In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-presid...
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_natio...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-...
https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo...
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
As someone who supports community central notice campaigns, I must point out that this list is not the appropriate venue for any discussion that aims to arrive at any decision relating to such a banner campaign and any thread here would in no way directly result in such action. There are precedents in this area for campaigns that relate to policy or political causes and for internal purposes some of these have been codified as part of the following guidance:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Associ...
From a community perspective it would be expected for discussions to occur
on wiki and there be a clear and present need to establish a firm consensus via RfC. Said RfC would focus on whether action on a particular topic should or should not take place, it's nature and scale. There would also need to be discussions and approvals internally for any campaign as detailed in the guidance above.
Regards
Seddon
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national- strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_ nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/ 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive- activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
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
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
... I am sending these links without James's commentary....
The part that was deleted from what I had asked to be forwarded basically said this:
Some of the most senior and respected Foundation leaders have pointed out that fascist regimes have come to power legally and with the support of a majority. Is that not a lesson that if more people, and their institutions nominally espousing the virtues of freedom, spoke up for their opposing views, that some of those fascist regimes might not have come to be? If you urge restraint and limited political advocacy, you are less likely to achieve your goals, but more likely to be able to get along with people who are opposed to them. Which is more important to us as a community? Do we want history to look back on us and say, "well, they didn't do anything to prevent _______, but at least they didn't hurt each others' feelings"? If you accept that different people reasonably and legitimately draw the line of how much political advocacy is appropriate at different places, then I, for one, would rather hear where you think that line is than have you keep silent, or see you shouted down because you don't have enough culture spirit, even if you think it's at a very different place than where I think it is. If free culture doesn't include the vigilant practice of speaking up for for freedom, then it might not actually be free culture.
So, where is that line?
The last general strike in the U.S. was in 1946, over store clerks not being paid for the time they had to wait in a ready room when there were no customers, amounting to $10 per week in lost pay which they were awarded upon conclusion of the negotiations that ended the strike. Those strikes were so effective, they resulted in the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act being amended to say, “a general strike in support of other workers is illegal,” which means that unions can't call general strikes at all any more, but people, corporations, and nonprofits can. How bad will things have to get before the Wikimedia Foundation would join people's call for a general strike?
And I disagree with Asaf's claim that "empower" means nothing more than to provide technical server-side technical capabilities and occasional training support in the Mission statement. If the authors of the Mission statement wanted that, they could have used the words, "enable and engage," or, "facilitate and engage," but they did not. And the evidence offered in support of that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Wikipedia Zero *is* a program to provide direct economic resources and political power to those who would otherwise not be able to access the projects' content. The statement that, "we do not teach literacy to the illiterate," is just baffling to me. What, exactly are the wiktionaries for? How many workshops, on-line training materials, pamphlets, and books have taught wikitext? The list goes on.
Furthermore, the Foundation with its leadership has both sponsored and approved paid editing projects, five times at least so far. Some of them did not go well but the more recent have fared far better. What is the Foundation going to do in less than 20 years when contributors start getting the right to their copyright grants? Is the Foundation is going to be prepared to pay editors then? What are the arguments against adopting a fire department model, where paid professionals work alongside volunteers, which was the entire premise of my student's successful Google Summer of Code project last summer:
https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
I haven't heard anyone argue that the fire department model won't work in the long term, or that it isn't the appropriate way to prepare for editors getting the rights to their contributions back. Plenty of time for that in the future; right now there are more pressing matters.
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-presid...
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_natio...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-...
https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo...
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
Sure, I would also strongly support an Uber-style boycott; just delete the words from "national general strike" through "stoppages" in http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png and link the word "boycotts" to a list of companies being boycotted.
Best regards, Jim
To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the more it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can directly damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and more. Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional cases where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles of Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to be a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!) and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for action but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national- strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_ nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/ 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive- activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
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
Hoi, Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is that we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has consequences.
The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the more it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can directly damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and more. Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional cases where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles of Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to be a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!) and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for action but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national- strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_ nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/ 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive- activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
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
On 02/06/2017 11:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip> The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard,
You may of course continue to assert what the "huha with no banner" proves. I happen to disagree, but you present no argument, so I will leave it at that.
However, other readers may wish to assess your assertion against the evidence. Here is the discussion I think you mean; to my eyes, it proves no such thing. (And for whatever it's worth, my vote was in favor of a banner.)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Hoi, When we learned that one of our own was in a prison in Syria, we could not care less. A lot of words were spend on expressing how sad it was but no, we could do nothing about this because this would be "political".
For me it is proof how little we as a community care about our own. For me the same is valid for the employees who either can no longer go home or can no longer come to our office. People object because either "it is politics" or "we have not been consulted. As far as I am concerned, when Jimmy was to think of Wikipedia in these days, our office would be in London. We are an international organisation and what happens in the USA is only relevant for the effect it has on our activities.
We are going to spend money on fighting the "others" but I fear that the effect of arming the fight will only make for more collateral damage. In the official documentation it is all about tooling and there is little on how it will be discovered how we can defang the battle.
These things go together. When on the one hand we do not care about our own, we are likely to ignore collateral damage and retract even more behind the walls that we have build around ourselves.
NB this is posted because "there was no argument".. It is really clever to disagree when you have not seen the argument.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 08:59, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/2017 11:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip> The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard,
You may of course continue to assert what the "huha with no banner" proves. I happen to disagree, but you present no argument, so I will leave it at that.
However, other readers may wish to assess your assertion against the evidence. Here is the discussion I think you mean; to my eyes, it proves no such thing. (And for whatever it's worth, my vote was in favor of a banner.)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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
On 02/07/2017 04:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, When we learned that one of our own was in a prison in Syria, we could not care less. A lot of words were spend on expressing how sad it was but no, we could do nothing about this because this would be "political".
For me it is proof how little we as a community care about our own.
That's still not an argument, it's repeated assertion. I remain unconvinced.
I see 158 "support" votes and 95 "opposes." I don't know how you define "care about our own," but I think the 158 in the majority care prima facie. Of the 95 who opposed, here are just a few quotes which I believe reflect compassion for Bassel:
"Per NoW https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Neutrality_of_Wikipedia and as someone already raising awareness on the subject /outside of Wikipedia" "/ I understand the importance and urgency of this issue" "A banner on Wikipedia will in no way help Bassel in his current situation." "Bassel has all my sympathy, for seemingly being a like-minded individual, possibly facing death on the hands of a murderous, tyrannical regime."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll
To my eyes, a strong majority care. You disagree, but I still have not seen reasons behind your disagreement.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
because it has proven that we do not care about our own.
Besides this is complete nonsense, that the discussion goes in this way it proofs we fail in being able to have a mature discussion on arguments and not emotions.
And claiming this kind of nonsense like "we do not care about our own" shows a complete disrespect to those who have a different opinion.
This kind of messages are the core of the problem: writing claims that are not supported by any evidence. Conclusion: it are fake claims, strongly related to the *fake news* subject of the past weeks. The thing that is proven is that some people in our movement spread fake information.
And for clarity reasons: a friend of mine is affected. If I consider a banner is not suitable, would that make me then not caring? Totally not.
2017-02-07 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is that we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has consequences.
The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the
more
it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can
directly
damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and
more.
Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional
cases
where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles
of
Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to
be
a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!) and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for
action
but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national- strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
activists_call_for_a_
nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/ 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive- activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
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
Hoi, We do not care about our own. I do acknowledge that some have other opinions but I do not have to respect such an opinion. The proof of the pudding is after all in the eating and we allowed this to happen, no sound came out of our community that said otherwise.
The fact of the matter is observable. When you compare it with fake news; please tell me what did we do? How did we show that we cared? Thanks, GerardM
On 11 February 2017 at 15:47, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
because it has proven that we do not care about our own.
Besides this is complete nonsense, that the discussion goes in this way it proofs we fail in being able to have a mature discussion on arguments and not emotions.
And claiming this kind of nonsense like "we do not care about our own" shows a complete disrespect to those who have a different opinion.
This kind of messages are the core of the problem: writing claims that are not supported by any evidence. Conclusion: it are fake claims, strongly related to the *fake news* subject of the past weeks. The thing that is proven is that some people in our movement spread fake information.
And for clarity reasons: a friend of mine is affected. If I consider a banner is not suitable, would that make me then not caring? Totally not.
2017-02-07 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is
that
we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has consequences.
The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all
projects
(like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the
more
it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can
directly
damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and
more.
Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional
cases
where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific
legislation
would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles
of
Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need
to
be
a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is
in
direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval
(!)
and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for
action
but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently
"placed
on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief
post
yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then
sent
me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national- strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
activists_call_for_a_
nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/ 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive- activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
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
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
We do not care about our own. I do acknowledge that some have other opinions but I do not have to respect such an opinion. The proof of the pudding is after all in the eating and we allowed this to happen, no sound came out of our community that said otherwise.
What you're saying is an example of false equivalency (in addition to being polemical hyperbole). Putting up a site-wide advertisement is not equivalent to caring about someone or something.
Regarding the pudding, I think the disconnect we're having is that not everyone agrees when it's time for dessert. And even when many people do agree that it's time for dessert, not everyone agrees with having pudding. Or the flavor of the pudding. Or the means used to make and eat it.
MZMcBride
Hi,
I agree 100% with Joseph Seddon's comment regarding the CN Banner procedure. :-)
Then, by the way:
I think Wikipedia should remain apolitical (not using wikipedia for a political purposes) as much as possible thus i don't think it is a good idea to set up such banners. We are building encyclopedia knowledge. @Gerard Meijssen: Of course Wikimedia/Wikipedia cares about users/staff, but political banners are not the best way. Telling stuff like "we do not care about our own", in the current context, is imho a affront for the Community and the Foundation.
Best,
Steinsplitter
________________________________ Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag von Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. Februar 2017 21:29 An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals
In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-presid...
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_natio...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-...
https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo...
Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle ground.
-Will
_______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org