Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As a movement we have several policies that can be contradictory.

We want to be inclusive, have a neutral point of view but at the same time
we want facts to be supported by sources. For many things there are
contradictory sources and for many things there are additional sources.
With the current USA government denying provable facts, we find for
instance that climate change is corroborated around the world by august
bodies like the KNMI. When the USA puts forward an opinion that clashes
with scientific data / facts, it is just that. At best a footnote on the
subject of Climate change.

We know for a fact that a lot of sources have been bought. I can safely say
this now because I already said it when Mr Obama was still president. It is
a proven fact. When we are to share in the sum of all knowledge, we have to
recognise what is what.

When some people insist on calling this political, they have a problem
because sources and quality of sources are key. When we inform about
"climate change" the fact that the EPA was defanged and declawed does not
change the science and it is part of the article on the EPA. What American
politics have to say about climate change does not touch the subject of
climate change at all.

Advocacy for any opinion is problematic and it is well documented that the
current government calls for "alternative facts". They bring measles,
pollution, women dying of botched abortions back to the USA.

When you talk about abortions, sources are important. What a political
party, a government has to say is an opinion. What Doctors without Borders
has to say is observable fact. What they say is backed by scientific
observations. When people call to leave politics out, they will have to
recognise that a NPOV is about subjects where opinions matter. Where facts,
science is available their opinion does not matter and obviously so because
we are not a platform where an opinions can be found we are an
encyclopaedia when we talk about Wikipedia and we should not politicise
based on any given "alternative facts" that are often proven lies.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 2 February 2017 at 22:09, 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 risk our
> Neutrality.
>
> How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue over
> the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major
> community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an
> extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A previous
> ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than accept
> advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF die
> outright rather than accept ads is as of yet unresolved.) More recently,
> the WMF has taken limited actions and stances on public policy that
> directly relate to the mission. A careful balance has been established
> between maintaining essential neutrality and dealing with direct threats to
> the projects.
>
> Three days ago, the WMF put out a statement on the Wikimedia blo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free culture, Mission to empower, and Community Process Steering Committee

[Richard Ames]

Please don't answer these questions (at least to the list).

James - I have put you on moderation.  Please desist with direct questions
to other list members and avoid the use of the personal pronoun 'you'.
Please focus on the purpose of this list --- as listed in the links at the
bottom of every message.

Please address any discussion to the wikimedia-l-owner address (above).

Regards, Richard.

On 3 February 2017 at 15:20, James Salsman  wrote:

> Thyge, Craig, Dan, Rogol, Max, Neil, Mike, Ryan, Pete, Yair, and
> Leigh, here are some questions


...
___
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] Free culture, Mission to empower, and Community Process Steering Committee

[James Salsman]

Thyge, Craig, Dan, Rogol, Max, Neil, Mike, Ryan, Pete, Yair, and
Leigh, here are some questions I'd like you to answer, neither of
which are rhetorical:

First, what attracts you to the free culture movement?

What freedoms do you personally hold as ideal?

Finally, what does the Foundation's Mission statement mean when it
says to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and
develop educational content"? Does that mean political power?

> The WMF should not be taking political stances
> without input and consensus from the community.

The community has (s)elected the Board of Trustees, and the Board has
delegated policy-making authority to Ms. Maher. If you believe this to
be a mistake then you should run for the Board on that platform and
make your case if and when you are (s)elected. In my view Ms. Maher
has a more reasonable outlook than all of the Board's members I know
enough about to have formed an opinion on put together, and she has
been repeatedly proving it through her commendable actions,
statements, and efforts.

Nothing proves this more than Ms. Maher's message a few minutes ago on
the new strategy process. I take back all my previously stated
reservations. I was especially pleased to see this:

> Community Process Steering Committee [are discussing
> how to] engage more "quiet" members of our community

That is *sorely* needed. Most of our best content creators don't want
to stick their neck out in policy discussions, even on their projects'
noticeboards and often even on talk pages, because of the risk of
harassment, reputation polarization, stereotyping, attracting stalkers
and tag teams, or putting their contributions into the cross-hairs of
organized advocacy efforts.

I would *love* to see a frequent and statistically robust anonymous
channel from content creators to project and Foundation policymakers
consisting of more than just a 20 minute survey every couple years.

___
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] February 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#5)

[Katherine Maher]

Hello everyone!

The update the past two weeks were delayed while I joined members of our
African community in Ghana for WikiIndaba 2017 and participated in
organization-wide quarterly reviews.

This is a long email. In summary, you will find information on:

   - The core movement strategy team
   - Team tracks being developed
   - The Community Process Steering Committee
   - Strategy discussions being planned for Wikimedia Conference 2017
   - The results of preliminary discussions at
   - Wikimedia Foundation's All Hands gathering
   - Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in
   Switzerland
   - The WikiIndaba conference 2017

First, a quick note from Ghana: congratulations to the WikiIndaba
organizers for a high-energy, high-quality event. The program was engaging,
highly relevant, and thought-provoking around the future of our movement in
Africa. It was great to see people from across the continent, from Algeria
to South Africa, Uganda to Nigeria. If you are reading this from anywhere
else in the world, and haven’t had a chance to get to know our communities
in Africa, you should check out these blog posts about the first Africa
de-stubathon[1] and the third annual Wiki Loves Africa - and mark your
calendars for Wikimania Cape Town 2018!

Over the past couple weeks, the core strategy team discussed the
distribution of these updates, and the likelihood that we’re not reaching
enough people in the community with these notifications. We want to make
sure everyone has the opportunity to participate in conversations and
discussions.

As such, the Foundation’s Community Engagement and Communications
departments are working on plans to increase the distribution of our
updates to different places and on different channels beyond Wikimedia-l
(such as other mailing lists, social media groups, and more). *We need your
help to get the word out so as many communities as possible can make their
voices heard. *Where do your communities gather? *We welcome your
suggestions on where we should share these and other updates.*


*Core movement strategy team*

As I shared in my last update, the core team who will help facilitate the
movement strategy process is coming together. They have the experience to
do the work we need to do—from deep strategic consideration to long-time
knowledge of Wikimedia.

The core team[2] is composed of individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation
and williamsworks:[3]

   - Whitney Williams, williamsworks
   - Ed Bland, williamsworks
   - Shannon Keith, williamsworks
   - Guillaume Paumier, Senior Analyst, Wikimedia Foundation
   - Suzie Nussel, organizational strategy consultant, Wikimedia Foundation

*To be clear - this team will not be determining the strategic direction.
The Wikimedia movement will, together. *Instead, the core team’s
responsibility is to shepherd the overall process and keep everyone
involved and engaged. The architects (Whitney, Ed, Guillaume) will
co-design the conversations within our communities and beyond, and help
transform these conversations into meaningful, informed summaries and
proposed direction. They will work in close collaboration with, and seek
counsel from, track leads, working groups, and volunteer advisors. The
project/stakeholder managers (Suzie and Shannon) will work with track leads
to drive engagement, coordinate the tracks and support them as needed, as
well as manage tasks, deadlines, and budgets for the overall process.

We had an opportunity to introduce the core team at the January metrics
meeting, and you can find that here.[4]

*Team tracks (A-D)*

Our proposal is to identify different audiences within our Wikimedia
communities and organize  "tracks" of information sharing and dialogue that
meet the unique needs of those different audience. Each track would have a
working group who would advise the core team on the best way to engage that
track’s respective communities. While these are still evolving, the four
tracks we are currently considering are:

   - *Track A - Organized groups* - Would coordinate efforts related to
   Wikimedia organized groups, which include the Wikimedia movement
   affiliates,[5] Funds Dissemination Committee, Affiliations Committee, the
   WMF Board, Foundation and affiliate staffs, and other organized or
   semi-organized groups that help support the movement, such as GLAM-wiki.
   - *Track B - Individual contributors* - Would coordinate efforts related
   to engaging individual contributors, such as editors, curators, and
   volunteer developers, across different languages and Wikimedia projects.
   - *Track C - High reach markets* - Would coordinate efforts related to
   existing and new readers of our projects, and potential and new partners,
   in countries or languages (markets) where we are well-known. Outreach to
   readers or prospective readers will focus on those markets where we have
   high reach in terms of awareness and usage. We will also talk with
   like-minded organizations 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Amir Ladsgroup]

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 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Gnangarra]

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 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 wor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Natacha Rault]

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 risk our
>> Neutrality.
>> 
>> How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue over
>> the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major
>> community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an
>> extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A previous
>> ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than accept
>> advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF die
>> outright rather tha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

[MZMcBride]

James Salsman wrote:
>I can not in good conscience refrain from asking the Foundation management
>and Board to please take an exceptional, public, very visible stand in
>response to these extraordinarily exceptional circumstances.
>
>[...]
>
>If those of you who find my requests uncomfortable do not know how to
>program your email clients to hide them from you, I will gladly help you
>off-list.

Since you seem to need one, as a general rule, if neither the URL you're
sharing nor the contents it leads to contain the word "wiki", it's very
likely inappropriate for this mailing list. Your recent medium.com,
cnbc.com, and aol.com links all fail this test.

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

[MZMcBride]

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

[Todd Allen]

So now I'm put into the awkward position of having to agree with
essentially everything the post said, and still have to disagree with it
having been made.

The WMF should not be taking political stances without input and consensus
from the community. Period. If it thought it needed to in this case, it
should have made that case, not just plowed ahead.

I think, since the post was made under the name of ED Katherine Maher, we
should see a response to these concerns from her.

Todd

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> > Have you seen Katherine's statement at:
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
>
> That statement is well worth reading. It says,
>
> "we believe in a world that encourages and protects the open exchange
> of ideas and information, community and culture; where people of every
> country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without
> restriction"
>
> "we will continue to stand up for our values of open discourse"
>
> +1
>
> The charter of this mailing list says "potential new Wikimedia
> projects and initiatives" are on topic here. There are no exceptions
> given.
>
> If some participants want to restrict what other participants can say
> because their ideas are political, or don't conform closely enough to
> what Wikimedia is already doing, or are repetitive, or annoying, or
> opposed to somebody else's politics, then a new mailing list should be
> created, Wikimedia-l-restricted, where the forbidden topics can be
> specified clearly and without ambiguity, and all of the people who
> want to restrict what other people can say can enjoy restricting each
> other.
>
> Good luck with that.
>
> The complaints about messages complaining about recent political
> events FAR MORE ANNOYING AND FAR MORE INAPPROPRIATE than the
> complaints about recent political events.
>
> -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

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

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 risk our
> Neutrality.
> 
> How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue over
> the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major
> community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an
> extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A previous
> ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than accept
> advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF die
> outright rather than accept ads is as of yet unresolved.) More recently,
> the WMF has taken limited actions and stances on public policy that
> directly relate to the mission. A careful balance has been established
> between maintaining essential neutrality and dealing with direct threats to
> the projects.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the Board at this point to set a policy to
> place firm restrictions on which areas the WMF can take positions. While we
> value the important contributions of the staff, they should not be able to
> override our commitment to neutrality. Our donors, editors, and other
> volunteers do not contribute so that resources and influence can be spent
> towards whatever political causes are popular within the WMF.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that our projects
> remain apolitical. A neutral point of view is impossible if participating
> requires a certain political position.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the mailing list administration and moderators
> to act against this list's rapid slide into unreadability.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -- Yair Rand
> ___
> 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

[Andrea Zanni]

Having a global and diverse movement means finding value, albeit implicitly,
in diversity (of language, sex, gender, culture, pov).
The NPOV is not a "null" concept: it means giving weight to different point
of views,
merge them together to find a balanced article on something.

Mostly, we as a movement (and WMF, as staff, is part of that)
can remain apolitical: not when there are things that shake the foundations
of our values and what we believe in.

Daring to build a free, open, collective, diverse, international, neutral
encyclopedia
in a volunteer, auto-organized, bazaar-like way
is one of the *most* political and ideological statement I've ever
encountered in my life.

The MuslimBan can affect volunteers or staff at the WMF, it goes against
everything we believe in.
So, to me, a blogpost in the Wikimedia blog is the minimum we can do.
I, for one, am very proud of our staff and our ED for writing that.

Aubrey

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:09 PM, 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 risk our
> Neutrality.
>
> How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue over
> the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major
> community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an
> extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A previous
> ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than accept
> advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF die
> outright rather than accept ads is as of yet unresolved.) More recently,
> the WMF has taken limited actions and stances on public policy that
> directly relate to the mission. A careful balance has been established
> between maintaining essential neutrality and dealing with direct threats to
> the projects.
>
> 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.
>
> It is the responsibility of the Board at this point to set a policy to
> place firm restrictions on which areas the WMF can take positions. While we
> value the important contributions of the staff, they should not be able to
> override our commitment to neutrality. Our donors, editors, and other
> volunteers do not contribute so that resources and influence can be spent
> towards whatever political causes are popular within the WMF.
>
> It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that our projects
> remain apolitical. A neutral point of view is impossible if participating
> requires a certain political position.
>
> It is the responsibility of the mailing list administration and moderators
> to act against this list's rapid slide into unreadability.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -- Yair Rand
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New 

[Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Yair Rand]

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 risk our
Neutrality.

How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue over
the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major
community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an
extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A previous
ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than accept
advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF die
outright rather than accept ads is as of yet unresolved.) More recently,
the WMF has taken limited actions and stances on public policy that
directly relate to the mission. A careful balance has been established
between maintaining essential neutrality and dealing with direct threats to
the projects.

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.

It is the responsibility of the Board at this point to set a policy to
place firm restrictions on which areas the WMF can take positions. While we
value the important contributions of the staff, they should not be able to
override our commitment to neutrality. Our donors, editors, and other
volunteers do not contribute so that resources and influence can be spent
towards whatever political causes are popular within the WMF.

It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that our projects
remain apolitical. A neutral point of view is impossible if participating
requires a certain political position.

It is the responsibility of the mailing list administration and moderators
to act against this list's rapid slide into unreadability.

Thank you.

-- Yair Rand
___
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] Danish Wikipedia turns 15

[Sailesh Patnaik]

Congratulations, and happy birthday from Odia Wikipedia community :)
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 at 7:42 PM, Shlomi Fish  wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 01:22:47 +0200
>
> attolippip  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Happy Birthday! ;)
>
> >
>
> > Best regards,
>
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> >
>
>
>
> Congratulations and happy birthday.
>
>
>
> --
>
> -
>
> Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
>
> NSA Factoids - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/NSA/
>
>
>
> Monologue: one person talking to himself.
>
> Dialogue: two persons talking to themselves.
>
> — Shaike Ophir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpVrKm9QCc
>
>
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
>
>
> ___
>
> 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] Save the dates: WikiCite 2017 • Vienna, May 23-25, 2017

[Lodewijk]

Hey Dario,

great to see you're working on this! It's a very important and key topic to
our movement, and deserves the dedicated attention. Especially interested
in the policy discussions!

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-02-02 4:05 GMT+01:00 Dario Taraborelli :

> It's been a while since the last official WikiCite update but I am thrilled
> to announce that we have dates confirmed for *WikiCite 2017
> *.
>
> *WikiCite 2017* is a 3-day conference, summit and hack day hosted in
> *Vienna* on *May 23-25, 2017* (back to back with the Wikimedia Hackathon
> ).
>
> It expands efforts 
> that started last year in Berlin with WikiCite 2016
>  towards the creation of a
> bibliographic repository to serve open knowledge.
>
> WikiCite 2017 will be a venue to:
>
>1. present on progress of existing and new initiatives around citations
>and bibliographic data across Wikimedia projects (day 1: conference)
>2. discuss technical, social, outreach and policy directions (day 2:
>summit)
>3. get together to hack on new ideas and applications (day 3: hack day)
>
> For a summary of what was accomplished last year, you can read our report
> .
>
> Additional details on the event, the application process for prospective
> participants, travel support requests, and information about the venue will
> be posted shortly on Meta 
> and via the mailing lists, but we wanted to share the dates as early as
> possible so you can save them in your calendar.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you there.
>
> Dario
> on behalf of the WikiCite 2017 organizers
>
>
>
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> 
> ___
> 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] Danish Wikipedia turns 15

[Shlomi Fish]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 01:22:47 +0200
attolippip  wrote:

> Happy Birthday! ;)
> 
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> 

Congratulations and happy birthday.

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
NSA Factoids - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/NSA/

Monologue: one person talking to himself.
Dialogue: two persons talking to themselves.
— Shaike Ophir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpVrKm9QCc

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

___
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] Wikimedia Deutschland: Abraham Taherivand appointed permanent Executive Director

[Bijay chaurasia]

Congratulations Abraham & WMDE 😀

Regards,
*Bijay Chaurasia*

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Abraham Taherivand <
abraham.taheriv...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> thank you for all the kind wishes and congratulations!
>
> I especially thank our Board for their confidence and their deliberate
> handling of the transition process. Now I am looking forward to continuing
> to work in this movement together with you and with our great staff and
> communities here at Wikimedia Deutschland.
>
> Best regards,
> Abraham
>
>
> --
>
> Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
> ___
> 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] Announcing the 2017-18 Ombuds Commission

[NC Hasive]

Congratulations all!


Hasive
WMBD

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> Congratulation to Vogone, Lankiveil, Góngora, Richwales, Krd for their
> appointment to Ombuds Commission, and to returning as members Pajz,Alan,
> Rubin16, Polimerek.
>
> And thank you to the outgoing members, NahidSultan, Taketa, Gnom, Huji, and
> Barras, for your service.
>
> I appreciate the time that you put in doing this important work.
>
> Warm regards,
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians,
> Co-founder WikiWomen User Group,
> Co-founder WikiConference North America
> Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation,
> Member of Simple Annual Plan Grant Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Karen Brown  wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > It is time to announce the new and returning members of the 2017
> Ombudsman
> > Commission (OC), the small group of volunteers who investigate complaints
> > about violations of the privacy policy, and in particular concerning the
> > use of CheckUser and Oversight[1] tools, on any Wikimedia project for the
> > Board of Trustees.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amending_
> > the_Scope_of_the_Ombudsman_Commission
> >
> > I apologize for the length of the announcement. :)
> >
> > The application period for new commissioners for 2017 recently closed.
> The
> > Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to the many experienced and
> > insightful volunteers who offered to assist with this work.
> >
> > As it has for the past few years, this year’s OC will consist of seven
> > members, with a two-member advisory team who will guide the new
> commission.
> >
> > I am pleased to announce the composition of the 2017 OC. First, the new
> > members are:
> >
> > Vogone
> >
> > User:Vogone has contributed to Wikimedia projects since early 2012. While
> > they began their involvement on the German Wikipedia, they quickly
> branched
> > out to Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikivoyage, and Wikiversity. They were the
> > first bureaucrat on the Wikidata project. Vogone has worked heavily
> > assisting our smaller projects as a global rollbacker, global sysop, and
> > member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. They have experience in
> > translation administration, both on Meta and translatewiki.net.  Vogone
> > has
> > shown a keen interest in the technical side of user privacy, including
> > contributing to MediaWiki software around edit suppression.
> >
> > Lankiveil
> >
> > Lankiveil is a long-term user, admin, and oversighter on the English
> > Wikipedia, having made his first edits in 2004.  He serves as a clerk to
> > the English Wikipedia Arbcom and as an OTRS volunteer. He also sometimes
> > edits at Irish Wikipedia and Commons. He is a native speaker of
> Australian
> > English and is a member of Wikimedia Australia.
> >
> > Góngora
> >
> > Góngora, J. Gustavo Góngora Goloubintseff, who primarily edits Spanish
> > Wikipedia, Catalan Wikipedia and Norwegian bokmål Wikipedia. He has been
> an
> > administrator and bureaucrat on the Spanish Wikipedia since 2007, and an
> > administrator on the Catalan Wikipedia since 2009, where he is also a
> > CheckUser.  He was a member of the Spanish ArbCom in 2008, before it was
> > dismantled. He was a board member of Wikimedia España in 2011. He is
> > currently a member of Wikimedia Norge.
> >
> > Richwales
> >
> > User:Richwales has been an active Wikimedian since 2005. He is an
> > administrator, oversighter, and sockpuppet investigation clerk on the
> > English Wikipedia. Richwales also served on the now-defunct Audit
> > subcommittee, which served a similar role to the Ombudsman Commission.
> >
> > Krd
> >
> > User:Krd, who is primarily active on German Wikipedia and Wikimedia
> > Commons, and also serves at the Volunteer response team as agent and OTRS
> > admin, and was a prior member of German Wikipedia Arbcom for more than
> > three years.
> >
> >
> > In addition, the following experienced OC members will be returning as
> > members
> > of the Ombuds Commission:
> >
> > Pajz
> >
> > User:Pajz is a Wikipedia editor. He was a Wikipedia administrator between
> > 2007 to 2016 and is a member of the Volunteer Response Team ("OTRS
> team").
> > He served as one of the OTRS administrators from 2013 to 2015, before
> being
> > first appointed to the Ombudsman Commission in 2016.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > User:Alan has been a registered Wikimedian for more than three years, but
> > an anonymous editor since 2006, working primarily across Spanish language
> > projects. He is a global sysop and global rollbacker, an administrator on
> > Commons, as well as having been an OTRS volunteer for ~4 years. In the
> past
> > he has served as an administrator and bureaucrat on Spanish Wikivoyage.
> >
> > And the following experienced OC members will be returning as advisors to
> > the commission (this advisory role provides expertise when needed, but
> does
> > not participate in all discuss

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

[Natacha Rault]

 I really want to thank the Wikimedia foundation and Katherine Maher for taking 
such a clear position on this matter. 

Kind ragards, 

Natacha Rault / Nattes à chat
> Le 2 févr. 2017 à 07:48, Bill Takatoshi  a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:
>> Have you seen Katherine's statement at:
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
> 
> That statement is well worth reading. It says,
> 
> "we believe in a world that encourages and protects the open exchange
> of ideas and information, community and culture; where people of every
> country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without
> restriction"
> 
> "we will continue to stand up for our values of open discourse"
> 
> +1
> 
> The charter of this mailing list says "potential new Wikimedia
> projects and initiatives" are on topic here. There are no exceptions
> given.
> 
> If some participants want to restrict what other participants can say
> because their ideas are political, or don't conform closely enough to
> what Wikimedia is already doing, or are repetitive, or annoying, or
> opposed to somebody else's politics, then a new mailing list should be
> created, Wikimedia-l-restricted, where the forbidden topics can be
> specified clearly and without ambiguity, and all of the people who
> want to restrict what other people can say can enjoy restricting each
> other.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> The complaints about messages complaining about recent political
> events FAR MORE ANNOYING AND FAR MORE INAPPROPRIATE than the
> complaints about recent political events.
> 
> -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] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

[Bill Takatoshi]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> Have you seen Katherine's statement at:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/

That statement is well worth reading. It says,

"we believe in a world that encourages and protects the open exchange
of ideas and information, community and culture; where people of every
country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without
restriction"

"we will continue to stand up for our values of open discourse"

+1

The charter of this mailing list says "potential new Wikimedia
projects and initiatives" are on topic here. There are no exceptions
given.

If some participants want to restrict what other participants can say
because their ideas are political, or don't conform closely enough to
what Wikimedia is already doing, or are repetitive, or annoying, or
opposed to somebody else's politics, then a new mailing list should be
created, Wikimedia-l-restricted, where the forbidden topics can be
specified clearly and without ambiguity, and all of the people who
want to restrict what other people can say can enjoy restricting each
other.

Good luck with that.

The complaints about messages complaining about recent political
events FAR MORE ANNOYING AND FAR MORE INAPPROPRIATE than the
complaints about recent political events.

-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] Danish Wikipedia turns 15

[NC Hasive]

Congratulations!


-Hasive

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Biplab Anand  wrote:

> Congrats!!
>
> Best
> Biplab
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Àlex Hinojo  wrote:
>
> > Happy birthday!
> > El dj, 2 febr 2017 a les 0:47 Asaf Bartov  va
> > escriure:
> >
> > > Congratulations, dawiki! :)
> > >
> > >   A.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:23 PM attolippip 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Happy Birthday! ;)
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-02 0:03 GMT+02:00 Johan Jönsson :
> > > >
> > > > > It's Danish Wikipedia's turn to turn 15. (:
> > > > >
> > > > > In those 15 years, the Danish community and passers-by have
> together
> > > > > created a bit over 223000 articles. They had a small meet-up in
> > > > Copenhagen
> > > > > to celebrate a few hours ago, and some of the attention from the
> > Danish
> > > > > media is collected here:
> > > > > https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Presse_2017
> > > > >
> > > > > //Johan Jönsson
> > > > > --
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> > --
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
User: Hasive  |
GSM/WhatsApp/Viber: +8801712754752
​
Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia 
Board Member | Wikimedia Bangladesh 
fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
 | www.nhasive.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] Danish Wikipedia turns 15

[Biplab Anand]

Congrats!!

Best
Biplab

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Àlex Hinojo  wrote:

> Happy birthday!
> El dj, 2 febr 2017 a les 0:47 Asaf Bartov  va
> escriure:
>
> > Congratulations, dawiki! :)
> >
> >   A.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:23 PM attolippip  wrote:
> >
> > > Happy Birthday! ;)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > >
> > > 2017-02-02 0:03 GMT+02:00 Johan Jönsson :
> > >
> > > > It's Danish Wikipedia's turn to turn 15. (:
> > > >
> > > > In those 15 years, the Danish community and passers-by have together
> > > > created a bit over 223000 articles. They had a small meet-up in
> > > Copenhagen
> > > > to celebrate a few hours ago, and some of the attention from the
> Danish
> > > > media is collected here:
> > > > https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Presse_2017
> > > >
> > > > //Johan Jönsson
> > > > --
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > 
>
> --
> Àlex Hinojo
> ___
> 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,