I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not
about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the
mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the
WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that
the process of making such statements should include consulting the

But some have claimed that Katherine's free speech right entitles her to
opine on the WMF's behalf without restriction, and multiple others have
recently asked the WMF to get involved in other political or advocacy work
that is outside the scope of the WMF mission. I object to these on the
principle that the WMF is not a vehicle for the general political beliefs
of its employees, management, readers or even volunteers. It has committed
itself to a mission, and its activities and voice should maintain focus on
that mission without allowing itself to be distracted by the worlds many
other problems.

Its  surely easy for those who find nearly complete political and cultural
accord with WMF staffers to be comfortable with their political statements
on behalf of the movement. But the WMF should take care not to court a
backlash from outside the bubble by embracing such activity beyond the
reasonable confines of its raison d'etre.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to