As far as I can tell, only the Foundation wiki is showing the strike
message. That particular one is pretty much theirs to do as they like with.
If they started doing that to any other wikis without their agreement,
well, then we'd have a problem. But so long as it's only the WMF wiki
itself, I don't see the issue.
Todd
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am profoundly disappointed that WMF employees
don't value the mission.
Instead they seem to simply follow fashion and force users and volunteers
to follow their fashionable methods of advocacy. They use their monopoly
power to deny free access to the world's knowledge that many thousands of
volunteers have diligently assembled. This time it is to show solidarity
with environmental advocates. What will it be next time?
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 15:35 Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have a few comments.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't have put the
wikimediafoundation.org domain "on strike", just as I wouldn't have put
a
government agency's website "on
strike". I think that some discussion of
climate change would be fine, but I think that WMF's action here is
somewhat strange.
I think that asking about the climate impact of staff travel is fine.
However, I would also include questions about travel for Wikimedia events
more broadly. I believe that the WMF Board has indicated support for
trying
to reduce the Wikiverse's contributions to
climate change. As has been
mentioned in this thread, WMF released a report yesterday
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093519.html
on
the subject of sustainability. While I have not read it, I think that
measuring and attempting to reduce reduce negative environmental impacts
from Wikimedia activities is good, including negative environmental
impacts
from travel. However, I also think that there are
some benefits to morale
and communications from in person meetings, so I would be reluctant to
eliminate travel and conferences entirely.
I think that it's fine to ask whether WMF senior management is practicing
what they preach. However, Fae, I feel that your tone in this thread is
excessively harsh on this point. I think that you could ask very similar
questions with a tone that is calmer.
On the subject of environmental sustainability, my main concern at this
time is the banner on the WMF website which I feel is somewhat weird and
is
inconsistent with WMF's goal of being
"essential infrastructure". Do we
want "essential infrastructure" to go on strike, particularly when that
infrastructure is supposed to be for an organization that provides public
service and supports the community in publishing reliable scientific
information? I think not. However, I think that the banner is regrettably
consistent with the series of surprising decisions from WMF in the past
few
months. That is, to me, the most concerning
element in all of this. If
WMF
wants to be a public service infrastructure
provider then I think that it
should act like one.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>