Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-03-23 Thread James Salsman
Christophe, Thank you for your kind words. I tried to take the discussion you quoted off-list with mixed results, and I do not have permission to publish the resulting thread. The one unresolved question that I think gets to the heart of the matter is this: If you urge restraint and limited

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread
Looking at the archive, 16% of the posts to this single thread were by Gerard Meijssen. This first and only post from me on this is to agree with Yaroslav that it has been over-cooked and to point out that a better forum for this type of extended chatter is Facebook; at least until someone does

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Shouldn't we just freeze this thread? It is not going to do any good. Cheers Yaroslav On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On 02/07/2017 12:07 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote: > >> Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the >> most

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/07/2017 12:07 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote: Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the most recent few hundred editors with contributions at least a year old, to get an accurate answer. Will a respected member of the community please do this? I would like to know what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Bill Takatoshi
>>> The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus >>> do not represent the Wikimedia movement. >> >> The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the >> Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia >> movement either > > Is the Community Process Steering

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread James Salsman
>> The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus >> do not represent the Wikimedia movement. > > The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the > Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia > movement either Is the Community Process Steering Committee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
oun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:55:51 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics Hoi, What is your point? These companies have the same problem we face. Are companies bad because they are companies?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
icus%20tech%20companies.pdf > > > > From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of > Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:09:07 AM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:09:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics >The world is not San Francisco. That's rather dismissive of those

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Robert Fernandez
rard.meijs...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics > > Hoi, > As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. > What does matter is that people only care about their own ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Christophe Henner
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote: > The > people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the > Wikimedia movement. > > > The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump > administration are not representative

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
rard.meijs...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics > > Hoi, > As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. > What does matter is that people only care about their own ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
. The world is not San Francisco. From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-06 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-06 Thread Todd Allen
And a partridge in a pear tree? But seriously. This is exactly what I was afraid of with opening the door to political advocacy. Todd On Feb 6, 2017 2:24 PM, "James Salsman" wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-06 Thread James Salsman
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote: > > I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to > see such proposals from others. I propose: http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png Sincerely, Jim Salsman

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-06 Thread Adam Wight
Dear friends, As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-06 Thread Christophe Henner
Hey, I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Asaf Bartov
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman wrote: > > The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact, is > whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain > the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread James Salsman
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:15 AM Yair Rand wrote: > The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association > established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the > issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing > several

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, We do have values and my arguments are solid what I find lacking is any argument whereby you try to convince us what I am missing. Let me be blunt. I hate the way people abuse political sentiments and try to convince us that they are enough to not see the facts that are in front of us. What

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, When we finally have to pay carbon tax on aviation fuel, it will be non discriminatory. It may affect us but it is only money. Really your argument is not about the same thing. When I indicate that our reputation suffers because of us using dirty data centres, it is our reputation and it is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Mathias Damour
Le 05/02/2017 à 10:45, Gerard Meijssen a écrit : Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand wrote: > > > "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. > It > > is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Andrea Zanni
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand wrote: > "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It > is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to > learn, to share our knowledge with others." > The point is, you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Yes we can. Lots of Wikimedians talked about this but do not ignore the fact that lots of Wikimedians had their reasons for not wanting to ask attention for Bassel. We did not have a banner and is this our best practice? It is extremely unlikely that Bassel is still alive and I am not saying

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Pierre-Selim
I'm really not sure we can say that we have let one of us die in prison! Especially that we did not care (lots of wikimedians talked about Bassel as soon as they learnt about his situation). https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/ 2017-02-05 10:45 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread FRED BAUDER
A blanket ban sweeps in possible contributors and potential employees. A well-crafted policy, properly administered, generally, would not. Fred Bauder On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 04:15:33 -0500 Yair Rand wrote: When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Yair Rand
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly on policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly five years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association [1],

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Nathan
I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > (2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and > after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than > the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone > for free. We

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread FRED BAUDER
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:35:30 +0100 Yaroslav Blanter wrote: Well, there were speakers who were not able to attend Wikimanias in Haifa and Cairo, to start with, because of similar bans, and the general response then was "Whatever place we choose, someone is always

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Well, there were speakers who were not able to attend Wikimanias in Haifa and Cairo, to start with, because of similar bans, and the general response then was "Whatever place we choose, someone is always discriminated". I am not sure whether this is a healthy attitude or not, but I do not see why

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Samuel Klein
Katherine: Thank you, that was beautifully written. We all have our work cut out for us to preserve the free sharing of knowledge and experience across borders, and the very notion of reliable sources. Mike, your perspective is deeply welcome. Sharing the world's knowledge is fundamentally

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Ting Chen
Well spoken Mike. Greetings Ting Am 04.02.2017 um 15:58 schrieb Mike Godwin: I don't respond to Wikimedia-l discussion very often, but I think this debate comes up often enough that it's worth it for me to explain and elaborate on my own positions. (1) I understand WP:NPOV to be a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Mike Godwin
I don't respond to Wikimedia-l discussion very often, but I think this debate comes up often enough that it's worth it for me to explain and elaborate on my own positions. (1) I understand WP:NPOV to be a rule/guideline about content, particularly Wikipedia content. I do not believe it is a rule

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Jane Darnell
I agree absolutely with this. All Wikipedians are political and we pontificate to the world quite happily while following a complex set of agreed rules. To believe that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view is like believing there is no systemic bias in the academic world. The gateway that anyone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Peter Southwood
: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics Hoi, Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or sources. When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific practice, that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory", a theory th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Robert Fernandez
The same way I would respond any time they do something non-political I strongly disagree with. On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > > You somewhat conveniently avoided addressing Nathan's point. If the > Wikimedia Foundation issued a political statement with a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread MZMcBride
Andy Mabbett wrote: >On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride wrote: >> I guess this is referring to >> . > >There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, >who would not have been able

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Todd Allen
I don't think anyone is disputing the facts. I'm certainly not. And I am gravely concerned by what's being done, and I entirely oppose it. However, that doesn't mean I want to see WMF used as a political mouthpiece, even when what's being said happens to be things I fully agree with. Todd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or sources. When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific practice, that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory", a theory that many generations of scientists have established, describing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Todd Allen
Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want them at all. Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Bill Takatoshi
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen wrote: > > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and > all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is > and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call Again, the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Perhaps the issue has something to do with whether donors expected their money to be spent on publicising a political stance. One "privilege" I see here is the privilege of being able to spend other peoples' money in ways they did not expect and, possibly, do not support, without recourse. On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Robert Fernandez
That is an obvious false equivalence. The issue isn't people rooting for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own. The issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act appropriately. The free

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault wrote: > ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech" Katherine > Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from > editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Pax Ahimsa Gethen
My opinions as a US-American, member of multiple marginalized groups (queer/black/trans), and "social justice warrior" (though I prefer "mage", being a pacifist): - Having a truly "neutral point of view" when it comes to anything regarding Donald Trump is not really possible. - I support

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Ivan Martínez
I may write this biased message from my place of enunciation: a country that has been threatened for several days directly by the decisions of the President of the United States. Only if you were a follower of Trump would you see unnecessary a proactive defense of potential damage to people both

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride wrote: > I guess this is referring to > . There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, who would not have been able to attend under the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Jane Darnell
Well I for one am one of those unapologetic Wikipedians who "inject their national and identity politics into the movement". I'm a fan of the "Be Bold" concept, bigly. On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Hi Yair, > > I agree with your underlying sentiment.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Jane Darnell
+1 to "writing an encyclopedia is a political act" and +1 to the notion called "freedom of speech", and +1 to "refugee bans remind us of very dark memories", but mostly +1 to the point about bias on Wikipedia! So I can also only conclude "Bravo Katherine"! On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Natacha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Gergő Tisza
After the ban was announced, StackOverflow founder Joel Spolsky posted an impassioned call to arms [1] to Meta Stack Overflow (the StackOverflow equivalent of MetaWiki/wikimedia-l). The community was not happy and a closing discussion was started. In the end the orginial post was closed and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, As a movement we have several policies that can be contradictory. We want to be inclusive, have a neutral point of view but at the same time we want facts to be supported by sources. For many things there are contradictory sources and for many things there are additional sources. With the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread Amir Ladsgroup
Here is my two cents: Most of criticism I saw boils down to these ones: - It's politics and we should not make political statements: It's not just political anymore, it's a humanitarian crisis. Handcuffing a five-year-old boy in airport because of the country he was born is inhumane. Let's not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread Gnangarra
The WMF has an obligation to respond to any changes where its based that impact on the movement or potentially impact on the movement, and that includes staff members or operational activities under taken. It cant respond to such changes without taking a POV regardless of the situation its not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread Natacha Rault
Had the WMF statement been issued on Wikipedia, now that would have neutrality issues from a wikioedian point of view. The WMF is not Wikipedia, and does have a political activity: being in favour of sharing free knowledge is altogether a political statement, as freedom of sharing knowledge is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread MZMcBride
Hi Yair, I agree with your underlying sentiment. When we look at threats facing the Wikimedia movement, I continue to think that the risk of people being able to inject their national and identity politics into the movement is pretty great. While I may personally agree with many of the views

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
I voiced my opposition to the statement on Facebook but Yair states the case far more eloquently. Many acts by many countries could be a possible threat to Wikimedia, where do we draw the line? Why was there no community discussion prior to the statement? Sent from my iPhone > On 02/02/2017,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-02 Thread Andrea Zanni
Having a global and diverse movement means finding value, albeit implicitly, in diversity (of language, sex, gender, culture, pov). The NPOV is not a "null" concept: it means giving weight to different point of views, merge them together to find a balanced article on something. Mostly, we as a