As a movement we have several policies that can be contradictory.

We want to be inclusive, have a neutral point of view but at the same time
we want facts to be supported by sources. For many things there are
contradictory sources and for many things there are additional sources.
With the current USA government denying provable facts, we find for
instance that climate change is corroborated around the world by august
bodies like the KNMI. When the USA puts forward an opinion that clashes
with scientific data / facts, it is just that. At best a footnote on the
subject of Climate change.

We know for a fact that a lot of sources have been bought. I can safely say
this now because I already said it when Mr Obama was still president. It is
a proven fact. When we are to share in the sum of all knowledge, we have to
recognise what is what.

When some people insist on calling this political, they have a problem
because sources and quality of sources are key. When we inform about
"climate change" the fact that the EPA was defanged and declawed does not
change the science and it is part of the article on the EPA. What American
politics have to say about climate change does not touch the subject of
climate change at all.

Advocacy for any opinion is problematic and it is well documented that the
current government calls for "alternative facts". They bring measles,
pollution, women dying of botched abortions back to the USA.

When you talk about abortions, sources are important. What a political
party, a government has to say is an opinion. What Doctors without Borders
has to say is observable fact. What they say is backed by scientific
observations. When people call to leave politics out, they will have to
recognise that a NPOV is about subjects where opinions matter. Where facts,
science is available their opinion does not matter and obviously so because
we are not a platform where an opinions can be found we are an
encyclopaedia when we talk about Wikipedia and we should not politicise
based on any given "alternative facts" that are often proven lies.

On 2 February 2017 at 22:09, 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: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to