On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 22:49, Nathan wrote:
This is a similar argument to those made against Egypt
or Israel etc. It's
a facile and false notion that holding Wikimania in a particular city is an
implicit political endorsement for the national government of the host
city. You could just as easily interpret it in the opposite manner -
holding a Wikimania event in Egypt, Israel, China, the U.S. or elsewhere
supports knowledge liberalism and draws attention to the mission of the WMF
in the areas where it may be most poignant. More likely, the decision of
where to hold the event is made independent of political concerns and the
WMF, as well as the host Wikimedians, take no political positions implicit
or otherwise.
As one of the people who worked on and supported the London bid, I agree. I would hope
that if London had got it, people wouldn't have inferred support for the UK's
planned internet censorship regime (or, indeed, the Digital Economy Act, the enormous and
growing gap between the rich and poor, the presence of unelected clerics in our
legislature—a trait we share only with Iran, our government's horrible mistreatment of
disabled people, the lack of full civil equality for LGBT citizens, indoctrination in
religious schools, our terrible libel laws, or seventeen other issues I can and do get
angry about very frequently).
Spending a week or so in a country for a conference is not the same as living there,
becoming a citizen, pledging allegiance to the flag or the Queen or the Party or
whatever.
In the bidding process, there rightly are some minimum standards, specifically with
regards to freedom of speech laws and whether or not the cities in question are welcoming
to religious and LGBT minorities. If we wish to include anti-censorship as one of those
requirements, it'd be worth knowing that up-front so Wikimedians who wish to bid in
the future can take that into account rather than have it brought up after the bidding
process is complete.
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>