On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pete Forsyth wrote: > > I think there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much and > >what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages in, but by and > >large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're related to our vision, > >our mission, our strategic plan, and our model of community governance. > > Yep. > > Though since you mention SOPA, it's been over two years and I hope the > passage of time has made people more circumspect following that spectacle. > In my opinion, the video of Wikimedia Foundation staff members actively > cheering blacking out the English Wikipedia and the weaponization of the > CentralNotice extension did a lot more harm to Wikimedia than any bill > that the U.S. Congress was considering at the time probably would have. > > MZMcBride A fair point. But let me just underscore -- my point was narrower than the point you seem to be responding to. I made no claim above that SOPA blackout was a good idea, or that it was executed properly; I just wanted to point out that *when the decision was made to pursue a specific course of action,* as far as I know, the Legal department did what was necessary to ensure that the WMF's legal status was not threatened. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
