Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Anna Stillwell]

 “Rogol”,

Now that you’ve told me on another thread that “Rogol” is a fictitious
name, I feel that I’ve entered a world of international intrigue. Lord
knows my Saturday could use the excitement.

Sometimes it may take some time before I can respond. They keep me fairly
busy here.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
> I propose to challenge your comments "t’s not even about whose at fault
> anymore, because we all are. When I talk to people across the movement,
> they're all pretty clear that someone other than themselves is the
> responsible party"
>
> There is a difference between fault, responsibility and accountability.


This is a good point. I’m glad you’ve made it. It adds to this discussion
and my own thinking. Certainly errors can be fixed through an articulation
of accountabilities, if a lack of accountabilities are part of the
underlying reason for the problem.


> Just saying we are all at fault is as meaningful or meaningless, and as
> useless, as saying that we are none of us at fault.


I wouldn't go so far as to say the statement is meaningless when applied to
our collective discourse.

Let’s apply “fault, responsibility, and accountability" to our collective
discourse. When applied to this particular case—our collective discourse on
email threads—then might the questions become, Who is at fault for our
collective discourse on email threads? Who is responsible for our
collective discourse on email threads? Who is accountable for our
collective discourse on email threads?

In collective discourse... everyone is. We are all accountable for how we
engage in civil discourse. But I've already expressed this as an absolute
and I understand that you are trying to get me to look at the relatives,
and wisely so.


> The question is, who is responsible for doing what, to whom are they
> accountable for doing it, and how well or badly have they done what they
> are responsible for?
>

I want to understand this point. Are you talking about issues like who
moderates the threads or who articulates the practices for email threads?

Also, I wonder, do you have your own answers to these questions? Have you
thought about this subject yourself, Rogol? If so, I’d really like to hear
your thoughts on fault, responsibility, accountability and collective
discourse.

>
> You say "We've created a culture that is hard on people".  Which culture do
> you mean?


Thank you for requesting that I be more specific. Generalizations can be
useful in problem solving, but only in certain phases. I am specifically
referring to email threads, and in this particular instance wikimedia-l.

However, I have seen this kind of discourse in other places... talk pages
(largely enwp where I edit), phabricator tickets, IRC.


> Is it the working culture within the WMF?  Or one, some or all
> of the hundreds of volunteer projects?  How were those cultures created
> and why did they evolve as they did?  Did anyone create them, if if "we"
> did, who are "we" in this context?


I think these are another series of very useful questions. Part of the
reason it took me time to respond is because I’ve been contemplating your
questions. They were not at the front of my mind all week, but they were on
the “back burner” .

I’ve come to suspect that you have something to teach me in this regard.
Would you be willing to offer me a history of what you’ve seen and heard
and some origin stories (e.g., who created them, the relevant “we”).


> Is it everyone equally?


You brought this up earlier in your email, at least that is how I read your
initial statement about fault, accountabilities and responsibilities. I
suspect that you have a different point of view and your view is likely
more informed on movement history, structures, and dynamics. So I would
like to understand your take. If you’re willing to offer it, I’d like to
hear it.


> Do you think that a Director of Culture and Collaboration might have more
> responsibility and more impact than one of the hundred thousand or so
> active volunteer content contributors, or the billion or so users?
>

I am very aware of the scope of my purview: I am the Director of Culture
for the Wikimedia Foundation, and I’ve largely approached even that role
through influence rather than command... “nudge and cajole”, not “command
and control.” If I were to imagine myself the Director of Culture for the
movement, I would also need to imagine myself arrogant, ill-informed, and
grandiose, a vision of myself that I admittedly defend against.

But how do you see it, Rogol? Is there something that you would like from
me in this regard? Is there some course of action that you are hoping to
see from me? How shall I serve you?

>
> What do you propose that the Foundation and Community actually do to
> support each other?
>

You are practical, yet another good quality.

On my end, I’m thinking about some kind of modular “community service”
training

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I hope your argument holds true. I sincerely do but I have severe
reservations that this  will remain so.When you accept how the press is
treated, citizens are next. There are already proposals of a police that
has even wider authority to use brutal measures when there is a protest.

When the question is do I trust our community, our movement, I do. When the
question is do I see the USA as a good example of the free world, no.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 January 2017 at 19:48, FRED BAUDER  wrote:

> Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by liberal
> bias. (It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information about
> Hillary Clinton into her article) It is important to stay in the US unless
> you wish to experience what lack of an enforced constitutional guarantee of
> free speech means in practice.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

I propose to challenge your comments "t’s not even about whose at fault
anymore, because we all are. When I talk to people across the movement,
they're all pretty clear that someone other than themselves is the
responsible party"

There is a difference between fault, responsibility and accountability.
Just saying we are all at fault is as meaningful or meaningless, and as
useless, as saying that we are none of us at fault.  The question is, who
is responsible for doing what, to whom are they accountable for doing it,
and how well or badly have they done what they are responsible for?

You say "We've created a culture that is hard on people".  Which culture do
you mean?  Is it the working culture within the WMF?  Or one, some or all
of the hundreds of volunteer projects?  How were those cultures created and
why did they evolve as they did?  Did anyone create them, if if "we" did,
who are "we" in this context?  Is it everyone equally?  Do you think that a
Director of Culture and Collaboration might have more responsibility and
more impact than one of the hundred thousand or so active volunteer content
contributors, or the billion or so users?

What do you propose that the Foundation and Community actually do to
support each other?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
> protagonists.
>
> I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
> people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
> shaming.
>
> We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
> constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
> Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.
>
> It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
> to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
> than themselves is the responsible party:
>
>- “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
>- “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
>- “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.
>
> First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
> competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
> empathic community members who have performed a deep service by adding
> their knowledge. I’ve met brilliant staff members that are advancing ideas
> that can have tremendously positive impacts on our projects. I’ve met
> brilliant board members who are thinking about the future in a very serious
> way.
>
> Second, it does us no good to shift the blame around and work against each
> other. We have to find ways to support each other in solving problems
> because we have a lot of important problems to solve together.
>
> We face so many challenges, not least of which is a world that seems to
> think that closed societies and ignorance and divisions are better than
> open societies, coursing with knowledge and constructive unity. Of the many
> challenges we face together: being collectively diminishing of one another
> and divisive should not be one of them.
>
> Sorry, I just can’t keep quiet  watch?v=v_DvGP6Y4jQ> on
> this any more.
>
> /a
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> > pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> > trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> > in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> > public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> > situation Romaine describes below?
> >
> > Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> > bias, or both?
> >
> > https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jim Salsman
> >
> >  forwarded message 
> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> > From: Romaine Wiki 
> > To: Wikimedia 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> >
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > apparently they have some v

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Milos Rancic]

Anna, you are talking about a decade old problems, which are not yet addressed.

There are two exceptions: (1) Board largely stopped making shame
transfer statements; and (2) For the last couple of years, every
interaction with the staff has given impression to me that I deal with
competent professionals.

Although it wouldn't be that significant advancement for an average
organization, having in mind the complexity of the Wikimedia movement,
I have to say that I am in a way content. It was relaxing to me to
realize that, for example, the latest visit do Ghana addressed
everything basically needed.

However, those old problems are still here. Numerous tries to solve
them properly have been mostly implicitly undermined. Sometimes
because of lack of support, sometimes because of making more or less
visible barriers. And it's not about community which blocks it, but
about those in power.

It is extremely important to understand that position of power brings
more responsibility. The position of power doesn't need to be
"absolute" (i.e. Board members; yes, I know it's not absolute, that's
why I used quotes); in many cases, it's very relative and it's
sometimes hard to distinguish (who has more power on English
Wikipedia: a WMF employee or an ArbCom member). However, in the most
of the cases, it's very visible: an ordinary Wikipedia editor, not
willing to be organized in a chapter or a user group, has power to
vote few times per year and power to *edit*. While the first power is
very relative, only real power which that editor has is to edit.

That leads to sticking with the only real power and alienation from
all other segments of the Wikimedia movement. An average active editor
of Wikimedia projects most likely have very negative opinion towards
anyone else than the fellow editors.

Making equation between Board, staff and community is false because
it's about very different levels of responsibility. Urging to the
community to do something won't be treated serious as long as they
have to abandon their rights (even it's about abandoning practically
non-existent rights) as long as all of their power -- to elect the
guardians of their community -- is mostly about broken promises. And
the system has been made in the way that the promises will be always
broken.

The story of WMF (both, Board and staff) reminds me a lot of the story
of US Democratic Party and the centrist parties all over the Europe:
forcing business as usual as long as it is possible, no matter if it's
been done by ignoring the voices, searching for pseudoscientific
conclusions based on techniques that work when you want to sell
marketing services, but not so much when you want to address the
concerns of the population you lead.

Fortunately, we are not in the position that "everything has been
lost" and we could change it. But that would be possible just if there
is political will inside of the WMF to do that.

Last year this time we've witnessed the revolution, the power of staff
to replace ED. Around the end of the event, I was assured that the
staff will be the stakeholder that would lead the change. If there
were changes during the last year, they are invisible.

Long time ago -- at the beginning of this century -- we've invented
large scale constructive participatory democracy. Instead of using it,
instead of nurturing it, developing it, those in power neglected it at
the best, and actively obstructed it at the worst.

There are methods and models how to do that. I have my own
preferences, but I -- and the majority of editors, I am sure -- would
be quite fine with anything which works. And, no, limiting editors to
the decision of which image would be the first on the article about
toilet paper orientation is not one of the viable models. No, limiting
them to make decisions about the rules for deciding which image would
be the first in any article is neither a viable model.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Anna Stillwell
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
> protagonists.
>
> I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
> people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
> shaming.
>
> We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
> constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
> Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.
>
> It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
> to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
> than themselves is the responsible party:
>
>- “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
>- “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
>- “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.
>
> First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
> competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
> empathic community members who have performed a deep service by ad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Anders Wennersten]

Anna, I am surprised at your pessimism

I see cases over and over again how we  "find a way to turn our culture 
toward more generative and constructive forms of public discourse"


See how our Armenian friends is doing wonders turning their closest 
surrounding into being open in a very tough culture


remember how our Bangladesh friends managed to get their orglicense from 
authorities without paying bribes, just being true to our culture


read almost every  week how we manage to get the GLAM sector into being 
more cooperative and positive to disseminating knowledge with 
inspiration from us


Please do not concentrate too much on enwp and US

Anders



Den 2017-01-27 kl. 20:50, skrev Anna Stillwell:

Hello,

I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
protagonists.

I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
shaming.

We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.

It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
than themselves is the responsible party:

- “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
- “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
- “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.

First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
empathic community members who have performed a deep service by adding
their knowledge. I’ve met brilliant staff members that are advancing ideas
that can have tremendously positive impacts on our projects. I’ve met
brilliant board members who are thinking about the future in a very serious
way.

Second, it does us no good to shift the blame around and work against each
other. We have to find ways to support each other in solving problems
because we have a lot of important problems to solve together.

We face so many challenges, not least of which is a world that seems to
think that closed societies and ignorance and divisions are better than
open societies, coursing with knowledge and constructive unity. Of the many
challenges we face together: being collectively diminishing of one another
and divisive should not be one of them.

Sorry, I just can’t keep quiet  on
this any more.

/a


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, James Salsman  wrote:


Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
situation Romaine describes below?

Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
bias, or both?

https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033

Sincerely,
Jim Salsman

 forwarded message 
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
From: Romaine Wiki 
To: Wikimedia 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
approve this.

Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
Even if it is only partially.

Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.

In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.

I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,

What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.

This is just the first week of this president!

I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
still starts to get concerning.

If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
the organisation is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Anna Stillwell]

Hello,

I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
protagonists.

I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
shaming.

We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.

It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
than themselves is the responsible party:

   - “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
   - “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
   - “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.

First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
empathic community members who have performed a deep service by adding
their knowledge. I’ve met brilliant staff members that are advancing ideas
that can have tremendously positive impacts on our projects. I’ve met
brilliant board members who are thinking about the future in a very serious
way.

Second, it does us no good to shift the blame around and work against each
other. We have to find ways to support each other in solving problems
because we have a lot of important problems to solve together.

We face so many challenges, not least of which is a world that seems to
think that closed societies and ignorance and divisions are better than
open societies, coursing with knowledge and constructive unity. Of the many
challenges we face together: being collectively diminishing of one another
and divisive should not be one of them.

Sorry, I just can’t keep quiet  on
this any more.

/a


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> situation Romaine describes below?
>
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> bias, or both?
>
> https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim Salsman
>
>  forwarded message 
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> From: Romaine Wiki 
> To: Wikimedia 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[James Salsman]

Fred,

> Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by
> liberal bias.

"Classically" liberal, as in libertarian trickle-down economics, have
been strongly reinforced including recently. Have you seen the cadre
of editors who protect their walled gardens of Mises Institute-sourced
economics articles? Fair Tax is a good example, pure trickle-down
advocacy with a dozen articles on it, so carefully curated that Fair
Tax would come up first in "Suggested articles" before they realized
it could be gamed like that and turned it off:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-November/005496.html

> It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information
> about Hillary Clinton into her article

That is obviously hyperbole. Her article at the end of October has a
six paragraph "Whitewater and other investigations" section mentioning
no less than eleven scandals and linking to four summary style
sub-articles. There are also separate "Email controversy" and "Clinton
Foundation and speeches" sections, each with their own sub-articles.

Fred, remember when you proposed banning me for calling the medical
credentials of a Department of Defense employee who claimed to be a
doctor in to question after repeated deletions of my edits supported
by MEDRS-quality sources that breathing uranium fumes is dangerous? I
still feel that you treated me unfairly, and you may be interested to
see that the controversy is still ongoing but slowly turning in favor
of the MEDRS literature's position:

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/latest-news


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:39 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> situation Romaine describes below?
>
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> bias, or both?
>
> https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim Salsman
>
>  forwarded message 
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> From: Romaine Wiki 
> To: Wikimedia 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
> should be protected.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Romaine

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Samuel Klein]

LopeCosby used to be xx legit before their Soylent Green period. Not
surprised their depressed fans would turn to petty counterfactualism.

//$

On Jan 27, 2017 2:08 PM, "Liam Wyatt"  wrote:

> What a coincidence! "longstanding, pervasive, counter-factual, systemic
> bias towards supply side trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist
> economics" was the name of the band I saw last week at the local pub. They
> weren't very good though - I liked their earlier stuff.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 at 19:39, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> >
> > pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> >
> > trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> >
> > in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> >
> > public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> >
> > situation Romaine describes below?
> >
> >
> >
> > Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> >
> > bias, or both?
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jim Salsman
> >
> >
> >
> >  forwarded message 
> >
> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> >
> > From: Romaine Wiki 
> >
> > To: Wikimedia 
> >
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> >
> >
> >
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> >
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> >
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> >
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> >
> > approve this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> >
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> >
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> >
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> >
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> >
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> >
> > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> >
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> >
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> >
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> >
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> >
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> >
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> >
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> >
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> >
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> freedom
> >
> > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> >
> > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> >
> > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> >
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> >
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> >
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> >
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> >
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> >
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> >
> > should be protected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> >
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mai

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Liam Wyatt]

What a coincidence! "longstanding, pervasive, counter-factual, systemic
bias towards supply side trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist
economics" was the name of the band I saw last week at the local pub. They
weren't very good though - I liked their earlier stuff.



On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 at 19:39, James Salsman  wrote:

> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
>
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
>
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
>
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
>
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
>
> situation Romaine describes below?
>
>
>
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
>
> bias, or both?
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jim Salsman
>
>
>
>  forwarded message 
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
>
> From: Romaine Wiki 
>
> To: Wikimedia 
>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
>
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
>
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
>
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
>
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
>
> approve this.
>
>
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
>
> Even if it is only partially.
>
>
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
>
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
>
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
>
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
>
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
>
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
>
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
>
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
>
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
>
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
>
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
>
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
>
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
>
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
>
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
>
> still starts to get concerning.
>
>
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
>
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
>
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
>
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
>
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
>
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
>
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
>
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
>
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
>
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
>
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
>
> should be protected.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Romaine
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[FRED BAUDER]

Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by liberal 
bias. (It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information 
about Hillary Clinton into her article) It is important to stay in the 
US unless you wish to experience what lack of an enforced 
constitutional guarantee of free speech means in practice.


Fred Bauder




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

[Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[James Salsman]

Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
situation Romaine describes below?

Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
bias, or both?

https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033

Sincerely,
Jim Salsman

 forwarded message 
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
From: Romaine Wiki 
To: Wikimedia 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
approve this.

Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
Even if it is only partially.

Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.

In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.

I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,

What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.

This is just the first week of this president!

I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
still starts to get concerning.

If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.

To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
actually move when the danger grows.

But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.

To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.


If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
should be protected.

Thank you.

Romaine

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