I don't respond to Wikimedia-l discussion very often, but I think this debate comes up often enough that it's worth it for me to explain and elaborate on my own positions.
(1) I understand WP:NPOV to be a rule/guideline about content, particularly Wikipedia content. I do not believe it is a rule about Wikimedia processes, or about the Wikimedia movement's mission.
(2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone for free. We are not a neutral enterprise, and we never have been.
(3) There is a vision that some members of the community have that WMF employees (or contractors, or Trustees, or representatives) ought never speak out and offer an opinion about political issues. Ironically, some people in our movement would not want a WMF to have a public opinion about, say, what "extreme vetting" means unless that opinion itself were "extremely vetted."
(4) I think those who hold the view I summarize as (3) above are making a mistake. It seems to me that the reason the community and the Trustees have slowly crafted an evolving process that, when it works well, results in strong, capable individuals who can speak effectively both as representatives of our movement and as leaders of it, is that we all know we can't hold a plebiscite for everything.
(5) We now know more than eve, thanks to events this year and last year, that the larger, global, shared world of democratic values is fragile, and that it's better to respond rapidly to rapidly emerging issues (such as the treatment of Wikimedians of all backgrounds who want or need to cross borders to participate in our shared, great work) than it is to wait until our response is untimely, irrelevant, or even impossible. The mode that seems to work most effectively for us is to have strong, effective leaders and employees and representatives who have earned our trust, and who for that reason can be trusted to respond on our behalf as rapidly and effectively as necessary to rapidly emerging issues. Without, shall we say, "extreme vetting."
(6) Sometimes those whom the Trustees and/or the community have chosen are not up to the job we ask of them, and it is our strength that we reserve the right to make our unhappiness known, through channels ranging from this mailing list to Trustee elections to "voting with our feet." Because our mission, the Wikimedia mission, is fundamentally a human process it will be imperfect, and its imperfections will make us unhappy sometimes. But we are adults, and we live with those imperfections and take some joy at times in recognizing them and trying to do better.
(7) Given all these considerations, I am proud to be part of the Wikimedia movement, proud to be a part of the same community as all of you, even when the community is sometimes contentious. I hope that in the long run we agree now -- right now -- is a time when we should stand behind anyone in our community, from the Trustees and Katherine on down to every last one of us, who stands up and speaks out for humane values and humane judgments, because, it seems to me, the Wikimedia movement is meant to be a humane, outward-looking, courageous movement that acknowledges self-doubt but also remains committed to enabling us all to raise our individual and collective voices in defense of values grounded in generosity, love, and tolerance.
Thanks for listening.
--Mike Godwin WMF General Counsel 2007-2010
Well spoken Mike.
Greetings
Ting
Am 04.02.2017 um 15:58 schrieb Mike Godwin:
I don't respond to Wikimedia-l discussion very often, but I think this debate comes up often enough that it's worth it for me to explain and elaborate on my own positions.
(1) I understand WP:NPOV to be a rule/guideline about content, particularly Wikipedia content. I do not believe it is a rule about Wikimedia processes, or about the Wikimedia movement's mission.
(2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone for free. We are not a neutral enterprise, and we never have been.
(3) There is a vision that some members of the community have that WMF employees (or contractors, or Trustees, or representatives) ought never speak out and offer an opinion about political issues. Ironically, some people in our movement would not want a WMF to have a public opinion about, say, what "extreme vetting" means unless that opinion itself were "extremely vetted."
(4) I think those who hold the view I summarize as (3) above are making a mistake. It seems to me that the reason the community and the Trustees have slowly crafted an evolving process that, when it works well, results in strong, capable individuals who can speak effectively both as representatives of our movement and as leaders of it, is that we all know we can't hold a plebiscite for everything.
(5) We now know more than eve, thanks to events this year and last year, that the larger, global, shared world of democratic values is fragile, and that it's better to respond rapidly to rapidly emerging issues (such as the treatment of Wikimedians of all backgrounds who want or need to cross borders to participate in our shared, great work) than it is to wait until our response is untimely, irrelevant, or even impossible. The mode that seems to work most effectively for us is to have strong, effective leaders and employees and representatives who have earned our trust, and who for that reason can be trusted to respond on our behalf as rapidly and effectively as necessary to rapidly emerging issues. Without, shall we say, "extreme vetting."
(6) Sometimes those whom the Trustees and/or the community have chosen are not up to the job we ask of them, and it is our strength that we reserve the right to make our unhappiness known, through channels ranging from this mailing list to Trustee elections to "voting with our feet." Because our mission, the Wikimedia mission, is fundamentally a human process it will be imperfect, and its imperfections will make us unhappy sometimes. But we are adults, and we live with those imperfections and take some joy at times in recognizing them and trying to do better.
(7) Given all these considerations, I am proud to be part of the Wikimedia movement, proud to be a part of the same community as all of you, even when the community is sometimes contentious. I hope that in the long run we agree now -- right now -- is a time when we should stand behind anyone in our community, from the Trustees and Katherine on down to every last one of us, who stands up and speaks out for humane values and humane judgments, because, it seems to me, the Wikimedia movement is meant to be a humane, outward-looking, courageous movement that acknowledges self-doubt but also remains committed to enabling us all to raise our individual and collective voices in defense of values grounded in generosity, love, and tolerance.
Thanks for listening.
--Mike Godwin WMF General Counsel 2007-2010
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mike Godwin [email protected] wrote:
(2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone for free. We are not a neutral enterprise, and we never have been.
Indeed not. I agree with Mike's entire post. WMF must speak out against threats that directly impact its ability to serve its mission. Sometimes it will be able to do so in concert with community action (as in the case of SOPA/PIPA), sometimes it will be acting on its own behalf. The WMF blog is exactly the right place for the latter type of expression.
The revocation of some 60,000 visas [1] and implementation of a travel ban targeting a religious group is precisely the type of action that directly impacts WMF's ability to do its work. To frame this simply as a matter of refugee policy misunderstands the nature of the executive order [2], which also bars other visa holders from targeted countries.
The WMF is committed to internationalism and diversity through its policies [3], through its long-standing participation in international outreach programs like Google Summer of Code, through hosting, supporting and participating in events all around the world, and -- most importantly -- through its mission and vision statement which are global in scope and aspiration.
To make clear that it is opposed to this obvious violation of human rights with all the consequences it has already entailed (regardless of the possibly temporary suspension of the ban) is _precisely_ what we should expect from WMF. We should object if it had _not_ issued a statement. To frame this within the terms of the neutrality of the encyclopedia is a mistake. The encyclopedia is neutral; the WMF most definitely cannot be when its ability to do its work is threatened, _especially_ in the jurisdiction within which it operates.
While I agree that it's important to define the boundaries of WMF's political expression, I see its statement on EO 13769 as clearly within any rational such definition that is consistent with its mission and vision.
Erik
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that the process of making such statements should include consulting the community.
But some have claimed that Katherine's free speech right entitles her to opine on the WMF's behalf without restriction, and multiple others have recently asked the WMF to get involved in other political or advocacy work that is outside the scope of the WMF mission. I object to these on the principle that the WMF is not a vehicle for the general political beliefs of its employees, management, readers or even volunteers. It has committed itself to a mission, and its activities and voice should maintain focus on that mission without allowing itself to be distracted by the worlds many other problems.
Its surely easy for those who find nearly complete political and cultural accord with WMF staffers to be comfortable with their political statements on behalf of the movement. But the WMF should take care not to court a backlash from outside the bubble by embracing such activity beyond the reasonable confines of its raison d'etre.
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly on policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly five years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association [1], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement specifically protects and advances our mission.
I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that many expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning that action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those arguing. If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is whether any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and WMF are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support their own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would not appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's arsenal to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
Please let us keep it that way.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_ and_Political_Association_Guideline
A blanket ban sweeps in possible contributors and potential employees.
A well-crafted policy, properly administered, generally, would not.
Fred Bauder
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 04:15:33 -0500 Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly on policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly five years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association [1], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement specifically protects and advances our mission.
I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that many expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning that action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those arguing. If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is whether any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and WMF are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support their own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would not appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's arsenal to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
Please let us keep it that way.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_ and_Political_Association_Guideline _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees that cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
The question is very much in what you call politics and the extend you want to excuse politics. When lawyers including the person responsible for prosecuting the law opine that an ukaze is illegal, it loses much of the excuse. There are things we stand for as an organisation; we stand for making our gender gap less. That is also very much political given that Mr Trump has it that women should dress like women.. Yair, you can not defend the inexcusable. We have values and when these values are threatened, when they become political, they are still our values.
We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care.
Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are energised. This may be politics for you but it is not to me. I do live below sea level as it is. It is easy to compensate for this; we have the money and when the WMF invests money in green energy and allows people to invest with it to make our foot print smaller and help our readers, I will invest from the little that I have.
We seek to share the sum of all knowledge and for various reasons we could do much better. But to do better we have to want to do better and my experience is that we are not capable to do what is good for us because of politics. Internal politics.
Everyone may say what they want but politics affect us, they often affect us negatively and for us the one thing that should guide us is how we optimise our mission. When "politics" are required and have us say why what a government does negatively impact us, we should and we do. We did so in the past, we did so with China and now we need to do this with the USA, Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/missingbassel-wikidata-as-tool.ht... [2] https://rankabrand.org/websites/Wikipedia
On 5 February 2017 at 10:15, Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly on policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly five years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association [1], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement specifically protects and advances our mission.
I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that many expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning that action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those arguing. If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is whether any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and WMF are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support their own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would not appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's arsenal to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
Please let us keep it that way.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_ and_Political_Association_Guideline _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
I'm really not sure we can say that we have let one of us die in prison! Especially that we did not care (lots of wikimedians talked about Bassel as soon as they learnt about his situation).
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/
2017-02-05 10:45 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen [email protected]:
Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees that cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
The question is very much in what you call politics and the extend you want to excuse politics. When lawyers including the person responsible for prosecuting the law opine that an ukaze is illegal, it loses much of the excuse. There are things we stand for as an organisation; we stand for making our gender gap less. That is also very much political given that Mr Trump has it that women should dress like women.. Yair, you can not defend the inexcusable. We have values and when these values are threatened, when they become political, they are still our values.
We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care.
Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are energised. This may be politics for you but it is not to me. I do live below sea level as it is. It is easy to compensate for this; we have the money and when the WMF invests money in green energy and allows people to invest with it to make our foot print smaller and help our readers, I will invest from the little that I have.
We seek to share the sum of all knowledge and for various reasons we could do much better. But to do better we have to want to do better and my experience is that we are not capable to do what is good for us because of politics. Internal politics.
Everyone may say what they want but politics affect us, they often affect us negatively and for us the one thing that should guide us is how we optimise our mission. When "politics" are required and have us say why what a government does negatively impact us, we should and we do. We did so in the past, we did so with China and now we need to do this with the USA, Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/missingbassel-wikidata-as- tool.html [2] https://rankabrand.org/websites/Wikipedia
On 5 February 2017 at 10:15, Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly on policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly five years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association [1], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they
"should
protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement specifically protects and advances our mission.
I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that
many
expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning
that
action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those
arguing.
If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is
whether
any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and WMF are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support their own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would not appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's
arsenal
to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park.
It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
Please let us keep it that way.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_ and_Political_Association_Guideline _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Yes we can. Lots of Wikimedians talked about this but do not ignore the fact that lots of Wikimedians had their reasons for not wanting to ask attention for Bassel. We did not have a banner and is this our best practice?
It is extremely unlikely that Bassel is still alive and I am not saying that a banner would have made a difference but I do know why we do not know this. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 February 2017 at 11:00, Pierre-Selim [email protected] wrote:
I'm really not sure we can say that we have let one of us die in prison! Especially that we did not care (lots of wikimedians talked about Bassel as soon as they learnt about his situation).
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/
2017-02-05 10:45 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen [email protected]:
Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees
that
cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
The question is very much in what you call politics and the extend you
want
to excuse politics. When lawyers including the person responsible for prosecuting the law opine that an ukaze is illegal, it loses much of the excuse. There are things we stand for as an organisation; we stand for making our gender gap less. That is also very much political given that
Mr
Trump has it that women should dress like women.. Yair, you can not
defend
the inexcusable. We have values and when these values are threatened,
when
they become political, they are still our values.
We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care.
Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are energised. This may be politics for you but it is not to me. I do live below sea level as it is. It is easy to compensate for this; we have the money and when the WMF invests money in green energy and allows people to invest with it to make our foot print smaller and help our readers, I
will
invest from the little that I have.
We seek to share the sum of all knowledge and for various reasons we
could
do much better. But to do better we have to want to do better and my experience is that we are not capable to do what is good for us because
of
politics. Internal politics.
Everyone may say what they want but politics affect us, they often affect us negatively and for us the one thing that should guide us is how we optimise our mission. When "politics" are required and have us say why
what
a government does negatively impact us, we should and we do. We did so in the past, we did so with China and now we need to do this with the USA, Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/missingbassel-wikidata-as- tool.html [2] https://rankabrand.org/websites/Wikipedia
On 5 February 2017 at 10:15, Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly
on
policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly
five
years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political
Association
[1], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up
the
issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies,
listing
several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they
"should
protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a
free
license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that
statement
specifically protects and advances our mission.
I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be
taken
against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that
many
expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning
that
action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those
arguing.
If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is
whether
any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and
WMF
are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support
their
own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would
not
appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's
arsenal
to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park.
It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
Please let us keep it that way.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_ and_Political_Association_Guideline _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
-- Pierre-Selim _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Le 05/02/2017 à 10:45, Gerard Meijssen a écrit :
Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees that cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
I also agree with Mike's post. In another hand, I think that Gerard Meijssen's argument is not satisfactory. I mean, if one day a substantial carbon tax, which I personally wish for, would multiply the cost of plane travels by 2 or 4 times (say, not in a day), I hope the WMF would not protest against it (I don't tell about supporting it), even if it would "directly affect our work", or actually the way we use to work now, with much intercontinental flights for a few days of meeting.
-- Mathias Damour [[User:Astirmays]]
Hoi, When we finally have to pay carbon tax on aviation fuel, it will be non discriminatory. It may affect us but it is only money. Really your argument is not about the same thing. When I indicate that our reputation suffers because of us using dirty data centres, it is our reputation and it is well deserved. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 February 2017 at 12:39, Mathias Damour [email protected] wrote:
Le 05/02/2017 à 10:45, Gerard Meijssen a écrit :
Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees that cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
I also agree with Mike's post. In another hand, I think that Gerard Meijssen's argument is not satisfactory. I mean, if one day a substantial carbon tax, which I personally wish for, would multiply the cost of plane travels by 2 or 4 times (say, not in a day), I hope the WMF would not protest against it (I don't tell about supporting it), even if it would "directly affect our work", or actually the way we use to work now, with much intercontinental flights for a few days of meeting.
-- Mathias Damour [[User:Astirmays]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
The point is, you are implicitly assuming that a public park or a library, the right to have "a temple for the mind", "a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others", are thing that are not inherently political.
You're simply wrong. A public library is a very political entity, and it's modern one for several reason: access to knowledge for everyone is something governments/elites did not want for a very long time. A true policy of the commons is the same thing. If you want to bet, we could wait for a year or two and see what the Trump administrations will do with federal funds for public libraries and public parks... Reactionary governments often defund public commons, because reactionary policy is to privatize (I'm cutting things with the axe here, please bear with me).
Also, "we can go all to think, learn and share". Think about that word, *all*: it's not granted, and it's there for a reason. I often think about Dorothy Counts [1], and how much did it take for her, at 15, to go to school and getting harassed by her whole community for days. Just for going to a white school.
And this is just one of the countless examples in which humans (thus, politics) didn't believe in a place where "we can go all to think, learn and share".
I just believe that thinking our values and mission are apolitical is at best naive, at worst wrong and dangerous.
Aubrey
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Counts. See also https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/1957/world-press-photo-year...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Andrea Zanni [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park.
It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
The point is, you are implicitly assuming that a public park or a library, the right to have "a temple for the mind", "a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others", are thing that are not inherently political.
You're simply wrong.
No. As others have, you are attacking an argument that is not being made. Yair did not claim that the Wikimedia movement's goals are apolitical; he has simply asked that its political activity be restricted to its mission, as the WMF's own internal policy evidently requires. While permitting free travel for those with valid visas is certainly within that scope, it's unclear how free movement for refugees can be.
GerardM claims that "we" have common values, and seems to be utterly convinced as to what those values are - and lucky for him, they perfectly match his own. I suppose that means there is no place in Wikimedia for anyone who would happily support the movement mission but disagrees with Gerard's other unrelated political positions. If the WMF's voice continues to be used to declare its position on this or that (and there will be many opportunities and entreaties to do so), that is the message some will draw.
Hoi, We do have values and <grin> my arguments are solid </grin> what I find lacking is any argument whereby you try to convince us what I am missing. Let me be blunt. I hate the way people abuse political sentiments and try to convince us that they are enough to not see the facts that are in front of us. What I find is that we do not care for arguments, only when they are "our" own are they accepted. "Us" is only the small group "we" belong to.
For me the fact that some policy exists does not mean that it is the final word on anything. When employees of the Wikimedia Foundation cannot come and go to the place where their family is, it is the strongest possible argument that there is a problem. A problem we cannot ignore, a problem we should not ignore. I positively hate policies because they are used to stop people from thinking.
You attribute "political positions" to me. That is ok except I am not part of your USA political system. I cannot vote there but it does affect the movement I dearly love. So my position is not based on the power plays that happen in the USA. My position is based on the effect it has on our movement. Our movement is based on objective facts, sources, equal play for any position and equal representation of cultures and countries in our encyclopedia. To be honest we should do better.
PS we can not maintain that what we do has a neutral point of view when much of the equalities mentioned fail to materialise. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 February 2017 at 12:27, Nathan [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Andrea Zanni [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park.
It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
The point is, you are implicitly assuming that a public park or a library, the right to have "a temple for the mind", "a place we can all go to
think,
to learn, to share our knowledge with others", are thing that are not inherently political.
You're simply wrong.
No. As others have, you are attacking an argument that is not being made. Yair did not claim that the Wikimedia movement's goals are apolitical; he has simply asked that its political activity be restricted to its mission, as the WMF's own internal policy evidently requires. While permitting free travel for those with valid visas is certainly within that scope, it's unclear how free movement for refugees can be.
GerardM claims that "we" have common values, and seems to be utterly convinced as to what those values are - and lucky for him, they perfectly match his own. I suppose that means there is no place in Wikimedia for anyone who would happily support the movement mission but disagrees with Gerard's other unrelated political positions. If the WMF's voice continues to be used to declare its position on this or that (and there will be many opportunities and entreaties to do so), that is the message some will draw. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:15 AM Yair Rand [email protected] wrote:
The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or inconsistent with that mission."
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact, is whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to
withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement specifically protects and advances our mission.
Many people have described how interfering with the travel of existing employees is substantially more disruptive than restricting the range of possible employees who have not yet been hired.
I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people
explaining reasons ... that are not directly related to our mission.
That depends on what "empower" means. If our volunteers have less resources or free time, is their any question that the movement suffers?
Sincerely, Jim Salsman
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected] wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact, is whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does *not* include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except indirectly via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we do not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the active community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never been close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop asking.
A.
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet is kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word politics can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french wikimedian is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale and yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe this is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are those values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected] wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact, is whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does *not* include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except indirectly via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we do not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the active community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never been close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list, a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus. There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner [email protected] wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet is kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word politics can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french wikimedian is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale and yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe this is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are those values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected] wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking. The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world. In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform, to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list, a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus. There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner [email protected] wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Gerard Meijssen [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking. The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world. In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform, to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list, a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus. There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner [email protected] wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, I do not care about Mr Trump, I care about what it means for us, for our community and the employees of the WMF. You are right the world is not San Francisco. It is why I do not bother you with my thoughts about my opinion about him. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 13:49, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Gerard Meijssen [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking. The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world. In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform, to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of
us
care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material
world,
I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing
list,
a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build
consensus.
There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something
like
a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner <
wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank
you
so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question
on
Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use
it
regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic
as,
Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or
candidate.
And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact
on
the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in
fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and
retain
the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission,
or
some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to
the
illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and
we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list
goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding
for
*Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has
never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
Hi,
I'm sorry but I cannot let that being said.
You are judging a lot of people quickly and harshly. The Wikimedia movement employees all around the globe ARE wikimedians. They are part of the movement as much as you and everyone in that thread is.
I am sorry, but your statement is definitly not ok. Being a volunteer doesn't provide us with a bonus in engagement to our movement. They are comited and engaged people, we have to respect that.
Second, you also pass judgement regarding our ED discreetly, again judging without knowing. But Katherine is not where she is by chance but because it is preceded by a long comitment to our values. Shall I remind you that back in 2007 in another org, UNICEF, she was working on mediawiki. Looping back to the first part actually, she was a wikimedian long before being an employee, and that goes for a lot of the staff, not just her.
Finally, no the world is not San Francisco. And funnily enoug, in the board there's only one person from San Francisco and two from the US (the second being Jimmy and he no longer lives in the US). So you are definitly right, the world is not San Francisco. It's much wider. And being able for the movement's staff and volunteers to freely travel and exchange is key to our success. Hence our standing regarding that specific Executive Order as it prevents us, as an organization, and as a movement, to fullfill our mission.
I am sorry if my email sounds harsh, but please do keep in mind that you're passing a judgement on people that work countless hours with a huge comitment to the movement they belong to.
Christophe
The world is not San Francisco.
That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with San Francisco. You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in the community but you ignore a large part of that community who disagrees with you.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Gerard Meijssen [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking. The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world. In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform, to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list, a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus. There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner [email protected] wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
And yet, here is the amicus brief signed by the Wikimedia Foundation, along with, not nearly 100 non-profit organizations but Silicon Valley tec companies.
________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Robert Fernandez [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:09:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
The world is not San Francisco.
That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with San Francisco. You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in the community but you ignore a large part of that community who disagrees with you.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Gerard Meijssen [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking. The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world. In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform, to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list, a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus. There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner [email protected] wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, What is your point? These companies have the same problem we face. Are companies bad because they are companies?
NB we have it worse because many of our contributors cannot come to our only office either. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 15:41, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
And yet, here is the amicus brief signed by the Wikimedia Foundation, along with, not nearly 100 non-profit organizations but Silicon Valley tec companies.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/ 17-35105%20amicus%20tech%20companies.pdf
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Robert Fernandez [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:09:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
The world is not San Francisco.
That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with San Francisco. You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in the community but you ignore a large part of that community who disagrees with you.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent
the
Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump
administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and
are
not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some
extend
policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from
thinking.
The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It
is
however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and
because
of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work.
Obviously
self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I
know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people
to
come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again,
we
are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real
world.
In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do
not
represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent
the
Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to
inform,
to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our
general
practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face
a
world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those
who
are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I
am
happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many
of us
care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material
world,
I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing
list,
a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real
power,
and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio
station
or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build
consensus.
There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're
missing
out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something
like
a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner <
wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank
you
so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question
on
Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the
planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use
it
regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or
a
political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic
as,
Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or
candidate.
And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political
scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when
it
comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact
on
the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in
fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and
retain
the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the
mission, or
some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers
to
billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to
the
illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute,
and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the
awful
tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list
goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding
for
*Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources
and
mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has
never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
1) I work for free for what I would like to think of as a non-profit educational organization. The rest are businesses looking for cheaper labor. 2) We have a number of policies (such as no advertising) to distance the work of creating and maintainin content from commercial concerns. Working hand-in-hand politically with for-profit companies is just as undermining to the supposed purpose of Wikimedia projects. 3)You are the company you keep. All those signatories are from the same narrow worldview.
________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Gerard Meijssen [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:55:51 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, What is your point? These companies have the same problem we face. Are companies bad because they are companies?
NB we have it worse because many of our contributors cannot come to our only office either. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 15:41, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
And yet, here is the amicus brief signed by the Wikimedia Foundation, along with, not nearly 100 non-profit organizations but Silicon Valley tec companies.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/ 17-35105%20amicus%20tech%20companies.pdf
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf of Robert Fernandez [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:09:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
The world is not San Francisco.
That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with San Francisco. You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in the community but you ignore a large part of that community who disagrees with you.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter [email protected] wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent
the
Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump
administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
From: Wikimedia-l [email protected] on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and
are
not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some
extend
policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from
thinking.
The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It
is
however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and
because
of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work.
Obviously
self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I
know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people
to
come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again,
we
are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real
world.
In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do
not
represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent
the
Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to
inform,
to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our
general
practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face
a
world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those
who
are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I
am
happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight [email protected] wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many
of us
care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material
world,
I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing
list,
a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real
power,
and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio
station
or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build
consensus.
There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're
missing
out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something
like
a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner <
wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank
you
so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question
on
Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the
planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use
it
regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or
a
political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic
as,
Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or
candidate.
And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political
scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when
it
comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact
on
the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected]
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in
fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and
retain
the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the
mission, or
some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers
to
billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to
the
illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute,
and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the
awful
tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list
goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding
for
*Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources
and
mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has
never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either....
Is the Community Process Steering Committee currently prepared to "engage more 'quiet' members of our community" with a statistically robust snap survey to resolve this question?
Christophe,
Thank you for your kind words. I tried to take the discussion you quoted off-list with mixed results, and I do not have permission to publish the resulting thread. The one unresolved question that I think gets to the heart of the matter is this:
If you urge restraint and limited political advocacy, you are less likely to achieve your goals, but more likely to be able to get along with people who are opposed to your goals. Which is more important?
Back in college, we had something called the "reasonable person policy" which involved stepping back and asking, "is this a question on which reasonable people might reasonably disagree," and allowing the discussion if so. I have recently been told that my "AMD petition" post about removing the closed source aspects of security co-processors which have been used to eavesdrop was so far off-topic here and on wikitech-l as to deserve a stern warning, and my attempt to resolve it resulted in the denial of my permission to publish the off-list thread continuing what you quoted below. That is clearly a topic on which reasonable people do disagree, and it meets multiple criteria in the list charter's topic statement. Therefore I appeal my warning to you, and ask that you ask the Board to endorse the "AMD petition" because privacy is a necessary aspect of accomplishing the Mission, even if you believe "empower" means nothing more than to facilitate or enable.
Best regards, Jim
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM Christophe Henner [email protected] wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet is kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word politics can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french wikimedian is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale and yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe this is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are those values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees [email protected] +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman [email protected] wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ 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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe