Very diplomatic, Seddon! But... no. Seriously. Let's not pretend that having the WMF ED send a bunch of emails to Wikimedia donors about general US public policy issues is a remotely good idea. Chris On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by economics. I would bail from this project and find another that was less partisan, though fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me. I expect that the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my beliefs intruding on policy discussions. I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering content that is not On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: ​Basically yes. ​ ​That is a short-run view. I prefer institutions that seem committed to​ a minimal core set of values. That long-term commitment is not necessarily consistent at all times with the current views of those currently choosing to participate in these fora. I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations and grants should be driving the projects. Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to those who craft seductive fund-raising messages? I would also like to ​Facts are always nice,/ ​What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?​ -- Dennis C. During

Hoi, Are you seriously asking what African, Indian or Chinese Wikipedian ... does not want Americans or British to have what they do not have either? What makes them so special that they deserve this! English Wikipedia is only 50% of our traffic. The attention it is given is excessive. Thanks, GerardM On 18 June 2018 at 15:57, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years, and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill will on their peers. I am hardly the only one to speak up for community attraction and retention issues. Best regards, Jim On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: > Dear James, > > this is a returning topic, it seems (Wikimedia should take political stands > on XYZ economic policies). And somehow it's always initiated by you. > > > I join the chorus: Wikimedia should remain nonpartisan, and not take any > position in political debates - unless it is directly relevant for our > mission. Exceptions may arise if there is a demonstrated overwhelming > consensus (as seems to have been the case with the climate neutral > policies), but even then focused on our projects. Not taking a position is > definitely not the same as taking a 'neutral' position or holding the > middle ground. > > This has nothing to do with the ED's resume, or what she does or doesn't > like to do. This has to do with core fundamental values our movement is > built on. Not taking a position in political debates is a core requirement > for us to remain acceptable as a source of information to all parties. > > Lodewijk > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:57 AM James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Dennis During &lt;dcduring(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> > Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by >> > economics. >> >> Have you looked at the ED's CV? >> >> > I would bail from this project and find another that was less partisan >> >> If the ED told donors to take steps that might get American editors >> health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work >> weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be >> enough to make you want to stop participating? Why? >> >> > fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me. >> >> I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a >> hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That >> was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the >> Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil >> liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups, >> not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias' >> economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a >> new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain >> technology to facilitate a new equity structure. >> >> Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely >> asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for >> instead of against individual wikimedian editors. >> >> > the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my >> > beliefs intruding on policy discussions. >> >> Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg >> >> > I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering >> > content that is not >> >> Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying >> that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish >> attempt to claim that taxes are always bad? >> >> >> We should measure how much donors are likely >> >> to donate more or less for each of the issues. >> > >> > That is a short-run view. >> >> No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long >> run. >> >> > I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of >> values. >> >> Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus >> enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant >> PR? >> >> > I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations >> > and grants should be driving the projects. >> >> I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been >> monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated >> with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations. >> >> > Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to >> those who >> > craft seductive fund-raising messages? >> >> Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages >> which have never been measured. >> >> >> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the >> Mission >> >> is so restrictive. >> > >> > Facts are always nice >> >> The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the >> Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and >> internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is >> an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity. >> >> > What is an "optimized influence likelihood"? >> >> For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks, >> payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the >> UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won >> that a long time ago. Instead, the ED could substitute mental health >> care increases for her letter to UK donors, for example. >> >> But seriously, what kind of a UK wikimedian or donor is going to be >> offended by a one-size-fits-all-nations letter asking for donors to >> work for single payer in America? What kind of an African, Indian, or >> Chinese Wikipedian wouldn't want American and UK wikipedians to have >> free health care, shorter work weeks, and a more equitable tax and >> transfer incidence? >> >> Best regards, >> Jim >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During &lt;dcduring(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> > I'd reconsider contributing content to WMF projects if WMF became a >> >> > partisan on issues outside its basic remit. >> >> > >> >> > On Jun 15, 2018 16:11, "James Salsman" &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273 >> >> > >> >> > I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic >> >> > correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the >> >> > movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the >> >> > Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In >> >> > particular, I propose that the Executive Director ask donors to >> >> > support other organizations which are working for free college,[1-4] >> >> > single payer universal health care,[5] shorter work weeks,[6-7] >> >> > payroll subsidies,[8] and two-bracket taxation.[9] >> >> > >> >> > I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for >> >> > wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there >> >> > is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant >> >> > survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the >> >> > urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves. >> >> > >> >> > Best regards, >> >> > Jim Salsman >> >> > >> >> > [1] >> >> > https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community- >> >> college-california_n_6474940.html >> >> > >> >> > [2] >> >> > >> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of% >> >> 20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf >> >> > >> >> > [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf >> >> > >> >> > [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf >> >> > >> >> > [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689 >> >> > >> >> > [6] >> >> > https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working- >> >> fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/ >> >> > >> >> > [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length >> >> > >> >> > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit >> >> > >> >> > [9] >> >> > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c3 >> >> 1542b6.pdf >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> , >> >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> , >> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Dennis C. During >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ​If you are not concerned about the problem of hubris, perhaps not.​ ​Often, "educate" seems to mean propagandize., always equipped with the paving stones of the road to hell. Are there any specific reasons that the Foundation should remain ​What topics don't clearly impact some of the readership of community?​ This discussion seems to be framed almost entirely in idealism and absolutes, entities that rarely seem to lead to practical solutions for a society of diverse interests. To the extent that we do have recourse to ideals and absolutes, they should probably be limited to the core values which the movement has accepted from the beginning. That way this institution can be a vehicle for truth of the factual variety, recognizing that even facts can be in legitimate dispute. -- Dennis C. During

Hell NO! We are not neutral and it will be a particular sad situation when we forget what we are there for, what our objectives are only to "avoid compromising the appearance of the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to avoid bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate interests; to avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status; to avoid fragmenting the resources and attention of the movement; to avoid creating divisions within the projects and the movement that would make it more difficult for volunteers to work together." We just won a major victory in our battle to keep the internet free, an internet where we can write our projects. A victory where one of our opponents said "Wikipedia should be nationalised"; there is no neutral ground for us. We have antagonised governments. Our Turkish Wikipedia and other Wikipedias is not available in Turkey. Our established positions are against corporate interests. And to be honest, when we lose our tax status in the USA because of all this, we will make us even more money. Our objectives, our reliance on a free internet, free software and free licenses are an integral part of who we are. We will not squander it to appease any two bit dictator. Thanks, GerardM On 7 July 2018 at 01:10, Benjamin Lees &lt;emufarmers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

The publishers and record labels are also corporations. I see that our stand is to be in the side of the “artists”. In the future we should support them to start collective bargaining and to reach collective agreement with the new online publishers. We should do the same with scholars, too: help them to find alternatives to the scientific publishers. In this EU hasn’t done a great job either, although they like to promote “open science” (in a close collaboration with the established publishers). -Teemu