> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>
>> We just won a major victory in our battle to keep the internet free [...] Our
>> established positions are
>> against corporate interests.
>
> When the Guardian reported[1] on the recent European copyright campaign, as
> supported
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> We just won a major victory in our battle to keep the internet free [...] Our
> established positions are
> against corporate interests.
When the Guardian reported[1] on the recent European copyright campaign, as
supported by Wikimedia
Please, don't:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:11 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> I propose that the Executive Director ask donors to
> support other organizations which are working for free college,[1-4]
> single payer universal health care,[5] shorter work weeks,[6-7]
> payroll subsidies,[8] and
Hell NO!
We are not neutral and it will be a particular sad situation when we forget
what we are there for, what our objectives are only to "avoid compromising
the appearance of
the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to avoid
bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Are there any specific reasons that the Foundation should remain
> neutral on any topic, economic, political, or otherwise, which clearly
> impacts the readership or community?
Well, off the top of my head: to avoid compromising the
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Lodewijk,
>
> I want to ask about something you wrote:
>
> >... Not taking a position is definitely not the same as
> > taking a 'neutral' position or holding the middle ground.
>
> Suppose for the sake of argument that there are two
Lodewijk,
I want to ask about something you wrote:
>... Not taking a position is definitely not the same as
> taking a 'neutral' position or holding the middle ground.
Suppose for the sake of argument that there are two competing popular
opinions, one of which is more true than another. If the
> I think the general attitude is clear: not interested.
I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years,
and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill
will on their peers.
I am hardly the only one to speak up for community attraction and
retention
Hoi,
Are you seriously asking what African, Indian or Chinese Wikipedian ...
does not want Americans or British to have what they do not have either?
What makes them so special that they deserve this!
English Wikipedia is only 50% of our traffic. The attention it is given is
excessive.
Thanks,
Dear James,
this is a returning topic, it seems (Wikimedia should take political stands
on XYZ economic policies). And somehow it's always initiated by you.
I think the general attitude is clear: not interested.
I join the chorus: Wikimedia should remain nonpartisan, and not take any
position
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Dennis During wrote:
> Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by
> economics.
Have you looked at the ED's CV?
> I would bail from this project and find another that was less partisan
If the ED told donors to take steps that might
Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by
economics. I would bail from this project and find another that was less
partisan, though fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me. I
expect that the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of
Dennis,
Are you suggesting that public policy to support wikimedians outside
of copyright and internet law would be outside of the basic remit as
specified by the Mission? We should measure how much donors are likely
to donate more or less for each of the issues. I would also like to
know the
Would this be for US only or worldwide?
Cheers, Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
James Salsman
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 10:11 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter
I'd reconsider contributing content to WMF projects if WMF became a
partisan on issues outside its basic remit.
On Jun 15, 2018 16:11, "James Salsman" wrote:
Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic
Thanks. I'd also like to temporarily relinquish work on
https://goo.gl/forms/BZVgFgFs8P5pCNUW2 to the Foundation. -Best
regards, Jim
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> Hi James.
>
> Your suggestion is noted but there are lot's of things that we want to do
> with email but
Very diplomatic, Seddon!
But... no. Seriously. Let's not pretend that having the WMF ED send a
bunch of emails to Wikimedia donors about general US public policy
issues is a remotely good idea.
Chris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> Hi James.
>
> Your suggestion is
Hi James.
Your suggestion is noted but there are lot's of things that we want to do
with email but only a finite amount of resources in this area with which to
achieve it so it'll be something for to thinking about in the future.
Many Thanks
Seddon
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:11 PM James
Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic
correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
Foundation traditionally supports directly
19 matches
Mail list logo
