English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved. However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access. Fred

Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if not as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º one). If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine) that really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/> (351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.*** 2011/4/15 Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt;

And no English speaker is able to learn a second language? _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/> (351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.*** 2011/4/15 Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt;

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:29, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Not sure what you mean, Risker. The point is that the ad is discriminating against people who are native English speakers, i.e. because of their origins and culture. The question is whether that's allowed under whatever employment legislation governs the hiring. And law apart, it seems unfair. Sarah

On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Sarah wrote: Glad to see lots of discussion about this, and I appreciate that the phrasing of the language qualifications may lead to a bit of confusion. Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. This is of course not intended to be discriminatory - many of the volunteers I work with on a regular basis speak/write in english very well, but they are native speakers of another language. In many cases they speak/write in more than 2 languages. On Will's initial note about the qualifications or experience being too limiting, I appreciate those points. It's unlikely we'll find someone who fits 100% of those qualifications to a tee. It's safe to say that most jobs posted (including those at WMF) have a list of qualifications that are long, but we're unlikely to get all of them. This is a big, challenging, and perhaps complicated role - and as it's laid out, I agree that it may create the sense that we expect this role to solve a problem/challenge that is likely not solvable... But we do want someone who is excited about that challenge and willing to both take on simpler tasks (like writing or corresponding) while also thinking about the bigger overall challenge: the need to improve the quality and method of the whole conversation between WMF and the community. It will take time and more than one person to carry that forward, but I do know that within a short period of time this person will be able to help WMF bring more information to everyone, and to help bring more of the movement/communities achievements to the whole community, and to the public at large. If people feel they embody the spirit of that task, we really hope they'll apply :) Thanks jay Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw

Sarah I understand your point, but the required qualification just above the non-English states : "Exceptional English writing is critical for this role, including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of audiences." To me personally, I cannot see a person for whom English is not a first language being able to pass that requirement at all. Many second-language learners can communicate in English, but I can count on one hand people I've met who can communicate in a way which is compelling. And those who can are more-than-likely not going to be available for a position like this. Sorry to say. So it still sounds to me like the requirements include English as a first language, and also fluent in a second language. Will Johnson

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu." Sarah

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu." Sarah

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The point seems to me to be an obvious one. The point of substituting Urdu for English is to make the analogy more precise, to bring out the structure of the sentence. Given that we're discussing precision of language, I'm sorry I'm not able to be precise enough to communicate it properly. But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing? Sarah

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:53, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It wasn't you, Risker. It was David's comment: "Should you have been consulted?" I am tired of seeing these comments on this list. It's the first time one has been directed at me, but I've watched other people be treated the same way. It makes no sense. Questioning, disagreement, and transparency are important; it's what Wikimedia is all about, in fact. I know people sometimes go too far, and occasionally gentle rebukes may be needed, but they happen way too often on this list, with very little provocation -- and they're not gentle. We can't say we want new editors, old editors to stay, and a good atmosphere onwiki, then have these kinds of exchanges. I'll reply to the rest of your email some other time, Risker, if that's okay, and I'll try not to labour the point. I do think it's an important issue or I wouldn't be asking about it, but I'm obviously not expressing myself well, so I'll take some time to think about it. Sarah

On 04/15/11 4:02 PM, Sarah wrote: It is a valid point about David's comment. Maybe us old hands have become too accustomed to David's sarcasm. Other than that it seems to have been a conversation where one person was offside to everybody else. I've been there before and know how uncomfortable it can become. The insensitive comment was certainly not essential to the main topic of the thread, but if in raising it the only result would be to have David personally change his ways nothing of significance to the community would have been accomplished. One person would have been fixed while the rest of us could go smugly on believing that that was the end of it. The continuum from valid on-topic comments, through insensitive sarcasm to outright personal attacks is not made up of discrete and easily identifiable steps. Where is the middle ground between insensitivity and hypersensitivity. Ray

I feel your pain. Everything is funny as long as it happens to somebody else. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Ma… REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS (Don't they know how to write without shouting?) "Exceptional English writing is critical for this role, including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of audiences." This is clearly discriminatory since it excludes 99,999 % of all American citizens and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; national origin is what's at stake here. "Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)." This is clearly discriminatory, since it includes 99,999 % of non-American citizens. Therefore, as it has been written, these required qualifications discriminate against American citizens and clearly favor a non-American citizen (a.k.a. "bloody foreigner" or "illegal immigrant", please excuse my "bloody language"). These language requirements may indeed be perfectly aligned with everyday practice at anything run by the Wikimedia Foundation, considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [...] (Did you notice "language"?) Writing "about this was useful and interesting." Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado) At 00:02 16-04-2011, you wrote:

On 15 April 2011 18:24, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No, your question was whether or not the ad that the WMF posted for a specific position could seek out candidates who are able to communicate in a language other than English as a native language. The WMF ad didn't say anything about Urdu, so asking about it is a strawman. Please don't do that. Risker

It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification: "Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. " The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the "native speaker" quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something), then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points. On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:

On 15 April 2011 17:46, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: In my area 30% of people are perfectly capable of communicating at a native level in two languages, and others have already shown that an equivalent percentage in California itself can do that too. In Europe, the ratio is probably even higher, as it is in several other countries. Place of birth is no longer the sole determining factor in what languages people communicate in proficiently, and it hasn't been for at least a generation. The WMF is an international organization, and having employees who are effective in a range of languages is not just a laudable goal, it is crucial to the Foundation's success; that alone is enough to give it an exemption from the "Americans first" rule. And the Urdu line bears no resemblance to anything that is actually in the advertisement. I tend to agree with Will that it's very unlikely the WMF will find someone who meets every one of their "ideal candidate" criteria; however, finding someone who fits all criteria of a position description at this level is almost impossible for any organization. I'll be saddened but not surprised when the successful candidate is announced and someone immediately pipes up "but s/he doesn't meet criterion 32(b)(ii)! How could you have hired this person!! They're unqualified!!" Risker

Hindi and Japanese (chinese too but not all of they have internet acess) ;) _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/> (351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.*** 2011/4/15 Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;