Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Leinonen Teemu]

> 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 projects, their spin was that it served the
> corporate interests of Facebook, Google and YouTube:
> 
> "Google, YouTube and Facebook
>  could escape having to
> make billions in payouts to press publishers, record labels and artists
> after EU lawmakers voted to reject proposed changes to copyright rules that
> aimed to make the tech companies share more of their revenues."

The publishers and record labels are also corporations. I see that our stand is 
to be in the side of the “artists”. In the future we should support them to 
start collective bargaining and to reach collective agreement with the new 
online publishers. 

We should do the same with scholars, too: help them to find alternatives to the 
scientific publishers. In this EU hasn’t done a great job either, although they 
like to promote “open science” (in a close collaboration with the established 
publishers).

-Teemu
___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 projects, their spin was that it served the
corporate interests of Facebook, Google and YouTube:

"Google, YouTube and Facebook
 could escape having to
make billions in payouts to press publishers, record labels and artists
after EU lawmakers voted to reject proposed changes to copyright rules that
aimed to make the tech companies share more of their revenues."

The Guardian – a paper that has traditionally been a staunch supporter of
Wikimedia, and had Jimmy Wales on its board until last year – added,

"More than 1.3 billion users of Google-owned YouTube
 regularly watch music
videos, making it the biggest music service in the world. However, artists
receive only 67 cents per user annually in royalties."

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

A.

[1]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-could-escape-billions-in-copyright-payouts-after-eu-vote
___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Mario Gómez]

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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
>
> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> wikimedians,


There may be wide support for these goals (or not). But there is not
necessarily wide support for some specific approaches.

--- Here's an example. My point is that what you conceive as a
quasi-universal political posiition among wikimedians... it's not.

Taking your proposal for free college, a lot of us support a fully public
education system accessible to everyone. And a lot of us strongly oppose
private sector meddling with the education system.

What would mean your proposal to donate for "free college"? Reading your
links, I assume it might be donating to the Foundation for California
Community College, and I think that would be definitely a no for a part of
the community for different reasons:

1. Why should Wikimedia promote lobbying specific to California? I would
rather support governments in Latin America to improve public education.
And that's just one of the possible possitions.
2. Those of us who oppose private sector in the public education system, do
NOT want to support an organization that promotes those kind of practices:
advertising education materials of their private donors, promoting private
sector involvement in the education system.

There is another problem: the WMF has insisted that funds it receives from
corporate donors do not influence WMF decisions. If WMF starts promoting
donations to organizations that promote private interests of WMF corporate
donors... that would be a vicious relation that would undermine WMF
credibility.

Best,

MarioGom
___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 governments or corporate interests; to
avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status; to avoid fragmenting
the resources and attention of the movement; to avoid creating divisions
within the projects and the movement that would make it more difficult for
volunteers to work together."

We just won a major victory in our battle to keep the internet free, an
internet where we can write our projects. A victory where one of our
opponents said "Wikipedia should be nationalised"; there is no neutral
ground for us. We have antagonised governments. Our Turkish Wikipedia and
other Wikipedias is not available in Turkey. Our established positions are
against corporate interests. And to be honest, when we lose our tax status
in the USA because of all this, we will make us even more money.

Our objectives, our reliance on a free internet, free software and free
licenses are an integral part of who we are. We will not squander it to
appease any two bit dictator.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 7 July 2018 at 01:10, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> 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 appearance of
> the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to
> avoid bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate
> interests; to avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status;
> to avoid fragmenting the resources and attention of the movement; to
> avoid creating divisions within the projects and the movement that
> would make it more difficult for volunteers to work together.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list
> disagree with the percentages you keep making up.
>
> Emufarmers
>
> ___
> 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Benjamin Lees]

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 appearance of
the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to
avoid bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate
interests; to avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status;
to avoid fragmenting the resources and attention of the movement; to
avoid creating divisions within the projects and the movement that
would make it more difficult for volunteers to work together.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> 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.

Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list
disagree with the percentages you keep making up.

Emufarmers

___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Dennis During]

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 competing popular
> opinions, one of which is more true than another. If the opinions are
> noteworthy statements on notable subjects, then it is appropriate to
> describe both. In accepting the right to do so for others, isn't there
> a corresponding responsibility to describe which of the two reliable
> sources say is more true?
>

​If you are not concerned about the problem of hubris, perhaps not.​

>
> The point I am trying to make, is that those who view a lack of
> partisanship as a benefit are those who don't speak up when things are
> going wrong, and those people are hurting the people our Mission seeks
> to educate, and the people our Mission depends on to volunteer.
>

​Often, "educate" seems to mean propagandize., always equipped with the
paving stones of the road to hell.

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?


​What topics don't clearly impact some of the readership of community?​

This discussion seems to be framed almost entirely in idealism and
absolutes, entities that rarely seem to lead to practical solutions for a
society of diverse interests.

To the extent that we do have recourse to ideals and absolutes, they should
probably be limited to the core values which the movement has accepted from
the beginning.  That way this institution can be a vehicle for truth of the
factual variety, recognizing that even facts can be in legitimate dispute.


>
>


-- 
Dennis C. During
___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[James Salsman]

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 opinions are
noteworthy statements on notable subjects, then it is appropriate to
describe both. In accepting the right to do so for others, isn't there
a corresponding responsibility to describe which of the two reliable
sources say is more true?

The point I am trying to make, is that those who view a lack of
partisanship as a benefit are those who don't speak up when things are
going wrong, and those people are hurting the people our Mission seeks
to educate, and the people our Mission depends on to volunteer.

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?

Best regards,
Jim

___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[James Salsman]

> 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 issues.

Best regards,
Jim


On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> 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 in political debates - unless it is directly relevant for our
> mission. Exceptions may arise if there is a demonstrated overwhelming
> consensus (as seems to have been the case with the climate neutral
> policies), but even then focused on our projects. Not taking a position is
> definitely not the same as taking a 'neutral' position or holding the
> middle ground.
>
> This has nothing to do with the ED's resume, or what she does or doesn't
> like to do. This has to do with core fundamental values our movement is
> built on. Not taking a position in political debates is a core requirement
> for us to remain acceptable as a source of information to all parties.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:57 AM James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> 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 get American editors
>> health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work
>> weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be
>> enough to make you want to stop participating? Why?
>>
>> > fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.
>>
>> I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a
>> hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That
>> was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the
>> Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil
>> liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups,
>> not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias'
>> economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a
>> new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain
>> technology to facilitate a new equity structure.
>>
>> Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely
>> asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for
>> instead of against individual wikimedian editors.
>>
>> > the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my
>> > beliefs intruding on policy discussions.
>>
>> Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe
>>  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg
>>
>> > I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering
>> > content that is not
>>
>> Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying
>> that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish
>> attempt to claim that taxes are always bad?
>>
>> >> We should measure how much donors are likely
>> >> to donate more or less for each of the issues.
>> >
>> > That is a short-run view.
>>
>> No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long
>> run.
>>
>> > I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of
>> values.
>>
>> Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus
>> enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant
>> PR?
>>
>> > I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations
>> > and grants should be driving the projects.
>>
>> I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been
>> monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated
>> with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations.
>>
>> > Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to
>> those who
>> > craft seductive fund-raising messages?
>>
>> Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages
>> which have never been measured.
>>
>> >> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the
>> Mission
>> >> is so restrictive.
>> >
>> > Facts are always nice
>>
>> The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the
>> Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and
>> internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is
>> an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity.
>>
>> > What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?
>>
>> For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks,
>> payroll subsidies, and two-bracket t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Gerard Meijssen]

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,
  GerardM

On 18 June 2018 at 15:57, James Salsman  wrote:

> 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 get American editors
> health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work
> weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be
> enough to make you want to stop participating? Why?
>
> > fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.
>
> I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a
> hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That
> was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the
> Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil
> liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups,
> not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias'
> economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a
> new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain
> technology to facilitate a new equity structure.
>
> Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely
> asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for
> instead of against individual wikimedian editors.
>
> > the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my
> > beliefs intruding on policy discussions.
>
> Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe
>  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg
>
> > I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering
> > content that is not
>
> Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying
> that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish
> attempt to claim that taxes are always bad?
>
> >> We should measure how much donors are likely
> >> to donate more or less for each of the issues.
> >
> > That is a short-run view.
>
> No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long
> run.
>
> > I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of
> values.
>
> Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus
> enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant
> PR?
>
> > I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations
> > and grants should be driving the projects.
>
> I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been
> monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated
> with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations.
>
> > Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to
> those who
> > craft seductive fund-raising messages?
>
> Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages
> which have never been measured.
>
> >> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the
> Mission
> >> is so restrictive.
> >
> > Facts are always nice
>
> The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the
> Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and
> internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is
> an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity.
>
> > What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?
>
> For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks,
> payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the
> UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won
> that a long time ago. Instead, the ED could substitute mental health
> care increases for her letter to UK donors, for example.
>
> But seriously, what kind of a UK wikimedian or donor is going to be
> offended by a one-size-fits-all-nations letter asking for donors to
> work for single payer in America? What kind of an African, Indian, or
> Chinese Wikipedian wouldn't want American and UK wikipedians to have
> free health care, shorter work weeks, and a more equitable tax and
> transfer incidence?
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During 
> wrote:
> >> > 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
> >> > correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
> >> > movement, beyond copyright and inter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Lodewijk]

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 in political debates - unless it is directly relevant for our
mission. Exceptions may arise if there is a demonstrated overwhelming
consensus (as seems to have been the case with the climate neutral
policies), but even then focused on our projects. Not taking a position is
definitely not the same as taking a 'neutral' position or holding the
middle ground.

This has nothing to do with the ED's resume, or what she does or doesn't
like to do. This has to do with core fundamental values our movement is
built on. Not taking a position in political debates is a core requirement
for us to remain acceptable as a source of information to all parties.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:57 AM James Salsman  wrote:

> 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 get American editors
> health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work
> weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be
> enough to make you want to stop participating? Why?
>
> > fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.
>
> I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a
> hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That
> was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the
> Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil
> liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups,
> not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias'
> economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a
> new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain
> technology to facilitate a new equity structure.
>
> Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely
> asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for
> instead of against individual wikimedian editors.
>
> > the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my
> > beliefs intruding on policy discussions.
>
> Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe
>  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg
>
> > I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering
> > content that is not
>
> Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying
> that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish
> attempt to claim that taxes are always bad?
>
> >> We should measure how much donors are likely
> >> to donate more or less for each of the issues.
> >
> > That is a short-run view.
>
> No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long
> run.
>
> > I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of
> values.
>
> Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus
> enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant
> PR?
>
> > I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations
> > and grants should be driving the projects.
>
> I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been
> monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated
> with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations.
>
> > Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to
> those who
> > craft seductive fund-raising messages?
>
> Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages
> which have never been measured.
>
> >> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the
> Mission
> >> is so restrictive.
> >
> > Facts are always nice
>
> The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the
> Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and
> internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is
> an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity.
>
> > What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?
>
> For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks,
> payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the
> UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won
> that a long time ago. Instead, the ED could substitute mental health
> care increases for her letter to UK donors, for example.
>
> But seriously, what kind of a UK wikimedian or donor is going to be
> offended by a one-size-fits-all-nations letter asking for donors to
> work for single payer in America? What kind of an African, Indian, or
> Chinese Wikipedian wouldn't want American and UK wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[James Salsman]

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 get American editors
health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work
weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be
enough to make you want to stop participating? Why?

> fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.

I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a
hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That
was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the
Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil
liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups,
not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias'
economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a
new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain
technology to facilitate a new equity structure.

Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely
asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for
instead of against individual wikimedian editors.

> the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my
> beliefs intruding on policy discussions.

Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe
 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg

> I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering
> content that is not

Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying
that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish
attempt to claim that taxes are always bad?

>> We should measure how much donors are likely
>> to donate more or less for each of the issues.
>
> That is a short-run view.

No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long run.

> I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of values.

Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus
enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant
PR?

> I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations
> and grants should be driving the projects.

I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been
monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated
with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations.

> Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to those who
> craft seductive fund-raising messages?

Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages
which have never been measured.

>> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the Mission
>> is so restrictive.
>
> Facts are always nice

The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the
Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and
internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is
an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity.

> What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?

For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks,
payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the
UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won
that a long time ago. Instead, the ED could substitute mental health
care increases for her letter to UK donors, for example.

But seriously, what kind of a UK wikimedian or donor is going to be
offended by a one-size-fits-all-nations letter asking for donors to
work for single payer in America? What kind of an African, Indian, or
Chinese Wikipedian wouldn't want American and UK wikipedians to have
free health care, shorter work weeks, and a more equitable tax and
transfer incidence?

Best regards,
Jim

>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
>> > 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
>> > correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
>> > movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
>> > Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
>> > particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
>> >
>> > I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
>> > wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
>> > is any question I ask that a statistically robus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Dennis During]

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
my beliefs intruding on policy discussions.  I favor the WMF focusing its
efforts on serving a vast public by offering content that is not

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> 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?



​Basically yes.
​

> We should measure how much donors are likely
> to donate more or less for each of the issues.


​That is a short-run view.  I prefer institutions that seem committed to​ a
minimal core set of values.  That long-term commitment is not necessarily
consistent at all times with the current views of those currently choosing
to participate in these fora.  I am also surprised that you believe that
the economics of donations and grants should be driving the projects.  Is
WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to those who
craft seductive fund-raising messages?

I would also like to
> know the proportion of wikimedians who think the Mission is so
> restrictive.
>

​Facts are always nice,/

>
> > US only or worldwide
>
> Peter, both in proportion to optimized influence likelihoods.
>

​What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?​

>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
> > 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
> > correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
> > movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
> > Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
> > particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
> >
> > I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> > wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
> > is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
> > survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
> > urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim Salsman
> >
> > [1]
> > https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-
> college-california_n_6474940.html
> >
> > [2]
> > https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%
> 20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
> >
> > [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
> >
> > [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
> >
> > [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
> >
> > [6]
> > https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-
> fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
> >
> > [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
> >
> > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
> >
> > [9]
> > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c3
> 1542b6.pdf
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[James Salsman]

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 proportion of wikimedians who think the Mission is so
restrictive.

> US only or worldwide

Peter, both in proportion to optimized influence likelihoods.

Best regards,
Jim

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
> 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
> correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
> movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
> Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
> particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
>
> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
> is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
> survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
> urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim Salsman
>
> [1]
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html
>
> [2]
> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
>
> [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
>
> [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
>
> [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
>
> [6]
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
>
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
>
> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
>
> [9]
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf
>
> ___
> 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Peter Southwood]

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 to Donors

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 and indirectly. In
particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]

I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.

Best regards,
Jim Salsman

[1] 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html

[2] 
https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf

[3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf

[4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf

[5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689

[6] 
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit

[9] 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf

___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Dennis During]

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
correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]

I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.

Best regards,
Jim Salsman

[1]
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html

[2]
https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf

[3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf

[4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf

[5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689

[6]
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit

[9]
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf

___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[James Salsman]

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 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 Salsman  wrote:
>
>> 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 and indirectly. In
>> particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
>>
>> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
>> wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
>> is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
>> survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
>> urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jim Salsman
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
>>
>> [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
>>
>> [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
>>
>> [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
>>
>> [6]
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
>>
>> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
>>
>> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
>>
>> [9]
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Chris Keating]

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 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 Salsman  wrote:
>
>> 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 and indirectly. In
>> particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
>>
>> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
>> wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
>> is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
>> survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
>> urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jim Salsman
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
>>
>> [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
>>
>> [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
>>
>> [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
>>
>> [6]
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
>>
>> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
>>
>> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
>>
>> [9]
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Joseph Seddon]

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 Salsman  wrote:

> 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 and indirectly. In
> particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]
>
> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
> is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
> survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
> urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim Salsman
>
> [1]
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html
>
> [2]
> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
>
> [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
>
> [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
>
> [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
>
> [6]
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
>
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
>
> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
>
> [9]
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
___
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[James Salsman]

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 and indirectly. In
particular, 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 two-bracket taxation.[9]

I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.

Best regards,
Jim Salsman

[1] 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html

[2] 
https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf

[3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf

[4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf

[5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689

[6] 
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit

[9] 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf

___
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,