On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen list-wikimedia@funcrunch.org wrote:
I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past weeks:
* make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no opposition, task created)
* relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
* assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or opposition yet)
* correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues (seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
* turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions were asked but have yet been answered)
* issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded, controversial, statement issued by ED)
* call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
* improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition yet)
* require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of action (seconded, controversial)
* create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are restricted (no second yet)
* add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)
It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)
I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.
I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others.
-Will
Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want them at all.
Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of Wikimedia. In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting ourselves into politics.
Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. We aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to catalog what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying that as someone who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.
If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, they have every right to do that. On their own time and their own nickel, and without speaking as a representative of the organization.
It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened without consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for all of us, without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally unacceptable and I'd like to see further discussion of that.
Todd
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen list-wikimedia@funcrunch.org wrote:
I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past weeks:
- make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no
opposition, task created)
relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or opposition
yet)
- correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
(seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
- turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions were asked but have yet been answered)
- issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
controversial, statement issued by ED)
call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition
yet)
- require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
action (seconded, controversial)
- create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are
restricted (no second yet)
- add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this
list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)
It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)
I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.
I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others.
-Will
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or sources. When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific practice, that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory", a theory that many generations of scientists have established, describing how it works and interconnections with observable fact. What do you do when someone says "I do not believe it" and asks for a neutral point of view?
What do you say when employees of the Wikimedia Foundation no longer can come to their head quarters, do you call it observable fact or do you call it politics because it is the consequence of a new president of the United States of America?
What am I to think when people call in doubt when we are told by the main man of the Wikimedia Foundation that this severely impacts our movement and we are told that she can not say so because some volunteers feel that they need to be consulted. Well, to be honest, I do not give a fuck and I applaud Katherine Maher for speaking out in a timely manner. When someone is to censure her, it is the board who can do so and I strongly doubt that this will ever happen.
When someone like Jerry Falwell Jr is to head an education task force. I wonder how this is possible. To be honest, I fear for what we will stand for. I fear for the relevance of all the science and students in the future of the United States. I doubt very much that the United States will remain relevant because of this and the unfortunate tendency of "alternative facts".
Really, I am not party to US politics. I am part of the Wikimedia movement and there is imho no room for alternative facts. These alternative facts stand in contrast to observable facts and scientific practice including the use of sources. They have nothing to do with Neutral point of View. At most "alternative facts" are not worth more than a paragraph at the bottom that includes a rebuttal. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 February 2017 at 20:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want them at all.
Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of Wikimedia. In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting ourselves into politics.
Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. We aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to catalog what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying that as someone who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.
If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, they have every right to do that. On their own time and their own nickel, and without speaking as a representative of the organization.
It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened without consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for all of us, without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally unacceptable and I'd like to see further discussion of that.
Todd
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen list-wikimedia@funcrunch.org wrote:
I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past weeks:
- make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded, no
opposition, task created)
relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or
opposition
yet)
- correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
(seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
- turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions were asked but have yet been answered)
- issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
controversial, statement issued by ED)
call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or opposition
yet)
- require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
action (seconded, controversial)
- create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are
restricted (no second yet)
- add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to this
list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)
It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)
I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.
I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others.
-Will
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
I don't think anyone is disputing the facts. I'm certainly not. And I am gravely concerned by what's being done, and I entirely oppose it.
However, that doesn't mean I want to see WMF used as a political mouthpiece, even when what's being said happens to be things I fully agree with.
Todd
Objective evidence should always override hypothesis, opinion, bullshit and propaganda. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
Hoi, Let me ask a question. What trumps what; "neutral point of view" or sources. When objectively it has been established, given proper scientific practice, that certain things are true for instance "the evolution theory", a theory that many generations of scientists have established, describing how it works and interconnections with observable fact. What do you do when someone says "I do not believe it" and asks for a neutral point of view?
What do you say when employees of the Wikimedia Foundation no longer can come to their head quarters, do you call it observable fact or do you call it politics because it is the consequence of a new president of the United States of America?
What am I to think when people call in doubt when we are told by the main man of the Wikimedia Foundation that this severely impacts our movement and we are told that she can not say so because some volunteers feel that they need to be consulted. Well, to be honest, I do not give a fuck and I applaud Katherine Maher for speaking out in a timely manner. When someone is to censure her, it is the board who can do so and I strongly doubt that this will ever happen.
When someone like Jerry Falwell Jr is to head an education task force. I wonder how this is possible. To be honest, I fear for what we will stand for. I fear for the relevance of all the science and students in the future of the United States. I doubt very much that the United States will remain relevant because of this and the unfortunate tendency of "alternative facts".
Really, I am not party to US politics. I am part of the Wikimedia movement and there is imho no room for alternative facts. These alternative facts stand in contrast to observable facts and scientific practice including the use of sources. They have nothing to do with Neutral point of View. At most "alternative facts" are not worth more than a paragraph at the bottom that includes a rebuttal. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 February 2017 at 20:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want them at all.
Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of Wikimedia. In those cases, and in only those cases, should we consider injecting ourselves into politics.
Otherwise, the entire point of Wikimedia is a neutral point of view. We aren't here to inject ourselves into political debates, only to catalog what happens in a strictly neutral fashion. And I'm saying that as someone who largely agrees with the position being put forth here.
If people within Wikimedia want to involve themselves in politics, they have every right to do that. On their own time and their own nickel, and without speaking as a representative of the organization.
It is especially inappropriate that such an undertaking happened without consulting project volunteers. Katherine presumed to speak for all of us, without asking if we even wanted her to. That is totally unacceptable and I'd like to see further discussion of that.
Todd
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen list-wikimedia@funcrunch.org wrote:
I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call
Again, the Wikimedia-l list Charter says "potential new Wikimedia projects and initiatives" are on topic. While there is no mention in the Charter of political discussion. Presumably discussion of facts and opinions pertaining to proposed initiatives should be encouraged.
More than ten proposals for new initiatives have been made in the past weeks:
- make international backups of complete Foundation data (seconded,
no opposition, task created)
relocate the foundation (seconded, controversial)
assist Wikimedia staff with travel difficulties (no second or
opposition
yet)
- correct systemic bias said to be responsible for underlying issues
(seconded; unclear whether this is controversial)
- turn our culture toward more generative and constructive forms of
public discourse (no second or opposition yet; clarification questions were asked but have yet been answered)
- issue a statement condemning the travel ban (seconded,
controversial, statement issued by ED)
call for a general strike (no second yet, controversial)
improve Wikimedia content on pertinent issues (no second or
opposition yet)
- require community discussion and consensus as a precondition of
action (seconded, controversial)
- create an alternative mailing list where discussion topics are
restricted (no second yet)
- add the names of "a certain country's top political leaders" to
this list's spam filter (no second yet, controversial)
It is clear that there are multiple people on both sides of the political issue, so it might be helpful to focus discussion on support or opposition to proposed initiatives. (Did I miss any?)
I would like to see something more substantial than a blog post but less extreme than calling for a general strike. Usually when political issues impacting Wikimedia come up someone usually proposes banners.
I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others.
-Will
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13887 - Release Date: 02/03/17
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others.
I propose: http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
Sincerely, Jim Salsman
And a partridge in a pear tree?
But seriously. This is exactly what I was afraid of with opening the door to political advocacy.
Todd
On Feb 6, 2017 2:24 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to see such proposals from others.
I propose: http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
Sincerely, Jim Salsman
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