That is an obvious false equivalence.  The issue isn't people rooting
for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own.  The
issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission
can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act
appropriately.  The free dissemination of factual, neutral information
and the ability of editors to participate in that dissemination is in
many contexts a political act and the WMF should recognize this.  To
contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always
politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where
your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Nathan <> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault <> wrote:
>> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech"....  Katherine
>> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from
>> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
>> achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as I
>> see it).
> I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position
> didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme
> vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks, that
> nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in
> recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free
> societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people
> (although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why taking
> political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the
> frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to