So now I'm put into the awkward position of having to agree with
essentially everything the post said, and still have to disagree with it
having been made.

The WMF should not be taking political stances without input and consensus
from the community. Period. If it thought it needed to in this case, it
should have made that case, not just plowed ahead.

I think, since the post was made under the name of ED Katherine Maher, we
should see a response to these concerns from her.


On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Bill Takatoshi <>

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Michael Peel <> wrote:
> > Have you seen Katherine's statement at:
> >
> That statement is well worth reading. It says,
> "we believe in a world that encourages and protects the open exchange
> of ideas and information, community and culture; where people of every
> country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without
> restriction"
> "we will continue to stand up for our values of open discourse"
> +1
> The charter of this mailing list says "potential new Wikimedia
> projects and initiatives" are on topic here. There are no exceptions
> given.
> If some participants want to restrict what other participants can say
> because their ideas are political, or don't conform closely enough to
> what Wikimedia is already doing, or are repetitive, or annoying, or
> opposed to somebody else's politics, then a new mailing list should be
> created, Wikimedia-l-restricted, where the forbidden topics can be
> specified clearly and without ambiguity, and all of the people who
> want to restrict what other people can say can enjoy restricting each
> other.
> Good luck with that.
> The complaints about messages complaining about recent political
> complaints about recent political events.
> -Will
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to