I would be extremely surprised (and disappointed) if the Foundation didn't have a plan of some sort for what to do if the legislative climate within the US became unacceptable, as a part of their assessment of their risk profile and as part of their risk management strategy. I remember coming up with a similar scenario many years ago as part of a risk management session for an organisation with a far narrower scope than the WMF.
Cheers, Craig On 27 January 2017 at 13:33, Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>