*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2] https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/High-court-OKs-Trump... [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-calls-halt-muslims-enter... [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restri..., https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/, and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-immigration-wikimedia-va...
Thanks, Katherine, This is very heartwarming and encouraging.
Mohsen
Mardetanha
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:12 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2] https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump- calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ , and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court- immigration-wikimedia-values/
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Katherine,
Members of INGOs can normally apply to special visas. Has such legal status been considered for the Wikimedia movement as a whole?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_non-governmental_organization
Regards, Micru
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2]
https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/High-court-OKs-Trump... [3]
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-calls-halt-muslims-enter... [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restri... , https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ , and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-immigration-wikimedia-va...
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello,
I would suggest to update Wikimedia sites to reflect the fact that Wikimedia Foundation is active in lobbying in the area of immigration public policies: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_policy https://policy.wikimedia.org/
Best,
MarioGom
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2] https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump- calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ , and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court- immigration-wikimedia-values/
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community. Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these issues, but here is my summary:
== It is cherry-picking ==
The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:
* Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?
* Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?
== It is not necessary ==
A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that, when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.
== It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==
As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge, not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the community:
* When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.
* When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position offensive too.
== It alienates the community ==
If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.
Best,
MarioGom
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2] https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump- calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ , and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court- immigration-wikimedia-values/
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Mario,
The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining the right.
Thank you for your reply on the other thread about the Executive Director's Letter to Donors. I think you raise a few good points, which I hope to respond to soon. But your argument isn't compelling enough to make it a priority over my work at present. I look forward to reading a reply from you responding to more than just the first reference on free college. The answers to most if not almost all of your questions are in the other three references on free college, although they are dense and difficult to read, and require the understanding of amortization.
[from that other thread:]
I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years, and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill will on their peers.
Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list disagree with the percentages you keep making up.
Why the Foundation wouldn't have already called this question with a survey is beyond me.
Best regards, Jim
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community. Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these issues, but here is my summary:
== It is cherry-picking ==
The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:
- Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?
- Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?
== It is not necessary ==
A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that, when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.
== It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==
As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge, not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the community:
- When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.
- When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position offensive too.
== It alienates the community ==
If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.
Best,
MarioGom
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2] https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump- calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ , and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court- immigration-wikimedia-values/
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
P.S. The choice* is between....
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:53 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Mario,
The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining the right.
Thank you for your reply on the other thread about the Executive Director's Letter to Donors. I think you raise a few good points, which I hope to respond to soon. But your argument isn't compelling enough to make it a priority over my work at present. I look forward to reading a reply from you responding to more than just the first reference on free college. The answers to most if not almost all of your questions are in the other three references on free college, although they are dense and difficult to read, and require the understanding of amortization.
[from that other thread:]
I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years, and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill will on their peers.
Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list disagree with the percentages you keep making up.
Why the Foundation wouldn't have already called this question with a survey is beyond me.
Best regards, Jim
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community. Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these issues, but here is my summary:
== It is cherry-picking ==
The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:
- Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?
- Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?
== It is not necessary ==
A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that, when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.
== It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==
As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge, not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the community:
- When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.
- When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position offensive too.
== It alienates the community ==
If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.
Best,
MarioGom
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068 https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068* *Please consider supporting with translations. *
Dear friends,
On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis for some of these restrictions.
Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is limited, the world is a poorer place.
The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most recent outcome of this case. [6]
We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the values that make our movement possible.
Katherine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 [2] https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump- calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ , and https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court- immigration-wikimedia-values/
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining the right.
Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization (other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2) imposing a very specific political position upon the community.
I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for it. I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions against diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective to increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed rather than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of lobbying.
PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your points about the other thread.
Best,
MarioGom
Mario,
Your argument is not convincing, because:
"The so called ‘travel ban’ that was introduced by President Trump and the re-evaluation of the H-1B visa programme threaten the ability of the US to attract skilled talent into the country (Mahmud, 2017; You, Bohannon, & Stone, 2017). Indeed, Microsoft has already opened a satellite office in Vancouver, Canada to mitigate the challenges in accessing key talent created by these changes, with many other tech companies reported to be considering their options (Dixon, 2017)" citing:
Mahmud, A. (2017). Looking beyond H-1B visas to attract technical talent. Harvard Business Review [online]. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2017/06/looking-beyond-h-1b-visas-to-find-tech-talent
You, J., Bohannon, J., & Stone, R.(2017). Raising the drawbridge. Science, 355(6328), 896.10.1126/science.355.6328.896
Dixon, L. (2017). Tighter immigration policy pushes firms to open foreign satellite offices. Talent Economy [online]. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from http://www.talenteconomy.io/2017/06/19/tighter-immigration-policy-pushes-fir...
Please see also:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e40517da152288614b980cf9087e7dd
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/opinions/trump-travel-ban-fuels-terrorism-cla...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/25/trumps-travel-ban-might-be-legal-but-it...
Sincerely, Jim
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining the right.
Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization (other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2) imposing a very specific political position upon the community.
I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for it. I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions against diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective to increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed rather than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of lobbying.
PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your points about the other thread.
Best,
MarioGom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We are getting down to brass tacks, finally.
The interests of WMF are not whether the immigration regulations changes "threaten the ability of the US to attract skilled talent into the country", but rather whether they have such an effect on the WMF and Wikimedia community ("WMF&Co."). If WMF and its lobbying allies carved out some kind of special treatment for a class of workers relevant to WMF&Co.
For WMF to have technical resource centers outside the US is fully consistent with the global nature of the community. Should it find it desirable to move its legal domicile or some or all of its administrative activities or more of its servers outside the US, it should do so.
The raising-the-drawbridge rhetoric simply clouds the efforts to determine and do what's actually best for WMF&Co.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 4:56 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Mario,
Your argument is not convincing, because:
"The so called ‘travel ban’ that was introduced by President Trump and the re-evaluation of the H-1B visa programme threaten the ability of the US to attract skilled talent into the country (Mahmud, 2017; You, Bohannon, & Stone, 2017). Indeed, Microsoft has already opened a satellite office in Vancouver, Canada to mitigate the challenges in accessing key talent created by these changes, with many other tech companies reported to be considering their options (Dixon, 2017)" citing:
Mahmud, A. (2017). Looking beyond H-1B visas to attract technical talent. Harvard Business Review [online]. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2017/06/looking-beyond-h-1b-visas-to-find-tech-talent
You, J., Bohannon, J., & Stone, R.(2017). Raising the drawbridge. Science, 355(6328), 896.10.1126/science.355.6328.896
Dixon, L. (2017). Tighter immigration policy pushes firms to open foreign satellite offices. Talent Economy [online]. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from http://www.talenteconomy.io/2017/06/19/tighter- immigration-policy-pushes-firms-open-foreign-satellite-offices/
Please see also:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e40517da152288614b980cf9087e7dd
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/opinions/trump-travel-ban- fuels-terrorism-clapper-geltzer-olsen/index.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/25/trumps-travel-ban- might-be-legal-but-its-bad-policy/
Sincerely, Jim
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining the right.
Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization (other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2)
imposing
a very specific political position upon the community.
I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for
it.
I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions
against
diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective
to
increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed
rather
than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of lobbying.
PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your
points
about the other thread.
Best,
MarioGom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org