1) I work for free for what I would like to think of as a non-profit educational organization. The rest are businesses looking for cheaper labor. 2) We have a number of policies (such as no advertising) to distance the work of creating and maintainin content from commercial concerns. Working hand-in-hand politically with for-profit companies is just as undermining to the supposed purpose of Wikimedia projects. 3)You are the company you keep. All those signatories are from the same narrow worldview.
________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:55:51 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, What is your point? These companies have the same problem we face. Are companies bad because they are companies?
NB we have it worse because many of our contributors cannot come to our only office either. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 15:41, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
And yet, here is the amicus brief signed by the Wikimedia Foundation, along with, not nearly 100 non-profit organizations but Silicon Valley tec companies.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/ 17-35105%20amicus%20tech%20companies.pdf
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:09:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
The world is not San Francisco.
That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with San Francisco. You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in the community but you ignore a large part of that community who disagrees with you.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent
the
Wikimedia movement.
The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump
administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and
are
not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some
extend
policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from
thinking.
The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It
is
however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and
because
of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work.
Obviously
self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I
know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people
to
come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again,
we
are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real
world.
In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do
not
represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent
the
Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to
inform,
to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our
general
practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face
a
world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those
who
are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I
am
happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight awight@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many
of us
care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material
world,
I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing
list,
a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real
power,
and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio
station
or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build
consensus.
There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're
missing
out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something
like
a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner <
chenner@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank
you
so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question
on
Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the
planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use
it
regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or
a
political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic
as,
Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or
candidate.
And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political
scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when
it
comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact
on
the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees chenner@wikimedia.org +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in
fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and
retain
the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the
mission, or
some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers
to
billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to
the
illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute,
and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the
awful
tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list
goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding
for
*Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources
and
mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has
never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe