My point about NPOV was referring to article content, as the previous post seemed to suggest that the WMF can and does try to influence articles non-neutrally.
I don't understand your point about the Sustainability Initiative. To the best of my knowledge, the Sustainability Initiative (which was approved by the Board, IIRC) does not include any public advocacy efforts. I haven't said anything against the Initiative, and I don't oppose it myself. I do think the WMF should not undertake any public advocacy efforts which do not comply with the guidelines. Earth Day Live was pushing many, many political positions, not just campaign finance reform. It doesn't take much searching to find any of the on-wiki discussions which show conclusively that the community opposes general political advocacy. On the wikis themselves, this isn't a matter of controversy. Activism outside the five identified areas that relate to Wikimedia activities (Access, Censorship, Copyright, Intermediary liability, and Privacy; see the public policy portal and associated documents) is not acceptable, and advocacy is only acceptable even within those areas under limited circumstances. -- Yair Rand  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline בתאריך יום ב׳, 27 באפר׳ 2020 ב-20:00 מאת Bill Takatoshi < billtakato...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the > policy, > > NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot > > be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." > It > > may not be violated, period. > > Are you suggesting that the Foundation may not take any political > positions at all? > > > The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include > > promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for > environmentalism. > > I doubt that more than 20% of the long-term project editor base share > that opinion. Can you point to even a single instance other than your > own dozen or two complaints to this list of anyone opposed to the > WMF's Sustainability Initiative. The only comments about it ever say > that it should be doing more (I agree: we should be flexing our muscle > with the datacenter operators to ask them to buy renewable power, > perhaps in return for the visibility of a joint press release or > acknowledgment on a high-traffic page, or both.) > > And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to > campaign finance reform, which was the only only issue championed by > the Earth Day Live sponsors, and I doubt less than 10% thinks that > both issues support the Mission to "engage and empower" free content > contributors. Similarly for living wage standards, which support the > ability of editors to fund their living so they don't, for example, > need to take two jobs and thereby lack time to edit. I am sure you can > see the connection, but for whatever reason you simply choose not to. > > I repeat my request for the Foundation to survey the editor base to > put an end to this disruptive bickering. > > -Will > > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>