Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[MZMcBride]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>We do not care about our own. I do acknowledge that some have other
>opinions but I do not have to respect such an opinion. The proof of the
>pudding is after all in the eating and we allowed this to happen, no sound
>came out of our community that said otherwise.

What you're saying is an example of false equivalency (in addition to
being polemical hyperbole). Putting up a site-wide advertisement is not
equivalent to caring about someone or something.

Regarding the pudding, I think the disconnect we're having is that not
everyone agrees when it's time for dessert. And even when many people do
agree that it's time for dessert, not everyone agrees with having pudding.
Or the flavor of the pudding. Or the means used to make and eat it.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Hi,


I agree 100% with Joseph Seddon's comment regarding the CN Banner procedure. :-)


Then, by the way:

I think Wikipedia should remain apolitical (not using wikipedia for a political 
purposes) as much as possible thus i don't think it is a good idea to set up 
such banners. We are building encyclopedia knowledge. @Gerard Meijssen: Of 
course Wikimedia/Wikipedia cares about users/staff, but political banners are 
not the best way. Telling stuff like "we do not care about our own", in the 
current context, is imho a affront for the Community and the Foundation.


Best,

Steinsplitter


Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von Bill 
Takatoshi <billtakato...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. Februar 2017 21:29
An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:

http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-president-donald-trump/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/

https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/

Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump

Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
ground.

-Will

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We do not care about our own. I do acknowledge that some have other
opinions but I do not have to respect such an opinion. The proof of the
pudding is after all in the eating and we allowed this to happen, no sound
came out of our community that said otherwise.

The fact of the matter is observable. When you compare it with fake news;
please tell me what did we do? How did we show that we cared?
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 11 February 2017 at 15:47, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> > because it has proven that we do not care about our own.
>
> Besides this is complete nonsense, that the discussion goes in this way it
> proofs we fail in being able to have a mature discussion on arguments and
> not emotions.
>
> And claiming this kind of nonsense like "we do not care about our own"
> shows a complete disrespect to those who have a different opinion.
>
> This kind of messages are the core of the problem: writing claims that are
> not supported by any evidence. Conclusion: it are fake claims, strongly
> related to the *fake news* subject of the past weeks. The thing that is
> proven is that some people in our movement spread fake information.
>
> And for clarity reasons: a friend of mine is affected. If I consider a
> banner is not suitable, would that make me then not caring? Totally not.
>
>
> 2017-02-07 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
> > Hoi,
> > Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is
> that
> > we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly
> > the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has
> > consequences.
> >
> > The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has
> > proven that we do not care about our own.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
> >
> > > To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia
> > > movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all
> projects
> > > (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the
> > more
> > > it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want
> > > advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can
> > directly
> > > damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and
> > more.
> > > Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
> > >
> > > The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional
> > cases
> > > where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific
> legislation
> > > would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles
> > of
> > > Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need
> to
> > be
> > > a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is
> in
> > > direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common
> > > understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval
> (!)
> > > and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for
> > action
> > > but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi :
> > >
> > > > In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> > > > my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> > > > Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently
> "placed
> > > > on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> > > > appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> > > > to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief
> post
> > > > yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then
> sent
> > > > me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> > > > alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> > > > the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
> > > >
> > > > http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> > > > strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
> > > >
> > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/
> > activists_call_for_a_
> > > > nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
> > > >
> > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> > > > 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
> > > >
> > > > https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-
> > gears-of-everything/
> > > >
> > > > Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> > > > an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> > > > activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
> > > >
> > > > Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> > > > strike? I am not suggesting it be 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Romaine Wiki]

> because it has proven that we do not care about our own.

Besides this is complete nonsense, that the discussion goes in this way it
proofs we fail in being able to have a mature discussion on arguments and
not emotions.

And claiming this kind of nonsense like "we do not care about our own"
shows a complete disrespect to those who have a different opinion.

This kind of messages are the core of the problem: writing claims that are
not supported by any evidence. Conclusion: it are fake claims, strongly
related to the *fake news* subject of the past weeks. The thing that is
proven is that some people in our movement spread fake information.

And for clarity reasons: a friend of mine is affected. If I consider a
banner is not suitable, would that make me then not caring? Totally not.


2017-02-07 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is that
> we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly
> the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has
> consequences.
>
> The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has
> proven that we do not care about our own.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>
> > To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia
> > movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects
> > (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the
> more
> > it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want
> > advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can
> directly
> > damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and
> more.
> > Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
> >
> > The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional
> cases
> > where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation
> > would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles
> of
> > Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to
> be
> > a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in
> > direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common
> > understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!)
> > and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for
> action
> > but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi :
> >
> > > In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> > > my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> > > Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> > > on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> > > appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> > > to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> > > yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> > > me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> > > alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> > > the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
> > >
> > > http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
> > >
> > > http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> > > strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
> > >
> > > https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/
> activists_call_for_a_
> > > nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
> > >
> > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> > > 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
> > >
> > > https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-
> gears-of-everything/
> > >
> > > Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> > > an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
> > >
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> > > activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
> > >
> > > Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> > > strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> > > we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> > > ground.
> > >
> > > -Will
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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/
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Pete Forsyth]

On 02/07/2017 04:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:


Hoi,
When we learned that one of our own was in a prison in Syria, we could not
care less. A lot of words were spend on expressing how sad it was but no,
we could do nothing about this because this would be "political".

For me it is proof how little we as a community care about our own.


That's still not an argument, it's repeated assertion. I remain unconvinced.

I see 158 "support" votes and 95 "opposes." I don't know how you define 
"care about our own," but I think the 158 in the majority care prima 
facie. Of the 95 who opposed, here are just a few quotes which I believe 
reflect compassion for Bassel:


"Per NoW 
 
and as someone already raising awareness on the subject /outside of 
Wikipedia"

"/ I understand the importance and urgency of this issue"
"A banner on Wikipedia will in no way help Bassel in his current situation."
"Bassel has all my sympathy, for seemingly being a like-minded 
individual, possibly facing death on the hands of a murderous, 
tyrannical regime."


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll

To my eyes, a strong majority care. You disagree, but I still have not 
seen reasons behind your disagreement.


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When we learned that one of our own was in a prison in Syria, we could not
care less. A lot of words were spend on expressing how sad it was but no,
we could do nothing about this because this would be "political".

For me it is proof how little we as a community care about our own. For me
the same is valid for the employees who either can no longer go home or can
no longer come to our office. People object because either "it is politics"
or "we have not been consulted. As far as I am concerned, when Jimmy was to
think of Wikipedia in these days, our office would be in London. We are an
international organisation and what happens in the USA is only relevant for
the effect it has on our activities.

We are going to spend money on fighting the "others" but I fear that the
effect of arming the fight will only make for more collateral damage. In
the official documentation it is all about tooling and there is little on
how it will be discovered how we can defang the battle.

These things go together. When on the one hand we do not care about our
own, we are likely to ignore collateral damage and retract even more behind
the walls that we have build around ourselves.

NB this is posted because "there was no argument".. It is really clever to
disagree when you have not seen the argument.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 7 February 2017 at 08:59, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On 02/06/2017 11:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> 
>> The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has
>> proven that we do not care about our own.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>
> Gerard,
>
> You may of course continue to assert what the "huha with no banner"
> proves. I happen to disagree, but you present no argument, so I will leave
> it at that.
>
> However, other readers may wish to assess your assertion against the
> evidence. Here is the discussion I think you mean; to my eyes, it proves no
> such thing. (And for whatever it's worth, my vote was in favor of a banner.)
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Pete Forsyth]

On 02/06/2017 11:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:


The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has
proven that we do not care about our own.
Thanks,
   GerardM


Gerard,

You may of course continue to assert what the "huha with no banner" 
proves. I happen to disagree, but you present no argument, so I will 
leave it at that.


However, other readers may wish to assess your assertion against the 
evidence. Here is the discussion I think you mean; to my eyes, it proves 
no such thing. (And for whatever it's worth, my vote was in favor of a 
banner.)


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is that
we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly
the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has
consequences.

The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has
proven that we do not care about our own.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia
> movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects
> (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the more
> it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want
> advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can directly
> damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and more.
> Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
>
> The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional cases
> where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation
> would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles of
> Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to be
> a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in
> direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common
> understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!)
> and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for action
> but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
>
>
>
>
> 2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi :
>
> > In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> > my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> > Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> > on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> > appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> > to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> > yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> > me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> > alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> > the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
> >
> > http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
> >
> > http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> > strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
> >
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_
> > nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
> >
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> > 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
> >
> > https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
> >
> > Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> > an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> > activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
> >
> > Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> > strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> > we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> > ground.
> >
> > -Will
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Romaine Wiki]

To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia
movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects
(like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the more
it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want
advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can directly
damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and more.
Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.

The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional cases
where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation
would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles of
Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to be
a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in
direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common
understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!)
and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for action
but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).




2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi :

> In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_
> nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Joseph Seddon]

As someone who supports community central notice campaigns, I must point
out that this list is not the appropriate venue for any discussion that
aims to arrive at any decision relating to such a banner campaign and any
thread here would in no way directly result in such action. There are
precedents in this area for campaigns that relate to policy or political
causes and for internal purposes some of these have been codified as part
of the following guidance:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline#Promotional_Use_of_Website_Assets


From a community perspective it would be expected for discussions to occur
on wiki and there be a clear and present need to establish a firm consensus
via RfC. Said RfC would focus on whether action on a particular topic
should or should not take place, it's nature and scale. There would also
need to be discussions and approvals internally for any campaign as
detailed in the guidance above.

Regards

Seddon


On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
wrote:

> In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_
> nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[James Salsman]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi  wrote:
>
>... I am sending these links without James's commentary

The part that was deleted from what I had asked to be forwarded
basically said this:

Some of the most senior and respected Foundation leaders have pointed
out that fascist regimes have come to power legally and with the
support of a majority. Is that not a lesson that if more people, and
their institutions nominally espousing the virtues of freedom, spoke
up for their opposing views, that some of those fascist regimes might
not have come to be? If you urge restraint and limited political
advocacy, you are less likely to achieve your goals, but more likely
to be able to get along with people who are opposed to them. Which is
more important to us as a community? Do we want history to look back
on us and say, "well, they didn't do anything to prevent ___, but
at least they didn't hurt each others' feelings"? If you accept that
different people reasonably and legitimately draw the line of how much
political advocacy is appropriate at different places, then I, for
one, would rather hear where you think that line is than have you keep
silent, or see you shouted down because you don't have enough culture
spirit, even if you think it's at a very different place than where I
think it is. If free culture doesn't include the vigilant practice of
speaking up for for freedom, then it might not actually be free
culture.

So, where is that line?

The last general strike in the U.S. was in 1946, over store clerks not
being paid for the time they had to wait in a ready room when there
were no customers, amounting to $10 per week in lost pay which they
were awarded upon conclusion of the negotiations that ended the
strike. Those strikes were so effective, they resulted in the
anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act being amended to say, “a general strike in
support of other workers is illegal,” which means that unions can't
call general strikes at all any more, but people, corporations, and
nonprofits can. How bad will things have to get before the Wikimedia
Foundation would join people's call for a general strike?

And I disagree with Asaf's claim that "empower" means nothing more
than to provide technical server-side technical capabilities and
occasional training support in the Mission statement. If the authors
of the Mission statement wanted that, they could have used the words,
"enable and engage," or, "facilitate and engage," but they did not.
And the evidence offered in support of that claim does not stand up to
scrutiny. Wikipedia Zero *is* a program to provide direct economic
resources and political power to those who would otherwise not be able
to access the projects' content. The statement that, "we do not teach
literacy to the illiterate," is just baffling to me. What, exactly are
the wiktionaries for? How many workshops, on-line training materials,
pamphlets, and books have taught wikitext? The list goes on.

Furthermore, the Foundation with its leadership has both sponsored and
approved paid editing projects, five times at least so far. Some of
them did not go well but the more recent have fared far better. What
is the Foundation going to do in less than 20 years when contributors
start getting the right to their copyright grants? Is the Foundation
is going to be prepared to pay editors then? What are the arguments
against adopting a fire department model, where paid professionals
work alongside volunteers, which was the entire premise of my
student's successful Google Summer of Code project last summer:

https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

I haven't heard anyone argue that the fire department model won't work
in the long term, or that it isn't the appropriate way to prepare for
editors getting the rights to their contributions back. Plenty of time
for that in the future; right now there are more pressing matters.

> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.

Sure, I would also strongly support an Uber-style boycott; just delete
the words from "national general strike" through "stoppages" in

[Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Bill Takatoshi]

In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:

http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-president-donald-trump/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/

https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/

Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump

Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
ground.

-Will

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