MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
It's funny, I just had a look at the wikimedia-l
archive around January
2012... you know, that time when Wikipedia literally shut itself down as a
political statement. The following month, the Wikimedia Foundation
established a "Community Advocacy" department, not to be confused with
lobbying, of which you're now a member.
I can appreciate the many legitimate reasons to not accept Bitcoin and I'm
grateful for your candid thoughts on the matter, but the idea that you, of
all people, would try to claim that it might (gasp!) insert politics into
Wikipedia is simply disrespectful to history and reality.
I interpreted James Alexander's statement to mean that it's "not our
job" and "not our role" to make the particular political statement
that Bitcoin's proponents seek. This doesn't mean that it's *never*
okay for us to engage in advocacy of a political nature, particularly
in response to something potentially threatening a WMF project's very
existence. (Whether SOPA and PIPA actually posed a significant threat
is debatable, but the action in question stemmed from the belief that
they did.)
David Levy