Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
________________________________ From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:12:25 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: Soviet Repressions Memorial
2008/12/24 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
A project which is motivated in such a way cannot possibly be anything else than biased...and indeed, the very concept of memorials is biased: Why should we have a memorial of the victims of Soviet Repression, when we don't have a memorial of Nazi victims, victims of the Armenian Genocide, victim of the Rwandan Genocide, victims of various repression regimes in South-East Asia and China, victims in Darfur, Chad, the Central African Republic etc. etc. No one can sensibly suggest that we can have memorial sites for every "repression" (in lack of a better word) in history and thus, we had better none, in my opinion. (Yes, in other cases I argued and would argue that it is better to have "something" than "nothing", but in this case, I'm afraid I am not convinced of the merits of the proposal at all and of the propriety of the motives behind it)
Yes. However, it could be a valuable wiki to create privately. Generic hosting is (a) really cheap (b) often includes MediaWiki out the box. The wiki is unlikely to be vastly overloaded, so cheap hosting would do for a start.
See http://www.sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam for a memorial project for victims of the World Trade Center attack, for example.
Although started with a strong POV, such a project could nevertheless accumulate material of high quality historical and scholarly interest.
- d.
I support this project, and don't think it should get pushed off into some obscure corner of the internet. We should host it. We should host it because we stand against totalitarian repression; and reject the position that some knowledge, knowledge of the consequences of totalitarian repression, is to be repressed and not readily available.
Fred Bauder
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:12, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters.
And what, in principle, is wrong with that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:12, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters.
And what, in principle, is wrong with that?
Kurt, et al...
In principle, it does not scale well. I can understand a Wikipedia article on an event (disaster)... but a memorial project?
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
The memorial project does not appear to meet the above statement. The "Wikipedia article" on the tragedy would appear to better meet this mission statement, as opposed to a "memorial wiki".
And that my friend, is what, in principle, is wrong with that.
Best,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:12, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters.
And what, in principle, is wrong with that?
Kurt, et al...
In principle, it does not scale well. I can understand a Wikipedia article on an event (disaster)... but a memorial project?
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
The memorial project does not appear to meet the above statement. The "Wikipedia article" on the tragedy would appear to better meet this mission statement, as opposed to a "memorial wiki".
And that my friend, is what, in principle, is wrong with that.
Best,
Jon
It would be quite educational.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:12, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters.
And what, in principle, is wrong with that?
Kurt, et al...
In principle, it does not scale well. I can understand a Wikipedia article on an event (disaster)... but a memorial project?
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
The memorial project does not appear to meet the above statement. The "Wikipedia article" on the tragedy would appear to better meet this mission statement, as opposed to a "memorial wiki".
And that my friend, is what, in principle, is wrong with that.
Best,
Jon
It would be quite educational.
Fred
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Could you expand a bit more on that... in what way would it be more educational than say, the article? In a very neutral, factual, referenced way?
Jon
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
The memorial project does not appear to meet the above statement. The "Wikipedia article" on the tragedy would appear to better meet this mission statement, as opposed to a "memorial wiki".
It would be quite educational.
Fred
Could you expand a bit more on that... in what way would it be more educational than say, the article? In a very neutral, factual, referenced way?
Jon
Each of the millions who were starved, imprisoned, tortured, or killed has a unique story. Each story is more significant and educational than a Wikipedia article on Hitler or Stalin.
Fred
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Each of the millions who were starved, imprisoned, tortured, or killed has a unique story. Each story is more significant and educational than a Wikipedia article on Hitler or Stalin.
The same applies to the Sep11 wiki. Why was that moved offsite?
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:12, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters.
And what, in principle, is wrong with that?
I also want to mention by being outside of the mission statement, it is outside the WMF scope. I don't feel comfortable with the foundation taking a political position also.
Jon
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I'm in some agreement here because my experience of UK charity law is that it is not generally permitted to have a "political" purpose, and certainly taking such a strong line on any "repression", "genocide" etc, would appear to be anathema to a charitable objective. It's OK, I suppose, if the United Nations has used such terminology, but I don't think we should be seen to be taking partisan sides in political disputes, because that dilutes the educational charitable status of the Foundation. It's entirely a different issue to support humanitarian aid to the victims, however, and I am open to the idea that such memorial projects might have that idea as a focus. However, the way it's been put forward seems to militate against that construction.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:12:25 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: Soviet Repressions Memorial
2008/12/24 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
A project which is motivated in such a way cannot possibly be anything else than biased...and indeed, the very concept of memorials is biased: Why should we have a memorial of the victims of Soviet Repression, when we don't have a memorial of Nazi victims, victims of the Armenian Genocide, victim of the Rwandan Genocide, victims of various repression regimes in South-East Asia and China, victims in Darfur, Chad, the Central African Republic etc. etc. No one can sensibly suggest that we can have memorial sites for every "repression" (in lack of a better word) in history and thus, we had better none, in my opinion. (Yes, in other cases I argued and would argue that it is better to have "something" than "nothing", but in this case, I'm afraid I am not convinced of the merits of the proposal at all and of the propriety of the motives behind it)
Yes. However, it could be a valuable wiki to create privately. Generic hosting is (a) really cheap (b) often includes MediaWiki out the box. The wiki is unlikely to be vastly overloaded, so cheap hosting would do for a start.
See http://www.sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam for a memorial project for victims of the World Trade Center attack, for example.
Although started with a strong POV, such a project could nevertheless accumulate material of high quality historical and scholarly interest.
- d.
I support this project, and don't think it should get pushed off into some obscure corner of the internet. We should host it. We should host it because we stand against totalitarian repression; and reject the position that some knowledge, knowledge of the consequences of totalitarian repression, is to be repressed and not readily available.
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date: 23/12/2008 12:08
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:43, Phil Nash wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I'm in some agreement here because my experience of UK charity law is that it is not generally permitted to have a "political" purpose, and certainly taking such a strong line on any "repression", "genocide" etc, would appear to be anathema to a charitable objective. It's OK, I suppose, if the United Nations has used such terminology, but I don't think we should be seen to be taking partisan sides in political disputes, because that dilutes the educational charitable status of the Foundation. It's entirely a different issue to support humanitarian aid to the victims, however, and I am open to the idea that such memorial projects might have that idea as a focus. However, the way it's been put forward seems to militate against that construction.
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:43, Phil Nash wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I'm in some agreement here because my experience of UK charity law is that it is not generally permitted to have a "political" purpose, and certainly taking such a strong line on any "repression", "genocide" etc, would appear to be anathema to a charitable objective. It's OK, I suppose, if the United Nations has used such terminology, but I don't think we should be seen to be taking partisan sides in political disputes, because that dilutes the educational charitable status of the Foundation. It's entirely a different issue to support humanitarian aid to the victims, however, and I am open to the idea that such memorial projects might have that idea as a focus. However, the way it's been put forward seems to militate against that construction.
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
I don't think it is something we should focus on. Let us focus on our existing projects, perfect them. Reference my earlier rationale.
Jon
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 19:25, Jon wrote:
I don't think it is something we should focus on. Let us focus on our existing projects, perfect them. Reference my earlier rationale.
Given that these are all volunteer projects, those more interested in improving existing projects will do so regardless. This provides an opportunity for those not inclined to work on those projects (or more inclined to work on this one), to still have an opportunity to help fulfill an essential part of the WMF's mission.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 19:25, Jon wrote:
I don't think it is something we should focus on. Let us focus on our existing projects, perfect them. Reference my earlier rationale.
Given that these are all volunteer projects, those more interested in improving existing projects will do so regardless. This provides an opportunity for those not inclined to work on those projects (or more inclined to work on this one), to still have an opportunity to help fulfill an essential part of the WMF's mission.
I posit that the "memorial project" is not essential. I think it would drain resources from our mission.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 19:25, Jon wrote:
I don't think it is something we should focus on. Let us focus on our existing projects, perfect them. Reference my earlier rationale.
Given that these are all volunteer projects, those more interested in improving existing projects will do so regardless. This provides an opportunity for those not inclined to work on those projects (or more inclined to work on this one), to still have an opportunity to help fulfill an essential part of the WMF's mission.
I posit that the "memorial project" is not essential. I think it would drain resources from our mission.
Jon
If we stood for something, it might serve to invigorate.
Fred
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
If we stood for something, it might serve to invigorate.
You mean, taking a particular political position? I don't see that in the mission.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
If we stood for something, it might serve to invigorate.
You mean, taking a particular political position? I don't see that in the mission.
- d.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I must agree with Mr Gerard, and taking that position, or any position by the Foundation is a road I don't want to see WMF go down. I don't want WMF to alienate anyone... anyone. The information must be free, and global. For everyone.
Please don't intrepet this message as my defending any group, I'm not. I'm against oppression. However, I don't think the WMF should be for or against anything, politically.
Jon
I must agree with Mr Gerard, and taking that position, or any position by the Foundation is a road I don't want to see WMF go down. I don't want WMF to alienate anyone... anyone. The information must be free, and global. For everyone.
Please don't intrepet this message as my defending any group, I'm not. I'm against oppression. However, I don't think the WMF should be for or against anything, politically.
Jon
Oh, but we are, just by what we do. And the mass murders of the twentieth century would have made short work of us. In fact, in the last regime controlled by them Wikipedia is blocked.
Fred
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Oh, but we are, just by what we do. And the mass murders of the twentieth century would have made short work of us. In fact, in the last regime controlled by them Wikipedia is blocked.
Controlled by the Soviets, who I understand were the subject of the proposed wiki? I believe you have conflated two Communist dictatorships that hadn't been on particularly good terms since the 1960s.
- d.
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Oh, but we are, just by what we do. And the mass murders of the twentieth century would have made short work of us. In fact, in the last regime controlled by them Wikipedia is blocked.
Controlled by the Soviets, who I understand were the subject of the proposed wiki? I believe you have conflated two Communist dictatorships that hadn't been on particularly good terms since the 1960s.
- d.
Hard to keep things straight isn't it when the object is to make a point. I speak of Red China, still controlled by Mao's heirs.
Fred
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Hard to keep things straight isn't it when the object is to make a point. I speak of Red China, still controlled by Mao's heirs.
Well, yes. (Who thankfully are not gross incompetents at the actual management to the degree he was.) And it turns out that remaining politically neutral is one of the best things we can do as well as the cheapest and easiest, because we have the moral high ground and we're not going away. And as economics shifts to information, we have credibility to the skies. "Information wants to be free" means "it leaks like a gas" and "running a Great Firewall is like trying to carry air in a bucket".
Abandoning neutrality as a general operating principle (manifested as NPOV on Wikipedia, variants on other projects where that doesn't make direct sense) would be a disaster. Possibly a greater one than putting ads on the site (and I wouldn't object to ads on the site, but I realise enough people despise them that it'd be utterly unworkable).
Can you and Kurt come up with a proposal that doesn't abandon our fabulously useful and marketable air of neutrality?
[We will leave for the moment post-modernist arguments about the impossibility of neutrality, or the quite accurate argument that running an Enlightenment-style encyclopedia project is itself pushing a huge and detailed point of view in all sorts of ways. You know what I mean by the question.]
Oh, and Merry Christmas. That's CHRISTMAS, as detailed in the King James Version! [* may not be 100% verifiable or not original research]
- d.
- d.
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 20:30, David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Hard to keep things straight isn't it when the object is to make a point. I speak of Red China, still controlled by Mao's heirs.
Well, yes. (Who thankfully are not gross incompetents at the actual management to the degree he was.) And it turns out that remaining politically neutral is one of the best things we can do as well as the cheapest and easiest, because we have the moral high ground and we're not going away.
I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premises.
And as economics shifts to information, we have credibility to the skies. "Information wants to be free" means "it leaks like a gas" and "running a Great Firewall is like trying to carry air in a bucket".
What does this have to do with anything?
Abandoning neutrality as a general operating principle (manifested as NPOV on Wikipedia, variants on other projects where that doesn't make direct sense) would be a disaster.
Why? I don't deny its usefulness and appropriateness for SPECIFIC PROJECTS, but why must it be universal across all WMF projects?
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 20:30, David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Hard to keep things straight isn't it when the object is to make a point. I speak of Red China, still controlled by Mao's heirs.
Well, yes. (Who thankfully are not gross incompetents at the actual management to the degree he was.) And it turns out that remaining politically neutral is one of the best things we can do as well as the cheapest and easiest, because we have the moral high ground and we're not going away.
I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premises.
And as economics shifts to information, we have credibility to the skies. "Information wants to be free" means "it leaks like a gas" and "running a Great Firewall is like trying to carry air in a bucket".
What does this have to do with anything?
Abandoning neutrality as a general operating principle (manifested as NPOV on Wikipedia, variants on other projects where that doesn't make direct sense) would be a disaster.
Why? I don't deny its usefulness and appropriateness for SPECIFIC PROJECTS, but why must it be universal across all WMF projects?
?
Fred Bauder wrote:
Can you and Kurt come up with a proposal that doesn't abandon our fabulously useful and marketable air of neutrality?
Yes, good thought, I think we could. After all, it is a sort of cemetery.
Maybe it would be better to start the project on Wikia. That would certainly be better than trying to upset the balance that we have here between what are often extremely divergent approaches to some topics.
Ec
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Can you and Kurt come up with a proposal that doesn't abandon our fabulously useful and marketable air of neutrality?
Yes, good thought, I think we could. After all, it is a sort of cemetery.
Maybe it would be better to start the project on Wikia. That would certainly be better than trying to upset the balance that we have here between what are often extremely divergent approaches to some topics.
Ec
I agree with the majority on this list that this proposed project is not within the scope of the WMF and would better be hosted either on Wikia or even on private hosting (which is low-cost as pointed in a previous message).
The main reasons are as mentioned the problem of neutrality/POV and also that once one such project is created many more proposals will follow and I don't really want to see the WMF in a political role of deciding which event/incidents/... in history and currently "deserve" a memorial wiki or a wiki of any kind.
I do however believe that such a project is a good idea and also believe that it being hosted outside of the WMF might even be benefitial and might even be worth an organisation itself if the scope is extended to cover more than "just" the victims of one regime, others have been already pointed out in previous messages.
Also, Wikipedia is (currently) not blocked in "Red China" (this statement is based on Original Research by living in Beijing, but is verifiable). And the differences in system and split have been mentioned, although parallels did exist.
Merry Christmas to all fellow Wikimedians,
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
2008/12/25 Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com:
I do however believe that such a project is a good idea and also believe that it being hosted outside of the WMF might even be benefitial and might even be worth an organisation itself if the scope is extended to cover more than "just" the victims of one regime, others have been already pointed out in previous messages.
Yes. I don't want to imply it's a bad idea, it's a good one and could be done very well. I'm just not convinced it fits WMF.
It could be done very badly indeed, of course. A comparison would be the network of critic of Scientology websites that formed in the late 1990s (including my own). These are long on factual detail, but are often so bitterly pissed-off as to be all but unreadable if you don't already agree.
And there's little educational point to a resource that only targets those who already agree.
- d.
2008/12/25 Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com:
I do however believe that such a project is a good idea and also believe that it being hosted outside of the WMF might even be benefitial and might even be worth an organisation itself if the scope is extended to cover more than "just" the victims of one regime, others have been already pointed out in previous messages.
Yes. I don't want to imply it's a bad idea, it's a good one and could be done very well. I'm just not convinced it fits WMF.
It could be done very badly indeed, of course. A comparison would be the network of critic of Scientology websites that formed in the late 1990s (including my own). These are long on factual detail, but are often so bitterly pissed-off as to be all but unreadable if you don't already agree.
And there's little educational point to a resource that only targets those who already agree.
- d.
The whole point would be to provide an introduction to those who not only don't agree, but never heard of it.
Fred
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Can you and Kurt come up with a proposal that doesn't abandon our fabulously useful and marketable air of neutrality?
Yes, good thought, I think we could. After all, it is a sort of cemetery.
I suspect it would turn into a universal biographical dictionary. But that's useful too.
- d.
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Can you and Kurt come up with a proposal that doesn't abandon our fabulously useful and marketable air of neutrality?
Yes, good thought, I think we could. After all, it is a sort of cemetery.
I suspect it would turn into a universal biographical dictionary. But that's useful too.
- d.
Actually, it would not as many of the names are lost, to say nothing of the details of their lives. But there are a few stories. More a book of tales.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
I must agree with Mr Gerard, and taking that position, or any position by the Foundation is a road I don't want to see WMF go down. I don't want WMF to alienate anyone... anyone. The information must be free, and global. For everyone.
Please don't intrepet this message as my defending any group, I'm not. I'm against oppression. However, I don't think the WMF should be for or against anything, politically.
Jon
Oh, but we are, just by what we do. And the mass murders of the twentieth century would have made short work of us. In fact, in the last regime controlled by them Wikipedia is blocked.
I suppose that in that comment we have the perfect justification for excluding the mass murders of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. These mass murders are the product of our kinder, gentler twenty-first century, and not a part of twentieth century savagery.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder
If we stood for something, it might serve to invigorate.
You mean, taking a particular political position? I don't see that in the mission.
You have to admit that debate would be greatly invigorated.
Ec
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 19:53, you wrote:
I posit that the "memorial project" is not essential. I think it would drain resources from our mission.
Jon
As I explained in the proposal (again, did you read the proposal?) it is an essential part of the WMF's mission.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 19:53, you wrote:
I posit that the "memorial project" is not essential. I think it would drain resources from our mission.
Jon
As I explained in the proposal (again, did you read the proposal?) it is an essential part of the WMF's mission.
I did read it... and I jsut read it again at meta to be sure I understand again.
The mission... "...empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
I question how a POV memorial is educational content.
I also question alignments that could be generated by such memorials.
I question scalability... "They have a memorial, why can't I. You don't think [insert event here] is important enough? I just won't support WMF anymore".
With the above, when groups become alienated, I question our ability to effectively disseminate the core projects (wikipedia, and others) effectively and globally.
I question the technical strain on our resources. All of these memorials.
I question the political implications of having a worded memorial, polarizing an otherwise neutral foundation, or the public perception of the foundation.
These are only a few of the things I began to question when I first read the proposal.
Jon-
I agree. As I said before, where would this stop? Memorial sites for specific incidents will lead to more and more requests. If we have one for an event, we must have one for all.
________________________________ From: Jon scream@datascreamer.com To: kmw@kurtweber.us; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:13:17 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: Soviet Repressions Memorial
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 19:53, you wrote:
I posit that the "memorial project" is not essential. I think it would drain resources from our mission.
Jon
As I explained in the proposal (again, did you read the proposal?) it is an essential part of the WMF's mission.
I did read it... and I jsut read it again at meta to be sure I understand again.
The mission... "...empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
I question how a POV memorial is educational content.
I also question alignments that could be generated by such memorials.
I question scalability... "They have a memorial, why can't I. You don't think [insert event here] is important enough? I just won't support WMF anymore".
With the above, when groups become alienated, I question our ability to effectively disseminate the core projects (wikipedia, and others) effectively and globally.
I question the technical strain on our resources. All of these memorials.
I question the political implications of having a worded memorial, polarizing an otherwise neutral foundation, or the public perception of the foundation.
These are only a few of the things I began to question when I first read the proposal.
Jon-
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:43, Phil Nash wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I'm in some agreement here because my experience of UK charity law is that it is not generally permitted to have a "political" purpose, and certainly taking such a strong line on any "repression", "genocide" etc, would appear to be anathema to a charitable objective. It's OK, I suppose, if the United Nations has used such terminology, but I don't think we should be seen to be taking partisan sides in political disputes, because that dilutes the educational charitable status of the Foundation. It's entirely a different issue to support humanitarian aid to the victims, however, and I am open to the idea that such memorial projects might have that idea as a focus. However, the way it's been put forward seems to militate against that construction.
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple. -- Kurt Weber http://blog.kurtweber.us kmw@kurtweber.us
That would be fine, up to a point. On the other hand, putting all that under a POV title within the WMF umbrealls is quite a different issue, and not one, I think, which would be palatable to the WMF, for reasons I've already outlined. Kurt, as you now should realise, politics at any level is a subtle and complex business, and my personal opinion is that you should stick to marching bands.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:43, Phil Nash wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I'm in some agreement here because my experience of UK charity law is that it is not generally permitted to have a "political" purpose, and certainly taking such a strong line on any "repression", "genocide" etc, would appear to be anathema to a charitable objective. It's OK, I suppose, if the United Nations has used such terminology, but I don't think we should be seen to be taking partisan sides in political disputes, because that dilutes the educational charitable status of the Foundation. It's entirely a different issue to support humanitarian aid to the victims, however, and I am open to the idea that such memorial projects might have that idea as a focus. However, the way it's been put forward seems to militate against that construction.
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple. -- Kurt Weber http://blog.kurtweber.us kmw@kurtweber.us
That would be fine, up to a point. On the other hand, putting all that under a POV title within the WMF umbrealls is quite a different issue, and not one, I think, which would be palatable to the WMF, for reasons I've already outlined. Kurt, as you now should realise, politics at any level is a subtle and complex business, and my personal opinion is that you should stick to marching bands.
Please be respectful.
Fred
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
If we cannot present the personal tragedy of those individual foot-soldiers who were actually pulling the triggers, we are taking sides.
Ec
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
If we cannot present the personal tragedy of those individual foot-soldiers who were actually pulling the triggers, we are taking sides.
Ec
The stories of the Gestapo and MKVD operatives could be worked in. Out of privacy considerations we might want to go a bit easy on names. This remains true of victims too. Some remain anonymous.
Fred
On Thursday 25 December 2008 03:34, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
If we cannot present the personal tragedy of those individual foot-soldiers who were actually pulling the triggers, we are taking sides.
Would you give up this objection if the scope of the proposal were expanded to potentially include those individuals?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Thursday 25 December 2008 03:34, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
If we cannot present the personal tragedy of those individual foot-soldiers who were actually pulling the triggers, we are taking sides.
Would you give up this objection if the scope of the proposal were
expanded to
potentially include those individuals?
Have you considered hosting the project outside of the auspices of the WMF?
Best, Jon
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I think half a dozen might do, one for the victims of Hitler, one for the victims of Stalin, one for the victims of Pol Pot, one for the victims of Mao, one for victims of the inquisition, etc,
We would not need to mess with small time killers like Osama bin Ladin.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net
I support this project, and don't think it should get pushed off into some obscure corner of the internet. We should host it. We should host it because we stand against totalitarian repression; and reject the position that some knowledge, knowledge of the consequences of totalitarian repression, is to be repressed and not readily available.
Fred Bauder
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I think half a dozen might do, one for the victims of Hitler, one for the victims of Stalin, one for the victims of Pol Pot, one for the victims of Mao, one for victims of the inquisition, etc,
What about Carthage? What about the native Americans (general estimates are we managed to kill off about 90% of them without really meeting them)? An Shi Rebellion? Mongol Conquests? Shaka's conquests?
They we get the political fun ones. The islamic invasion of india. Arab slave trade. The Muslims killed of in china. Nanking Massacre. Anticommunist purge in Indonesia. The various post independence Pakistan /India/Bangladesh stuff.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I think half a dozen might do, one for the victims of Hitler, one for the victims of Stalin, one for the victims of Pol Pot, one for the victims of Mao, one for victims of the inquisition, etc,
What about Carthage? What about the native Americans (general estimates are we managed to kill off about 90% of them without really meeting them)? An Shi Rebellion? Mongol Conquests? Shaka's conquests?
They we get the political fun ones. The islamic invasion of india. Arab slave trade. The Muslims killed of in china. Nanking Massacre. Anticommunist purge in Indonesia. The various post independence Pakistan /India/Bangladesh stuff.
I agree. I just don't think we have the resources to make this technically plausible, aside from the political implications that I am concerned with, as I have referenced.
Jon-
2008/12/25 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/12/25 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I think half a dozen might do, one for the victims of Hitler, one for the victims of Stalin, one for the victims of Pol Pot, one for the victims of Mao, one for victims of the inquisition, etc,
What about Carthage? What about the native Americans (general estimates are we managed to kill off about 90% of them without really meeting them)? An Shi Rebellion? Mongol Conquests? Shaka's conquests? They we get the political fun ones. The islamic invasion of india. Arab slave trade. The Muslims killed of in china. Nanking Massacre. Anticommunist purge in Indonesia. The various post independence Pakistan /India/Bangladesh stuff.
I submit that a wiki that could almost have been custom-designed to attract the worst of the interminable ethnic arguments of en:wp would have limited ability to produce educational content, but would be of vast educational use for sociological study. I'm not sure that *entirely* squares with the mission either.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives behind this proposal.
I think half a dozen might do, one for the victims of Hitler, one for the victims of Stalin, one for the victims of Pol Pot, one for the victims of Mao, one for victims of the inquisition, etc,
We would not need to mess with small time killers like Osama bin Ladin.
Fred
It's a bit more complex than that, actually. (Granting, arguendo that this idea had merit in the absolute, which is a position I do not actually hold)
First in the case of the inquisition, certainly the Albigensian crusade would be fairly clear-cut. but what would we say about the stories of widespread torture by the inquisition, - which at least have been claimed by some to merely be a black legend, in terms of their widespreadness. Would we take a POV position on the side of widespreadedness of the Spanish Inquisitions abuses, or go for the more conservative stance of concentrating on the atrocities at the village of Alba for instance?
In addition, your listing is clearly not nearly exhaustive.
What about the jewish pogroms that predate the holocaust in Nazi Germany? I think that it is poignant that the wonderful play by Elie Wiesel by the name The Trial of God, while inspired (allegedly) by a real experience in the Nazi concentration camps, in fact uses as its dramatic back-drop, the pogroms.
How about Christian persecutions in ancient Rome?
Eradication of native Americans by bio-warfare. That again is a hard question in terms of choosing a stance. Just as in the case of the Spanish Inquisitions abuses, really genuinely thoughtful and sincere and insightful people radically disagree on the validity of those claims.
Even if you rule out one-timers, like the Al-quaida, there is still the question of the more protracted case of the Palestinian people, that again was/and is ongoing in a fashion that is an extended conflict, and equally as with the case of the Spanish Inquisition and the Native Americans, a point of genuine and reasoned argument as to the validity as an atrocity of the unmitigated sort, and these denials are not merely the province of some lone nutters, without any touch to reality.
To me these decisions about what to include, would not be merely the "simple" one of choosing the "clearly right perspective", I would personally claim there are always going to be shades of gray, no matter which way you cut it.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org