Hell NO!

We are not neutral and it will be a particular sad situation when we forget
what we are there for, what our objectives are only to "avoid compromising
the appearance of
the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to avoid
bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate interests; to
avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status; to avoid fragmenting
the resources and attention of the movement; to avoid creating divisions
within the projects and the movement that would make it more difficult for
volunteers to work together."

We just won a major victory in our battle to keep the internet free, an
internet where we can write our projects. A victory where one of our
opponents said "Wikipedia should be nationalised"; there is no neutral
ground for us. We have antagonised governments. Our Turkish Wikipedia and
other Wikipedias is not available in Turkey. Our established positions are
against corporate interests. And to be honest, when we lose our tax status
in the USA because of all this, we will make us even more money.

Our objectives, our reliance on a free internet, free software and free
licenses are an integral part of who we are. We will not squander it to
appease any two bit dictator.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 7 July 2018 at 01:10, Benjamin Lees <emufarm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Well, off the top of my head: to avoid compromising the appearance of
> the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to
> avoid bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate
> interests; to avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status;
> to avoid fragmenting the resources and attention of the movement; to
> avoid creating divisions within the projects and the movement that
> would make it more difficult for volunteers to work together.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:01 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years,
> > and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill
> > will on their peers.
>
> Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list
> disagree with the percentages you keep making up.
>
> Emufarmers
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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