task created)
> >
> > * relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
> >
> > * assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or
> opposition
> > yet)
> >
> > * correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
> > (seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
> >
> > * turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
> > public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions
> > were asked but have yet been answered)
> >
> > * issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
> > controversial, statement issued by ED)
> >
> > * call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
> >
> > * improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition
> > yet)
> >
> > * require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
> > action (seconded, controversial)
> >
> > * create an alternative 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Todd Allen]

Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want
them at all.

Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia
projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA
was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of Wikimedia.
In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting
ourselves into politics.

Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. We
aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to catalog
what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying that as someone
who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.

If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, they
have every right to do that. On their own time and their own nickel, and
without speaking as a representative of the organization.

It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened without
consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for all of us,
without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally unacceptable and
I'd like to see further discussion of that.

Todd

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen
>  wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and
> > all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is
> > and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
>
> Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia
> projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in
> the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts
> and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
>
> More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past
> weeks:
>
> * make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no
> opposition, task created)
>
> * relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
>
> * assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or opposition
> yet)
>
> * correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
> (seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
>
> * turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
> public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions
> were asked but have yet been answered)
>
> * issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
> controversial, statement issued by ED)
>
> * call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
>
> * improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition
> yet)
>
> * require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
> action (seconded, controversial)
>
> * create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are
> restricted (no second yet)
>
> * add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this
> list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)
>
> It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the
> political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support
> or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)
>
> I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but
> less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political
> issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.
>
> I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to
> see such proposals from others.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Bill Takatoshi]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen
 wrote:
>
> I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and
> all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is
> and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call

Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia
projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in
the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts
and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.

More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past weeks:

* make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no
opposition, task created)

* relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)

* assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or opposition yet)

* correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
(seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)

* turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions
were asked but have yet been answered)

* issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
controversial, statement issued by ED)

* call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)

* improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition yet)

* require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
action (seconded, controversial)

* create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are
restricted (no second yet)

* add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this
list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)

It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the
political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support
or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)

I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but
less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political
issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.

I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to
see such proposals from others.

-Will

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Perhaps the issue has something to do with whether donors expected their
money to be spent on publicising a political stance.  One "privilege" I see
here is the privilege of being able to spend other peoples' money in ways
they did not expect and, possibly, do not support, without recourse.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> That is an obvious false equivalence.  The issue isn't people rooting
> for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own.  The
> issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission
> can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act
> appropriately.  The free dissemination of factual, neutral information
> and the ability of editors to participate in that dissemination is in
> many contexts a political act and the WMF should recognize this.  To
> contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always
> politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where
> your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political
> interference.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
> >
> >> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech"  Katherine
> >> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians
> from
> >> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
> >> achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as
> I
> >> see it).
> >
> >
> >
> > I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position
> > didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme
> > vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks,
> that
> > nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in
> > recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free
> > societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people
> > (although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why
> taking
> > political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the
> > frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Robert Fernandez]

That is an obvious false equivalence.  The issue isn't people rooting
for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own.  The
issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission
can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act
appropriately.  The free dissemination of factual, neutral information
and the ability of editors to participate in that dissemination is in
many contexts a political act and the WMF should recognize this.  To
contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always
politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where
your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political
interference.



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
>
>> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech"  Katherine
>> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from
>> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
>> achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as I
>> see it).
>
>
>
> I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position
> didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme
> vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks, that
> nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in
> recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free
> societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people
> (although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why taking
> political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the
> frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Nathan]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech"  Katherine
> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from
> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
> achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as I
> see it).



I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position
didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme
vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks, that
nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in
recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free
societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people
(although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why taking
political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the
frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Pax Ahimsa Gethen]

My opinions as a US-American, member of multiple marginalized groups 
(queer/black/trans), and "social justice warrior" (though I prefer 
"mage", being a pacifist):


- Having a truly "neutral point of view" when it comes to anything 
regarding Donald Trump is not really possible.


- I support and applaud Katherine Maher's statement on the WMF blog.

- Independent of the above, I don't think this mailing list should be 
open to just any and all discussion of politics, regardless of 
viewpoint. What is and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment 
call that the moderators will have to make.


- Pax aka Funcrunch


On 2/2/17 5:26 PM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

Here is my two cents:
Most of criticism I saw boils down to these ones:
- It's politics and we should not make political statements: It's not just
political anymore, it's a humanitarian crisis. Handcuffing a five-year-old
boy in airport because of the country he was born is inhumane. Let's not
forget Holocaust was made by a democratic regime and it was completely
legal.
- There are worse things going on in other regimes: Yes, we have ISIS,
mullahs in Iran, etc. but look at the impact. This ban caused hate crimes
against Muslims all over the world. Terrorist attacks in Canada, setting
fire mosques in Texas are all because of this simple ban. if humans stay
silent, worse things happen to them. Let's learn from history.
  - People have different opinions, let's respect that: Yes, but Wikimedia
movement has core values such as inclusiveness and we need to stand for
those values when they are under threat. I take the gay rights example. If
someone makes a homophobic comment, they should be banned (per WP:NPA). So
if someone is as homophic AF and they want to be a part of the movement,
they need to park it at the door when they edit because inclusiveness is a
core value. One other core value is simply "Knowledge knows no boundaries"
and we need to stand for that, political or not.
  - People in WMF voted for Trump: If that's true, which I don't know
because anyone from WMF I know were publicly against Trump, It's very
saddening to see someone who works for WMF votes for someone who
practically opposed everything Wikimedia movement stands for. But It's a
personal matter outside the scope of this discussion. WMF can take a stand
when it's related to its values. Like what happened with SOPA and it is
possible that some employees were for SOPA but it was not the reason not to
take the stand. It's the same today as well.

May FSM bless you, Ramen.
Best

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:11 AM Gnangarra  wrote:


The WMF has an obligation to respond to any changes where its based that
impact on the movement or potentially impact on the movement, and that
includes staff members or operational activities under taken.

It cant respond to such changes without taking a POV regardless of the
situation its not about the under lying politics.

On 3 February 2017 at 08:26, Natacha Rault  wrote:


Had the WMF statement been issued on Wikipedia, now that would have
neutrality issues from a wikioedian point of view.
The WMF is not Wikipedia, and does have a political activity: being in
favour of sharing free knowledge is altogether a political statement, as
freedom of sharing knowledge is not something which is accepted by all
political regimes (please remember the globality of the movement, this is
not just an american issue, it is a planetary one). One only needs to

think

about the influence of Diderot and the encyclopedists in the French
revolution to understand that an encyclopedia, albeit seemingly neutral,
has very concrete political influences in major political regime changes.
That the WMF which relies on the free movement of people and ideas to
fulfil its mission should be worried and issue a statement is quite

normal

- not to say courageous. After all there is a notion called "freedom of
speech".
A foundation has actually no obligation to be fully transparent, and WMF
is making notable efforts in a context  where advertising, non disclosed
paid editing and lobbying are representing (in my opinion) a much greater
threat to neutrality than a public statement on this particular matter.
I am personnallly pretty impressed from across the ocean: in the 30s had
some leaders shown more courage maybe Hitler would not have been able to
start a genocide.
This not only political, this is common sense, and living in Switzerland
might influence a very pragmatic and down to the roots approach.
We are watching from over the ocean, as europeans these refugee bans
remind us of very dark memories.
  Katherine Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent
wikipedians from editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV
(actually there is no achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the
gender biases as far as I see it)
Bravo Katherine this is what I say, Sandberg has not even uttered a

tweet!

Neutrality should not mean surrending 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Support for Yair Rand's post

[Fæ]

Please avoid creating new email threads for effectively '+1' statements.
Keeping threads together means that those following it can follow the
discussion logically, while those ignoring it can filter or skip more
easily.

Thanks
Fae

On 3 Feb 2017 14:16, "Stephen Philbrick" 
wrote:

I strongly support Yair Rand's post.


I am intensely interested in political issues, but try to discuss them in
political forums, not Wikipedia discussion threads.


While there will be some occasions (SOPA) where Wikipedia is directly
threatened by political footballs, and must be discussed, we should
endeavor to limit political activism to such issues, and not bring it into
every discussion where it might have a tangential aspect. Not all editors
share the same political persuasion, and allowing political discussions in
these threads (beyond that which is absolutely necessary) has the potential
of tearing apart the community interested in bring the sum of all knowledge
to the world.


Stephen Philbrick (Sphilbrick)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Ivan Martínez]

I may write this biased message from my place of enunciation: a country
that has been threatened for several days directly by the decisions of the
President of the United States.

Only if you were a follower of Trump would you see unnecessary a proactive
defense of potential damage to people both from our community and the
Foundation staff. Personally, reading a statement from Katherine Maher let
me know that in front of threats, people in your movement will react. Let's
not be deluded, Trump's decision-making route over the past few weeks
(outside privacy, airport reviews) will sooner or later lead to a threat to
the Wikimedia Foundation. And we must be prepared.

And please, let's leave the false dilemma that as a Wikimedia movement we
should not take political positions because of Wikipedia neutrality. They
are different things clearly.

2017-02-03 6:08 GMT-06:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > I guess this is referring to
> > .
>
> There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC,
> who would not have been able to attend under the current ban.
>
> I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a
> ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Iván Martínez*

*Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid *

// Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una
moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado.
// Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Support for Yair Rand's post

[Stephen Philbrick]

I strongly support Yair Rand's post.


I am intensely interested in political issues, but try to discuss them in
political forums, not Wikipedia discussion threads.


While there will be some occasions (SOPA) where Wikipedia is directly
threatened by political footballs, and must be discussed, we should
endeavor to limit political activism to such issues, and not bring it into
every discussion where it might have a tangential aspect. Not all editors
share the same political persuasion, and allowing political discussions in
these threads (beyond that which is absolutely necessary) has the potential
of tearing apart the community interested in bring the sum of all knowledge
to the world.


Stephen Philbrick (Sphilbrick)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Andy Mabbett]

On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride  wrote:

> I guess this is referring to
> .

There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC,
who would not have been able to attend under the current ban.

I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a
ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] General Assembly: board + annual reports

[Delphine Ménard]

Thank you Romaine for this info and thorough report. :)

Welcome back to all board members and here is to a great new year!

Best,

Delphine

2017-01-28 23:54 GMT+01:00 Romaine Wiki :

> Dear all,
>
> Today Wikimedia Belgium had the annual General Assembly
> .
>
> At 1 January 2017 the board had five board members. Every board member is
> elected for a two years term, besides the president who is elected every
> year. From these five board members, the two year term of two of them ended
> (Romaine + Afernand74), as well as the term of the president ended
> (Geertivp).
>
> With no new applications for board members and the General Assembly and
> board happy with how the past period has been dealt and how stable the
> board has become, the General Assembly voted to give the three board
> members a new term. Meaning that the board stays the same and as stable
> team can move forward with our chapter.
>
> The board is composed out of Geertivp (president), Romaine (treasurer),
> SPQRobin (secretary), Afernand74 (National Liaison) and Lfurter (Gender and
> Diversity Liaison).
> See also: https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board
>
>
> Before the voting, the reporting from the past year was discussed, and the
> board has been cleared responsibility.
>
> The financial report from Wikimedia Belgium about 2016 can be found at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/
> Wikimedia_Belgium/Financial/2016
>
> The activity report from Wikimedia Belgium about 2016 can be found at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/
> Wikimedia_Belgium/Activity/2016
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Romaine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Delphine Ménard
Program Officer, Annual Plan Grants
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Jane Darnell]

Well I for one am one of those unapologetic Wikipedians who "inject their
national and identity politics into the movement". I'm a fan of the "Be
Bold" concept, bigly.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Hi Yair,
>
> I agree with your underlying sentiment. When we look at threats facing the
> Wikimedia movement, I continue to think that the risk of people being able
> to inject their national and identity politics into the movement is pretty
> great. While I may personally agree with many of the views being put
> forward, as you note these types of actions have the very real potential
> to create an unhealthy division among contributors and others.
>
> Wikimedia is a global movement and many people in the world have strongly
> held and diametrically different views about gay rights, abortion, free
> speech, the role of women, etc. Those views should rarely be relevant to
> creating free educational content. I don't think it's appropriate for
> Wikimedia to take stands on these issues. If staff of the current
> iteration of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. want to make such statements and
> take such positions, that is technically their prerogative, absent
> intervention from the Board of Trustees, however it certainly behooves
> other Wikimedian to point out what a bad idea it is.
>
> To put it another way: there are people who work at Wikimedia Foundation
> Inc. who voted for Donald Trump for president. While you may
> disagree with his policies and these staffers' decision to support him for
> president, needlessly and divisively injecting this kind of politics into
> the workplace is neither healthy nor appropriate, in my opinion.
>
> Yair Rand wrote:
> >Three days ago, the WMF put out a statement on the Wikimedia blog
> >explicitly urging a specific country to modify its refugee policy, an area
> >that does not relate to our goals. There was no movement-wide prior
> >discussion, or any discussion at all as far as I can tell.
>
> I guess this is referring to
> .
>
> In terms of various people at Wikimedia Foundation Inc. attempting to speak
> for the Wikimedia movement, there's also .
> I've raised the lack of attribution and the "veneer of authority and
> legitimacy" issue at .
> At least the recent blog post was signed by Katherine. That's better than
> some of these other essays.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Jane Darnell]

+1 to "writing an encyclopedia is a political act" and +1 to the notion
called "freedom of speech", and +1 to "refugee bans remind us of very dark
memories", but mostly +1 to the point about bias on Wikipedia! So I can
also only conclude "Bravo Katherine"!

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Had the WMF statement been issued on Wikipedia, now that would have
> neutrality issues from a wikioedian point of view.
> The WMF is not Wikipedia, and does have a political activity: being in
> favour of sharing free knowledge is altogether a political statement, as
> freedom of sharing knowledge is not something which is accepted by all
> political regimes (please remember the globality of the movement, this is
> not just an american issue, it is a planetary one). One only needs to think
> about the influence of Diderot and the encyclopedists in the French
> revolution to understand that an encyclopedia, albeit seemingly neutral,
> has very concrete political influences in major political regime changes.
> That the WMF which relies on the free movement of people and ideas to
> fulfil its mission should be worried and issue a statement is quite normal
> - not to say courageous. After all there is a notion called "freedom of
> speech".
> A foundation has actually no obligation to be fully transparent, and WMF
> is making notable efforts in a context  where advertising, non disclosed
> paid editing and lobbying are representing (in my opinion) a much greater
> threat to neutrality than a public statement on this particular matter.
> I am personnallly pretty impressed from across the ocean: in the 30s had
> some leaders shown more courage maybe Hitler would not have been able to
> start a genocide.
> This not only political, this is common sense, and living in Switzerland
> might influence a very pragmatic and down to the roots approach.
> We are watching from over the ocean, as europeans these refugee bans
> remind us of very dark memories.
>  Katherine Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent
> wikipedians from editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV
> (actually there is no achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the
> gender biases as far as I see it)
> Bravo Katherine this is what I say, Sandberg has not even uttered a tweet!
> Neutrality should not mean surrending to the powerful by remaining silent.
>
> Nattes à chat / Natacha
>
>
>
>
> > Le 3 févr. 2017 à 00:05, Leigh Thelmadatter  a
> écrit :
> >
> > I voiced my opposition to the statement on Facebook but Yair states the
> case far more eloquently. Many acts by many countries could be a possible
> threat to Wikimedia, where do we draw the line?
> > Why was there no community discussion prior to the statement?
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 02/02/2017, at 3:37 p.m., Yair Rand  wrote:
> >>
> >> The Wikimedia movement is both global and very ideologically diverse,
> and
> >> has many contributors who have strong opinions in one direction or
> another
> >> on certain political issues facing their area of the world. Many of
> these
> >> contributors find it difficult to avoid using Wikimedia forums and
> >> institutions to discuss or advocate for issues they feel very strongly
> >> about. Recently, political advocacy on Wikimedia forums has risen
> >> substantially, especially on this mailing list.
> >>
> >> While I sympathize with the difficulties these contributors face in
> >> remaining silent, it is important to consider the substantial damage
> such
> >> actions can cause to the movement. We will be much worse off if half of
> any
> >> given country's political spectrum can no longer cooperate in our
> mission
> >> due to compunctions against supporting a community which hosts those who
> >> use the community to advocate for positions that some may find
> >> unacceptable. The issue of inadvertently alienating participants
> because of
> >> politics has a self-reinforcing element: As we lose contributors
> >> representing ideological areas, we have fewer willing to advocate for an
> >> environment which allows them to participate without being bombarded by
> >> hostile political advocacy. We are precariously close to the point of no
> >> return on this, but I am optimistic that the situation is recoverable.
> >>
> >> As an initial measure, I propose adding the names of a certain country's
> >> top political leaders to this list's spam filter. More generally, I
> think a
> >> stricter stance on avoiding political advocacy on Wikimedia projects is
> >> warranted.
> >>
> >> We face a somewhat more difficult situation with the Wikimedia
> Foundation
> >> itself. Partly as a result of being relatively localized within a
> >> geographic area and further limited to several professions, I suspect
> the
> >> Foundation tends to be more politically/ideologically homogeneous. With
> the
> >> WMF, we risk much more than just alienating much of the world, we 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Gergő Tisza]

After the ban was announced, StackOverflow founder Joel Spolsky posted an
impassioned call to arms [1] to Meta Stack Overflow (the StackOverflow
equivalent of MetaWiki/wikimedia-l). The community was not happy and a
closing discussion was started. In the end the orginial post was closed and
Spolsky agreed to rewrite it as a company blog post [2] instead. The
discussion is IMO worth a read:
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved

Another discussion that comes to mind is the straw poll [3] on the proposal
to run a banner campaign to protest the imprisonment of Wikipedian and open
source/content advocate Bassel Khartabil by the Syrian government. (The
proposal was closed as lacking consensus.)

Both of these discussions are about community action, and it makes sense
that the WMF would have more freedom in how it expresses itself when
talking in its own name, on its own blog; still, the discussions might
offer some insight into how community members often view political activism
for specific local concerns that's sort of happening in the name of a
global community.


[1] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand
[2]
https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/01/Developers-without-Borders-The-Global-Stack-Overflow-Network/
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,