It's clear that some of the previous threads about Wikimania drifted off-topic and became unproductive. However, I think that several serious concerns got lost in the noise, and that we cannot drop the topic from the list without addressing them, especially as people are starting to plan their travel. If we can be assured that safety concerns are being taken seriously by the WMF and the Wikimania organizers and are not being dismissed or ignored, this would go a long way toward improving the tone of discussion on the list.
I have two main concerns with Wikimania so far.
First, the coverage of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy and images in the Muhammad article on Wikipedia have sparked protest from many people, some of whom have made frightening and violent threats of reprisal against Wikimedia. These threats become more immediate and worthy of concern in a region where there is recent history of violence in response to religious controversies. This would be an extreme reaction, but I don't think that we can discount the possibility. It only takes a few extreme voices to cause a serious issue, and we need to be aware that this may happen and have a plan to ensure that attendees are not put in danger.
Secondly, I am also concerned that the local organizing team has not been sufficiently responsive to concerns about safety. A risk which is dismissed is one which is not being mitigated. Every location has some risk involved, and there should always be consideration of those risks. But I can't find any indication that this is happening here, and I would like to know that someone is considering it and taking reasonable steps to mitigate it.
Even if the safety concerns were completely without merit, perception of risk is important to an event which can only be successful if a diverse crowd of people attend. People are going to choose whether or not to go based on what they think is true. If people do not go because they think they will not be safe, even if they should have no reason to think so, the event is harmed by the failure to address their concerns.
So I would like to know: What plans are in place to ensure attendees' safety at Wikimania? What happens if we get threats of violence at the event?
Cheers
Hoi, There are those that go to Wikimania and there are those that do not. When people chose to go, they make up there own mind if they want to go, feel safe to go. Many of the people who have written on the threads on the subject of the relative safety of Wikimania have explicitly written that they will not go. They are also the people who have kept these threads alive.
At some stage this continuous bickering makes it less safe for the people that do go.
You have to be realistic in what the organising committee CAN do. They CAN organise a conference, they can talk to the Egyptian security organisations and this may make Wikimania 2008 a fortress where the easy coming and going of people we are used to at Wikimania is no longer possible. It is written that "the risk is dismissed". In reality you can only know what is written. If I were to work on the security of the conference I would not necessarily be vocal about it. If I had privileged information on this subject I would not comment on it publicly.
Perception of risk is important. But whose perception is relevant? Certainly the perception of the people that would not go anyway is completely irrelevant. It is only the people that hesitate to go as a consequence of this fearmongering whose perception is relevant. You have to appreciate as much as anything this fear is based on discriminatory understanding of the situation. Assessing the reality of this risk is something few people are really competent to do.
When people come to Alexandria and insist on bringing their cultural baggage and make a point of it, it will increase the risk. When people come primarily to the conference to meet and talk about Wiki related stuff it will not impact the risk to the conference and its attendees.
The risk of crazy people in Alexandria has to be offset with the certainty that many people cannot come to venues in the first world. This is a really powerful argument why a venue like Alexandria should be favoured over fortress America or fortress Europe.
PS in those fortresses a terrorist can also come up and blow up the conference.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's clear that some of the previous threads about Wikimania drifted off-topic and became unproductive. However, I think that several serious concerns got lost in the noise, and that we cannot drop the topic from the list without addressing them, especially as people are starting to plan their travel. If we can be assured that safety concerns are being taken seriously by the WMF and the Wikimania organizers and are not being dismissed or ignored, this would go a long way toward improving the tone of discussion on the list.
I have two main concerns with Wikimania so far.
First, the coverage of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy and images in the Muhammad article on Wikipedia have sparked protest from many people, some of whom have made frightening and violent threats of reprisal against Wikimedia. These threats become more immediate and worthy of concern in a region where there is recent history of violence in response to religious controversies. This would be an extreme reaction, but I don't think that we can discount the possibility. It only takes a few extreme voices to cause a serious issue, and we need to be aware that this may happen and have a plan to ensure that attendees are not put in danger.
Secondly, I am also concerned that the local organizing team has not been sufficiently responsive to concerns about safety. A risk which is dismissed is one which is not being mitigated. Every location has some risk involved, and there should always be consideration of those risks. But I can't find any indication that this is happening here, and I would like to know that someone is considering it and taking reasonable steps to mitigate it.
Even if the safety concerns were completely without merit, perception of risk is important to an event which can only be successful if a diverse crowd of people attend. People are going to choose whether or not to go based on what they think is true. If people do not go because they think they will not be safe, even if they should have no reason to think so, the event is harmed by the failure to address their concerns.
So I would like to know: What plans are in place to ensure attendees' safety at Wikimania? What happens if we get threats of violence at the event?
Cheers
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 02/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: *snip*
When people come to Alexandria and insist on bringing their cultural baggage and make a point of it, it will increase the risk. When people come primarily to the conference to meet and talk about Wiki related stuff it will not impact the risk to the conference and its attendees.
*snip*
Have you missed the whole Muhammad images controversy? Attending a conference about Wiki stuff is probably the biggest risk factor at all right now. Cultural baggage fades into insignificance.
~Mark Ryan
Agreed.
And Gerard, it's not just about bringing your baggage with you. Sometimes it's parts of your personality that you cannot hide that simply (ie: being a woman).
Imagine a fake scenario in which we held Wikimania in a country where if you were tall you had to bow before all the short people you saw on the street. Effectively you're saying "act like you're not tall or just don't bother coming."
What kind diversity is that supposed to promote? Wikimedian volunteers are a diverse group of people, and Wikimania is a manifestation of that. In a world that isn't necessarily as tolerant of divergent viewpoints, we have to ensure that the safety of the attendees is being considered.
You say that "...the perception of the people that would not go anyway is completely irrelevant." I beg to differ. I'm not going, but I still am concerned for my fellow volunteers. If someone got hurt and it could've been avoided through proper safety precautions, I would feel some level of responsibility if I had just not voiced my concerns because I was told they weren't important.
-Chad
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: *snip*
When people come to Alexandria and insist on bringing their cultural baggage and make a point of it, it will increase the risk. When people come primarily to the conference to meet and talk about Wiki related stuff it will not impact the risk to the conference and its attendees.
*snip*
Have you missed the whole Muhammad images controversy? Attending a conference about Wiki stuff is probably the biggest risk factor at all right now. Cultural baggage fades into insignificance.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now twice to Iran. She tells me she feels safer there then in the USA. When you talk to her about this, she tells it is quite straightforward; you dress in the way that is appropriate, you know a few of the first things there are to know and you are good. The first time she went, she took her son with her. The most annoying thing to him was that people were amazed at how blond and white he is.
As a person that is not going, is ok for you to feel concerned. But what can you realistically expect? Do you really think it matters to the people that are going? Do you really think that it makes much difference to the people organising the conference? Do you really think that your voiced concern makes the ones that are part of Wikimania 2008 more comfortable or feel better?
I am tall. I have been in places where I tower over the local people. I have two nephews that tower over me. For me it makes no difference I will bend my neck in order not to hit the door post where needed. My nephews will have to stoop even lower then me. It is not comfortable but it is the price for entering some doors.
Mark Ryan assesses that I might have missed the Muhammed images controversy.. Well, I have not. I am however not qualified to assess this risk. I am not qualified either to assess the risk of a lunatic going on a shooting rampage on a university campus or a shopping mall something that has happened with appalling frequency.
I have been to Harvard and I was amazed at the amount of guns that I saw on police officers. They did not make me feel secure at all. Now when I go to Alexandria I expect to have a great time at a great venue. I expect to meet many Wikimedians and learn many new things. Due to the fearmongering there may be less Americans, this will only make the input from other countries and languages bigger and better. And if it is time to meet my maker, if God wills it ...
From a propaganda point of view, blowing up Wikimania would be the most
stupid thing that could happen to the cause of Islam as a whole. In the end Wikipedia is very much an acceptable human face of what is in origin part of a Western value set. These Wiki values are equally acceptable in most of the Arab world. When we are to be "martyred" in the good cause of free knowledge and the free exchange of ideas, it will only strengthen the resolve of our friends to continue the work that we will be associated with.
I am quite happy to go to Egypt for Wikimania 2008. There is a risk, but there is a risk when I get into a car, a bus, a train a plane as well. As a pedestrian, the risk per kilometer is biggest but does that mean that I should not get out of my house? There is a risk, but should that mean that we leave our message unheard and only preach to our own parish?
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed.
And Gerard, it's not just about bringing your baggage with you. Sometimes it's parts of your personality that you cannot hide that simply (ie: being a woman).
Imagine a fake scenario in which we held Wikimania in a country where if you were tall you had to bow before all the short people you saw on the street. Effectively you're saying "act like you're not tall or just don't bother coming."
What kind diversity is that supposed to promote? Wikimedian volunteers are a diverse group of people, and Wikimania is a manifestation of that. In a world that isn't necessarily as tolerant of divergent viewpoints, we have to ensure that the safety of the attendees is being considered.
You say that "...the perception of the people that would not go anyway is completely irrelevant." I beg to differ. I'm not going, but I still am concerned for my fellow volunteers. If someone got hurt and it could've been avoided through proper safety precautions, I would feel some level of responsibility if I had just not voiced my concerns because I was told they weren't important.
-Chad
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: *snip*
When people come to Alexandria and insist on bringing their cultural
baggage
and make a point of it, it will increase the risk. When people come primarily to the conference to meet and talk about Wiki related stuff
it
will not impact the risk to the conference and its attendees.
*snip*
Have you missed the whole Muhammad images controversy? Attending a conference about Wiki stuff is probably the biggest risk factor at all right now. Cultural baggage fades into insignificance.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In this rare case, I completely agree with Gerard. As someone who plans to go, these issues do not factor into my decision at all.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now twice to Iran. She tells me she feels safer there then in the USA. When you talk to her about this, she tells it is quite straightforward; you dress in the way that is appropriate, you know a few of the first things there are to know and you are good. The first time she went, she took her son with her. The most annoying thing to him was that people were amazed at how blond and white he is.
As a person that is not going, is ok for you to feel concerned. But what can you realistically expect? Do you really think it matters to the people that are going? Do you really think that it makes much difference to the people organising the conference? Do you really think that your voiced concern makes the ones that are part of Wikimania 2008 more comfortable or feel better?
I am tall. I have been in places where I tower over the local people. I have two nephews that tower over me. For me it makes no difference I will bend my neck in order not to hit the door post where needed. My nephews will have to stoop even lower then me. It is not comfortable but it is the price for entering some doors.
Mark Ryan assesses that I might have missed the Muhammed images controversy.. Well, I have not. I am however not qualified to assess this risk. I am not qualified either to assess the risk of a lunatic going on a shooting rampage on a university campus or a shopping mall something that has happened with appalling frequency.
I have been to Harvard and I was amazed at the amount of guns that I saw on police officers. They did not make me feel secure at all. Now when I go to Alexandria I expect to have a great time at a great venue. I expect to meet many Wikimedians and learn many new things. Due to the fearmongering there may be less Americans, this will only make the input from other countries and languages bigger and better. And if it is time to meet my maker, if God wills it ...
From a propaganda point of view, blowing up Wikimania would be the most stupid thing that could happen to the cause of Islam as a whole. In the end Wikipedia is very much an acceptable human face of what is in origin part of a Western value set. These Wiki values are equally acceptable in most of the Arab world. When we are to be "martyred" in the good cause of free knowledge and the free exchange of ideas, it will only strengthen the resolve of our friends to continue the work that we will be associated with.
I am quite happy to go to Egypt for Wikimania 2008. There is a risk, but there is a risk when I get into a car, a bus, a train a plane as well. As a pedestrian, the risk per kilometer is biggest but does that mean that I should not get out of my house? There is a risk, but should that mean that we leave our message unheard and only preach to our own parish?
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed.
And Gerard, it's not just about bringing your baggage with you. Sometimes it's parts of your personality that you cannot hide that simply (ie: being a woman).
Imagine a fake scenario in which we held Wikimania in a country where if you were tall you had to bow before all the short people you saw on the street. Effectively you're saying "act like you're not tall or just don't bother coming."
What kind diversity is that supposed to promote? Wikimedian volunteers are a diverse group of people, and Wikimania is a manifestation of that. In a world that isn't necessarily as tolerant of divergent viewpoints, we have to ensure that the safety of the attendees is being considered.
You say that "...the perception of the people that would not go anyway is completely irrelevant." I beg to differ. I'm not going, but I still am concerned for my fellow volunteers. If someone got hurt and it could've been avoided through proper safety precautions, I would feel some level of responsibility if I had just not voiced my concerns because I was told they weren't important.
-Chad
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: *snip*
When people come to Alexandria and insist on bringing their
cultural
baggage
and make a point of it, it will increase the risk. When people come primarily to the conference to meet and talk about Wiki related
stuff
it
will not impact the risk to the conference and its attendees.
*snip*
Have you missed the whole Muhammad images controversy? Attending a conference about Wiki stuff is probably the biggest risk factor at
all
right now. Cultural baggage fades into insignificance.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
- d.
I lol'd.
I think everybody knows my opinion, a hybrid of the "shut up and stop complaining" and the "we can't go or we're all going to die!" opinions.
Mark
On 03/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/3/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
Seriously, I think you are on the right side of the issue, but the way you phrase your discussion, does you no favors...
Really, David Gerard, if you can't be more balanced, do not be a moderator...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
Seriously, I think you are on the right side of the issue, but the way you phrase your discussion, does you no favors...
Really, David Gerard, if you can't be more balanced, do not be a moderator...
David is not a moderator on foundation-l, thus he has probably more leverage here than on wikien-l where he *is* a moderator ;-)
Michael
On 3/3/08, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been
now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
Seriously, I think you are on the right side of the issue, but the way you phrase your discussion, does you no favors...
Really, David Gerard, if you can't be more balanced, do not be a moderator...
David is not a moderator on foundation-l, thus he has probably more leverage here than on wikien-l where he *is* a moderator ;-)
Michael
Leverage in terms of what. There is no leverage that can be applied if you are just jamming hard, without thinking where you are applying the leverage...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Leverage in terms of what. There is no leverage that can be applied if you are just jamming hard, without thinking where you are applying the leverage...
Okay, bad wording on my part. I didn't actually comment on David's message, I just clarified that he is not a moderator here and thus the "You're a moderator, you should be as neutral as possible" doctrine does not apply.
Michael
I think right now, he's being more moderate than the actual moderators, in that he's trying to steer us into new discussion rather than repetition of the same thing, in order to continue the discussion of this important topic. GerardM's sister's experience is irrelevant to this discussion, which was never about the safety of people who submit to coercive standards on appearance and behavior based on a religion they may not support. This discussion is about people who do not wish to be coerced into such behavior and appearance, and their safety, rights, and protections.
-Dan On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 3/3/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
Seriously, I think you are on the right side of the issue, but the way you phrase your discussion, does you no favors...
Really, David Gerard, if you can't be more balanced, do not be a moderator...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Cool that you have a mind-reading apparatus.
Any chance you will rent it out to me any time soon?
Let me repeat what I said before... (with emphasis)
I think David Gerard is squarely on the right side of the argument.
Please do not pour gasoline on the flames though...
That is all I ask.
On 3/3/08, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I think right now, he's being more moderate than the actual moderators, in that he's trying to steer us into new discussion rather than repetition of the same thing, in order to continue the discussion of this important topic. GerardM's sister's experience is irrelevant to this discussion, which was never about the safety of people who submit to coercive standards on appearance and behavior based on a religion they may not support. This discussion is about people who do not wish to be coerced into such behavior and appearance, and their safety, rights, and protections.
-Dan On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 3/3/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
Seriously, I think you are on the right side of the issue, but the way you phrase your discussion, does you no favors...
Really, David Gerard, if you can't be more balanced, do not be a moderator...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to you is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for granted in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in other environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
When this is not understood, it is better and safer to stay at home because it is difficult enough to appreciate the differences that may get you in trouble in unfamiliair places. When it is then argued that we should not go to countries where these "issues" do not exist, it means that we cannot have a Wikimania as any country is sufficiently different to get you into trouble.
The Wikimedia Foundation aims to bring the sum of all knowledge to every single human being. One of the way we promote this idea is by having Wikimania. It is in my opinion a great opportunity to meet in Alexandria after meeting in Frankfurt am Main, Boston and Taipei. Like in these places, the people that do come to Alexandria and stay at the venue will be in a Wiki bubble and not see much of Egypt.
I do agree with Samuel that it is wise to plan for contingencies and also that this planning is typically done quietly. I am convinced that the organisers of the Alexandria Wikimania are doing exactly this as well. The problem with true security and a sense of security is that they are completely different things. When you read Bruce Scheier on this subject, you will learn that many security measures are just to make people feel good while they are just theater.
When people feel insecure, much of this is the result of being out of place. When people suggest that the experience of my sister is irrelevant, I do argue that my sense of unease in the USA in contrast to her experience makes it relevant because it demonstrates how what makes people feel safe and secure gives the exact opposite reaction to others.
Where David Gerard suggests that I want to shut up some, I am sad that he interprets my contribution in this way. For me Wikimania is relevant. I have had the priviledge to be at all the Wikimanias. Wikimania is first and foremost for the people who take the trouble to come and the arguments should be about how will we make Alexandria 2008 a success. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I think right now, he's being more moderate than the actual moderators, in that he's trying to steer us into new discussion rather than repetition of the same thing, in order to continue the discussion of this important topic. GerardM's sister's experience is irrelevant to this discussion, which was never about the safety of people who submit to coercive standards on appearance and behavior based on a religion they may not support. This discussion is about people who do not wish to be coerced into such behavior and appearance, and their safety, rights, and protections.
-Dan On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 3/3/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now
Yes, I think that's the "shut up and stop complaining" POV accounted for. Anyone else have anything useful to add?
Seriously, I think you are on the right side of the issue, but the way you phrase your discussion, does you no favors...
Really, David Gerard, if you can't be more balanced, do not be a moderator...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to you is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for granted in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in other environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
Yes, and I think Gerard's "When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed." is perhaps putting it the wrong way. That statement certainly offended me.
On 03/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to you is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for granted in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in other environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, What is there to be offended at. When I go to the USA I can expect behaviour that is completely accepted in my home country to land me in jail. When I came into the Taipei airport the first message was that smugglers of drugs can expect the death penalty.
As I stated earlier, your freedom is limited by the freedom of others. When you feel offended by this, you can only stay home. Thanks, GerardM
NB I do not use drugs so crazy ineffectual measures against drugs do not threaten me.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and I think Gerard's "When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed." is perhaps putting it the wrong way. That statement certainly offended me.
On 03/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to you is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for granted in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in other environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
The way women are treated varies greatly among cultures as well, so I'm not going to say that women will be better or worse off in Egypt than in country X, Y, or Z.
Mark
On 04/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is there to be offended at. When I go to the USA I can expect behaviour that is completely accepted in my home country to land me in jail. When I came into the Taipei airport the first message was that smugglers of drugs can expect the death penalty.
As I stated earlier, your freedom is limited by the freedom of others. When you feel offended by this, you can only stay home. Thanks, GerardM
NB I do not use drugs so crazy ineffectual measures against drugs do not threaten me.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and I think Gerard's "When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed." is perhaps putting it the wrong way. That statement certainly offended me.
On 03/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to you is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for granted in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in other environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson ha scritto:
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
BTW, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States it seems that until 2003 a few states in the US had laws against sodomy, meaning that those places would have been considered unsafe for LGBT people. Fortunately things have changed now, but I have the feeling that there wouldn't have been such the havoc in this mailing list if Wikimania 2002 had been scheduled in Idaho or Oklahoma.
Every location would have some problems for someone, being it the difficulty/impossibility to get a visa or pay for the airfare, diseases, restrictive laws, terrorism threats. Cruccone
The problem was, sodomy wasn't exactly enforced in the United States (it is elsewhere though!). You didn't see people going to jail for practicing sodomy. Striking it down was more of a symbolic change than a real change in American sex lives.
-Chad
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Williamson ha scritto:
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
BTW, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States it seems that until 2003 a few states in the US had laws against sodomy, meaning that those places would have been considered unsafe for LGBT people. Fortunately things have changed now, but I have the feeling that there wouldn't have been such the havoc in this mailing list if Wikimania 2002 had been scheduled in Idaho or Oklahoma.
Every location would have some problems for someone, being it the difficulty/impossibility to get a visa or pay for the airfare, diseases, restrictive laws, terrorism threats. Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would change that "didn't see people going to jail" to "very rarely saw people going to jail".
That is to say, if somebody was suspected to be engaged in sodomy, I don't believe there was a jurisdiction where that alone was considered probable cause for an investigation, but if such acts were discovered in the course of an investigation of some other alleged crime, people could be charged, even if all other charges were dropped.
The case in which sodomy laws were struck down, Lawrence v. Texas, is an example of this. Somebody filed a false police report, an armed officer entered a private residence on suspicion that there was a domestic disturbance there with a man with a gun "going crazy", and when this was found to be false, the two men caught in the act of intercourse were arrested for sodomy.
Certainly, this sort of thing was rare by 2003 - especially compared to Egypt - but it's not as if it never happened.
Mark
On 04/03/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The problem was, sodomy wasn't exactly enforced in the United States (it is elsewhere though!). You didn't see people going to jail for practicing sodomy. Striking it down was more of a symbolic change than a real change in American sex lives.
-Chad
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Williamson ha scritto:
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
BTW, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States it seems that until 2003 a few states in the US had laws against sodomy, meaning that those places would have been considered unsafe for LGBT people. Fortunately things have changed now, but I have the feeling that there wouldn't have been such the havoc in this mailing list if Wikimania 2002 had been scheduled in Idaho or Oklahoma.
Every location would have some problems for someone, being it the difficulty/impossibility to get a visa or pay for the airfare, diseases, restrictive laws, terrorism threats. Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, You are wrong here as well. Alcohol is a hard drug. Like homosexuality it is legal in most countries but not all. The way you are expected to handle your liquor differs from country to country. I was at the station of Wuerzburg last Saturday and FC Bayern fans boarded the same train, there were some 12 supporters and at least three crates of beer. This would not be permitted in the Netherlands or the USA because of the age of some of these supporters.
The point I try to make is that you cannot assume that you are free to behave in the same manner whereever you go. You may find other places liberating or restricting but the key thing to appreciate is that your freedom stops where the freedom of others starts. Where you are a guest, it is best to be conscious of the differences to what you are accustomed to, it is the polite thing to do. When you are not willing or able to allow for these differences, you do well to stay where you feel at home. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
The way women are treated varies greatly among cultures as well, so I'm not going to say that women will be better or worse off in Egypt than in country X, Y, or Z.
Mark
On 04/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is there to be offended at. When I go to the USA I can expect
behaviour
that is completely accepted in my home country to land me in jail. When
I
came into the Taipei airport the first message was that smugglers of
drugs
can expect the death penalty.
As I stated earlier, your freedom is limited by the freedom of others.
When
you feel offended by this, you can only stay home. Thanks, GerardM
NB I do not use drugs so crazy ineffectual measures against drugs do
not
threaten me.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, and I think Gerard's "When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed." is perhaps putting it the wrong way. That statement certainly offended me.
On 03/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a
country
endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman
is
offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should
mention,
fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety
cannot
be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences,
gender,
religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to
assure
their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It
is
an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights
--
the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom
of
sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked
a
stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and
their
human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to
you
is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for
granted
in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in
other
environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re to Gerard: True, and no one is saying to break local laws. However, when local laws infringe on your basic human rights, we need to consider if this is in fact a place we wish to be.
Also, in RE: to George Herbert. Yes, it is a lot of vague unease, since we don't have all the answers yet. Hopefully, we can find the answers and make an informed decision and put our unease at rest.
-Chad
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong here as well. Alcohol is a hard drug. Like homosexuality it is legal in most countries but not all. The way you are expected to handle your liquor differs from country to country. I was at the station of Wuerzburg last Saturday and FC Bayern fans boarded the same train, there were some 12 supporters and at least three crates of beer. This would not be permitted in the Netherlands or the USA because of the age of some of these supporters.
The point I try to make is that you cannot assume that you are free to behave in the same manner whereever you go. You may find other places liberating or restricting but the key thing to appreciate is that your freedom stops where the freedom of others starts. Where you are a guest, it is best to be conscious of the differences to what you are accustomed to, it is the polite thing to do. When you are not willing or able to allow for these differences, you do well to stay where you feel at home. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
The way women are treated varies greatly among cultures as well, so I'm not going to say that women will be better or worse off in Egypt than in country X, Y, or Z.
Mark
On 04/03/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is there to be offended at. When I go to the USA I can expect
behaviour
that is completely accepted in my home country to land me in jail. When
I
came into the Taipei airport the first message was that smugglers of
drugs
can expect the death penalty.
As I stated earlier, your freedom is limited by the freedom of others.
When
you feel offended by this, you can only stay home. Thanks, GerardM
NB I do not use drugs so crazy ineffectual measures against drugs do
not
threaten me.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, and I think Gerard's "When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed." is perhaps putting it the wrong way. That statement certainly offended me.
On 03/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a
country
endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman
is
offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should
mention,
fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety
cannot
be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences,
gender,
religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to
assure
their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It
is
an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights
--
the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom
of
sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked
a
stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and
their
human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
In the end it is about freedom. The freedom that is available to
you
is limited by the freedom available to others. When you insist on behaving in a manner that is offensive to others your safety can not be guaranteed. The rights and the treatment that you take for
granted
in your normal environment is not necessarily what will be available in
other
environments. This is rather elementary I would say.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 04/03/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think the main difference here is that drug use is illegal in almost every country, the Netherlands being an exception. Homosexual activity is decriminalized in almost all of the Americas and Europe as well as much of Asia (which is not part of the Western world, so there!).
The way women are treated varies greatly among cultures as well, so I'm not going to say that women will be better or worse off in Egypt than in country X, Y, or Z.
Mark
In the US I can be arrested for crossing the road. From time to time brits doing just that get into trouble (British law doesn't for the most part have a problem with jaywalking other than on motorways).
If people insist on Narrowing the issue to one of sexuality quite a number of US states would outlaw sex with 17 year olds (legal in the UK).
In terms of getting into trouble for content on the site UK should be avoided due to interesting libel laws and europe has all those fun anti-nazi laws. Oh and France has that law about the Armenian genocide. Cartoons could get you into trouble in spain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/14/wspain114.xm... do we have an article on this BTW?) and while we got lucky in the last Vatican press release I would rather we didn't appear in a second.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
Hypothetically, if the conference is actually putting attendees at significant security risk due to terrorism, or those with alternative lifestyles or sexual preferences at significant risk, then perhaps a re-siting decision would be called for.
What was in evidence after the previous discussion about the latter issues was vague unease, not evidence that there was actual serious risk there.
What is in evidence now about the security situation is vague unease, not evidence that there's serious risk there.
Please don't turn vague unease into a mad rush to abandon the site. If anyone participating happens to be a private or governmental intelligence analyst or counterterrorism professional with middle east experience, or know people who are, it might help if you talk to the Foundation and input what you know.
I am acutely aware of the history and issues involved, in religious, local political, geopolitical, and local and regional terrorist incident history, but I don't have any current useful intelligence or background to do an event risk assessment.
Unless someone with that experience and those specific skills is willing to publically comment here, we're operating the thread without a competent level of knowledge to hold a serious discussion on the topic.
I oppose hyperbolic conversations eminating from vague unease.
That said, people with backgrounds in intelligence, terrorism/counter- terrorism, and risk assessment in the middle east have been critical of the event, and been ignored.
It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy. "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region, including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should be avoided." The latter quote is especially relevant given the current political clime related to the Muhammad images. Note: the Canadian government agrees. "These attacks demonstrate that security incidents can occur without warning. The risk of possible terrorist attacks in areas frequented by Westerners or tourists exists, and further such attacks in Egypt cannot be ruled out." "Egypt remains one of a number of countries where a threat from international terrorism exists."
To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.
Since the last discussion, which I assume to mean that of several weeks ago (as this current one is a continuation of discussion over the past 2 weeks or so), the amount of animosity over the muhammad images (cartoons and wikipedia) has skyrocketed. There has been government retaliation against foreign news agencies, anti-semitic demonstrations, and increased awareness of Wikipedia's role in the controversy. That's a significantly increased risk than we were at several weeks ago.
It's like a rich white person hanging out on the streets of <insert crime-ridden slum here>. Just by being there, you are at significant risk of experiencing a crime. Does that mean one is going to happen? No. Can you take steps to limit your risk? Sure. Foremost among them is "don't put yourself in that situation in the first place."
By the way...we'd be going to jail for this in Alexandria.
-Dan
PS: Surprisingly enough, the US Department of State has significantly less warnings and such about travel in Egypt than the UK, Canada, or Australia. Apparently the US department of state is more worried about people driving over WWII era land mines after a rainstorm, or getting bird flu.
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:10 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
Hypothetically, if the conference is actually putting attendees at significant security risk due to terrorism, or those with alternative lifestyles or sexual preferences at significant risk, then perhaps a re-siting decision would be called for.
What was in evidence after the previous discussion about the latter issues was vague unease, not evidence that there was actual serious risk there.
What is in evidence now about the security situation is vague unease, not evidence that there's serious risk there.
Please don't turn vague unease into a mad rush to abandon the site. If anyone participating happens to be a private or governmental intelligence analyst or counterterrorism professional with middle east experience, or know people who are, it might help if you talk to the Foundation and input what you know.
I am acutely aware of the history and issues involved, in religious, local political, geopolitical, and local and regional terrorist incident history, but I don't have any current useful intelligence or background to do an event risk assessment.
Unless someone with that experience and those specific skills is willing to publically comment here, we're operating the thread without a competent level of knowledge to hold a serious discussion on the topic.
I oppose hyperbolic conversations eminating from vague unease.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
That said, people with backgrounds in intelligence, terrorism/counter- terrorism, and risk assessment in the middle east have been critical of the event, and been ignored.
Who, Dan. Nobody posting in thread appears to know more about this than I do, and I am most certainly not an expert.
It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy. "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region, including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should be avoided." The latter quote is especially relevant given the current political clime related to the Muhammad images. Note: the Canadian government agrees. "These attacks demonstrate that security incidents can occur without warning. The risk of possible terrorist attacks in areas frequented by Westerners or tourists exists, and further such attacks in Egypt cannot be ruled out." "Egypt remains one of a number of countries where a threat from international terrorism exists."
To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.
The demonstrations of late haven't led to any tourist deaths. The only active campaign (last 10 years) is the last 4 years in the Sinai, which is a tempestuous mix of local Bedouin anarchy and possible but questionable Al Qaeda links
Al Gamaa al-Islamiyya are out of the current game.
All current evidence is that the Bedouin groups responsible for the Sharm al-Sheik and Dahab attacks have little ability to project power or run operations outside the Sinai.
The warnings given don't match with the actual danger zones and risk areas. The Bedouin risk areas are clear on the other side of the country, across the Nile delta, across the Suez desert.
Since the last discussion, which I assume to mean that of several weeks ago (as this current one is a continuation of discussion over the past 2 weeks or so), the amount of animosity over the muhammad images (cartoons and wikipedia) has skyrocketed. There has been government retaliation against foreign news agencies, anti-semitic demonstrations, and increased awareness of Wikipedia's role in the controversy. That's a significantly increased risk than we were at several weeks ago.
It's like a rich white person hanging out on the streets of <insert crime-ridden slum here>. Just by being there, you are at significant risk of experiencing a crime. Does that mean one is going to happen? No. Can you take steps to limit your risk? Sure. Foremost among them is "don't put yourself in that situation in the first place."
All of that said, people are typically more likely to die in a plane crash than at the site from terrorism, by orders of magnitude, and more likely by an order of magnitude to die driving to the airport than on the plane.
If there's specific threat info that those organizing the protest have particular backing in Egypt, that it's being widely discussed there, that it's being discussed by groups who are either the base for or motivators for any of the actual terrorist groups there, then I haven't seen it anywhere in on-wiki, OTRS, here or elsewhere, or off-site security related discussions.
If you have it put it out there.
By the way...we'd be going to jail for this in Alexandria.
-Dan
PS: Surprisingly enough, the US Department of State has significantly less warnings and such about travel in Egypt than the UK, Canada, or Australia. Apparently the US department of state is more worried about people driving over WWII era land mines after a rainstorm, or getting bird flu.
Statistically, they're right.
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:10 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman is offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention, fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender, religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It is an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights -- the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
Hypothetically, if the conference is actually putting attendees at significant security risk due to terrorism, or those with alternative lifestyles or sexual preferences at significant risk, then perhaps a re-siting decision would be called for.
What was in evidence after the previous discussion about the latter issues was vague unease, not evidence that there was actual serious risk there.
What is in evidence now about the security situation is vague unease, not evidence that there's serious risk there.
Please don't turn vague unease into a mad rush to abandon the site. If anyone participating happens to be a private or governmental intelligence analyst or counterterrorism professional with middle east experience, or know people who are, it might help if you talk to the Foundation and input what you know.
I am acutely aware of the history and issues involved, in religious, local political, geopolitical, and local and regional terrorist incident history, but I don't have any current useful intelligence or background to do an event risk assessment.
Unless someone with that experience and those specific skills is willing to publically comment here, we're operating the thread without a competent level of knowledge to hold a serious discussion on the topic.
I oppose hyperbolic conversations eminating from vague unease.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On 04/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy. "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region, including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should be avoided."
[...]
To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) rates travel destinations on a scale of 5, where 5 is "Do not travel" and 4 is "Reconsider your need to travel". Egypt is level 3, "High degree of caution". Levels 2 and 1 are "Exercise caution" and "Be alert to own security". So it's not like at any time they are heaping encouragements on anyone travelling overseas.
Canada's classification on Egypt is also level 2 of 4 (their 4 are Exercise normal security precautions / Exercise high degree of caution / Avoid non-essential travel / Avoid all travel).
If you read the government advisories without interpreting them to your own sensibilities you would never travel overseas anywhere. And if you're that concerned then fine; don't travel overseas. But then you would probably not attend a Wikimania anyway.
To quote government travel advisories verbatim as gospel is also a disservice. Most travellers will take those classifications into consideration... but it's not like they instantly mean it's a no-go zone. Limiting risk vs limiting interesting experiences. same trade-off as ever.
regards, Brianna
I think Brianna has brought up some excellent points. I haven't seen anyone bring up traveler's registration for US citizens so I'll mention it now.
US citizens can go to https://travelregistration.state.gov and register their travel with the US State Department. When you provide your trip details and e-mail address, the local embassy or consulates provide you with contact information and any alerts you need to be aware of. When traveling to Istanbul over New Year's Eve, my group received an e-mail about an attempted suicide bombing in their subway and the subsequent cancellation of most activities in their equivalent of Times Square (Taksim Meydanuh). Since we hadn't been paying as close attention to their English newspapers as we should have, it ended up being very helpful.
Apparently in the extremely unlikely event that all US citizens were advised to evacuate from wherever you're staying, they will assist in your evacuation. On the travel registration website, they also provide this information in their FAQ: **
- *How can the embassy or consulate assist me while I am abroad?*
- U.S. consular officers assist Americans who encounter serious legal, medical, or financial difficulties. Although consular officers cannot act as your legal counsel or representative, they can provide the names of local attorneys and doctors, provide loans to destitute Americans, and provide information about dangerous conditions affecting your overseas travel or residence. Consular officers also perform non-emergency services, helping Americans with absentee voting, selective service registration, receiving federal benefits, and filing U.S. tax forms. Consular officers can notarize documents, issue passports, and register American children born abroad. Most embassies and consulates have web sites with more information.
It seems like the kind of service you never expect to use, but is nice to have anyways. While I don't think there exists any credible reason for anyone to avoid Alexandria, I think this is one free way you can minimize risk and stay informed while abroad.
-Justin
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy. "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region, including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should be avoided."
[...]
To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) rates travel destinations on a scale of 5, where 5 is "Do not travel" and 4 is "Reconsider your need to travel". Egypt is level 3, "High degree of caution". Levels 2 and 1 are "Exercise caution" and "Be alert to own security". So it's not like at any time they are heaping encouragements on anyone travelling overseas.
Canada's classification on Egypt is also level 2 of 4 (their 4 are Exercise normal security precautions / Exercise high degree of caution / Avoid non-essential travel / Avoid all travel).
If you read the government advisories without interpreting them to your own sensibilities you would never travel overseas anywhere. And if you're that concerned then fine; don't travel overseas. But then you would probably not attend a Wikimania anyway.
To quote government travel advisories verbatim as gospel is also a disservice. Most travellers will take those classifications into consideration... but it's not like they instantly mean it's a no-go zone. Limiting risk vs limiting interesting experiences. same trade-off as ever.
regards, Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think indeed that the situation could also be approached like that. Keeping an eye on the website of travelling advices might be advicable anyway. At least the Dutch website advises also how to limit those risks, such as avoiding demonstrations and being reluctant in political discussions (maybe a duh, but still something to be aware of). Now should I say I'd also avoid certain demonstrations in the Netherlands, so nothing special here :) They also mention that you should not smuggle drugs, nor sexually abuse childres (it's just that you know it, it's there illegal too), the traffic can be dangerous apperently. The Dutch still rate it at 2 out of 6.
A Funny thing, the entry about the advice on the United States is longer as of Egypt, indicating all kinds of risks, from fires to hurricanes, use of alcohol, sexual contacts with minors, that you are not allowed to behave in a Dutch way to security officials (speaking about freedom). Both for the USA as for Egypt, terrorist worries are expressed, but for Egypt there are some advices on armed transport and to only go with a certified and trusted guide etc. (sounds sane to me)
Just to give a comparison, no country is totally safe. Note that *nothing* about gay's in Egypt is mentioned on our website of foreign relations. And this while there are quite a lot gays in The Netherlands, and we are used to a safe level on that... I am not sure how the other countries indicate that, but for me it puts things a little in perspective. Contacting the embassy might be more useful here though :)
BR, Lodewijk
2008/3/4, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
On 04/03/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy. "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region, including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should be avoided."
[...]
To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) rates travel destinations on a scale of 5, where 5 is "Do not travel" and 4 is "Reconsider your need to travel". Egypt is level 3, "High degree of caution". Levels 2 and 1 are "Exercise caution" and "Be alert to own security". So it's not like at any time they are heaping encouragements on anyone travelling overseas.
Canada's classification on Egypt is also level 2 of 4 (their 4 are Exercise normal security precautions / Exercise high degree of caution / Avoid non-essential travel / Avoid all travel).
If you read the government advisories without interpreting them to your own sensibilities you would never travel overseas anywhere. And if you're that concerned then fine; don't travel overseas. But then you would probably not attend a Wikimania anyway.
To quote government travel advisories verbatim as gospel is also a disservice. Most travellers will take those classifications into consideration... but it's not like they instantly mean it's a no-go zone. Limiting risk vs limiting interesting experiences. same trade-off as ever.
regards, Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
effe iets anders wrote:
I think indeed that the situation could also be approached like that. Keeping an eye on the website of travelling advices might be advicable anyway. At least the Dutch website advises also how to limit those risks, such as avoiding demonstrations and being reluctant in political discussions (maybe a duh, but still something to be aware of). Now should I say I'd also avoid certain demonstrations in the Netherlands, so nothing special here :) They also mention that you should not smuggle drugs, nor sexually abuse childres (it's just that you know it, it's there illegal too), the traffic can be dangerous apperently. The Dutch still rate it at 2 out of 6.
Is there any risk that the Egyptians might consider your supply of stroopwafels as drugs? ;-)
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, You may have your opinion but imho you are wrong. My sister has been now twice to Iran. She tells me she feels safer there then in the USA. When you talk to her about this, she tells it is quite straightforward; you dress in the way that is appropriate, you know a few of the first things there are to know and you are good. The first time she went, she took her son with her. The most annoying thing to him was that people were amazed at how blond and white he is.
I think you're still missing the point. If your sister was homosexual, she would feel FAR safer in the United States than in Iran. Also, we cannot rely on mere anecdotes for the safety of our attendees. We need a rigorous analysis of the venue, including that statistical likelihood of problems arising (i.e. a sample size bigger than one).
- -- Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )
Greg,
Thank you for posing your concerns clearly and without rancor.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: < I think that several
serious concerns got lost in the noise, and that we cannot drop the topic from the list without addressing them, especially as people are starting to plan their travel. If we can be assured that safety concerns are being taken seriously by the WMF and the Wikimania organizers and are not being dismissed or ignored, this would go a long way toward improving the tone of discussion on the list.
Yes.
I have two main concerns with Wikimania so far.
[...] < [Firstly] It only takes a few extreme voices to cause a serious
issue, and we need to be aware that this may happen and have a plan to ensure that attendees are not put in danger.
Secondly, I am also concerned that the local organizing team has not
< been sufficiently responsive to concerns about safety.... Every location has some < risk involved... I would like to know that someone is considering it and taking
reasonable steps to mitigate it.
Even if the safety concerns were completely without merit, perception of risk is important to an event which can only be successful if a diverse crowd of people attend.
Aren't these really the same point? You would like to see a plan for ensuring safety, taking into account known risks (getting lost, stolen belongings, being a tourist in nearby places / at night, unknowingly violating local laws). And you would like to see a contingency plan that covers the possibility of threats of or actual violence (local police and fire contacts, security detail).
What plans are in place to ensure attendees' safety at Wikimania? What happens if we get threats of violence at the event?
These considerations are not special to Alexandria, of course. Any time there is vocal concern from potential attendees, they should receive special attention; but they should always receive attention. In my experience, Wikimania Boston was required to plan for various contingencies by Harvard's own safety policies. We didn't publicize the details too vocally. And we could have planned more explicitly for taking care of people's belongings, for instance -- a few bags were lost and never found, perhaps stolen. We did discuss the possibility of physical threats, and had a security detail (as any event larger than a certain size must). Again, that process could have been more public and better shared with the (potential) attendees.
SJ
I am divided in this. The second you turn wikimedia conferance to a G8 meeting you fundamentally hurt the goal of 'free encyclopedia'. Then again being blown up to sub-atomic particles isn't exactly helping the goal of free encyclopedia. You can't really let terrorists rule your life. New York is no more 'safe' than Egypt.
Security at the hotels and stuff, now I may agree with that. But I do not wish wikimedia conference itself to become a military base.
- White Cat
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's clear that some of the previous threads about Wikimania drifted off-topic and became unproductive. However, I think that several serious concerns got lost in the noise, and that we cannot drop the topic from the list without addressing them, especially as people are starting to plan their travel. If we can be assured that safety concerns are being taken seriously by the WMF and the Wikimania organizers and are not being dismissed or ignored, this would go a long way toward improving the tone of discussion on the list.
I have two main concerns with Wikimania so far.
First, the coverage of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy and images in the Muhammad article on Wikipedia have sparked protest from many people, some of whom have made frightening and violent threats of reprisal against Wikimedia. These threats become more immediate and worthy of concern in a region where there is recent history of violence in response to religious controversies. This would be an extreme reaction, but I don't think that we can discount the possibility. It only takes a few extreme voices to cause a serious issue, and we need to be aware that this may happen and have a plan to ensure that attendees are not put in danger.
Secondly, I am also concerned that the local organizing team has not been sufficiently responsive to concerns about safety. A risk which is dismissed is one which is not being mitigated. Every location has some risk involved, and there should always be consideration of those risks. But I can't find any indication that this is happening here, and I would like to know that someone is considering it and taking reasonable steps to mitigate it.
Even if the safety concerns were completely without merit, perception of risk is important to an event which can only be successful if a diverse crowd of people attend. People are going to choose whether or not to go based on what they think is true. If people do not go because they think they will not be safe, even if they should have no reason to think so, the event is harmed by the failure to address their concerns.
So I would like to know: What plans are in place to ensure attendees' safety at Wikimania? What happens if we get threats of violence at the event?
Cheers
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No one on any of these threads (that I recall) has expressed a fear for their own personal safety. If anyone had, the links at the beginning of the first thread are the place to start - ultimately, your safety is your responsibility and any threats can be mitigated by preparation.
Since the Egypt Wikimania is not going to be moved (and no one has even suggested this as a realistic possibility) then aside from providing tools to assist individuals with their safety there is no point in writing further about the Alexandria Wikimania and security. It might be a useful exercise to come up with constructive ideas to ensure that future locations come with a greater measure of security - if that is desired. But since none of the bids currently under review are for areas typically considered dangerous (particularly to Westerns, and apart from the rare exception at Buenos Aires) there really is no sense to further speculation at this time. Use your concerns to assist in evaluating the bids for Wikimania 2010.
Nathan
On 04/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No one on any of these threads (that I recall) has expressed a fear for their own personal safety.
False; Philip Beaudette has said precisely this, and he's not the only one. Thus, the rest of your post should be withdrawn.
- d.
I don't think so. My post said that further discussion should be focused on tools to assist individuals with their personal safety. If some are planning to go Egypt and have concerns, there are concrete steps to take that do not involve Foundation-l. We can accept that there is more danger in holding the conference in Egypt than in Seattle, and we can also stipulate that despite this the conference will not be moved based on this thread. Therefore, constructive discussion will have to be in one of two categories: (1) Suggesting and assisting with preparation prior to the conference and (2) suggestions on how to more fully incorporate security concerns into future decisions. Since Brisbane, Karlsruhe, Buenos Aires and Toronto are relatively safe cities in relatively safe countries these suggestions must of course focus on 2010. Given that 2010 is three Wikimanias away, it makes sense that this discussion could be postponed.
So, based on the above... Not withdrawing any part of my post except where I suggested no one had expressed a personal fear. I would direct Phillipe to the beginning of the first thread, where nearly all good recommendations for ensuring ones personal safety were posted.
Nathan
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No one on any of these threads (that I recall) has expressed a fear for their own personal safety.
False; Philip Beaudette has said precisely this, and he's not the only one. Thus, the rest of your post should be withdrawn.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't think we can stipulate that the conference will not be substantially changed (be it moved, cancelled, etc).
-Dan On Mar 3, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
I don't think so. My post said that further discussion should be focused on tools to assist individuals with their personal safety. If some are planning to go Egypt and have concerns, there are concrete steps to take that do not involve Foundation-l. We can accept that there is more danger in holding the conference in Egypt than in Seattle, and we can also stipulate that despite this the conference will not be moved based on this thread. Therefore, constructive discussion will have to be in one of two categories: (1) Suggesting and assisting with preparation prior to the conference and (2) suggestions on how to more fully incorporate security concerns into future decisions. Since Brisbane, Karlsruhe, Buenos Aires and Toronto are relatively safe cities in relatively safe countries these suggestions must of course focus on 2010. Given that 2010 is three Wikimanias away, it makes sense that this discussion could be postponed.
So, based on the above... Not withdrawing any part of my post except where I suggested no one had expressed a personal fear. I would direct Phillipe to the beginning of the first thread, where nearly all good recommendations for ensuring ones personal safety were posted.
Nathan
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No one on any of these threads (that I recall) has expressed a fear for their own personal safety.
False; Philip Beaudette has said precisely this, and he's not the only one. Thus, the rest of your post should be withdrawn.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't think so. My post said that further discussion should be focused on tools to assist individuals with their personal safety. If some are planning to go Egypt and have concerns, there are concrete steps to take that do not involve Foundation-l. We can accept that there is more danger in holding the conference in Egypt than in Seattle, and we can also stipulate that despite this the conference will not be moved based on this thread. Therefore, constructive discussion will have to be in one of two categories: (1) Suggesting and assisting with preparation prior to the conference and (2) suggestions on how to more fully incorporate security concerns into future decisions. Since Brisbane, Karlsruhe, Buenos Aires and Toronto are relatively safe cities in relatively safe countries these suggestions must of course focus on 2010. Given that 2010 is three Wikimanias away, it makes sense that this discussion could be postponed.
Some other issues were also brought up, in particular, the visa issue. For instance, selecting Brisbane and Toronto would mean some part of possible participants are not able to attend, in particular, from Russia and former Soviet Union.
Cheers, Yaroslav
On 04/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No one on any of these threads (that I recall) has expressed a fear for their own personal safety. If anyone had, the links at the beginning of the first thread are the place to start - ultimately, your safety is your responsibility and any threats can be mitigated by preparation.
Presumably, those who would fear for their own personal safety, wouldn't plan to attend Wikimania Alexandria. This doesn't mean that these concerns shouldn't be discussed (for the safety of those who do attend, for future Wikimanias, and to dispel unfounded fears). If these fears are unfounded, they can be dismissed through rational discussion. Judging by continuing posts from respected non-troll Wikimedians, it seems these fears have not been dismissed or adequately addressed.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:49 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am divided in this. The second you turn wikimedia conferance to a G8 meeting you fundamentally hurt the goal of 'free encyclopedia'. Then again being blown up to sub-atomic particles isn't exactly helping the goal of free encyclopedia. You can't really let terrorists rule your life. New York is no more 'safe' than Egypt.
Security at the hotels and stuff, now I may agree with that. But I do not wish wikimedia conference itself to become a military base.
- White Cat
The again, not necessarily you will be blownu up to subatomic particles. Of course if you a priori assume it will happen, then your options get narrowed
-drini
No matter how much I prepare myself to defend against being blown into sub-atomic particles, the odds of that happening are significantly higher in Egypt than it is in New York. Preparation can never substitute for poor location.
-Dan On Mar 3, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:49 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am divided in this. The second you turn wikimedia conferance to a G8 meeting you fundamentally hurt the goal of 'free encyclopedia'. Then again being blown up to sub-atomic particles isn't exactly helping the goal of free encyclopedia. You can't really let terrorists rule your life. New York is no more 'safe' than Egypt.
Security at the hotels and stuff, now I may agree with that. But I do not wish wikimedia conference itself to become a military base.
- White Cat
The again, not necessarily you will be blownu up to subatomic particles. Of course if you a priori assume it will happen, then your options get narrowed
-drini
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org