I noticed there have been a number of new joins to this list. I don't know if everyone has a good grasp of why this list exists. So here is my opinion of what this list is for:
The advocacy advisory list was constituted to advise - on request - the WMF regarding topics of advocacy when the WMF has been asked to advocate on behalf of the community. For example, if a free-speech coalition asked WMF to sign onto a letter opposing a specific legislation, the WMF might ask this list to explain how the legislation affected the WMF principles, and how some members of the community feel about the issues.
While this makes the list a discussion group, it is not a channel for advocating.
If it is used as a channel for petitioning the WMF it becomes less-useful. The WMF will ignore the channel in general, and use it to request advice less often, and likely will value that advice less as well. The discussions, because they will not be receiving responses from the WMF itself, will tend to highlight divisions within the community rather than the more fundamental agreements of purpose and practice. So, please don't do that.
Amgine
Le Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:22:34 +0100, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca a écrit:
I noticed there have been a number of new joins to this list. I don't know if everyone has a good grasp of why this list exists. So here is my opinion of what this list is for:
The advocacy advisory list was constituted to advise - on request - the WMF regarding topics of advocacy when the WMF has been asked to advocate on behalf of the community. For example, if a free-speech coalition asked WMF to sign onto a letter opposing a specific legislation, the WMF might ask this list to explain how the legislation affected the WMF principles, and how some members of the community feel about the issues.
In addition of this purpose, I see this list as a more general place for advocacy linked or related with the Wikimedia movement. E.g. there are discussions and coordination about the European legislation, and sometimes announces of legislations which could impact the Wikimedia projects worldwide or country-wide.
~ Seb35
While this makes the list a discussion group, it is not a channel for advocating.
If it is used as a channel for petitioning the WMF it becomes less-useful. The WMF will ignore the channel in general, and use it to request advice less often, and likely will value that advice less as well. The discussions, because they will not be receiving responses from the WMF itself, will tend to highlight divisions within the community rather than the more fundamental agreements of purpose and practice. So, please don't do that.
Amgine
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
The advocacy advisory list was constituted to advise - on request - the WMF regarding topics of advocacy when the WMF has been asked to advocate on behalf of the community. For example, if a free-speech coalition asked WMF to sign onto a letter opposing a specific legislation, the WMF might ask this list to explain how the legislation affected the WMF principles, and how some members of the community feel about the issues.
As a reminder, here are the guidelines Michelle wrote when starting this list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2012-August/000002.h... Those set a significantly wider scope than "a place where the community can answer when the Foundation asks them".
This list is - as of now - pretty useless and more likely an “occupational therapy“ to keep engaged people busy while ignoring them.
For month many experts here gave the foundation the clear advice to do something against the massive violation of net neutrality by Wikipedia Zero.
Obviously the foundation doesn't even care. The ignorant and plain wrong public remarks on net neutrality by a board member of the foundation at Wikimania and the press release by Erik which was full of PR-speak, but offered no solution to the problem at hand showed that this list is used for nothing by the actual people in charge at the foundation right now.
Many people on this list were trying to find an “internal“ solution for the Wikimedia Movement for respecting net neutrality - Wikipedia Zero in its current form isn't. Representatives of the foundation told people on this list that the foundation would work on a solution and that we should be a little patient...
Now the foundation will have to handle a more public criticisms of its ignorant behavior towards net neutrality. Journalists, activists and digital rights organizations around the world already took notice about this questionable behavior.
It's one thing to encounter a fight with the community on e.g. Media Viewer (for which I'm pro btw), it's a totally different thing to violate principles which are more important than Wikimedia, because they effect the whole web. Being the 5th biggest website brings a certain responsibility when it comes to reflect and defend important aspects of a free and open web. Ignoring them when it comes to brand marketing is the opposite of taking this responsibility.
Best regards
Jens Am 16.08.2014 14:03 schrieb "Tisza Gergő" gtisza@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
The advocacy advisory list was constituted to advise - on request - the WMF regarding topics of advocacy when the WMF has been asked to advocate on behalf of the community. For example, if a free-speech coalition asked WMF to sign onto a letter opposing a specific legislation, the WMF might ask this list to explain how the legislation affected the WMF principles, and how some members of the community feel about the issues.
As a reminder, here are the guidelines Michelle wrote when starting this list:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2012-August/000002.h... Those set a significantly wider scope than "a place where the community can answer when the Foundation asks them".
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org