[Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment

[Tim Starling]

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action
>> would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying
>> that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia
>> has as much responsibility to act as does any other organisation or
>> individual.
> 
> Even accepting the premise that subsidizing renewable energy is a
> moral duty, that doesn't mean Wikimedia should fund it, any more than
> it should be spending its budget on feeding starving children.
> Wikimedia should not be spending any significant amount of donated
> money on things that do not directly advance its mission, because
> people donate to fund its mission, not unrelated causes (however
> important).  It's very different from a private individual or company
> in this respect -- Wikimedia has a duty to spend its money on the
> things it's accepting donations for.

While the major program spending that Wikimedia performs should be
defined by its mission, I think small spending decisions, relating to
day-to-day operations, can be made without recourse to our mission.
For instance, the office staff should be able use recycled paper
without there being a Board resolution to put it in the mission statement.

In terms of the ethics, there's a big difference between inaction on
an issue, say poverty in Africa, and taking direct action in order to
make things worse. Wikimedia is not paying people to take food from
children's mouths, but it is paying people to burn coal for
electricity. I don't think we can claim to be mere bystanders.

-- Tim Starling