Lodewijk, I want to ask about something you wrote:
>... Not taking a position is definitely not the same as > taking a 'neutral' position or holding the middle ground. Suppose for the sake of argument that there are two competing popular opinions, one of which is more true than another. If the opinions are noteworthy statements on notable subjects, then it is appropriate to describe both. In accepting the right to do so for others, isn't there a corresponding responsibility to describe which of the two reliable sources say is more true? The point I am trying to make, is that those who view a lack of partisanship as a benefit are those who don't speak up when things are going wrong, and those people are hurting the people our Mission seeks to educate, and the people our Mission depends on to volunteer. Are there any specific reasons that the Foundation should remain neutral on any topic, economic, political, or otherwise, which clearly impacts the readership or community? 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>
