A governance review to check where investments or interests "support the actions of the Russian government" is nothing similar to calling "The Russian people" an enemy.
A Wikimedia Foundation review or independent assessment would sensibly take into account sanctions and recommendations that governments in the EU and USA have published for all their international trade with Russia, and confirm there are no ethical or compliance conflicts for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Having a review is not "escalation", nor have I made any claim about money being "well spent". A review is the simplest way to ensure appropriate transparency.
Please avoid making bad faith accusations of using a "page out of the playbook" of escalation when they have done no such thing. It is manipulative and unwelcome when you know nothing about who you are attacking.
Lane
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to grasp that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or in Russia by the "powers that be".
When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform people. Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we consider the war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view that we should provide as long as we can.
The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not. Our money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the Russian people, all the money spent is well spent.
We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation. We should not because of what we stand for. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
Several organizations, including pension companies, have been withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical values of the organisation they represent.
Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government?
As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there is none or has never been any.
References https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board https://www.cendanacapital.com https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-sec... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-russ...
Lane _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgwriting
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org