My point about NPOV was referring to article content, as the previous post
seemed to suggest that the WMF can and does try to influence articles
non-neutrally.
I don't understand your point about the Sustainability Initiative. To the
best of my knowledge, the Sustainability Initiative (which was approved by
the Board, IIRC) does not include any public advocacy efforts. I haven't
said anything against the Initiative, and I don't oppose it myself. I do
think the WMF should not undertake any public advocacy efforts which do not
comply with the guidelines[1].
Earth Day Live was pushing many, many political positions, not just
campaign finance reform.
It doesn't take much searching to find any of the on-wiki discussions which
show conclusively that the community opposes general political advocacy. On
the wikis themselves, this isn't a matter of controversy. Activism outside
the five identified areas that relate to Wikimedia activities (Access,
Censorship, Copyright, Intermediary liability, and Privacy; see the public
policy portal and associated documents) is not acceptable, and advocacy is
only acceptable even within those areas under limited circumstances.
-- Yair Rand
[1]
בתאריך יום ב׳, 27 באפר׳ 2020 ב-20:00 מאת Bill Takatoshi <
billtakatoshi@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand
<yyairrand(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the
policy,
NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles
upon which it is based cannot
be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
It
may not be violated, period.
Are you suggesting that the Foundation may not take any political
positions at all?
The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still
stands. It does not include
promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for
environmentalism.
I doubt that more than 20% of the long-term project editor base share
that opinion. Can you point to even a single instance other than your
own dozen or two complaints to this list of anyone opposed to the
WMF's Sustainability Initiative. The only comments about it ever say
that it should be doing more (I agree: we should be flexing our muscle
with the datacenter operators to ask them to buy renewable power,
perhaps in return for the visibility of a joint press release or
acknowledgment on a high-traffic page, or both.)
And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
campaign finance reform, which was the only only issue championed by
the Earth Day Live sponsors, and I doubt less than 10% thinks that
both issues support the Mission to "engage and empower" free content
contributors. Similarly for living wage standards, which support the
ability of editors to fund their living so they don't, for example,
need to take two jobs and thereby lack time to edit. I am sure you can
see the connection, but for whatever reason you simply choose not to.
I repeat my request for the Foundation to survey the editor base to
put an end to this disruptive bickering.
-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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>