Would you please explain what you mean by damaging?

> To have a huge banner placed over every article on
> the whole project linking to 43px-font blatant political
> advocacy which can't be reverted, is really damaging.

My opinion remains that 43pt blatant advocacy in support of both
personal freedom of movement and scientific consensus disputed by
fossil fuel interests is extremely helpful to the Foundation, its
Mission, and in attracting additional volunteers, especially because
those issues have been disfavored by recent political trends brought
about by political leveraging of xenophobia and lobbyist money.

Why do people think it is reasonable to claim that such advocacy is
damaging without presenting any evidence in support of their opinion?
Clearly many people do, but why?

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