Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or
sources. When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific
practice, that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory",
a theory that many generations of scientists have established, describing
how it works and interconnections with observable fact. What do you do when
someone says "I do not believe it" and asks for a neutral point of view?

What do you say when employees of the Wikimedia Foundation no longer can
come to their head quarters, do you call it observable fact or do you call
it politics because it is the consequence of a new president of the United
States of America?

What am I to think when people call in doubt when we are told by the main
man of the Wikimedia Foundation that this severely impacts our movement and
we are told that she can not say so because some volunteers feel that they
need to be consulted. Well, to be honest, I do not give a fuck and I
applaud Katherine Maher for speaking out in a timely manner. When someone
is to censure her, it is the board who can do so and I strongly doubt that
this will ever happen.

When someone like Jerry Falwell Jr is to head an education task force. I
wonder how this is possible. To be honest, I fear for what we will stand
for. I fear for the relevance of all the science and students in the future
of the United States. I doubt very much that the United States will remain
relevant because of this and the unfortunate tendency of "alternative

Really, I am not party to US politics. I am part of the Wikimedia movement
and there is imho no room for alternative facts. These alternative facts
stand in contrast to observable facts and scientific practice including the
use of sources. They have nothing to do with Neutral point of View. At most
"alternative facts" are not worth more than a paragraph at the bottom that
includes a rebuttal.

On 3 February 2017 at 20:32, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want
> them at all.
> Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia
> projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA
> was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of Wikimedia.
> In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting
> ourselves into politics.
> Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. We
> aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to catalog
> what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying that as someone
> who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.
> If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, they
> have every right to do that. On their own time and their own nickel, and
> without speaking as a representative of the organization.
> It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened without
> consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for all of us,
> without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally unacceptable and
> I'd like to see further discussion of that.
> Todd
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi <billtakato...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen
> > <list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and
> > > all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is
> > > and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
> >
> > Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia
> > projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in
> > the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts
> > and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
> >
> > More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past
> > weeks:
> >
> > * make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no
> > opposition, task created)
> >
> > * relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
> >
> > * assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or
> opposition
> > yet)
> >
> > * correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
> > (seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
> >
> > * turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
> > public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions
> > were asked but have yet been answered)
> >
> > * issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
> > controversial, statement issued by ED)
> >
> > * call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
> >
> > * improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition
> > yet)
> >
> > * require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
> > action (seconded, controversial)
> >
> > * create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are
> > restricted (no second yet)
> >
> > * add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this
> > list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)
> >
> > It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the
> > political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support
> > or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)
> >
> > I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but
> > less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political
> > issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.
> >
> > I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to
> > see such proposals from others.
> >
> > -Will
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
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