Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Dan Szymborski]

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM James Salsman  wrote:

> > "Wikipedia should support any political movement that makes
> > people's lives better because they will then have more time to edit
> > Wikipedia," is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning. It would
> literally
> > cover anything in politics
>
> On the contrary, by definition, it would be restricted to the subset
> of ways to make people's lives better which also allow them more time
> to edit. The contrapositive of 'because' is 'is caused by.'
>
> If campaign finance reform makes people's lives better and allows them
> more time to edit, then there would seem to be five categories:
> 'active opposition,' 'inactive opposition,' 'silence,' 'inactive
> support,' 'active support.' Obviously the Board wants to do what
> supports the community, employees, donors, and readership, not
> necessarily in that order.
>
>

Nah, of course all these things do.

Tax cuts? Well, I don't have to work as hard at work, leaving me more
editing time!
Tax increases? With more services, I won't have to work as hard to make
money, leaving me more editing time!
Free blueberry pancake deliveries? Ever make blueberry pancakes? Takes
forever, freeing up more editing time!
My family turned into delicious sausages? Between holidays, birthdays, and
random errands mom calls me for help with, it's taking up valuable editing
time!

And so on. You can make a tortured case for *anything* someone wants to see
as increasing editing time.
___
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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[James Salsman]

> "Wikipedia should support any political movement that makes
> people's lives better because they will then have more time to edit
> Wikipedia," is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning. It would literally
> cover anything in politics

On the contrary, by definition, it would be restricted to the subset
of ways to make people's lives better which also allow them more time
to edit. The contrapositive of 'because' is 'is caused by.'

If campaign finance reform makes people's lives better and allows them
more time to edit, then there would seem to be five categories:
'active opposition,' 'inactive opposition,' 'silence,' 'inactive
support,' 'active support.' Obviously the Board wants to do what
supports the community, employees, donors, and readership, not
necessarily in that order.

I personally would love to see a link to https://bit.ly/amendmentact
at least on the Outreach wiki or something, as I have no idea what
passes for petition notability these days.

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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Dan Szymborski]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:21 PM  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:00 AM Bill Takatoshi 
> wrote:
>
> > And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
> > campaign finance reform
>
>
> I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base has any opinion on this
> “campaign finance reform” (or, for the most part, know what that is). I
> guess it has something to do with the political parties in the United
> States? Sorry, I’m not interested in that very much.
>
>
And even in that case, there's a huge gulf between that and it being
something Wikipedia actively endorses.

The whole "Wikipedia should support any political movement that makes
people's lives better because they will then have more time to edit
Wikipedia," is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning. It would literally
cover anything in politics whatsoever. Tax increases, tax cuts, open
borders, closed borders, federal daily blueberry pancake delivers, etc,
whatever you want, then one can make an argument under this line of logic.
___
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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[petr . kadlec]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:00 AM Bill Takatoshi 
wrote:

> And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
> campaign finance reform


I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base has any opinion on this
“campaign finance reform” (or, for the most part, know what that is). I
guess it has something to do with the political parties in the United
States? Sorry, I’m not interested in that very much.

-- [[ cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec ]]
___
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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Yair Rand]

My point about NPOV was referring to article content, as the previous post
seemed to suggest that the WMF can and does try to influence articles
non-neutrally.

I don't understand your point about the Sustainability Initiative. To the
best of my knowledge, the Sustainability Initiative (which was approved by
the Board, IIRC) does not include any public advocacy efforts. I haven't
said anything against the Initiative, and I don't oppose it myself. I do
think the WMF should not undertake any public advocacy efforts which do not
comply with the guidelines[1].

Earth Day Live was pushing many, many political positions, not just
campaign finance reform.

It doesn't take much searching to find any of the on-wiki discussions which
show conclusively that the community opposes general political advocacy. On
the wikis themselves, this isn't a matter of controversy. Activism outside
the five identified areas that relate to Wikimedia activities (Access,
Censorship, Copyright, Intermediary liability, and Privacy; see the public
policy portal and associated documents) is not acceptable, and advocacy is
only acceptable even within those areas under limited circumstances.

-- Yair Rand

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline


‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 27 באפר׳ 2020 ב-20:00 מאת ‪Bill Takatoshi‬‏ <‪
billtakato...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
> >
> > Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the
> policy,
> > NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot
> > be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
> It
> > may not be violated, period.
>
> Are you suggesting that the Foundation may not take any political
> positions at all?
>
> > The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include
> > promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for
> environmentalism.
>
> I doubt that more than 20% of the long-term project editor base share
> that opinion. Can you point to even a single instance other than your
> own dozen or two complaints to this list of anyone opposed to the
> WMF's Sustainability Initiative. The only comments about it ever say
> that it should be doing more (I agree: we should be flexing our muscle
> with the datacenter operators to ask them to buy renewable power,
> perhaps in return for the visibility of a joint press release or
> acknowledgment on a high-traffic page, or both.)
>
> And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
> campaign finance reform, which was the only only issue championed by
> the Earth Day Live sponsors, and I doubt less than 10% thinks that
> both issues support the Mission to "engage and empower" free content
> contributors. Similarly for living wage standards, which support the
> ability of editors to fund their living so they don't, for example,
> need to take two jobs and thereby lack time to edit. I am sure you can
> see the connection, but for whatever reason you simply choose not to.
>
> I repeat my request for the Foundation to survey the editor base to
> put an end to this disruptive bickering.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Bill Takatoshi]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
>
> Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the policy,
> NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot
> be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It
> may not be violated, period.

Are you suggesting that the Foundation may not take any political
positions at all?

> The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include
> promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for environmentalism.

I doubt that more than 20% of the long-term project editor base share
that opinion. Can you point to even a single instance other than your
own dozen or two complaints to this list of anyone opposed to the
WMF's Sustainability Initiative. The only comments about it ever say
that it should be doing more (I agree: we should be flexing our muscle
with the datacenter operators to ask them to buy renewable power,
perhaps in return for the visibility of a joint press release or
acknowledgment on a high-traffic page, or both.)

And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
campaign finance reform, which was the only only issue championed by
the Earth Day Live sponsors, and I doubt less than 10% thinks that
both issues support the Mission to "engage and empower" free content
contributors. Similarly for living wage standards, which support the
ability of editors to fund their living so they don't, for example,
need to take two jobs and thereby lack time to edit. I am sure you can
see the connection, but for whatever reason you simply choose not to.

I repeat my request for the Foundation to survey the editor base to
put an end to this disruptive bickering.

-Will

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Yair Rand]

 @Smirkybec: Studying a certain country's history may, incidentally, make
readers think more highly of the country in question. That does not mean
that the goal of hosting the article is to make the country look good. It
also does not mean that "making the country look good" has become one of
the Wikimedia movement's objectives.

Regarding the examples: Neither the projects nor the WMF have made any
effort to promote any ideology in those articles. The Wikimedia projects
endeavor to neutrally document topics. Surely nobody thinks that
WikiProject Buddhism, WikiProject Conservatism, or WikiProject Feminism are
about promoting these things rather than neutrally documenting them? I have
a hard time imagining a viewpoint which leads one to think that edits and
grants must be about winning a political argument, or that the WMF should
intentionally promote particular ideologies through Wikipedia's content.

Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the policy,
NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot
be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It
may not be violated, period. If there are some contributors that think it's
okay to violate NPOV so long as it's for a cause that some in the WMF like,
we have a serious problem.

@Pbsouthwood: Re "bias" towards verifiability, etc: We must distinguish
between bias in content, "bias" in content creation/curation processes, and
bias in institutional behaviour/advocacy/activism. No Wikipedia article
non-neutrally trumpets the praises of verifiability. The WMF doesn't go
around trying to convince random individuals that verifiability is a great
thing in general, or that civil discourse should be promoted in every facet
of life. It is important not to mix these things up. Suggesting that we're
biased because we ask people to use the proper templates is silly.

@Smirkybec (earlier post) Re the idea that political inaction is the same
as supporting the status quo, and is therefore "being political" on its
own: No. Taking action to support the status quo is supporting the status
quo. Inaction is neither the same as taking actions opposing the status
quo, nor the same as taking actions supporting the status quo.

@Gnangarra Re the idea that one's political faction has a monopoly on
neutrality, and therefore neutrality itself implies taking a political
side: ...You know what, I'm not going to engage with that. (If I've
inadvertently misrepresented the argument, clarification would be
appreciated.)

--

On the issue of prohibitions on WMF engagement in advocacy unrelated to our
goals again: (I know that's from the other thread, but things seem to have
veered in that direction so...)

The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include
promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for environmentalism.
Even if the recent incident hadn't included every left-wing cause from here
to Sunday, and had only been about environmentalism, it would still have
been a violation of important standards which were endorsed by every
community-elected member of the board shortly before their most recent
election, and of principles regularly reinforced by community discussion
every time this comes up on-wiki. Our neutrality means we don't need a
separate Wikimedia for every political faction of every country, it means
our institutions' roles aren't stocked with people who got there
to influence politics, it means our success can be everyone's successes. It
is absolutely necessary for the Wikimedia movement to function.

(@Nathan re stats: wikimediafoundation.org gets roughly 10,000 views per
day, and the banner was up for the full 24-hour period, IIUC.)

-- Yair Rand


‫בתאריך יום א׳, 26 באפר׳ 2020 ב-18:03 מאת ‪Rebecca O'Neill‬‏ <‪
rebeccanin...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> Seeing as you decided to call me out specifically, that line of reasoning
> falls apart when you note that WMF foundations funds and supports
> initiatives that would been seen as supporting all of those examples you
> gave:
>
>- Wiki Loves Earth for animal sanctuaries, highlighting areas of natural
>beauty and those that require protection
>- WikiProject Medicine covers articles relating to opioid (and all
>manner of other addictions)
>- Art+Feminism and Wikimedia LGBT+ work to promote issues relating to
>LGBT+ and feminist content worldwide
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 22:35, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > There's a tendency of people with an association with the Wikimedia
> > movement to see it as a hammer that can be swung at every nail. This is
> > embodied most perfectly in the e-mail by Rebecca O'Neil, who claims that
> if
> > WMF doesn't take a position on any issue (or every issue?), it is taking
> a
> > position in support of the status quo.
> >
> > That is absurd. The movement and the WMF have a purpose. That purpose is
> > not koala habitats, nor Superfund sites, nor opioid addiction nor LGTB
> > rights in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Rebecca O'Neill]

Seeing as you decided to call me out specifically, that line of reasoning
falls apart when you note that WMF foundations funds and supports
initiatives that would been seen as supporting all of those examples you
gave:

   - Wiki Loves Earth for animal sanctuaries, highlighting areas of natural
   beauty and those that require protection
   - WikiProject Medicine covers articles relating to opioid (and all
   manner of other addictions)
   - Art+Feminism and Wikimedia LGBT+ work to promote issues relating to
   LGBT+ and feminist content worldwide


On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 22:35, Nathan  wrote:

> There's a tendency of people with an association with the Wikimedia
> movement to see it as a hammer that can be swung at every nail. This is
> embodied most perfectly in the e-mail by Rebecca O'Neil, who claims that if
> WMF doesn't take a position on any issue (or every issue?), it is taking a
> position in support of the status quo.
>
> That is absurd. The movement and the WMF have a purpose. That purpose is
> not koala habitats, nor Superfund sites, nor opioid addiction nor LGTB
> rights in Uganda. All those issues are valuable purposes for an
> organization to have, but the WMF has a different purpose. Its activities
> should be in pursuit of its mission. Not any and every mission that at
> least some Wikimedians think is valuable.
>
> All that said, how many views did the wikimediafoundation.org site get
> during the time the banner was up? A few hundred? A few thousand? Varnum
> apologized, the banner was a bit of a rush job. Rather than arguing why WMF
> should support all your pet causes or, alternatively, hand over the keys to
> "the community" - maybe just move on.
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland 
She/Her
___
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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Nathan]

There's a tendency of people with an association with the Wikimedia
movement to see it as a hammer that can be swung at every nail. This is
embodied most perfectly in the e-mail by Rebecca O'Neil, who claims that if
WMF doesn't take a position on any issue (or every issue?), it is taking a
position in support of the status quo.

That is absurd. The movement and the WMF have a purpose. That purpose is
not koala habitats, nor Superfund sites, nor opioid addiction nor LGTB
rights in Uganda. All those issues are valuable purposes for an
organization to have, but the WMF has a different purpose. Its activities
should be in pursuit of its mission. Not any and every mission that at
least some Wikimedians think is valuable.

All that said, how many views did the wikimediafoundation.org site get
during the time the banner was up? A few hundred? A few thousand? Varnum
apologized, the banner was a bit of a rush job. Rather than arguing why WMF
should support all your pet causes or, alternatively, hand over the keys to
"the community" - maybe just move on.
___
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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Ziko van Dijk]

I totally agree with you, Shlomi.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am So., 26. Apr. 2020 um 17:02 Uhr schrieb Shlomi Fish <
shlo...@shlomifish.org>:

> Hi Rebecca and all,
>
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100
> "Rebecca O'Neill"  wrote:
>
> > Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
> > speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
> support
> > to the status quo.
> >
> > Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
> > completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
> >
>
> While one likely cannot be completely objective, I believe that we should
> try
> to be as objective as possible, and not completely succumb to being
> subjective.
>
> I had written about it here:
>
> https://shlomif.livejournal.com/52439.html
>
> Similarly, while the WMF has some shared political stances due to its
> mission
> and objectives, it should try to avoid officially taking a stance on
> politically-tangential issues that are out of that scope and which have no
> consensus among its members, contributors and users. Otherwise, its
> effectiveness in accomplishing its mission may be reduced, and we may lose
> or
> alienate many members.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> -- Shlomi
>
> --
>
> Shlomi Fish   https://www.shlomifish.org/
> https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Google-Discontinues-Services/
>
> Larry Wall *does* know all of Perl. However, he pretends to be wrong
> or misinformed, so people will underestimate him.
> — https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Larry-Wall/
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply
> .
>
> ___
> 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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Yair Rand]

"Is the Wikimedia movement political?"

For starters, some important points:
1. If you redefine a word to include "literally everything", you've defined
the word out of existence. The word becomes no longer useful for conveying
any information, and therefore, by any measure, you've simply made it
harder to communicate.
2. If two people are debating "Is X Y", and they completely disagree about
the meaning of Y, they're debating words, not things.

I have to bring these points up, because in these situations some people,
completely seriously, state that "everything is political". Obviously, this
completely reduces the debate down to nonsense, as much as it would to say
"everything is apolitical". The answer to the question "Is Wikimedia X?"
when defining X to be universally-inclusive, is yes regardless of what
series of letters you fill in there. Similarly, when X is a null set, the
answer is always no. (In the likely event that there was a more subtle
point being made with the wording, I'm afraid I missed it entirely.)

So, to the actual concepts here: Assuming we mean "political" as in
"relating to government policy, legislation, or electoral activities"
(given that it is, you know, what the word means), then the answer is
_generally_ no. There is broad agreement that Wikimedia must never
deliberately influence elections, and, excluding the efforts by our
affiliated corporations, the Wikimedia projects typically avoid trying to
influence government policy/legislation except in order to avoid being
seriously harmed by the government. The WMF and affiliates also
occasionally make limited efforts to influence governments (without getting
involved in elections) in ways that will advance the Wikimedia Mission.

Nobody editing some article on prehistoric vombatiforms is thinking, "if I
improve this article, my side will win the election!".

If one wants to argue, "freeing knowledge is inherently tied to government
actions, so Wikimedia must be broadly involved in all areas of politics and
elections", that's, well, wrong. If one wants to argue, "freeing knowledge
doesn't necessarily need to be associated with elections and such, but
Wikimedia should get involved in indigenous rights and labor reform because
we, as individuals, care about those things", it's not nonsense, but it's
also a position extremely strongly opposed by the Wikimedia community, for
good reason.

Wikimedia is about allowing people to freely share in the sum of all
knowledge. Its purpose is not to influence elections or governments. If one
uses a definition of "apolitical" which falls under that, then yes, the
Wikimedia movement is apolitical.

-- Yair Rand

‫בתאריך שבת, 25 באפר׳ 2020 ב-11:50 מאת ‪John Erling Blad‬‏ <‪
jeb...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
> strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never will
> be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
> available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not
> align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very
> strong political statement.
>
> So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align with
> any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still not
> apolitical.
>
> /jeblad
> ___
> 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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Samuel Klein]

Very well put.  S



On Sat., Apr. 25, 2020, 10:06 p.m. Gnangarra,  wrote:

> Kaya
>
> From my perspective we have always been political, from the moment we
> started with the concept of Free Knowledge,  Eduardo listed many of the
> aspects that go with it.  We are doing so much more we  want
> anyone/everyone to contribute regardless of social standing, we spend
> millions on addressing bias against women, we have and openly support an
> active LGBTI+ community, we make the projects accessible in many
> languages.  As for Earth day we cant deny our support of it just look at
> how we dedicated a whole Wikimania around the concepts.  Even our pillar of
> Neutral POV is political we dont spin we tell it as it was from every
> perspective. We've taken many stands  in regards to censorship. and
> copyright we even once went dark to send a message, Earth day was not a
> shift in our ideals.
>
> Boodar-wun
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 09:13, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > There isn't such a thing as just one politics, therefore, the subject
> line
> > question is really broad.
> >
> > We are not apolitical about free knowledge, no doubt about that. On the
> > other hand, we as a movement can be or become apolitical in other
> political
> > fields. All this discussion, in my opinion, has to be addressed from the
> > correct political field that we are standing (or not). Which is the
> > political field of the question proposed then? (this is just a rhetorical
> > question.)
> >
> > In the free knowledge political field, I repeat, we are not apolitical
> from
> > the moment we advocate for free knowledge, free content, free licenses,
> > free software, etc. I also do not wish that we ever become apolitical
> about
> > that, even if mistakes are made in the way.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > > It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we
> unbiased?"
> > > On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not
> > any
> > > particular view(s)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> > > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people
> oppose
> > > our
> > > > message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions
> we
> > > > make in favor of that goal are often political.
> > > >
> > > > However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
> > > > policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and
> > > Earth
> > > > Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
> > > >
> > > > If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few
> > > people
> > > > who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere
> > with
> > > a
> > > > half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from
> the
> > > > flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
> > > >
> > > > The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
> > > > isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were
> many
> > > > people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have
> > > unions
> > > > and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's
> > > specifically
> > > > American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either
> of
> > > > those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is
> > > done
> > > > for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and
> > should
> > > > not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
> > > >
> > > > If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or
> > > viewpoints
> > > > that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with
> and
> > > > work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be
> forced
> > > > into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
> > > > volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver
> unbiased
> > > > information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
> > > > stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation
> > to
> > > > legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
> > > >
> > > > There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago
> there
> > > was
> > > > a very different political landscape with very different arguments
> > taking
> > > > place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists,
> > would
> > > > likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and
> > Wikipedia
> > > > will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of
> > political
> > > > advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct
> > > political
> > > > stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Rebecca and all,

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100
"Rebecca O'Neill"  wrote:

> Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
> speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our support
> to the status quo.
> 
> Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
> completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
> 

While one likely cannot be completely objective, I believe that we should try
to be as objective as possible, and not completely succumb to being subjective.

I had written about it here:

https://shlomif.livejournal.com/52439.html

Similarly, while the WMF has some shared political stances due to its mission
and objectives, it should try to avoid officially taking a stance on
politically-tangential issues that are out of that scope and which have no
consensus among its members, contributors and users. Otherwise, its
effectiveness in accomplishing its mission may be reduced, and we may lose or
alienate many members.

Just my opinion,

-- Shlomi

-- 

Shlomi Fish   https://www.shlomifish.org/
https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Google-Discontinues-Services/

Larry Wall *does* know all of Perl. However, he pretends to be wrong
or misinformed, so people will underestimate him.
— https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Larry-Wall/

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

___
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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Benjamin Lees]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:50 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical.


I'm not sure I've seen anybody say that.  I have seen people say that we
should avoid political activism or lobbying when it is not part of our core
mission, and that we should try to maintain the appearance of being
apolitical when we can.  Being political is not a binary thing; it is
entirely possible for us to choose to be activists when it comes to some
issues but not others.

It's true that remaining silent is in some sense an act in favor of the
status quo, but activists make strategic calculations all the time in
deciding whether taking a particular stand is worth the risks of
fragmentation of their coalition and dilution of their message.  They also
make decisions about how strong a message to send--when should the language
be dialed to 11, and when is a polite expression of disapproval sufficient?

Saying "we are not apolitical" tells us nothing about whether we should
send a particular political message at a particular time.  It also tells us
nothing about how we should make those decisions.  The movement, however we
define it, ought to have input to ensure that campaigns reflect our shared
values and (sometimes-conflicting) goals.

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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Peter Southwood]

Of course not, we have a strong bias in favour of  freedom of information, 
accuracy, and verifiability to reliable sources. Also, officially, civil 
discourse and decision by consensus. It is written into our basic policies 
(speaking as an en: Wikipedian, other projects may differ). Most policy will 
impose some kind of bias. As soon as there is something one may not do, or must 
do, there is a bias.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Tito Dutta
Sent: 26 April 2020 01:43
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

Greetings,
It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?"
On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any
particular view(s)

Thanks
Tito Dutta



On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our
> message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
> make in favor of that goal are often political.
>
> However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
> policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth
> Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
>
> If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people
> who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a
> half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
> flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
>
> The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
> Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
> isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
> people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions
> and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically
> American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
> those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done
> for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should
> not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
>
> If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints
> that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
> work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
> into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
> volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
> information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
> stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to
> legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
>
> There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was
> a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking
> place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would
> likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia
> will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political
> advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political
> stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris Gates
> (User:Vermont)
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban 
> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> > everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
> > As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> > Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > *Interwiki Women
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration> | **Wiki
> > Loves Sport <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport> | Wiki
> > Loves
> > Fashion <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion>*
> > WMIT <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia> - WMSE
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige> - WMAR
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina> - WMCH
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH> Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>* | *Twitter
> > <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *LinkedIn
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-bo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Gnangarra]

Kaya

From my perspective we have always been political, from the moment we
started with the concept of Free Knowledge,  Eduardo listed many of the
aspects that go with it.  We are doing so much more we  want
anyone/everyone to contribute regardless of social standing, we spend
millions on addressing bias against women, we have and openly support an
active LGBTI+ community, we make the projects accessible in many
languages.  As for Earth day we cant deny our support of it just look at
how we dedicated a whole Wikimania around the concepts.  Even our pillar of
Neutral POV is political we dont spin we tell it as it was from every
perspective. We've taken many stands  in regards to censorship. and
copyright we even once went dark to send a message, Earth day was not a
shift in our ideals.

Boodar-wun

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 09:13, Eduardo Testart  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There isn't such a thing as just one politics, therefore, the subject line
> question is really broad.
>
> We are not apolitical about free knowledge, no doubt about that. On the
> other hand, we as a movement can be or become apolitical in other political
> fields. All this discussion, in my opinion, has to be addressed from the
> correct political field that we are standing (or not). Which is the
> political field of the question proposed then? (this is just a rhetorical
> question.)
>
> In the free knowledge political field, I repeat, we are not apolitical from
> the moment we advocate for free knowledge, free content, free licenses,
> free software, etc. I also do not wish that we ever become apolitical about
> that, even if mistakes are made in the way.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?"
> > On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not
> any
> > particular view(s)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tito Dutta
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose
> > our
> > > message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
> > > make in favor of that goal are often political.
> > >
> > > However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
> > > policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and
> > Earth
> > > Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
> > >
> > > If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few
> > people
> > > who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere
> with
> > a
> > > half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
> > > flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
> > >
> > > The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
> > > isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
> > > people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have
> > unions
> > > and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's
> > specifically
> > > American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
> > > those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is
> > done
> > > for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and
> should
> > > not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
> > >
> > > If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or
> > viewpoints
> > > that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
> > > work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
> > > into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
> > > volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
> > > information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
> > > stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation
> to
> > > legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
> > >
> > > There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there
> > was
> > > a very different political landscape with very different arguments
> taking
> > > place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists,
> would
> > > likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and
> Wikipedia
> > > will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of
> political
> > > advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct
> > political
> > > stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former
> > category.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Chris Gates
> > > (User:Vermont)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban <
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> > > > everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi,

There isn't such a thing as just one politics, therefore, the subject line
question is really broad.

We are not apolitical about free knowledge, no doubt about that. On the
other hand, we as a movement can be or become apolitical in other political
fields. All this discussion, in my opinion, has to be addressed from the
correct political field that we are standing (or not). Which is the
political field of the question proposed then? (this is just a rhetorical
question.)

In the free knowledge political field, I repeat, we are not apolitical from
the moment we advocate for free knowledge, free content, free licenses,
free software, etc. I also do not wish that we ever become apolitical about
that, even if mistakes are made in the way.


Cheers,

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?"
> On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any
> particular view(s)
>
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose
> our
> > message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
> > make in favor of that goal are often political.
> >
> > However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
> > policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and
> Earth
> > Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
> >
> > If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few
> people
> > who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with
> a
> > half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
> > flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
> >
> > The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
> > Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
> > isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
> > people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have
> unions
> > and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's
> specifically
> > American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
> > those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is
> done
> > for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should
> > not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
> >
> > If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or
> viewpoints
> > that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
> > work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
> > into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
> > volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
> > information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
> > stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to
> > legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
> >
> > There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there
> was
> > a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking
> > place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would
> > likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia
> > will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political
> > advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct
> political
> > stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former
> category.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Chris Gates
> > (User:Vermont)
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> > > everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
> > > As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
> > >
> > > Camelia
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Camelia Boban*
> > >
> > > *| Java EE Developer |*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> > > Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > > *Interwiki Women
> > >  |
> **Wiki
> > > Loves Sport  | Wiki
> > > Loves
> > > Fashion *
> > > WMIT  - WMSE
> > >  - WMAR
> > >  - WMCH
> > >  Member
> > >
> > > M. +39 3383385545
> > > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> > >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > > *
> > > *Wikipedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?"
On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any
particular view(s)

Thanks
Tito Dutta



On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our
> message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
> make in favor of that goal are often political.
>
> However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
> policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth
> Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
>
> If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people
> who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a
> half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
> flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
>
> The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
> Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
> isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
> people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions
> and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically
> American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
> those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done
> for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should
> not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
>
> If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints
> that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
> work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
> into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
> volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
> information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
> stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to
> legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
>
> There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was
> a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking
> place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would
> likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia
> will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political
> advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political
> stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris Gates
> (User:Vermont)
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban 
> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> > everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
> > As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> > Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > *Interwiki Women
> >  | **Wiki
> > Loves Sport  | Wiki
> > Loves
> > Fashion *
> > WMIT  - WMSE
> >  - WMAR
> >  - WMCH
> >  Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > *
> > *Wikipedia  **|
> > **WikiDonne
> > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >  *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill <
> > rebeccanin...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
> > > speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
> > support
> > > to the status quo.
> > >
> > > Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
> > > completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
> > >
> > > Rebecca
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
> > > > strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
> > > will
> > > > be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
> > > > available for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our
message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
make in favor of that goal are often political.

However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth
Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.

If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people
who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a
half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
flying saucers surveying the flat earth.

The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions
and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically
American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done
for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should
not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.

If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints
that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to
legitimate criticism on claims of bias.

There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was
a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking
place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would
likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia
will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political
advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political
stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.

Best regards,
Chris Gates
(User:Vermont)

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban 
wrote:

> Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
> As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
>
> Camelia
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Java EE Developer |*
>
>
>
> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> *Interwiki Women
>  | **Wiki
> Loves Sport  | Wiki
> Loves
> Fashion *
> WMIT  - WMSE
>  - WMAR
>  - WMCH
>  Member
>
> M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
>  *|* *LinkedIn
> *
> *Wikipedia  **|
> **WikiDonne
> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill <
> rebeccanin...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
> > speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
> support
> > to the status quo.
> >
> > Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
> > completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> >
> > > It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
> > > strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
> > will
> > > be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
> > > available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not
> > > align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a
> very
> > > strong political statement.
> > >
> > > So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align
> > with
> > > any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still
> > not
> > > apolitical.
> > >
> > > /jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Camelia Boban]

Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.

Camelia

--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Java EE Developer |*



*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
*Interwiki Women
 | **Wiki
Loves Sport  | Wiki Loves
Fashion *
WMIT  - WMSE
 - WMAR
 - WMCH
 Member

M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
*Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
 *|* *LinkedIn
*
*Wikipedia  **| **WikiDonne
UG * | *WikiDonne Project
 *












Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill <
rebeccanin...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
> speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our support
> to the status quo.
>
> Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
> completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
>
> > It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
> > strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
> will
> > be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
> > available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not
> > align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very
> > strong political statement.
> >
> > So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align
> with
> > any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still
> not
> > apolitical.
> >
> > /jeblad
> > ___
> > 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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Rebecca O'Neill]

Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our support
to the status quo.

Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
completely objective, it is inherently impossible.

Rebecca

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad,  wrote:

> It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
> strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never will
> be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
> available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not
> align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very
> strong political statement.
>
> So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align with
> any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still not
> apolitical.
>
> /jeblad
> ___
> 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] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[John Erling Blad]

It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not
align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very
strong political statement.

So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still not
apolitical.

/jeblad
___
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,