The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
the right.

Thank you for your reply on the other thread about the Executive
Director's Letter to Donors. I think you raise a few good points,
which I hope to respond to soon. But your argument isn't compelling
enough to make it a priority over my work at present. I look forward
to reading a reply from you responding to more than just the first
reference on free college. The answers to most if not almost all of
your questions are in the other three references on free college,
although they are dense and difficult to read, and require the
understanding of amortization.

[from that other thread:]

>> 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.

Why the Foundation wouldn't have already called this question with a
survey is beyond me.

Best regards,

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Mario Gómez <> wrote:
> I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community.
> Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these
> issues, but here is my summary:
> == It is cherry-picking ==
> The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to
> the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific
> US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and
> established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these
> communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:
> * Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
> Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?
> * Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
> immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?
> == It is not necessary ==
> A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy
> on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our
> political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get
> involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that,
> when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization
> sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.
> == It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==
> As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the
> ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge,
> not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some
> example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the
> community:
> * When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
> essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are
> they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country
> that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider
> that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.
> * When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
> invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major
> immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position
> offensive too.
> == It alienates the community ==
> If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core
> mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the
> community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact
> that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we
> might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.
> Best,
> MarioGom
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher <>
> wrote:
>> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
>> <>*
>> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>> Dear friends,
>> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
>> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
>> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
>> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
>> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
>> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
>> for some of these restrictions.
>> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
>> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
>> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
>> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
>> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
>> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
>> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
>> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
>> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
>> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
>> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
>> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
>> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
>> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
>> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
>> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
>> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
>> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
>> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
>> Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
>> restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
>> others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
>> to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
>> values that make our movement possible.
>> Katherine
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
>> [3]
>> calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
>> [4]
>> [5] See
>> restrictions/,
>> ,
>> and
>> [6]
>> immigration-wikimedia-values/
>> --
>> Katherine Maher
>> Executive Director
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
>> +1 (415) 712 4873
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to