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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- 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

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" &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: