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, at 3:37 p.m., Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Wikimedia movement is both global and very ideologically diverse, and > has many contributors who have strong opinions in one direction or another > on certain political issues facing their area of the world. Many of these > contributors find it difficult to avoid using Wikimedia forums and > institutions to discuss or advocate for issues they feel very strongly > about. Recently, political advocacy on Wikimedia forums has risen > substantially, especially on this mailing list. > > While I sympathize with the difficulties these contributors face in > remaining silent, it is important to consider the substantial damage such > actions can cause to the movement. We will be much worse off if half of any > given country's political spectrum can no longer cooperate in our mission > due to compunctions against supporting a community which hosts those who > use the community to advocate for positions that some may find > unacceptable. The issue of inadvertently alienating participants because of > politics has a self-reinforcing element: As we lose contributors > representing ideological areas, we have fewer willing to advocate for an > environment which allows them to participate without being bombarded by > hostile political advocacy. We are precariously close to the point of no > return on this, but I am optimistic that the situation is recoverable. > > As an initial measure, I propose adding the names of a certain country's > top political leaders to this list's spam filter. More generally, I think a > stricter stance on avoiding political advocacy on Wikimedia projects is > warranted. > > We face a somewhat more difficult situation with the Wikimedia Foundation > itself. Partly as a result of being relatively localized within a > geographic area and further limited to several professions, I suspect the > Foundation tends to be more politically/ideologically homogeneous. With the > WMF, we risk much more than just alienating much of the world, we risk our > Neutrality. > > How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue over > the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major > community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an > extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A previous > ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than accept > advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF die > outright rather than accept ads is as of yet unresolved.) More recently, > the WMF has taken limited actions and stances on public policy that > directly relate to the mission. A careful balance has been established > between maintaining essential neutrality and dealing with direct threats to > the projects. > > Three days ago, the WMF put out a statement on the Wikimedia blog > explicitly urging a specific country to modify its refugee policy, an area > that does not relate to our goals. There was no movement-wide prior > discussion, or any discussion at all as far as I can tell. > > It is the responsibility of the Board at this point to set a policy to > place firm restrictions on which areas the WMF can take positions. While we > value the important contributions of the staff, they should not be able to > override our commitment to neutrality. Our donors, editors, and other > volunteers do not contribute so that resources and influence can be spent > towards whatever political causes are popular within the WMF. > > It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that our projects > remain apolitical. A neutral point of view is impossible if participating > requires a certain political position. > > It is the responsibility of the mailing list administration and moderators > to act against this list's rapid slide into unreadability. > > Thank you. > > -- Yair Rand > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
