Le 3 févr. 2017 à 00:05, Leigh Thelmadatter &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; a écrit : I voiced my opposition to the statement on Facebook but Yair states the case far more eloquently. Many acts by many countries could be a possible threat to Wikimedia, where do we draw the line? Why was there no community discussion prior to the statement? Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ 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>

The WMF has an obligation to respond to any changes where its based that impact on the movement or potentially impact on the movement, and that includes staff members or operational activities under taken. It cant respond to such changes without taking a POV regardless of the situation its not about the under lying politics. On 3 February 2017 at 08:26, Natacha Rault &lt;n.rault(a)me.com&gt; wrote: think normal tweet! silent. of who an by no country's is With recently, able , -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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>

Here is my two cents: Most of criticism I saw boils down to these ones: - It's politics and we should not make political statements: It's not just political anymore, it's a humanitarian crisis. Handcuffing a five-year-old boy in airport because of the country he was born is inhumane. Let's not forget Holocaust was made by a democratic regime and it was completely legal. - There are worse things going on in other regimes: Yes, we have ISIS, mullahs in Iran, etc. but look at the impact. This ban caused hate crimes against Muslims all over the world. Terrorist attacks in Canada, setting fire mosques in Texas are all because of this simple ban. if humans stay silent, worse things happen to them. Let's learn from history. - People have different opinions, let's respect that: Yes, but Wikimedia movement has core values such as inclusiveness and we need to stand for those values when they are under threat. I take the gay rights example. If someone makes a homophobic comment, they should be banned (per WP:NPA). So if someone is as homophic AF and they want to be a part of the movement, they need to park it at the door when they edit because inclusiveness is a core value. One other core value is simply "Knowledge knows no boundaries" and we need to stand for that, political or not. - People in WMF voted for Trump: If that's true, which I don't know because anyone from WMF I know were publicly against Trump, It's very saddening to see someone who works for WMF votes for someone who practically opposed everything Wikimedia movement stands for. But It's a personal matter outside the scope of this discussion. WMF can take a stand when it's related to its values. Like what happened with SOPA and it is possible that some employees were for SOPA but it was not the reason not to take the stand. It's the same today as well. May FSM bless you, Ramen. Best On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:11 AM Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > The WMF has an obligation to respond to any changes where its based that > impact on the movement or potentially impact on the movement, and that > includes staff members or operational activities under taken. > > It cant respond to such changes without taking a POV regardless of the > situation its not about the under lying politics. > > On 3 February 2017 at 08:26, Natacha Rault &lt;n.rault(a)me.com&gt; wrote: > >> Had the WMF statement been issued on Wikipedia, now that would have >> neutrality issues from a wikioedian point of view. >> The WMF is not Wikipedia, and does have a political activity: being in >> favour of sharing free knowledge is altogether a political statement, as >> freedom of sharing knowledge is not something which is accepted by all >> political regimes (please remember the globality of the movement, this is >> not just an american issue, it is a planetary one). One only needs to > think >> about the influence of Diderot and the encyclopedists in the French >> revolution to understand that an encyclopedia, albeit seemingly neutral, >> has very concrete political influences in major political regime changes. >> That the WMF which relies on the free movement of people and ideas to >> fulfil its mission should be worried and issue a statement is quite > normal >> - not to say courageous. After all there is a notion called "freedom of >> speech". >> A foundation has actually no obligation to be fully transparent, and WMF >> is making notable efforts in a context where advertising, non disclosed >> paid editing and lobbying are representing (in my opinion) a much greater >> threat to neutrality than a public statement on this particular matter. >> I am personnallly pretty impressed from across the ocean: in the 30s had >> some leaders shown more courage maybe Hitler would not have been able to >> start a genocide. >> This not only political, this is common sense, and living in Switzerland >> might influence a very pragmatic and down to the roots approach. >> We are watching from over the ocean, as europeans these refugee bans >> remind us of very dark memories. >> Katherine Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent >> wikipedians from editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV >> (actually there is no achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the >> gender biases as far as I see it) >> Bravo Katherine this is what I say, Sandberg has not even uttered a > tweet! >> Neutrality should not mean surrending to the powerful by remaining > silent. >> Nattes à chat / Natacha >> >> >> >> >>> Le 3 févr. 2017 à 00:05, Leigh Thelmadatter &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; a >> écrit : >>> I voiced my opposition to the statement on Facebook but Yair states the >> case far more eloquently. Many acts by many countries could be a possible >> threat to Wikimedia, where do we draw the line? >>> Why was there no community discussion prior to the statement? >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 02/02/2017, at 3:37 p.m., Yair Rand &lt;yyairrand(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> The Wikimedia movement is both global and very ideologically diverse, >> and >>>> has many contributors who have strong opinions in one direction or >> another >>>> on certain political issues facing their area of the world. Many of >> these >>>> contributors find it difficult to avoid using Wikimedia forums and >>>> institutions to discuss or advocate for issues they feel very strongly >>>> about. Recently, political advocacy on Wikimedia forums has risen >>>> substantially, especially on this mailing list. >>>> >>>> While I sympathize with the difficulties these contributors face in >>>> remaining silent, it is important to consider the substantial damage >> such >>>> actions can cause to the movement. We will be much worse off if half > of >> any >>>> given country's political spectrum can no longer cooperate in our >> mission >>>> due to compunctions against supporting a community which hosts those > who >>>> use the community to advocate for positions that some may find >>>> unacceptable. The issue of inadvertently alienating participants >> because of >>>> politics has a self-reinforcing element: As we lose contributors >>>> representing ideological areas, we have fewer willing to advocate for > an >>>> environment which allows them to participate without being bombarded > by >>>> hostile political advocacy. We are precariously close to the point of > no >>>> return on this, but I am optimistic that the situation is recoverable. >>>> >>>> As an initial measure, I propose adding the names of a certain > country's >>>> top political leaders to this list's spam filter. More generally, I >> think a >>>> stricter stance on avoiding political advocacy on Wikimedia projects > is >>>> warranted. >>>> >>>> We face a somewhat more difficult situation with the Wikimedia >> Foundation >>>> itself. Partly as a result of being relatively localized within a >>>> geographic area and further limited to several professions, I suspect >> the >>>> Foundation tends to be more politically/ideologically homogeneous. > With >> the >>>> WMF, we risk much more than just alienating much of the world, we risk >> our >>>> Neutrality. >>>> >>>> How far we must go to maintain neutrality has been a contentious issue >> over >>>> the years. Existential threats have twice been responded to with major >>>> community action, each with large prior discussion. (SOPA included an >>>> extensive discussion and a poll with more than 500 respondents.) A >> previous >>>> ED committed to firing everyone but part of the Ops team rather than >> accept >>>> advertising, should lack of funds require it. (Whether to let the WMF >> die >>>> outright rather than accept ads is as of yet unresolved.) More > recently, >>>> the WMF has taken limited actions and stances on public policy that >>>> directly relate to the mission. A careful balance has been established >>>> between maintaining essential neutrality and dealing with direct >> threats to >>>> the projects. >>>> >>>> Three days ago, the WMF put out a statement on the Wikimedia blog >>>> explicitly urging a specific country to modify its refugee policy, an >> area >>>> that does not relate to our goals. There was no movement-wide prior >>>> discussion, or any discussion at all as far as I can tell. >>>> >>>> It is the responsibility of the Board at this point to set a policy to >>>> place firm restrictions on which areas the WMF can take positions. >> While we >>>> value the important contributions of the staff, they should not be > able >> to >>>> override our commitment to neutrality. Our donors, editors, and other >>>> volunteers do not contribute so that resources and influence can be >> spent >>>> towards whatever political causes are popular within the WMF. >>>> >>>> It is the responsibility of the community to ensure that our projects >>>> remain apolitical. A neutral point of view is impossible if >> participating >>>> requires a certain political position. >>>> >>>> It is the responsibility of the mailing list administration and >> moderators >>>> to act against this list's rapid slide into unreadability. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> -- Yair Rand >>>>

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault &lt;n.rault(a)me.com&gt; wrote: I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks, that nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people (although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why taking political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced. _______________________________________________ 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>

That is an obvious false equivalence. The issue isn't people rooting for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own. The issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act appropriately. The free dissemination of factual, neutral information and the ability of editors to participate in that dissemination is in many contexts a political act and the WMF should recognize this. To contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political interference. On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: from I that taking wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Yair, I agree with your underlying sentiment. When we look at threats facing the Wikimedia movement, I continue to think that the risk of people being able to inject their national and identity politics into the movement is pretty great. While I may personally agree with many of the views being put forward, as you note these types of actions have the very real potential to create an unhealthy division among contributors and others. Wikimedia is a global movement and many people in the world have strongly held and diametrically different views about gay rights, abortion, free speech, the role of women, etc. Those views should rarely be relevant to creating free educational content. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikimedia to take stands on these issues. If staff of the current iteration of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. want to make such statements and take such positions, that is technically their prerogative, absent intervention from the Board of Trustees, however it certainly behooves other Wikimedian to point out what a bad idea it is. To put it another way: there are people who work at Wikimedia Foundation Inc. who voted for Donald Trump for president. While you may disagree with his policies and these staffers' decision to support him for president, needlessly and divisively injecting this kind of politics into the workplace is neither healthy nor appropriate, in my opinion. Yair Rand wrote: I guess this is referring to <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/>. In terms of various people at Wikimedia Foundation Inc. attempting to speak for the Wikimedia movement, there's also <https://policy.wikimedia.org/>. I've raised the lack of attribution and the "veneer of authority and legitimacy" issue at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_policy>. At least the recent blog post was signed by Katherine. That's better than some of these other essays. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ 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>

On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote: There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, who would not have been able to attend under the current ban. I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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>

On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote: There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, who would not have been able to attend under the current ban. I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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>

You somewhat conveniently avoided addressing Nathan's point. If the Wikimedia Foundation issued a political statement with a view that you found deeply offensive and strongly disagreed with, how would you respond?