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 Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: Wikimedia <[email protected]> > 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
