In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:29:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The difference being there was no reason to think those places might be a target more than any other tourist point. If there really is a special threat to wikimania the Egyptian government will take special steps to protect it (ie even more men with guns).
Great headlines: "Troops called out to protect conference participants."
By the way, wasn't Sadat killed at a military parade? I remember all the footage from when it happened, and I seem to recall plenty of men, guns, tanks, APCs, airplanes, etc.
D
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 23/02/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:29:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The difference being there was no reason to think those places might be a target more than any other tourist point. If there really is a special threat to wikimania the Egyptian government will take special steps to protect it (ie even more men with guns).
Great headlines: "Troops called out to protect conference participants."
Police. This is egypt.
By the way, wasn't Sadat killed at a military parade? I remember all the footage from when it happened, and I seem to recall plenty of men, guns, tanks, APCs, airplanes, etc.
D
81? Reagan was fairly lucky to survive that year as well.
Guys, I think the Egypt bashing (whether justified or not) has gotten rather unproductive.
Do any of the people who are concerned about this have any practical suggestions to allay your concerns?
-Robert Rohde
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:29:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The difference being there was no reason to think those places might be a target more than any other tourist point. If there really is a special threat to wikimania the Egyptian government will take special steps to protect it (ie even more men with guns).
Great headlines: "Troops called out to protect conference
participants."
Police. This is egypt.
By the way, wasn't Sadat killed at a military parade? I remember all
the
footage from when it happened, and I seem to recall plenty of men,
guns, tanks,
APCs, airplanes, etc.
D
81? Reagan was fairly lucky to survive that year as well.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, I think the Egypt bashing (whether justified or not) has gotten rather unproductive.
Thank you for making this comment.
-Robert Rohde
Shutting down criticism of Wikimania Egypt is certainly the right solution. A practical suggestion would be to have the foundation pull out of Wikimania Egypt and conduct it in a more appropriate venue, even if it means delaying the conference date.
-Dan On Feb 23, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
Guys, I think the Egypt bashing (whether justified or not) has gotten rather unproductive.
Do any of the people who are concerned about this have any practical suggestions to allay your concerns?
-Robert Rohde
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:29:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The difference being there was no reason to think those places might be a target more than any other tourist point. If there really is a special threat to wikimania the Egyptian government will take special steps to protect it (ie even more men with guns).
Great headlines: "Troops called out to protect conference
participants."
Police. This is egypt.
By the way, wasn't Sadat killed at a military parade? I remember all
the
footage from when it happened, and I seem to recall plenty of men,
guns, tanks,
APCs, airplanes, etc.
D
81? Reagan was fairly lucky to survive that year as well.
-- geni
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
Okay.
I think that Egypt bashing has been going on for a sufficient time now, and I would like to strongly suggest to give it a break NOW.
I feel deep embarassment for all of our Egyptians wikipedians.
I also feel offended for comments such as "Egypt shares very little of the same values than we do". There is no such thing as an opposition between WE and Egypt. Wikipedia is not organized along national governmental lines. We are organized by linguistic lines, and all of our participants share a common vision of "access to knowledge for all", common values of freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality, openness. That is what matters. It should not matter what the political advocacy of our governments are. It should not matter where we come from. It should not matter whether we are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
If you really want to go on discussing such matters, please make the efforts to stay factual, and mostly, *practical*, and to make any efforts to avoid offending other wikipedians.
Second point. Dan, the Foundation will host Wikimania in Egypt next summer. Period. Please stop pushing the idea that we could cancel, delay, move somewhere else. We will not. Yes, there may be some risks, just as there are risks in every place we could have gone to. There are also fabulous opportunities, which will greatly outweight the risks.
Let's face it. We are in a risky business. We are pushing the edges of collaboration. We are currently breaking the business models of famous and rich private companies. We are sometimes hosting diffaming comments on world top leaders. We are provoking establishment. We are fighting huge lobbies. We are attracting weirdoes, losers, and various cyberstalkers. We are confronting censorship. We might even be victims of a fatwa in the future. There are risks in what we are doing, but we stay here because we think it is important and worth taking the risks.
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
Il giorno 23/feb/08, alle ore 22:59, Florence Devouard ha scritto:
Okay.
I think that Egypt bashing has been going on for a sufficient time now, and I would like to strongly suggest to give it a break NOW.
I feel deep embarassment for all of our Egyptians wikipedians.
Yep, but no one seems to feel deep embarassment for all of our Queer Wikipedians. Never felt in the past, it seems (this problem should have been evaluated BEFORE the choose of Alexandria). Nice, hu?
I think that - to remain FACTUAL - using always the "you're making Wikimedia embarassing" is a bit too much "routine".
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our governments are. It should not matter where we come from. It should not matter whether we are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
Or Nazis? Or killers? Or pedophile? Or rapers? What matters is only "freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality"? ONLY?
Yes, there may be some risks, just as there are risks in every place we could have gone to.
Of course. Pizza attacks in Italy. Baguette War in France. Sushi terrorism in Japan. A fall from the stairs in my house.
Doesn't this phrase sound cliché demagogic even to you, Florence?
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
Translations: "If you don't agree with us Board, just take your kick in the ass, and go away. But thanks for writing some articles on wiki."
Cheers, Claudio / Gatto Nero
Il giorno 23/feb/08, alle ore 23:15, Claudio Mastroianni ha scritto:
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our governments are. It should not matter where we come from. It should not matter whether we are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
Or Nazis? Or killers? Or pedophile? Or rapers? What matters is only "freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality"? ONLY?
Just 'cause someone didn't understood the iperbolic tone of this phrase, I specify: * I don't think nazis = gays or muslims = pedophile or newyorker = killers (ok, some newyorkers are killers -> ironic) * I DO think that is _offensive_ for me - as a person, a gay and an intelligent being - to read "no matter if you're gay/women/vegan/X, no matter if someone hurts you or offends you or thinks you're inferior, what matter is neutrality"
Yes, we pursue neutrality. We pursue collaboration. We pursue the condivision of all the informations in the world. But this doesn't mean we have the right to abide/avoid/ignore all the other moral/ethic/civil implication of living in a world.
Thanks.
You're right. It should not matter where we come from, what religion we are, or our sexual orientation. But it does. Ignoring that does nothing, and mistaking concern for nation-bashing is troubling.
As for staying factual, this entire discussion has been remarkably factual, complete with citations and links provided. But making efforts not to offend other wikipedians? I fail to see how historical, factual events should offend other Wikipedians.
I'll drop the issue on one final note: There's a significant difference between being edgy and being reckless. There's a significant difference between assuming a margin of risk that naturally exists, and refusing to confront concerns. There's a significant difference between "shit happens" and failure to plan.
-Dan
On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Okay.
I think that Egypt bashing has been going on for a sufficient time now, and I would like to strongly suggest to give it a break NOW.
I feel deep embarassment for all of our Egyptians wikipedians.
I also feel offended for comments such as "Egypt shares very little of the same values than we do". There is no such thing as an opposition between WE and Egypt. Wikipedia is not organized along national governmental lines. We are organized by linguistic lines, and all of our participants share a common vision of "access to knowledge for all", common values of freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality, openness. That is what matters. It should not matter what the political advocacy of our governments are. It should not matter where we come from. It should not matter whether we are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
If you really want to go on discussing such matters, please make the efforts to stay factual, and mostly, *practical*, and to make any efforts to avoid offending other wikipedians.
Second point. Dan, the Foundation will host Wikimania in Egypt next summer. Period. Please stop pushing the idea that we could cancel, delay, move somewhere else. We will not. Yes, there may be some risks, just as there are risks in every place we could have gone to. There are also fabulous opportunities, which will greatly outweight the risks.
Let's face it. We are in a risky business. We are pushing the edges of collaboration. We are currently breaking the business models of famous and rich private companies. We are sometimes hosting diffaming comments on world top leaders. We are provoking establishment. We are fighting huge lobbies. We are attracting weirdoes, losers, and various cyberstalkers. We are confronting censorship. We might even be victims of a fatwa in the future. There are risks in what we are doing, but we stay here because we think it is important and worth taking the risks.
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree. While we shouldn't be outright saying "We MUST cancel Wikimania and relocate," we definitely as a community (and with outside professional help, this is beyond all of us), need to decide if Alexandria is a location that is still feasible given the recent tension in the area. This needs to look at all aspects, including race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Wikimedians are diverse, and diversity tends to attract attention. We just want to make sure that attention is positive and supportive, not negative and potentially threatening.
I probably won't be attending anyway (I would love to, but I can't swing the money for a trip to Egypt this year), but I still actively care for the safety of my fellow Wikipedians. I think discussion on the issue should remain open until things become more clear and we begin to learn more about the situation. Basically, let's wait and watch.
Always, Chad
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
You're right. It should not matter where we come from, what religion we are, or our sexual orientation. But it does. Ignoring that does nothing, and mistaking concern for nation-bashing is troubling.
As for staying factual, this entire discussion has been remarkably factual, complete with citations and links provided. But making efforts not to offend other wikipedians? I fail to see how historical, factual events should offend other Wikipedians.
I'll drop the issue on one final note: There's a significant difference between being edgy and being reckless. There's a significant difference between assuming a margin of risk that naturally exists, and refusing to confront concerns. There's a significant difference between "shit happens" and failure to plan.
-Dan
On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Okay.
I think that Egypt bashing has been going on for a sufficient time now, and I would like to strongly suggest to give it a break NOW.
I feel deep embarassment for all of our Egyptians wikipedians.
I also feel offended for comments such as "Egypt shares very little of the same values than we do". There is no such thing as an opposition between WE and Egypt. Wikipedia is not organized along national governmental lines. We are organized by linguistic lines, and all of our participants share a common vision of "access to knowledge for all", common values of freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality, openness. That is what matters. It should not matter what the political advocacy of our governments are. It should not matter where we come from. It should not matter whether we are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
If you really want to go on discussing such matters, please make the efforts to stay factual, and mostly, *practical*, and to make any efforts to avoid offending other wikipedians.
Second point. Dan, the Foundation will host Wikimania in Egypt next summer. Period. Please stop pushing the idea that we could cancel, delay, move somewhere else. We will not. Yes, there may be some risks, just as there are risks in every place we could have gone to. There are also fabulous opportunities, which will greatly outweight the risks.
Let's face it. We are in a risky business. We are pushing the edges of collaboration. We are currently breaking the business models of famous and rich private companies. We are sometimes hosting diffaming comments on world top leaders. We are provoking establishment. We are fighting huge lobbies. We are attracting weirdoes, losers, and various cyberstalkers. We are confronting censorship. We might even be victims of a fatwa in the future. There are risks in what we are doing, but we stay here because we think it is important and worth taking the risks.
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
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 second that,
It seems that there has been some confusion with the purpose of this panlist, which is to engender positive discussion and create change and policy to be implemented within wikimedia, not poke fun or joke about matters which are not only inappropriate, but hurtful and unfair. This list was created for a set of specific reasons, and flooding the panlists inboxes with worthless ideas and prejudiced speech is not one of them. Carefully construct your responses; this is not a blog, bring constructive comments that you can back up with more than hearsay. How are we supposed to induce positive change when so many ill-founded ideas and opinions are all circling around the same topics? Perhaps I'm being ignorant in my view for the wikimedia project or perhaps my ignorance just extends to the purpose of this list, but I thought that those qualified enough to post on the mailing list would at least offer more than what they've heard from a friend or read in an article or two.
Best, Aki On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Okay.
I think that Egypt bashing has been going on for a sufficient time now, and I would like to strongly suggest to give it a break NOW.
I feel deep embarassment for all of our Egyptians wikipedians.
I also feel offended for comments such as "Egypt shares very little of the same values than we do". There is no such thing as an opposition between WE and Egypt. Wikipedia is not organized along national governmental lines. We are organized by linguistic lines, and all of our participants share a common vision of "access to knowledge for all", common values of freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality, openness. That is what matters. It should not matter what the political advocacy of our governments are. It should not matter where we come from. It should not matter whether we are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
If you really want to go on discussing such matters, please make the efforts to stay factual, and mostly, *practical*, and to make any efforts to avoid offending other wikipedians.
Second point. Dan, the Foundation will host Wikimania in Egypt next summer. Period. Please stop pushing the idea that we could cancel, delay, move somewhere else. We will not. Yes, there may be some risks, just as there are risks in every place we could have gone to. There are also fabulous opportunities, which will greatly outweight the risks.
Let's face it. We are in a risky business. We are pushing the edges of collaboration. We are currently breaking the business models of famous and rich private companies. We are sometimes hosting diffaming comments on world top leaders. We are provoking establishment. We are fighting huge lobbies. We are attracting weirdoes, losers, and various cyberstalkers. We are confronting censorship. We might even be victims of a fatwa in the future. There are risks in what we are doing, but we stay here because we think it is important and worth taking the risks.
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 23/02/2008, George Aki Nikolaidis george.nikolaidis@yale.edu wrote:
It seems that there has been some confusion with the purpose of this panlist, which is to engender positive discussion and create change and policy to be implemented within wikimedia, not poke fun or joke about matters which are not only inappropriate, but hurtful and unfair.
And never mind if they're true, relevant and imminent dangers. The lack of the points raised actually being addressed at all (particularly by the Egyptian organisers) has also been noted.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/2008, Florence Devouard wrote:
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our
governments are.
It should not matter where we come from. It should not
matter whether we
are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
As far as I know, where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion doesn't matter to us. Wikimedia has no restrictions on who can edit based on any group that they belong to. There hasn't been any suggestion that this should or will change.
The concern is that there are places in the world which, due to the national government it falls under, care about where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion (or lack thereof).
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Oldak Quill wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/2008, Florence Devouard wrote:
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our
governments are.
It should not matter where we come from. It should not
matter whether we
are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
As far as I know, where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion doesn't matter to us. Wikimedia has no restrictions on who can edit based on any group that they belong to. There hasn't been any suggestion that this should or will change.
The concern is that there are places in the world which, due to the national government it falls under, care about where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion (or lack thereof).
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
This was not my point at all. A previous editor made it a point to oppose US (wikipedians) to Egypt, insisting that Egypt government did not share our values, and giving it as an argument for wikimania not to be held in Egypt.
I am not convinced at all China government shares our values. I am not convinced either France government shares our values. I am not even convinced the USA government shares our values.
If we start giving as arguments for not going somewhere, the fact the government does not share our values, then we will not ever go somewhere.
I can perfectly realize that some countries are not as respectful than others about differences between people. That does not mean I think we should accept divisions of groups of people per countries within our community.
Florence:
I'm going to say it one last time: please do not dismiss potential concerns simply because we're "Neutral." Many people have claimed neutrality before and it's burned them. Belgium before World War II being a notable example.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that any of the non-Western governments give a crap about NPOV. You can say "But it's educational and we don't decide editorially what to put in en.wiki" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the way it's perceived. And, unfortunately, it currently looks to portions of the Islamic world that the WMF is dismissing complaints made due to a difference in religious ideology.
Just imagine the PR from the headlines "Wikimania contributors gunned down by Islamic extremists." Now, I'm not wishing this on anyone, nor do I hope we ever have to discuss the fallout from such a situation, but there are places in the world where the actions taken by some people can create headlines such as this.
The board would be wise to properly investigate the security situation in Egypt or potentially face the risk of having done nothing and then having to cope with the fallout because of that. I believe most Wikimedians would be fine with a canceled, postponed or relocated Wikimania if it meant they'd all be a bit safer.
For the community, Chad
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/2008, Florence Devouard wrote:
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our
governments are.
It should not matter where we come from. It should not
matter whether we
are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
As far as I know, where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion doesn't matter to us. Wikimedia has no restrictions on who can edit based on any group that they belong to. There hasn't been any suggestion that this should or will change.
The concern is that there are places in the world which, due to the national government it falls under, care about where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion (or lack thereof).
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
This was not my point at all. A previous editor made it a point to oppose US (wikipedians) to Egypt, insisting that Egypt government did not share our values, and giving it as an argument for wikimania not to be held in Egypt.
I am not convinced at all China government shares our values. I am not convinced either France government shares our values. I am not even convinced the USA government shares our values.
If we start giving as arguments for not going somewhere, the fact the government does not share our values, then we will not ever go somewhere.
I can perfectly realize that some countries are not as respectful than others about differences between people. That does not mean I think we should accept divisions of groups of people per countries within our community.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nod. I'll add that to the board+Sue discussion next week end, and see that this be addressed.
Ant
Chad wrote:
Florence:
I'm going to say it one last time: please do not dismiss potential concerns simply because we're "Neutral." Many people have claimed neutrality before and it's burned them. Belgium before World War II being a notable example.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that any of the non-Western governments give a crap about NPOV. You can say "But it's educational and we don't decide editorially what to put in en.wiki" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the way it's perceived. And, unfortunately, it currently looks to portions of the Islamic world that the WMF is dismissing complaints made due to a difference in religious ideology.
Just imagine the PR from the headlines "Wikimania contributors gunned down by Islamic extremists." Now, I'm not wishing this on anyone, nor do I hope we ever have to discuss the fallout from such a situation, but there are places in the world where the actions taken by some people can create headlines such as this.
The board would be wise to properly investigate the security situation in Egypt or potentially face the risk of having done nothing and then having to cope with the fallout because of that. I believe most Wikimedians would be fine with a canceled, postponed or relocated Wikimania if it meant they'd all be a bit safer.
For the community, Chad
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/2008, Florence Devouard wrote:
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our
governments are.
It should not matter where we come from. It should not
matter whether we
are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
As far as I know, where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion doesn't matter to us. Wikimedia has no restrictions on who can edit based on any group that they belong to. There hasn't been any suggestion that this should or will change.
The concern is that there are places in the world which, due to the national government it falls under, care about where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion (or lack thereof).
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
This was not my point at all. A previous editor made it a point to oppose US (wikipedians) to Egypt, insisting that Egypt government did not share our values, and giving it as an argument for wikimania not to be held in Egypt.
I am not convinced at all China government shares our values. I am not convinced either France government shares our values. I am not even convinced the USA government shares our values.
If we start giving as arguments for not going somewhere, the fact the government does not share our values, then we will not ever go somewhere.
I can perfectly realize that some countries are not as respectful than others about differences between people. That does not mean I think we should accept divisions of groups of people per countries within our community.
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
Thank you Florence.
-Dan On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Nod. I'll add that to the board+Sue discussion next week end, and see that this be addressed.
Ant
Chad wrote:
Florence:
I'm going to say it one last time: please do not dismiss potential concerns simply because we're "Neutral." Many people have claimed neutrality before and it's burned them. Belgium before World War II being a notable example.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that any of the non-Western governments give a crap about NPOV. You can say "But it's educational and we don't decide editorially what to put in en.wiki" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the way it's perceived. And, unfortunately, it currently looks to portions of the Islamic world that the WMF is dismissing complaints made due to a difference in religious ideology.
Just imagine the PR from the headlines "Wikimania contributors gunned down by Islamic extremists." Now, I'm not wishing this on anyone, nor do I hope we ever have to discuss the fallout from such a situation, but there are places in the world where the actions taken by some people can create headlines such as this.
The board would be wise to properly investigate the security situation in Egypt or potentially face the risk of having done nothing and then having to cope with the fallout because of that. I believe most Wikimedians would be fine with a canceled, postponed or relocated Wikimania if it meant they'd all be a bit safer.
For the community, Chad
Thank you as well. I hope that good will come of those discussions and the appropriate action is taken as a result.
-Chad
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Florence.
-Dan
On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Nod. I'll add that to the board+Sue discussion next week end, and see that this be addressed.
Ant
Chad wrote:
Florence:
I'm going to say it one last time: please do not dismiss potential concerns simply because we're "Neutral." Many people have claimed neutrality before and it's burned them. Belgium before World War II being a notable example.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that any of the non-Western governments give a crap about NPOV. You can say "But it's educational and we don't decide editorially what to put in en.wiki" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the way it's perceived. And, unfortunately, it currently looks to portions of the Islamic world that the WMF is dismissing complaints made due to a difference in religious ideology.
Just imagine the PR from the headlines "Wikimania contributors gunned down by Islamic extremists." Now, I'm not wishing this on anyone, nor do I hope we ever have to discuss the fallout from such a situation, but there are places in the world where the actions taken by some people can create headlines such as this.
The board would be wise to properly investigate the security situation in Egypt or potentially face the risk of having done nothing and then having to cope with the fallout because of that. I believe most Wikimedians would be fine with a canceled, postponed or relocated Wikimania if it meant they'd all be a bit safer.
For the community, Chad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Chad,
Not even that bad of a scenario, what about waking up to the New York Times headline: "Egypt Bans Wikipedia Convention Over Muhammad Pics Controversy"? What happens then to the various plane tickets, hotel reservations, scholarships given out, etc? What about the press furor that will come over that? Or what if it's "Egypt Police Arrest Wikipedia Convention Gays?" How do we assist the arrested wikimanians? Do we condemn the actions? How do we protect the remaining Wikimanians in that event? Or "Wikipedia Convention in Egypt Marked by Protests Against Jews"? What are the contingency plans? What is the press response? What are the answers to any of dozens of important questions that need to be asked about these very real potential threats?
These are important concerns that need to be discussed and should not be dismissed as anti-egyptian rhetoric, or dealt with by threats of moderation. This is the signal that's being lost in idle noise about theoretical Wikimania Icelands. More importantly, we shouldn't be condemned for being concerned with the safety of our fellow Wikimedians instead of blase dismissals.
This is the debate we tried to have months ago during the Wikimania bid, and it was ignored by the Alexandria team, just as it's been ignored now. I want to know: Has the Alexandria team thought about the possibility of these events? What actions do they intend to take? What risk do they think there is of these events happening? What do they have to say about the US, UK, and Australian government's travel advisories about Wikimania? Have they made plans already for police protection from protestors? If not, what plans have they made?
These (and more) are questions that I want to see answered by whoever is in charge of setting up Wikimania.
-Dan
PS: for those of you who have problems with my views on this topic, consider actually discussing them with me privately. "Tattling" went out of style in grade school.
On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Chad wrote:
Florence:
I'm going to say it one last time: please do not dismiss potential concerns simply because we're "Neutral." Many people have claimed neutrality before and it's burned them. Belgium before World War II being a notable example.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that any of the non-Western governments give a crap about NPOV. You can say "But it's educational and we don't decide editorially what to put in en.wiki" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the way it's perceived. And, unfortunately, it currently looks to portions of the Islamic world that the WMF is dismissing complaints made due to a difference in religious ideology.
Just imagine the PR from the headlines "Wikimania contributors gunned down by Islamic extremists." Now, I'm not wishing this on anyone, nor do I hope we ever have to discuss the fallout from such a situation, but there are places in the world where the actions taken by some people can create headlines such as this.
The board would be wise to properly investigate the security situation in Egypt or potentially face the risk of having done nothing and then having to cope with the fallout because of that. I believe most Wikimedians would be fine with a canceled, postponed or relocated Wikimania if it meant they'd all be a bit safer.
For the community, Chad
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/2008, Florence Devouard wrote:
It should not matter what the political advocacy of our
governments are.
It should not matter where we come from. It should not
matter whether we
are gays, or muslims, or newyorkers.
As far as I know, where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion doesn't matter to us. Wikimedia has no restrictions on who can edit based on any group that they belong to. There hasn't been any suggestion that this should or will change.
The concern is that there are places in the world which, due to the national government it falls under, care about where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion (or lack thereof).
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
This was not my point at all. A previous editor made it a point to oppose US (wikipedians) to Egypt, insisting that Egypt government did not share our values, and giving it as an argument for wikimania not to be held in Egypt.
I am not convinced at all China government shares our values. I am not convinced either France government shares our values. I am not even convinced the USA government shares our values.
If we start giving as arguments for not going somewhere, the fact the government does not share our values, then we will not ever go somewhere.
I can perfectly realize that some countries are not as respectful than others about differences between people. That does not mean I think we should accept divisions of groups of people per countries within our community.
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
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
Probably the most important sentiment here. Although I strongly disagree with WMF holding Wikimania in Alexandria, I have to agree with Florence that there will be other Wikimanias in the future, and it is time to put these issues behind us for now.
Yes, perhaps the selection did not give enough weight to certain issues. Yes, Egypt is not the most safe country for certain groups of people, of which I count myself a member of several.
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Mark
For unclear reasons my reply below was blocked. I am thus re-sending it.
Mark Williamson wrote:
If you are afraid, just do not act. If you fear terrorism in Egypt, just do not come. We'll meet in other places, at other times. There is nothing wrong in being afraid, but respect the fact others may have other fears and other priorities than you. There will be other wikimanias as well. There is a long future in front of you.
Probably the most important sentiment here. Although I strongly disagree with WMF holding Wikimania in Alexandria, I have to agree with Florence that there will be other Wikimanias in the future, and it is time to put these issues behind us for now.
Yes, perhaps the selection did not give enough weight to certain issues. Yes, Egypt is not the most safe country for certain groups of people, of which I count myself a member of several.
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Ec
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining about their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply "irrealistic". Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
Is this respect?
I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this all concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been pushed aside is inappropriate at best.
Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue, people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for their safety and address it in detail.
Mark
On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining about their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply "irrealistic". Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
Is this respect?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark,
I thought about it, and given that at least Florence is aware of our concerns now, there's probably not a whole lot more to discuss about this until after the board meeting (or rather, after the board meeting's results are published/announced). My hope is that they will discuss it there, and it will address your final sentence ("IF and WHEN..."), and we can resume the discussion then more productively. I believe the board meeting is this weekend? So most likely we will see some sort of announcement during the week immediately subsequent.
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this all concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been pushed aside is inappropriate at best.
Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue, people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for their safety and address it in detail.
Mark
On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining about their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply "irrealistic". Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
Is this respect?
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
Meeting is saturday. But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why.
As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is the role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the difference to the community.
I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the fan circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in the educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost free even for the WMF."
Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and probably that security of participants is taken care of.
Right now, two situations may happen. The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever... Or the board might wonder if there might be problems.
If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is for the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given the latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally, the analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many parties.
Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide some recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself, or the board will take a decision *with* Sue.
So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they consider new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either dismiss the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue.
THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any suggestion in 2-3 days.
I'll forward this email to the board :-)
Thanks
Ant
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Mark,
I thought about it, and given that at least Florence is aware of our concerns now, there's probably not a whole lot more to discuss about this until after the board meeting (or rather, after the board meeting's results are published/announced). My hope is that they will discuss it there, and it will address your final sentence ("IF and WHEN..."), and we can resume the discussion then more productively. I believe the board meeting is this weekend? So most likely we will see some sort of announcement during the week immediately subsequent.
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this all concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been pushed aside is inappropriate at best.
Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue, people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for their safety and address it in detail.
Mark
On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining about their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply "irrealistic". Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
Is this respect?
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
Il giorno 26/feb/08, alle ore 17:45, Florence Devouard ha scritto:
Meeting is saturday. But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why.
As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is the role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the difference to the community.
I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the fan circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in the educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost free even for the WMF."
Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and probably that security of participants is taken care of.
Right now, two situations may happen. The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever... Or the board might wonder if there might be problems.
If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is for the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given the latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally, the analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many parties.
Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide some recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself, or the board will take a decision *with* Sue.
So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they consider new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either dismiss the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue.
THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any suggestion in 2-3 days.
A process ending in September? Question: WHY didn't the Wikimania Grand Chooser Committee considered all those problems _before_? They were clearly foreseenable. This is the same problem, every year: the choose in unexplicable.
GN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 26/02/2008, Claudio Mastroianni wrote:
Il giorno 26/feb/08, alle ore 17:45, Florence Devouard ha scritto:
Meeting is saturday. But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why.
As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is the role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the difference to the community.
I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the fan circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in the educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost free even for the WMF."
Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and probably that security of participants is taken care of.
Right now, two situations may happen. The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever... Or the board might wonder if there might be problems.
If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is for the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given the latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally, the analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many parties.
Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide some recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself, or the board will take a decision *with* Sue.
So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they consider new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either dismiss the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue.
THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any suggestion in 2-3 days.
A process ending in September? Question: WHY didn't the Wikimania Grand Chooser Committee considered all those problems _before_? They were clearly foreseenable. This is the same problem, every year: the choose in unexplicable.
I had taken the 'new circumstances' that Florence talked about to refer to the images of Muhammad's face, rather than the issues relating to the safety of homosexuals or women... [Yes, those latter issues were foreseeable.]
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On 26/02/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I had taken the 'new circumstances' that Florence talked about to refer to the images of Muhammad's face, rather than the issues relating to the safety of homosexuals or women... [Yes, those latter issues were foreseeable.]
And Jews (given the demonstrators blaming Jews for the cartoons).
- d.
Florence,
I guess I wasn't clear with what I was saying, because what you're describing is exactly what I was talking about.
The board meets this saturday. Hypothetically, they vote for Sue to investigate. I was referring to the board announcing to this list that they have voted for Sue to investigate. Obviously, such an investigation would take time. Typically you or someone else makes an announcement shortly after a board meeting as to what was discussed at the board meeting. So hypothetically, the meeting is Sat. and then say Wed. someone posts to this list what the results of that meeting were (for everything, not just Wikimania, but all issues the board is going to discuss this weekend).
Does that make more sense?
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Meeting is saturday. But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why.
As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is the role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the difference to the community.
I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the fan circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in the educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost free even for the WMF."
Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and probably that security of participants is taken care of.
Right now, two situations may happen. The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever... Or the board might wonder if there might be problems.
If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is for the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given the latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally, the analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many parties.
Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide some recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself, or the board will take a decision *with* Sue.
So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they consider new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either dismiss the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue.
THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any suggestion in 2-3 days.
I'll forward this email to the board :-)
Thanks
Ant
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Mark,
I thought about it, and given that at least Florence is aware of our concerns now, there's probably not a whole lot more to discuss about this until after the board meeting (or rather, after the board meeting's results are published/announced). My hope is that they will discuss it there, and it will address your final sentence ("IF and WHEN..."), and we can resume the discussion then more productively. I believe the board meeting is this weekend? So most likely we will see some sort of announcement during the week immediately subsequent.
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this all concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been pushed aside is inappropriate at best.
Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue, people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for their safety and address it in detail.
Mark
On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the benefits for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will have to make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next year, or the one after that.
Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining about their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply "irrealistic". Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
Is this respect?
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Florence,
I guess I wasn't clear with what I was saying, because what you're describing is exactly what I was talking about.
The board meets this saturday. Hypothetically, they vote for Sue to investigate. I was referring to the board announcing to this list that they have voted for Sue to investigate. Obviously, such an investigation would take time. Typically you or someone else makes an announcement shortly after a board meeting as to what was discussed at the board meeting. So hypothetically, the meeting is Sat. and then say Wed. someone posts to this list what the results of that meeting were (for everything, not just Wikimania, but all issues the board is going to discuss this weekend).
Does that make more sense?
Yup :-)
ant
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Meeting is saturday. But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why.
As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is the role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the difference to the community.
I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the fan circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in the educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost free even for the WMF."
Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and probably that security of participants is taken care of.
Right now, two situations may happen. The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever... Or the board might wonder if there might be problems.
If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is for the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given the latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally, the analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many parties.
Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide some recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself, or the board will take a decision *with* Sue.
So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they consider new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either dismiss the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue.
THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any suggestion in 2-3 days.
I'll forward this email to the board :-)
Thanks
Ant
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Mark,
I thought about it, and given that at least Florence is aware of our concerns now, there's probably not a whole lot more to discuss about this until after the board meeting (or rather, after the board meeting's results are published/announced). My hope is that they will discuss it there, and it will address your final sentence ("IF and WHEN..."), and we can resume the discussion then more productively. I believe the board meeting is this weekend? So most likely we will see some sort of announcement during the week immediately subsequent.
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this all concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been pushed aside is inappropriate at best.
Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue, people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for their safety and address it in detail.
Mark
On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
> So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the > benefits > for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will > have to > make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next > year, or > the one after that. Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining about their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply "irrealistic". Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
Is this respect?
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
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 Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
For unclear reasons my reply below was blocked. I am thus re-sending it.
I did killfile this thread, as it any utility it had as a constructive discussion had long since ended. Many of the lingering posts were, frankly, offensive.
If you'd like to address the criteria for selecting the Wikimania venue, please bring it up constructively in a separate thread, preferably on wikimania-l. As Ray says, condemning a decision made well in the past is, if anything, counterproductive to the current team's organization efforts.
Austin
Let's be clear: you killfiled a thread critical of the foundation, that was ongoing and was at present constructive and unoffensive (with any nastiness long since past), that was being responded to by Florence, and was relevant to this list. This is the kind of heavy- handed moderation that brings up allegations of censorship. Please be more hands-off and not step in with moderation when there is no problem.
-Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
For unclear reasons my reply below was blocked. I am thus re- sending it.
I did killfile this thread, as it any utility it had as a constructive discussion had long since ended. Many of the lingering posts were, frankly, offensive.
If you'd like to address the criteria for selecting the Wikimania venue, please bring it up constructively in a separate thread, preferably on wikimania-l. As Ray says, condemning a decision made well in the past is, if anything, counterproductive to the current team's organization efforts.
Austin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 26/02/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Let's be clear: you killfiled a thread critical of the foundation, that was ongoing and was at present constructive and unoffensive (with any nastiness long since past), that was being responded to by Florence, and was relevant to this list. This is the kind of heavy- handed moderation that brings up allegations of censorship. Please be more hands-off and not step in with moderation when there is no problem.
-Dan
On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
For unclear reasons my reply below was blocked. I am thus re- sending it.
I did killfile this thread, as it any utility it had as a constructive discussion had long since ended. Many of the lingering posts were, frankly, offensive.
If you'd like to address the criteria for selecting the Wikimania venue, please bring it up constructively in a separate thread, preferably on wikimania-l. As Ray says, condemning a decision made well in the past is, if anything, counterproductive to the current team's organization efforts.
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
Il giorno 27/feb/08, alle ore 00:51, Oldak Quill ha scritto:
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 27/feb/08, alle ore 00:51, Oldak Quill ha scritto:
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
This is a baseless insinuation. As Austin already pointed out somewhere else, we are not appointed by the board and we are not hear to defend the board from criticism. Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion. Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil.
Michael
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
This is a baseless insinuation.
This is a fact. Some of us expressed some concerns. We've been defined: * troll * illogic Just to repeat the first two adjectives we've been called. All has been said is: "If you have problem, just don't come". And then moderation (without telling it before, if I remember). It's a baseless insinuation? I think it's a sad picture.
Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion.
Until they're not "illogic" or "troll" (translation: every time they have a different or problematic opinion).
Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil.
The problem is the definition of "incivil". It's a "Whatever" as an answer to some concerns "incivility"? I think so.
But maybe I'm talking too much, Gatto Nero
I have to agree, it seems a broad net is being cast here for trolls.
Saying that Egypt may be / is unsafe for LGBTQQA populations is not trolling. Saying it over and over is not necessarily trolling if one genuinely feels one is being ignored. If you feel your voice is being heard, but you say it over and over anyhow, that would certainly be trolling after a point, but I am going to assume good faith (although in real life, I often see my fellow gay men provoke drama seemingly on purpose, we are all Wikimedians and I would have to hope that we would adhere to a higher standard of conduct here), and guess that people who repeat themselves and their arguments are feeling that they have not been heard.
As citizens of our countries, LGBTQ people (not Questioning or Allies, at least not usually I would think) are used to being treated like second-class citizens in many ways. What ways, depends on the country:
1 (worst) In <s>some</s>many countries, those of us who are sexually active, whether or not it is within a committed relationship, are actively or passively sought out and imprisioned or put to death by the very governments that are supposed to protect our rights. 2 In <s>some</s>most countries, including those with some of the highest rates of HIV and STIs in the entire world, health programs and promotions pretend that we do not exist. This is not only irresponsible in a public health arena where bisexual men who are active MSMs may, have, and will continue to spread infection to women and the "heterosexual community", but it is against the rights of the LGBTQ population to receive equal treatment by their governments. 3 In almost every country on this planet, it is legal for our employers to fire us, and for prospective employers to decide not to hire us because of our sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people assume that this would apply mostly to people who are "obvious", or who "shout it out", but even people who are careful and discreet may be, have been, and will be fired over simple rumors with no legal or other recourse. 4 Only a handful of countries worldwide allow same-sex couples to get the same benefits (tax breaks, insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, coparenting, property rights) as opposite-sex couples. That we should be able to marry any one legal adult we want, with full informed consent from both parties, is a fundamental human right. 5 In many countries, we can be imprisoned for perceived behaviors such as a glance, hitting on someone, or flirting, although this is rarely written into the legal code. 6 In many countries, the majority heterosexual community has formed mobs and committed various acts of violence against members of our communities while the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it. Again, public safety should cover all individuals, not just heterosexual and cisgendered individuals. Public safety is a basic right that governments are to provide to all citizens on an equal basis, as much as possible. 7 Our rights have only universally been protected historically in communities where we form the majority or a very significantly large minority, such as the American state of Vermont, the cities of West Hollywood, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, West Palm Beach, and the Québecois city of Montréal.
Now, in this organization, the Wikimedia foundation, we have large numbers. We are significant numerically, not just as human beings. If you go to the page on Meta that lists which Wikimedians are GLBTQQA, you will find that some of your most respected Wikimedians are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, and allied.
These people have had employment positions within the Foundation itself, if there haven't been any on the board.
I am not going to name names as I personally believe that to be disrespectful even though we are talking about "out" people here, I will leave it to you to check for yourself who our Queer Wikimedians are, or for them to come out of the woodwork to discuss it here.
Here, Gatto Nero, one of the most respected Italian Wikimedians, has come forward to stand up for our rights. I have found many people in this thread who said they were gay, that I didn't know to be gay.
It has come as a shock to us that such a decision as the one about the location of this Wikimania could be passed down with such little consideration of our safety.
As I have said, this seems unlikely to change now, and as we say in my family there is no use crying over spilt milk.
That does not mean that we can't have a useful dialogue. In fact, that is something we MUST do if we want to keep the respect of our GLBTQQA Wikimedians (myself included, and I would hope that most Wikimedians include themselves in the Allies category represented by the "A" - it is important to recognize that statistically, nearly every person on this planet has a friend or family member who is attracted primarily to same-gendered individuals, no matter what culture they belong to).
The dialog should use an outline something like this:
1) Is Al-Iskandariyya safe for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, and allied Wikimedians? a) Will they be safe if they "don't flaunt it"? i) Is the suggestion that they are flaunting it disrespectful? (answer is yes) ii) Is it reasonable to ask that people pretend to be someone they are not so that they may attend this conference? b) How can we ensure that GLBTQQA participants are safe, happy, and allowed to be themselves in the conference and in the city? i) Are there any behaviors in which they will be unable to engage that they could reasonably be allowed to engage in in their home countries related to their sexual orientation? ii) What are some possible warnings that should be circulated to GLBTQQA individuals who plan on attending? 2) What are some issues with the planning process that we must address before next year? a) Planning process problems and solutions b) Selection process problems and solutions 3) How can we make sure that GLBTQQA Wikimedians are not just "tolerated", but accepted and welcomed with open arms, and protected as they deserve as human beings at conferences, and all other Wikimedia-related events and in every Wikimedia arena? 4) Review who within our organization identifies as other than heterosexual and cisgendered, and what the probable consequences would be if we were to lose them from the organization. This would be to demonstrate that GLBTQQA Wikimedians form a very important part of this organization and that we cannot operate reasonably without them on any level. 5) How do GLBTQQA persons relate to our mission of knowledge? How are the fundamental rights to knowledge different from and similar to the fundamental rights to being ourselves? a) The right to knowledge differs from the right to self expression and the right to safety and liberty... b) The rights are similar in that... 6) How are the struggles of the WMF for disemination of knowledge similar to the struggles of GLBTQQA individuals and groups around the world for recognition as human beings, as well as for the struggles of other subordinate groups around the world for similar recognition (women in patriarchal societies, African Americans in the US, Ainu in Northern Japan, minorities in Spain, pretos in Brazil, Copts in post-Conquest Egypt, Aboriginal Australians in Australia... one from each continent there) 7) Would it be a good idea to have some sort of GLBTQQA advisory committee within the framework of the foundation? Even having a single individual who identifies as LGBTQ to be able to observe all foundation decisions and to comment when they feel the discussion is relevant to our community would be sufficient. If we do this, similar problems could be avoided in the future.
Mark
On 27/02/2008, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
This is a baseless insinuation.
This is a fact. Some of us expressed some concerns. We've been defined:
- troll
- illogic
Just to repeat the first two adjectives we've been called. All has been said is: "If you have problem, just don't come". And then moderation (without telling it before, if I remember). It's a baseless insinuation? I think it's a sad picture.
Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion.
Until they're not "illogic" or "troll" (translation: every time they have a different or problematic opinion).
Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil.
The problem is the definition of "incivil". It's a "Whatever" as an answer to some concerns "incivility"? I think so.
But maybe I'm talking too much,
Gatto Nero
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account. If a significant portion of our community will be unsafe at a particular Wikimania location, then the location should be changed (or should not have been selected in the first place). I don't know, personally, if this is the case in Egypt - although I accept that many have expressed on this list that this is a fact.
I disagree with Mark's belief that no accomodation should be made to foreign cultures when we visit - I think it is reasonable to accept that not all cultures view things the same way, and that some degree of relativism is required in this regard. That isn't the same thing as agreeing with these cultural principles, its simply a matter of respect for traditions based on a different history. This applies to instances of public behavior - e.g. the veil requirement for women in Saudi Arabia. Private behavior is different, but again it is reasonable to expect that accomodations must be made. Safety, of course, is exempt from accommodation - no one can be expected to participate in an event where their safety is compromised simply because of who they are.
Having said the above, if a difficult and objectionable accommodation must be made by many community members simply in order to participate in Wikimania... I submit that the location selection was in error, and future selections should settle on Wikimania locations that do not require many of our colleagues to act in a way they find uncomfortable.
Nathan
You're assuming that - I am probably the biggest proponent of cultural relativism on this list when it comes to anything, even polygamy, cannibalism, female circumcision, and more - as long as nobody is infringing upon anybody else's fundamental human right, that to life.
I am a believer in both cultural relativism and human rights. That's a difficult balance to strike. But needless to say, while I think we should certainly not be telling Egyptians how to live or even how to run their government, I do not think we should be saying "It's okay that they are infringing upon peoples' human rights because that is part of their culture". Infringing upon human rights is not part of any human culture.
My basis for this idea is the following: in every large human culture, there are people who believe in the modern concept of human rights. These people are not necessarily westernized, in fact they are often entirely indigenous movements, such as some of those advocating an end to forced female circumcision (= requiring consent of girls and women to perform the ritual, something that is overlooked in certain cultures where it is present). Many GLBT rights groups are partly indigenous movements as well. In fact, the Conference of African Lesbians met today in Mozambique.
Mark
On 28/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account. If a significant portion of our community will be unsafe at a particular Wikimania location, then the location should be changed (or should not have been selected in the first place). I don't know, personally, if this is the case in Egypt - although I accept that many have expressed on this list that this is a fact.
I disagree with Mark's belief that no accomodation should be made to foreign cultures when we visit - I think it is reasonable to accept that not all cultures view things the same way, and that some degree of relativism is required in this regard. That isn't the same thing as agreeing with these cultural principles, its simply a matter of respect for traditions based on a different history. This applies to instances of public behavior - e.g. the veil requirement for women in Saudi Arabia. Private behavior is different, but again it is reasonable to expect that accomodations must be made. Safety, of course, is exempt from accommodation - no one can be expected to participate in an event where their safety is compromised simply because of who they are.
Having said the above, if a difficult and objectionable accommodation must be made by many community members simply in order to participate in Wikimania... I submit that the location selection was in error, and future selections should settle on Wikimania locations that do not require many of our colleagues to act in a way they find uncomfortable.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let's be clear: the jury certainly did not pick Alexandria simply because we felt that we wanted to make the conference accessible to a group of editors that had been excluded from attending in the past. But it is worth remembering that previous locales have not always been entirely friendly to all members of our global community -- explicitly so, because of governmental policies on who can be allowed in the country and under what conditions -- and that terms like "freedom" and "accessibility" can mean very different things depending on one's location in the world.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear. I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it. I do wonder what constructive suggestions can be made for future conference venues, considering a community that spans most cultures and countries on earth, unfortunate governments that are prone to restricting travel, and a generally unsafe (if usually interesting) world.
-- phoebe
Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past? Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa problems. It's not our fault.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear.
Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in place where freedom doesn't exist").
I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come. And thanks for the contributions,cheers.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it.
What? "Personally discriminated"? That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the complainers.
I think you misread the "personally discriminated" line -- it seemed like florence was using that wording to specifically acknowledge the extent of the problem, not to diminish it.
That said, it seems pretty clear that the location was sort of agreed on backroom-style because of the symbolism of alexandria's library.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past? Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa problems. It's not our fault.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear.
Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in place where freedom doesn't exist").
I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come. And thanks for the contributions,cheers.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it.
What? "Personally discriminated"? That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the complainers.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Also, you guys (I mean the foundation members) have been handling all this pretty badly. It should have been obvious from the moment alexandria was chosen and a huge row erupted over gay safety in egypt that this was an issue that would need continuing attention -- as in, you need to honestly understand people's concerns* and look for practical solutions. A straightforward knowledge base mapping out egyptian society, religion, politics and culture would be a good place to start.
Seriously. Do you not understand why swatjester's pissed off? There are protesters in s. egypt decrying "the jews". If we had a better understanding of egyptian culture, someone could say to him "look, those protesters are at a conservative university, they don't represent broader egyptian society". (Or, conversely, maybe they do. I don't know because nobody's researching.) There's a major vacuum here that needs to be filled with knowledge and advice. Basically, pull your socks up, get to work, and stop worrying about the way threads play out on a bloody mailing list. This is a problem you have to fix with real actions, not debate.
Here's a recent in depth article about youth culture and islam in egypt. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/world/middleeast/17youth.html?scp=17&s... It contains about 100 times more light than this discussion, and everyone should read it.
* As a semi-aspie, I do badly at conferences for other reasons and won't be going -- so I don't share any /practical/ concerns. But I'm also bi and ethnically jewish
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I think you misread the "personally discriminated" line -- it seemed like florence was using that wording to specifically acknowledge the extent of the problem, not to diminish it.
That said, it seems pretty clear that the location was sort of agreed on backroom-style because of the symbolism of alexandria's library.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past? Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa problems. It's not our fault.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear.
Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in place where freedom doesn't exist").
I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come. And thanks for the contributions,cheers.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it.
What? "Personally discriminated"? That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the complainers.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
May I kindly clarify that the previous message was written by Phoebe and not by Florence ?
Ant
Ben Yates wrote:
I think you misread the "personally discriminated" line -- it seemed like florence was using that wording to specifically acknowledge the extent of the problem, not to diminish it.
That said, it seems pretty clear that the location was sort of agreed on backroom-style because of the symbolism of alexandria's library.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past? Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa problems. It's not our fault.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear.
Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in place where freedom doesn't exist").
I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come. And thanks for the contributions,cheers.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it.
What? "Personally discriminated"? That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the complainers.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oops. And also, now that I've had a chance to sit and think about it, florence actually seems to already be doing pretty much all the right things, so my message was a little redundant. Egg, face, etc.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
May I kindly clarify that the previous message was written by Phoebe and not by Florence ?
Ant
Ben Yates wrote:
I think you misread the "personally discriminated" line -- it seemed like florence was using that wording to specifically acknowledge the extent of the problem, not to diminish it.
That said, it seems pretty clear that the location was sort of agreed on backroom-style because of the symbolism of alexandria's library.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past? Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa problems. It's not our fault.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear.
Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in place where freedom doesn't exist").
I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come. And thanks for the contributions,cheers.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it.
What? "Personally discriminated"? That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the complainers.
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
Ben Yates wrote:
Oops. And also, now that I've had a chance to sit and think about it, florence actually seems to already be doing pretty much all the right things, so my message was a little redundant. Egg, face, etc.
That's okay, the link you provided was quite interesting, and as you said, a lot more useful than much of the rest of this discussion.
--Michael Snow
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I think you misread the "personally discriminated" line -- it seemed like florence was using that wording to specifically acknowledge the extent of the problem, not to diminish it.
Yeah, that was me, not Ant, and that's a correct reading Ben.
Just to be clear I'm not trying to speak on behalf of the foundation, wikimania jury past, present or future, organizers past, present or future, etc. etc. etc. Just me. (I think opinions are pretty varied within all these groups). Ben is also right that the problems with this or any other location won't go away through posts on a mail list -- we need good information and good suggestions for the future.
Also thanks Lars for sending an eloquent message that pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.
-- phoebe, who considers herself a member of the Immoral Women delegation to future conferences
On 29/02/2008, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in freedom. The choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects, should without doubt take this principle into account.
It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let's be clear: the jury certainly did not pick Alexandria simply because we felt that we wanted to make the conference accessible to a group of editors that had been excluded from attending in the past. But it is worth remembering that previous locales have not always been entirely friendly to all members of our global community -- explicitly so, because of governmental policies on who can be allowed in the country and under what conditions -- and that terms like "freedom" and "accessibility" can mean very different things depending on one's location in the world.
I can say that this conference choice was not made for political reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear. I also sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money, because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason -- will be able to join the conference in future years in other places, because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it. I do wonder what constructive suggestions can be made for future conference venues, considering a community that spans most cultures and countries on earth, unfortunate governments that are prone to restricting travel, and a generally unsafe (if usually interesting) world.
Various groups publish indicies of freedom (in terms of civil liberties). Freedom House publish an index that categorises countries as: Free (92 countries), Partly Free (65 countries), Not Free (52 countries). According to their 2007 survey, Egypt falls into the "Not Free" category. The Worldwide Press Freedom Index published by Reporters without Borders categorises Egypt as "difficult situation" (out of the categories good situation, satisfactory situation, noticable problems, difficult situation and very serious situation). The Economist categorises Egypt on the Democracy Index as "authoritarian" (the lowest of four categories).
I am surprised that in response to some Wikimedians' problems in acquiring visas at past Wikimanias, Egypt, of all countries, was chosen as a suitably "freer" venue.
According to the Henley Visa Restrictions Index, Egyptians are able to obtain visas in 24 countries. Was Egypt the best choice of these 24?
According to the Henley Visa Restrictions Index, Egyptians are able to obtain visas in 24 countries. Was Egypt the best choice of these 24?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Are you serious? Would Sudan (visa free for Egyptians) or Ethiopia (visa on arrival) be better?
I am not sure that citizens of the fist world countries really appreciate what does it mean to be able to enter most of the countries without visa.
Not that I am defending the decision to host Wikimania in Alexandria, and not that I am planning to go there myself (even though I could get visa on arrival).
I actually think that the thread became pointless a long time ago. If the point is to select the next location carefully, then we should discuss the next location.
Cheers, Yaroslav
Mark Williamson wrote:
It has come as a shock to us that such a decision as the one about the location of this Wikimania could be passed down with such little consideration of our safety.
As I have said, this seems unlikely to change now, and as we say in my family there is no use crying over spilt milk.
Your concerns are valid. But hey, your problem is not the only problem in this world. People are oppressed by states, by their fellow citizens, by poverty, and by their own lack of skills, abilities and knowledge. If more people knew how to advance agriculture, or how to pool their resources in ventures such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, they wouldn't have to work so hard to support themselves. Oppression from states is made harder by the dissemination of knowledge to individuals. Wikipedia is here to disseminate knowledge to individuals. How can we improve this?
Perhaps you feel you need to stay at home from this Wikimania. That's bad, but it doesn't mean the whole Wikimania is wasted. Wikimania should be kept open to the people who, for various reasons, can't be there in person. You can submit a paper and a video presentation, and join the live chat session, but everybody doesn't need to buy the air ticket. We're not here to sell air tickets. We're here to disseminate knowledge.
Hosting Wikimania in Europe or the U.S. might be a problem for a lot of people who can't get a visa or who just can't afford to go. And for some people who feel that this is just another scheme that "the west" is trying to push down their throats.
As an outreach it is really important to host some major Wikipedia-related event on the African continent and it is important to host a major Wikipedia-related event in the Arab world. It doesn't have to be Wikimania, last year there was a "Wikipedia Academy" in South Africa, but now it happens to be Wikimania. And as such, Egypt is an excellent combination. Many other countries would be far worse. Wikipedians in Syria, Algeria and Malawi should certainly try to organize local or national meetups, and we need to encourage this, but I doubt they will be able to host Wikimania in the near future.
Rather than the U.S. gay community, our first question should be: Can wikipedians from Iran, Syria, Algeria, Kenya and Uganda travel to Wikimania in Egypt? Are there any wikipedians at all in Libya? What about guest workers from the P.R.C. on duty in Africa? Or Filipinos who work in Qatar? Are there affordable flights from Qatar or Nairobi to Cairo, and what about visa regulations?
Hello,
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
It has come as a shock to us that such a decision as the one about the location of this Wikimania could be passed down with such little consideration of our safety.
As I have said, this seems unlikely to change now, and as we say in my family there is no use crying over spilt milk.
Your concerns are valid. But hey, your problem is not the only problem in this world. People are oppressed by states, by their fellow citizens, by poverty, and by their own lack of skills, abilities and knowledge. If more people knew how to advance agriculture, or how to pool their resources in ventures such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, they wouldn't have to work so hard to support themselves. Oppression from states is made harder by the dissemination of knowledge to individuals. Wikipedia is here to disseminate knowledge to individuals. How can we improve this?
Perhaps you feel you need to stay at home from this Wikimania. That's bad, but it doesn't mean the whole Wikimania is wasted. Wikimania should be kept open to the people who, for various reasons, can't be there in person. You can submit a paper and a video presentation, and join the live chat session, but everybody doesn't need to buy the air ticket. We're not here to sell air tickets. We're here to disseminate knowledge.
Hosting Wikimania in Europe or the U.S. might be a problem for a lot of people who can't get a visa or who just can't afford to go. And for some people who feel that this is just another scheme that "the west" is trying to push down their throats.
As an outreach it is really important to host some major Wikipedia-related event on the African continent and it is important to host a major Wikipedia-related event in the Arab world. It doesn't have to be Wikimania, last year there was a "Wikipedia Academy" in South Africa, but now it happens to be Wikimania. And as such, Egypt is an excellent combination. Many other countries would be far worse. Wikipedians in Syria, Algeria and Malawi should certainly try to organize local or national meetups, and we need to encourage this, but I doubt they will be able to host Wikimania in the near future.
Rather than the U.S. gay community, our first question should be: Can wikipedians from Iran, Syria, Algeria, Kenya and Uganda travel to Wikimania in Egypt? Are there any wikipedians at all in Libya? What about guest workers from the P.R.C. on duty in Africa? Or Filipinos who work in Qatar? Are there affordable flights from Qatar or Nairobi to Cairo, and what about visa regulations?
Thanks Lars for writing down and remembering us the really important issues.
Regards,
Yann
The US gay community? I find the implications of that more than a little insulting.
Gatto Nero is Italian, for one; we have fielded comments here from many people.
As I have said before, gay people exist in every culture and country on this planet. Obviously, in some cultures they are used to hiding it so travel to Egypt would not be an issue, but this is an issue for all GLBT people from countries with societies that are friendlier to gays than is Egypt, which is a lot of countries, not just "western" ones! There is a list on Wikipedia if you actually care.
Mark
On 29/02/2008, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
It has come as a shock to us that such a decision as the one about the location of this Wikimania could be passed down with such little consideration of our safety.
As I have said, this seems unlikely to change now, and as we say in my family there is no use crying over spilt milk.
Your concerns are valid. But hey, your problem is not the only problem in this world. People are oppressed by states, by their fellow citizens, by poverty, and by their own lack of skills, abilities and knowledge. If more people knew how to advance agriculture, or how to pool their resources in ventures such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, they wouldn't have to work so hard to support themselves. Oppression from states is made harder by the dissemination of knowledge to individuals. Wikipedia is here to disseminate knowledge to individuals. How can we improve this?
Perhaps you feel you need to stay at home from this Wikimania. That's bad, but it doesn't mean the whole Wikimania is wasted. Wikimania should be kept open to the people who, for various reasons, can't be there in person. You can submit a paper and a video presentation, and join the live chat session, but everybody doesn't need to buy the air ticket. We're not here to sell air tickets. We're here to disseminate knowledge.
Hosting Wikimania in Europe or the U.S. might be a problem for a lot of people who can't get a visa or who just can't afford to go. And for some people who feel that this is just another scheme that "the west" is trying to push down their throats.
As an outreach it is really important to host some major Wikipedia-related event on the African continent and it is important to host a major Wikipedia-related event in the Arab world. It doesn't have to be Wikimania, last year there was a "Wikipedia Academy" in South Africa, but now it happens to be Wikimania. And as such, Egypt is an excellent combination. Many other countries would be far worse. Wikipedians in Syria, Algeria and Malawi should certainly try to organize local or national meetups, and we need to encourage this, but I doubt they will be able to host Wikimania in the near future.
Rather than the U.S. gay community, our first question should be: Can wikipedians from Iran, Syria, Algeria, Kenya and Uganda travel to Wikimania in Egypt? Are there any wikipedians at all in Libya? What about guest workers from the P.R.C. on duty in Africa? Or Filipinos who work in Qatar? Are there affordable flights from Qatar or Nairobi to Cairo, and what about visa regulations?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
As I have said before, gay people exist in every culture and country on this planet. Obviously, in some cultures they are used to hiding it so travel to Egypt would not be an issue, but this is an issue for all GLBT people from countries with societies that are friendlier to gays than is Egypt, which is a lot of countries, not just "western" ones! There is a list on Wikipedia if you actually care.
If non-Western people have objections to the choice of venue, they can speak for themselves. You might have missed it, but the era of colonialism is over; Americans and Italians do not speak for non-Westerners. Therefore, when I hear objections from Westerners, I interpret them as "objections from Westerners".
-Mark
If non-Western people have objections to the choice of venue, they can speak for themselves. You might have missed it, but the era of colonialism is over; Americans and Italians do not speak for non-Westerners. Therefore, when I hear objections from Westerners, I interpret them as "objections from Westerners".
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was a colony, it was never a colonial power...
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was a colony, it was never a colonial power...
Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one point?
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was a colony, it was never a colonial power...
Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one point?
The Monroe Doctrine was a neo-colonial instrument. Helping Panama to break away from Colombia. Periodic invasions and skullduggery in small countries when the U.S. didn't like the government, as in the Arbenz assassination in Guatemala. The continuing hostile attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela because those countries put their own people first. Maintaining armed occupation is an expensive way of keeping colonies, so they had to find different ways of doing it.
Some might even say that Tony Blair's easy compliance in the invasion of Iraq showed that the colonial master role had been reversed. :-)
Ec
On 3/1/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was a colony, it was never a colonial power...
Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one point?
The Monroe Doctrine was a neo-colonial instrument. Helping Panama to break away from Colombia. Periodic invasions and skullduggery in small countries when the U.S. didn't like the government, as in the Arbenz assassination in Guatemala. The continuing hostile attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela because those countries put their own people first. Maintaining armed occupation is an expensive way of keeping colonies, so they had to find different ways of doing it.
Some might even say that Tony Blair's easy compliance in the invasion of Iraq showed that the colonial master role had been reversed. :-)
Ec
Lessee, how many states were there in the compact during the articles of confederation? Never acquired any territories, no-no (won't go to rehab, no-no...)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Sure, but all that other territory that eventually became states was unoccupied anyway, right? :P Sort of skidding off topic here, aren't we?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was a colony, it was never a colonial power...
Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one point?
The Monroe Doctrine was a neo-colonial instrument. Helping Panama to break away from Colombia. Periodic invasions and skullduggery in small countries when the U.S. didn't like the government, as in the Arbenz assassination in Guatemala. The continuing hostile attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela because those countries put their own people first. Maintaining armed occupation is an expensive way of keeping colonies, so they had to find different ways of doing it.
Some might even say that Tony Blair's easy compliance in the invasion of Iraq showed that the colonial master role had been reversed. :-)
Ec
Lessee, how many states were there in the compact during the articles of confederation? Never acquired any territories, no-no (won't go to rehab, no-no...)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Contrary to what some meanies here have said, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. But based on my own experience, I am guessing that the over 2millon american indians whose ancestors have inhabited this country for over 10000 years would be extremely offended by your fatally erroneous statement. The US has been a colonial state from the beginning, I will not deny that and neither should you.
On 01/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but all that other territory that eventually became states was unoccupied anyway, right? :P Sort of skidding off topic here, aren't we?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was a colony, it was never a colonial power...
Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one point?
The Monroe Doctrine was a neo-colonial instrument. Helping Panama to break away from Colombia. Periodic invasions and skullduggery in small countries when the U.S. didn't like the government, as in the Arbenz assassination in Guatemala. The continuing hostile attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela because those countries put their own people first. Maintaining armed occupation is an expensive way of keeping colonies, so they had to find different ways of doing it.
Some might even say that Tony Blair's easy compliance in the invasion of Iraq showed that the colonial master role had been reversed. :-)
Ec
Lessee, how many states were there in the compact during the articles of confederation? Never acquired any territories, no-no (won't go to rehab, no-no...)
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
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Good thing I was making a little joke, then ;)
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Contrary to what some meanies here have said, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. But based on my own experience, I am guessing that the over 2millon american indians whose ancestors have inhabited this country for over 10000 years would be extremely offended by your fatally erroneous statement. The US has been a colonial state from the beginning, I will not deny that and neither should you.
On 01/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but all that other territory that eventually became states was unoccupied anyway, right? :P Sort of skidding off topic here, aren't we?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/1/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was
a
colony, it was never a colonial power...
Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one
point?
The Monroe Doctrine was a neo-colonial instrument. Helping Panama to break away from Colombia. Periodic invasions and skullduggery in
small
countries when the U.S. didn't like the government, as in the Arbenz assassination in Guatemala. The continuing hostile attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela because those countries put their own people
first.
Maintaining armed occupation is an expensive way of keeping
colonies, so
they had to find different ways of doing it.
Some might even say that Tony Blair's easy compliance in the
invasion of
Iraq showed that the colonial master role had been reversed. :-)
Ec
Lessee, how many states were there in the compact during the articles
of
confederation? Never acquired any territories, no-no (won't go to rehab, no-no...)
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
-- 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
You guys seriously don't know when to stop.
Start a new topic that's actually relevant, because this one's been added to the killfile.
Austin
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Good thing I was making a little joke, then ;)
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Contrary to what some meanies here have said, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. But based on my own experience, I am guessing that the over 2millon american indians whose ancestors have inhabited this country for over 10000 years would be extremely offended by your fatally erroneous statement. The US has been a colonial state from the beginning, I will not deny that and neither should you.
On 01/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but all that other territory that eventually became states was unoccupied anyway, right? :P Sort of skidding off topic here, aren't we?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/1/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
> What? Since when did America ever speak for any colonies? It was
a
> colony, it was never a colonial power... > Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one
point?
The Monroe Doctrine was a neo-colonial instrument. Helping Panama to break away from Colombia. Periodic invasions and skullduggery in
small
countries when the U.S. didn't like the government, as in the Arbenz assassination in Guatemala. The continuing hostile attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela because those countries put their own people
first.
Maintaining armed occupation is an expensive way of keeping
colonies, so
they had to find different ways of doing it.
Some might even say that Tony Blair's easy compliance in the
invasion of
Iraq showed that the colonial master role had been reversed. :-)
Ec
Lessee, how many states were there in the compact during the articles
of
confederation? Never acquired any territories, no-no (won't go to rehab, no-no...)
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
-- 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
Michael,
What about my message was incivil? What about it was off-topic? To have that implied is offensive.
I don't mean to be aggressive, and pray that I'm not, but my message was on-topic and exhaustively civil (I think you'll see that I work really hard at civility) and it never went through.
I'm sorry, but this particular action has greatly offended me. I sent a private message to Austin yesterday but since he has not seen fit to respond to it, I'm making it public below.
~Philippe
Message that I sent to Austin follows:
Although I appreciate your mention that you apologize for not notifying the group that the message string had been kill-filed, I want to go on record - strongly - as saying that it was handled poorly.
I'm a solid contributor to this list. I think that I rarely - if ever - generate noise as opposed to signal. I'm an administrator who is trusted with OTRS access and have been a member of the election steering committee. I think I'm the very definition of "trusted contributor".
It should be very clear to the moderators how absolutely offensive it is to get a "message moderated" email for a list to which I have long been a solid contributor.
This situation was bungled, and I'm amazed how badly. You owe it to EACH contributor who received one of those moderation messages to apologize to them: individually. An apology in passing in the last paragraph of an email is insufficient. You (or the software) could be bothered to send us a message saying we weren't trusted to post to the list. You owe us the courtesy of an email of apology.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael Bimmler" mbimmler@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:13 AM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reply to Mark
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 27/feb/08, alle ore 00:51, Oldak Quill ha scritto:
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
This is a baseless insinuation. As Austin already pointed out somewhere else, we are not appointed by the board and we are not hear to defend the board from criticism. Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion. Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil.
Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dear Philippe, dear all
First, I wish to emphasise that no individual contributor was moderated. The thread was "killfiled" which means, that all responses to the thread, be they from Jimbo, from you or myself are first held for moderation, just due to being responses to a thread.
This inconvenience is necessary, as it is the only measure to stop a off-topic / flame-war *thread* instead of a single person. Even if your post had been "Stop answering this thread, it is off-topic", it would have been held for moderation.
I agree with you, however, on two counts:
a) We should have communicated better about this and we should have made it clear that the moderation is not directed against particular subscribers. Austin already apologised for his delay in communicating it and I join him in doing so. We will strive to do better.
b) There are messages to this thread currently in the moderation queue, which have neither been approved nor rejected. The reasons are this is the following: Obviously, Austin's reason why he killfiled the thread (and I agree with his decision, fwiw) was that he wanted to put an end to the discussion. Now, if we approved *some* messages to the thread (i.e. all the messages from the very reputable contributors, such as you, Anthere and many others) but rejected others, this would rightly be seen as censorship. That's why I (and I presume Austin's reasoning is similar, though I can't guarantee) did not approve any of the messages.
An alternative might be to alter the "killfile rule", so that messages to the killfiled thread are not simply held for approval but automatically rejected. However, the software, as far as I can see, does not allow for specific rejection messages. So, you would have just gotten an email "Your message was rejected by the list administrator", which would have been rather offensive as well.
My proposed solution for now is that next time we feel it necessary to killfile a thread, we will do the following:
Post a clear notice to foundation-l which reads "Thread XYZ has been killfiled due to reasons ABC, all replies to the killfiled threads will be autorejected" and implement an auto-rejection system afterwards.
I concur that the situation as is now (messages held up in the queue "for ever") is insatisfactory. Would this solution find your approval and the approval of the other subscribers?
Michael
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Michael,
What about my message was incivil? What about it was off-topic? To have that implied is offensive.
I don't mean to be aggressive, and pray that I'm not, but my message was on-topic and exhaustively civil (I think you'll see that I work really hard at civility) and it never went through.
I'm sorry, but this particular action has greatly offended me. I sent a private message to Austin yesterday but since he has not seen fit to respond to it, I'm making it public below.
~Philippe
Message that I sent to Austin follows:
Although I appreciate your mention that you apologize for not notifying the group that the message string had been kill-filed, I want to go on record - strongly - as saying that it was handled poorly.
I'm a solid contributor to this list. I think that I rarely - if ever - generate noise as opposed to signal. I'm an administrator who is trusted with OTRS access and have been a member of the election steering committee. I think I'm the very definition of "trusted contributor".
It should be very clear to the moderators how absolutely offensive it is to get a "message moderated" email for a list to which I have long been a solid contributor.
This situation was bungled, and I'm amazed how badly. You owe it to EACH contributor who received one of those moderation messages to apologize to them: individually. An apology in passing in the last paragraph of an email is insufficient. You (or the software) could be bothered to send us a message saying we weren't trusted to post to the list. You owe us the courtesy of an email of apology.
Philippe
From: "Michael Bimmler" mbimmler@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:13 AM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reply to Mark
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 27/feb/08, alle ore 00:51, Oldak Quill ha scritto:
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
This is a baseless insinuation. As Austin already pointed out somewhere else, we are not appointed by the board and we are not hear to defend the board from criticism. Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion. Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil.
Michael
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
Michael,
That seems a logical way to proceed to me. I regret that my faith in the list moderation on this list has been shaken. I believe that thread was ended prematurely and reasonable discussion still existed. However, what's done is done, and it's time to move forward.
My concerns now are process, and the process that you suggest below is acceptable to me. I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, of course.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael Bimmler" mbimmler@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:28 AM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Anthere9@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reply to Michael
Dear Philippe, dear all
First, I wish to emphasise that no individual contributor was moderated. The thread was "killfiled" which means, that all responses to the thread, be they from Jimbo, from you or myself are first held for moderation, just due to being responses to a thread.
This inconvenience is necessary, as it is the only measure to stop a off-topic / flame-war *thread* instead of a single person. Even if your post had been "Stop answering this thread, it is off-topic", it would have been held for moderation.
I agree with you, however, on two counts:
a) We should have communicated better about this and we should have made it clear that the moderation is not directed against particular subscribers. Austin already apologised for his delay in communicating it and I join him in doing so. We will strive to do better.
b) There are messages to this thread currently in the moderation queue, which have neither been approved nor rejected. The reasons are this is the following: Obviously, Austin's reason why he killfiled the thread (and I agree with his decision, fwiw) was that he wanted to put an end to the discussion. Now, if we approved *some* messages to the thread (i.e. all the messages from the very reputable contributors, such as you, Anthere and many others) but rejected others, this would rightly be seen as censorship. That's why I (and I presume Austin's reasoning is similar, though I can't guarantee) did not approve any of the messages.
An alternative might be to alter the "killfile rule", so that messages to the killfiled thread are not simply held for approval but automatically rejected. However, the software, as far as I can see, does not allow for specific rejection messages. So, you would have just gotten an email "Your message was rejected by the list administrator", which would have been rather offensive as well.
My proposed solution for now is that next time we feel it necessary to killfile a thread, we will do the following:
Post a clear notice to foundation-l which reads "Thread XYZ has been killfiled due to reasons ABC, all replies to the killfiled threads will be autorejected" and implement an auto-rejection system afterwards.
I concur that the situation as is now (messages held up in the queue "for ever") is insatisfactory. Would this solution find your approval and the approval of the other subscribers?
Michael
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Michael,
What about my message was incivil? What about it was off-topic? To have that implied is offensive.
I don't mean to be aggressive, and pray that I'm not, but my message was on-topic and exhaustively civil (I think you'll see that I work really hard at civility) and it never went through.
I'm sorry, but this particular action has greatly offended me. I sent a private message to Austin yesterday but since he has not seen fit to respond to it, I'm making it public below.
~Philippe
Message that I sent to Austin follows:
Although I appreciate your mention that you apologize for not notifying the group that the message string had been kill-filed, I want to go on record - strongly - as saying that it was handled poorly.
I'm a solid contributor to this list. I think that I rarely - if ever - generate noise as opposed to signal. I'm an administrator who is trusted with OTRS access and have been a member of the election steering committee. I think I'm the very definition of "trusted contributor".
It should be very clear to the moderators how absolutely offensive it is to get a "message moderated" email for a list to which I have long been a solid contributor.
This situation was bungled, and I'm amazed how badly. You owe it to EACH contributor who received one of those moderation messages to apologize to them: individually. An apology in passing in the last paragraph of an email is insufficient. You (or the software) could be bothered to send us a message saying we weren't trusted to post to the list. You owe us the courtesy of an email of apology.
Philippe
From: "Michael Bimmler" mbimmler@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:13 AM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reply to Mark
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 27/feb/08, alle ore 00:51, Oldak Quill ha scritto:
>
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone
until
15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were
involved, it
seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
I'll repeat it again: is this respect? The answer is "no".
Wikimedia, freedom of opinion? Nope: freedom to have the Board's opinion (it seems).
This is a baseless insinuation. As Austin already pointed out somewhere else, we are not appointed by the board and we are not hear to defend the board from criticism. Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion. Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil.
Michael
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 Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Let's be clear: you killfiled a thread critical of the foundation, that was ongoing and was at present constructive and unoffensive (with any nastiness long since past), that was being responded to by Florence, and was relevant to this list. This is the kind of heavy- handed moderation that brings up allegations of censorship. Please be more hands-off and not step in with moderation when there is no problem.
And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this.
For some reason, Dan's e-mails were being filed as spam, so I apologize for not replying him directly.
Foundation-l administrative actions are usually done quietly, and for the most part nobody notices. If you've just made some inflammatory comments and suddenly find that your posts are taking an hour or two to make it to the list, it's because we've flagged you for moderation and are reviewing your posts before allowing them through. It's in this way that we try to enforce some semblance of civil discussion, and many have said that we still don't do enough.
From time to time, a thread spirals out of control and simply isn't
productive. These threads are largely what has led Foundation officials to decry this list as "useless" or even "crap." That Florence continued to indulge certain posts with a response did not affect my judgment that this particular thread had outlived its usefulness and, though certain points were worthy of attention, should have been brought up in a different way and/or in a different medium. It had absolutely nothing to do with certain posts being critical of the Board or anyone else, because, to be frank, it's not my job to act in their interests here.
I'm not going to address issues of "legitimacy" or "censorship," but I will say that I normally do give notice of a killed thread, which happens perhaps once a month. I didn't do that here, simply because I forgot, and I apologize for the confusion that caused.
Austin
Foundation-l administrative actions are usually done quietly, and for the most part nobody notices. If you've just made some inflammatory comments and suddenly find that your posts are taking an hour or two to make it to the list, it's because we've flagged you for moderation and are reviewing your posts before allowing them through. It's in this way that we try to enforce some semblance of civil discussion, and many have said that we still don't do enough.
Actually, when you're being moderated, you get emails saying "The following email is awaiting moderation" or similar, so it's difficult not to notice. (And yes, I speak from experience... I would have appreciated someone having the common decency to tell me what they were doing...)
And you had better hope that someone feels your input is worth something, or else your moderated e-mails will be ignored, no matter how insightful you think they may be. I speak from experience too =)
On 26/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Foundation-l administrative actions are usually done quietly, and for the most part nobody notices. If you've just made some inflammatory comments and suddenly find that your posts are taking an hour or two to make it to the list, it's because we've flagged you for moderation and are reviewing your posts before allowing them through. It's in this way that we try to enforce some semblance of civil discussion, and many have said that we still don't do enough.
Actually, when you're being moderated, you get emails saying "The following email is awaiting moderation" or similar, so it's difficult not to notice. (And yes, I speak from experience... I would have appreciated someone having the common decency to tell me what they were doing...)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, when you're being moderated, you get emails saying "The following email is awaiting moderation" or similar, so it's difficult not to notice. (And yes, I speak from experience... I would have appreciated someone having the common decency to tell me what they were doing...)
Generally we warn and advise people first to tone down a bit. Moderation and killfile are really ultima ratio measures and we employ them as reluctantly as possible. However, please note also that moderation is not a punishment but rather a preventive measurement with the aim to keep the list ontopic and civil.
Michael
Also, because this apparently wasn't clear to some, it's only that specific thread with that specific subject line that was put on automatic moderation. No individual person, Ray included, was moderated for their participation.
Austin
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org