Hello everyone,
Thought you might be interested to see the learning pattern I've created on
policy campaigning. It's very much focused on the freedom of panorama but
there is scope to extend it.
Please do take a look and if you'd like, please feel free to edit!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Learning_patterns/How_t…
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
I've had the opportunity to address some of the substantive objections to
including general issues affecting the editor base in advocacy goals
off-list, and I would like to propose something different as an alternative.
I propose that we establish quantative measures of potential advocacy
actions which score the extent to which they would advance the mission. In
practice, this would mean using aggregate rubric scores for each clause of
the mission, asking a randomly selected subset of the community how much
success in a specific advocacy goal would advance that clause, and then
using the median (not mean, to prevent outlier effects) scores to rank the
different potential advocacy actions.
Here is some background information on organizations which have done
similar things:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Crotts/publication/270959033_Align…http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1488
Hi all,
I wanted to make a proposal for the list: let's rename the Advocacy
Advisory Group (advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org) to
publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org. It's not a big change, but I think that
it's more accurate since the list includes expert discussions of public
policy that are not always limited to advocacy actions.
The proposal will only affect the name -- we will continue to keep the same
focus and great discussions. We set up this mailing list nearly three years
ago to provide an open venue for Wikimedians and others supporting the
Wikimedia mission to discuss public policy and legislative developments
around the world that could affect our movement's work. The Wikimedia
Foundation also sends proposals to this list to get feedback on particular
policy issues, following the Wikimedia Foundation Policy and Political
Association Guideline (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Assoc…).
I've enjoyed all of the great discussions with the Wikimedia community, and
particularly appreciate the great updates from the EU prepared by Dimi and
others.
If there are no concerns about changing the name, we can set it up next
Friday (August 14). We will update the Policy and Political Association
Guideline to continue to refer to this list.
As Yana, Geoff, and I presented at Wikimania (
https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Amplify_Free_Knowledge…),
we are also working on a site communicating significant public policy
positions. That site will also invite people to sign up to this list to
discuss public policy issues that affect the Wikimedia projects.
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
"On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said that
if the chamber cannot move forward on a vote to defund Planned Parenthood –
an effort that is likely doomed by opposition from Democrats – it will look
to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), the National
Journal reported. The bill would grant companies more protections when it
comes to gathering potentially threat-related data and allow them to share
that information with government departments like the National Security
Agency.
"McConnell’s comments were something of a surprise considering that just
two days earlier, reports suggested consideration of CISA would slip past
recess and be delayed for at least another month.
"Following the majority leader’s comments, Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-Vermont) attacked the plan, saying any movement on CISA, and
cybersecurity in general, 'requires a thoughtful and bipartisan response
from Congress.'
"'If the Majority Leader is serious about improving our nation’s
cybersecurity,” Leahy added, he will allow for a “meaningful amendment
process.' Such a move would allow critics a chance to strengthen the bill’s
privacy protections."
--
http://cybersecuritycaucus.com/secret-surveillance-bill-senate-could-pass-c…