On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an > entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization > itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of > whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes > the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put > into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating > to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated > abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article. It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
