On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi <billtakato...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>... I am sending these links without James's commentary....

The part that was deleted from what I had asked to be forwarded
basically said this:

Some of the most senior and respected Foundation leaders have pointed
out that fascist regimes have come to power legally and with the
support of a majority. Is that not a lesson that if more people, and
their institutions nominally espousing the virtues of freedom, spoke
up for their opposing views, that some of those fascist regimes might
not have come to be? If you urge restraint and limited political
advocacy, you are less likely to achieve your goals, but more likely
to be able to get along with people who are opposed to them. Which is
more important to us as a community? Do we want history to look back
on us and say, "well, they didn't do anything to prevent _______, but
at least they didn't hurt each others' feelings"? If you accept that
different people reasonably and legitimately draw the line of how much
political advocacy is appropriate at different places, then I, for
one, would rather hear where you think that line is than have you keep
silent, or see you shouted down because you don't have enough culture
spirit, even if you think it's at a very different place than where I
think it is. If free culture doesn't include the vigilant practice of
speaking up for for freedom, then it might not actually be free
culture.

So, where is that line?

The last general strike in the U.S. was in 1946, over store clerks not
being paid for the time they had to wait in a ready room when there
were no customers, amounting to $10 per week in lost pay which they
were awarded upon conclusion of the negotiations that ended the
strike. Those strikes were so effective, they resulted in the
anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act being amended to say, “a general strike in
support of other workers is illegal,” which means that unions can't
call general strikes at all any more, but people, corporations, and
nonprofits can. How bad will things have to get before the Wikimedia
Foundation would join people's call for a general strike?

And I disagree with Asaf's claim that "empower" means nothing more
than to provide technical server-side technical capabilities and
occasional training support in the Mission statement. If the authors
of the Mission statement wanted that, they could have used the words,
"enable and engage," or, "facilitate and engage," but they did not.
And the evidence offered in support of that claim does not stand up to
scrutiny. Wikipedia Zero *is* a program to provide direct economic
resources and political power to those who would otherwise not be able
to access the projects' content. The statement that, "we do not teach
literacy to the illiterate," is just baffling to me. What, exactly are
the wiktionaries for? How many workshops, on-line training materials,
pamphlets, and books have taught wikitext? The list goes on.

Furthermore, the Foundation with its leadership has both sponsored and
approved paid editing projects, five times at least so far. Some of
them did not go well but the more recent have fared far better. What
is the Foundation going to do in less than 20 years when contributors
start getting the right to their copyright grants? Is the Foundation
is going to be prepared to pay editors then? What are the arguments
against adopting a fire department model, where paid professionals
work alongside volunteers, which was the entire premise of my
student's successful Google Summer of Code project last summer:

https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

I haven't heard anyone argue that the fire department model won't work
in the long term, or that it isn't the appropriate way to prepare for
editors getting the rights to their contributions back. Plenty of time
for that in the future; right now there are more pressing matters.

> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.

Sure, I would also strongly support an Uber-style boycott; just delete
the words from "national general strike" through "stoppages" in
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png and link the word "boycotts" to a list
of companies being boycotted.

Best regards,
Jim

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>

Reply via email to