I am profoundly disappointed that WMF employees don't value the mission. Instead they seem to simply follow fashion and force users and volunteers to follow their fashionable methods of advocacy. They use their monopoly power to deny free access to the world's knowledge that many thousands of volunteers have diligently assembled. This time it is to show solidarity with environmental advocates. What will it be next time?
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 15:35 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a few comments. > > While I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't have put the > wikimediafoundation.org domain "on strike", just as I wouldn't have put a > government agency's website "on strike". I think that some discussion of > climate change would be fine, but I think that WMF's action here is > somewhat strange. > > I think that asking about the climate impact of staff travel is fine. > However, I would also include questions about travel for Wikimedia events > more broadly. I believe that the WMF Board has indicated support for trying > to reduce the Wikiverse's contributions to climate change. As has been > mentioned in this thread, WMF released a report yesterday > < > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093519.html > > > on the subject of sustainability. While I have not read it, I think that > measuring and attempting to reduce reduce negative environmental impacts > from Wikimedia activities is good, including negative environmental impacts > from travel. However, I also think that there are some benefits to morale > and communications from in person meetings, so I would be reluctant to > eliminate travel and conferences entirely. > > I think that it's fine to ask whether WMF senior management is practicing > what they preach. However, Fae, I feel that your tone in this thread is > excessively harsh on this point. I think that you could ask very similar > questions with a tone that is calmer. > > On the subject of environmental sustainability, my main concern at this > time is the banner on the WMF website which I feel is somewhat weird and is > inconsistent with WMF's goal of being "essential infrastructure". Do we > want "essential infrastructure" to go on strike, particularly when that > infrastructure is supposed to be for an organization that provides public > service and supports the community in publishing reliable scientific > information? I think not. However, I think that the banner is regrettably > consistent with the series of surprising decisions from WMF in the past few > months. That is, to me, the most concerning element in all of this. If WMF > wants to be a public service infrastructure provider then I think that it > should act like one. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > _______________________________________________ > 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>