Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote: Have you looked at the ED's CV? If the ED told donors to take steps that might get American editors health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be enough to make you want to stop participating? Why? I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups, not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias' economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain technology to facilitate a new equity structure. Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for instead of against individual wikimedian editors. Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish attempt to claim that taxes are always bad? No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long run. Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant PR? I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations. Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages which have never been measured. The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity. For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks, payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won that a long time ago. Instead, the ED could substitute mental health care increases for her letter to UK donors, for example. But seriously, what kind of a UK wikimedian or donor is going to be offended by a one-size-fits-all-nations letter asking for donors to work for single payer in America? What kind of an African, Indian, or Chinese Wikipedian wouldn't want American and UK wikipedians to have free health care, shorter work weeks, and a more equitable tax and transfer incidence? Best regards, Jim