It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never will be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align with any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still not apolitical.
/jeblad
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our support to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never will be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align with any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still not apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration | **Wiki Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport | Wiki Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our support to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align
with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still
not
apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we make in favor of that goal are often political.
However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.
Best regards, Chris Gates (User:Vermont)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration | **Wiki Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport | Wiki Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a
very
strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align
with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still
not
apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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 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
Greetings, It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?" On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any particular view(s)
Thanks Tito Dutta
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we make in favor of that goal are often political.
However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.
Best regards, Chris Gates (User:Vermont)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration | **Wiki Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport | Wiki Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may
not
align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a
very
strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not
align
with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are
still
not
apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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 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
Hi,
There isn't such a thing as just one politics, therefore, the subject line question is really broad.
We are not apolitical about free knowledge, no doubt about that. On the other hand, we as a movement can be or become apolitical in other political fields. All this discussion, in my opinion, has to be addressed from the correct political field that we are standing (or not). Which is the political field of the question proposed then? (this is just a rhetorical question.)
In the free knowledge political field, I repeat, we are not apolitical from the moment we advocate for free knowledge, free content, free licenses, free software, etc. I also do not wish that we ever become apolitical about that, even if mistakes are made in the way.
Cheers,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?" On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any particular view(s)
Thanks Tito Dutta
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose
our
message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we make in favor of that goal are often political.
However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and
Earth
Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few
people
who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with
a
half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have
unions
and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's
specifically
American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is
done
for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or
viewpoints
that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there
was
a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct
political
stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former
category.
Best regards, Chris Gates (User:Vermont)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration |
**Wiki
Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport | Wiki Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not
to
speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical.
In
strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and
never
will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may
not
align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still
a
very
strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not
align
with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are
still
not
apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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 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 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
Kaya
From my perspective we have always been political, from the moment we
started with the concept of Free Knowledge, Eduardo listed many of the aspects that go with it. We are doing so much more we want anyone/everyone to contribute regardless of social standing, we spend millions on addressing bias against women, we have and openly support an active LGBTI+ community, we make the projects accessible in many languages. As for Earth day we cant deny our support of it just look at how we dedicated a whole Wikimania around the concepts. Even our pillar of Neutral POV is political we dont spin we tell it as it was from every perspective. We've taken many stands in regards to censorship. and copyright we even once went dark to send a message, Earth day was not a shift in our ideals.
Boodar-wun
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 09:13, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There isn't such a thing as just one politics, therefore, the subject line question is really broad.
We are not apolitical about free knowledge, no doubt about that. On the other hand, we as a movement can be or become apolitical in other political fields. All this discussion, in my opinion, has to be addressed from the correct political field that we are standing (or not). Which is the political field of the question proposed then? (this is just a rhetorical question.)
In the free knowledge political field, I repeat, we are not apolitical from the moment we advocate for free knowledge, free content, free licenses, free software, etc. I also do not wish that we ever become apolitical about that, even if mistakes are made in the way.
Cheers,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?" On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not
any
particular view(s)
Thanks Tito Dutta
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose
our
message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we make in favor of that goal are often political.
However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and
Earth
Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few
people
who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere
with
a
half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have
unions
and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's
specifically
American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is
done
for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and
should
not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or
viewpoints
that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation
to
legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there
was
a very different political landscape with very different arguments
taking
place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists,
would
likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and
Wikipedia
will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of
political
advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct
political
stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former
category.
Best regards, Chris Gates (User:Vermont)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban <
camelia.boban@gmail.com>
wrote:
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration |
**Wiki
Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport |
Wiki
Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses
not
to
speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical.
In
strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and
never
will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and
fully
available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It
may
not
align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is
still
a
very
strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not
align
with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are
still
not
apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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 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 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
-- Eduardo Testart (56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil _______________________________________________ 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
Very well put. S
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Sat., Apr. 25, 2020, 10:06 p.m. Gnangarra, gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Kaya
From my perspective we have always been political, from the moment we started with the concept of Free Knowledge, Eduardo listed many of the aspects that go with it. We are doing so much more we want anyone/everyone to contribute regardless of social standing, we spend millions on addressing bias against women, we have and openly support an active LGBTI+ community, we make the projects accessible in many languages. As for Earth day we cant deny our support of it just look at how we dedicated a whole Wikimania around the concepts. Even our pillar of Neutral POV is political we dont spin we tell it as it was from every perspective. We've taken many stands in regards to censorship. and copyright we even once went dark to send a message, Earth day was not a shift in our ideals.
Boodar-wun
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 09:13, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There isn't such a thing as just one politics, therefore, the subject
line
question is really broad.
We are not apolitical about free knowledge, no doubt about that. On the other hand, we as a movement can be or become apolitical in other
political
fields. All this discussion, in my opinion, has to be addressed from the correct political field that we are standing (or not). Which is the political field of the question proposed then? (this is just a rhetorical question.)
In the free knowledge political field, I repeat, we are not apolitical
from
the moment we advocate for free knowledge, free content, free licenses, free software, etc. I also do not wish that we ever become apolitical
about
that, even if mistakes are made in the way.
Cheers,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we
unbiased?"
On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not
any
particular view(s)
Thanks Tito Dutta
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people
oppose
our
message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions
we
make in favor of that goal are often political.
However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and
Earth
Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few
people
who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere
with
a
half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from
the
flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were
many
people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have
unions
and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's
specifically
American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either
of
those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is
done
for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and
should
not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or
viewpoints
that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with
and
work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be
forced
into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver
unbiased
information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation
to
legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago
there
was
a very different political landscape with very different arguments
taking
place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists,
would
likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and
Wikipedia
will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of
political
advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct
political
stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former
category.
Best regards, Chris Gates (User:Vermont)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban <
camelia.boban@gmail.com>
wrote:
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement
(as
everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration |
**Wiki
Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport |
Wiki
Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban
**|
**WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne
Project
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses
not
to
speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving
our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is
apolitical.
In
> strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and
never
will > be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and
fully
> available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It
may
not
> align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is
still
a
very
> strong political statement. > > So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may
not
align
with > any specific political party in any specific country, but we
are
still
not > apolitical. > > /jeblad > _______________________________________________ > 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 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 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
-- Eduardo Testart (56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
Of course not, we have a strong bias in favour of freedom of information, accuracy, and verifiability to reliable sources. Also, officially, civil discourse and decision by consensus. It is written into our basic policies (speaking as an en: Wikipedian, other projects may differ). Most policy will impose some kind of bias. As soon as there is something one may not do, or must do, there is a bias. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tito Dutta Sent: 26 April 2020 01:43 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?
Greetings, It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?" On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any particular view(s)
Thanks Tito Dutta
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we make in favor of that goal are often political.
However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.
Best regards, Chris Gates (User:Vermont)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning. As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation* Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 *Interwiki Women https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Women_Collaboration | **Wiki Loves Sport https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Sport | Wiki Loves Fashion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Fashion* WMIT https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia - WMSE https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Sverige - WMAR https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina - WMCH https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
Rebecca
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
will
be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may
not
align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a
very
strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not
align
with
any specific political party in any specific country, but we are
still
not
apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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 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 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
Hi Rebecca and all,
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100 "Rebecca O'Neill" rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our support to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
While one likely cannot be completely objective, I believe that we should try to be as objective as possible, and not completely succumb to being subjective.
I had written about it here:
https://shlomif.livejournal.com/52439.html
Similarly, while the WMF has some shared political stances due to its mission and objectives, it should try to avoid officially taking a stance on politically-tangential issues that are out of that scope and which have no consensus among its members, contributors and users. Otherwise, its effectiveness in accomplishing its mission may be reduced, and we may lose or alienate many members.
Just my opinion,
-- Shlomi
I totally agree with you, Shlomi. Kind regards Ziko
Am So., 26. Apr. 2020 um 17:02 Uhr schrieb Shlomi Fish < shlomif@shlomifish.org>:
Hi Rebecca and all,
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100 "Rebecca O'Neill" rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
support
to the status quo.
Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
While one likely cannot be completely objective, I believe that we should try to be as objective as possible, and not completely succumb to being subjective.
I had written about it here:
https://shlomif.livejournal.com/52439.html
Similarly, while the WMF has some shared political stances due to its mission and objectives, it should try to avoid officially taking a stance on politically-tangential issues that are out of that scope and which have no consensus among its members, contributors and users. Otherwise, its effectiveness in accomplishing its mission may be reduced, and we may lose or alienate many members.
Just my opinion,
-- Shlomi--
Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/ https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Google-Discontinues-Services/
Larry Wall *does* know all of Perl. However, he pretends to be wrong or misinformed, so people will underestimate him. — https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Larry-Wall/
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply .
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
There's a tendency of people with an association with the Wikimedia movement to see it as a hammer that can be swung at every nail. This is embodied most perfectly in the e-mail by Rebecca O'Neil, who claims that if WMF doesn't take a position on any issue (or every issue?), it is taking a position in support of the status quo.
That is absurd. The movement and the WMF have a purpose. That purpose is not koala habitats, nor Superfund sites, nor opioid addiction nor LGTB rights in Uganda. All those issues are valuable purposes for an organization to have, but the WMF has a different purpose. Its activities should be in pursuit of its mission. Not any and every mission that at least some Wikimedians think is valuable.
All that said, how many views did the wikimediafoundation.org site get during the time the banner was up? A few hundred? A few thousand? Varnum apologized, the banner was a bit of a rush job. Rather than arguing why WMF should support all your pet causes or, alternatively, hand over the keys to "the community" - maybe just move on.
Seeing as you decided to call me out specifically, that line of reasoning falls apart when you note that WMF foundations funds and supports initiatives that would been seen as supporting all of those examples you gave:
- Wiki Loves Earth for animal sanctuaries, highlighting areas of natural beauty and those that require protection - WikiProject Medicine covers articles relating to opioid (and all manner of other addictions) - Art+Feminism and Wikimedia LGBT+ work to promote issues relating to LGBT+ and feminist content worldwide
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 22:35, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There's a tendency of people with an association with the Wikimedia movement to see it as a hammer that can be swung at every nail. This is embodied most perfectly in the e-mail by Rebecca O'Neil, who claims that if WMF doesn't take a position on any issue (or every issue?), it is taking a position in support of the status quo.
That is absurd. The movement and the WMF have a purpose. That purpose is not koala habitats, nor Superfund sites, nor opioid addiction nor LGTB rights in Uganda. All those issues are valuable purposes for an organization to have, but the WMF has a different purpose. Its activities should be in pursuit of its mission. Not any and every mission that at least some Wikimedians think is valuable.
All that said, how many views did the wikimediafoundation.org site get during the time the banner was up? A few hundred? A few thousand? Varnum apologized, the banner was a bit of a rush job. Rather than arguing why WMF should support all your pet causes or, alternatively, hand over the keys to "the community" - maybe just move on. _______________________________________________ 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
@Smirkybec: Studying a certain country's history may, incidentally, make readers think more highly of the country in question. That does not mean that the goal of hosting the article is to make the country look good. It also does not mean that "making the country look good" has become one of the Wikimedia movement's objectives.
Regarding the examples: Neither the projects nor the WMF have made any effort to promote any ideology in those articles. The Wikimedia projects endeavor to neutrally document topics. Surely nobody thinks that WikiProject Buddhism, WikiProject Conservatism, or WikiProject Feminism are about promoting these things rather than neutrally documenting them? I have a hard time imagining a viewpoint which leads one to think that edits and grants must be about winning a political argument, or that the WMF should intentionally promote particular ideologies through Wikipedia's content.
Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the policy, NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It may not be violated, period. If there are some contributors that think it's okay to violate NPOV so long as it's for a cause that some in the WMF like, we have a serious problem.
@Pbsouthwood: Re "bias" towards verifiability, etc: We must distinguish between bias in content, "bias" in content creation/curation processes, and bias in institutional behaviour/advocacy/activism. No Wikipedia article non-neutrally trumpets the praises of verifiability. The WMF doesn't go around trying to convince random individuals that verifiability is a great thing in general, or that civil discourse should be promoted in every facet of life. It is important not to mix these things up. Suggesting that we're biased because we ask people to use the proper templates is silly.
@Smirkybec (earlier post) Re the idea that political inaction is the same as supporting the status quo, and is therefore "being political" on its own: No. Taking action to support the status quo is supporting the status quo. Inaction is neither the same as taking actions opposing the status quo, nor the same as taking actions supporting the status quo.
@Gnangarra Re the idea that one's political faction has a monopoly on neutrality, and therefore neutrality itself implies taking a political side: ...You know what, I'm not going to engage with that. (If I've inadvertently misrepresented the argument, clarification would be appreciated.)
--
On the issue of prohibitions on WMF engagement in advocacy unrelated to our goals again: (I know that's from the other thread, but things seem to have veered in that direction so...)
The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for environmentalism. Even if the recent incident hadn't included every left-wing cause from here to Sunday, and had only been about environmentalism, it would still have been a violation of important standards which were endorsed by every community-elected member of the board shortly before their most recent election, and of principles regularly reinforced by community discussion every time this comes up on-wiki. Our neutrality means we don't need a separate Wikimedia for every political faction of every country, it means our institutions' roles aren't stocked with people who got there to influence politics, it means our success can be everyone's successes. It is absolutely necessary for the Wikimedia movement to function.
(@Nathan re stats: wikimediafoundation.org gets roughly 10,000 views per day, and the banner was up for the full 24-hour period, IIUC.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום א׳, 26 באפר׳ 2020 ב-18:03 מאת Rebecca O'Neill < rebeccanineil@gmail.com>:
Seeing as you decided to call me out specifically, that line of reasoning falls apart when you note that WMF foundations funds and supports initiatives that would been seen as supporting all of those examples you gave:
- Wiki Loves Earth for animal sanctuaries, highlighting areas of natural
beauty and those that require protection
- WikiProject Medicine covers articles relating to opioid (and all
manner of other addictions)
- Art+Feminism and Wikimedia LGBT+ work to promote issues relating to
LGBT+ and feminist content worldwide
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 22:35, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There's a tendency of people with an association with the Wikimedia movement to see it as a hammer that can be swung at every nail. This is embodied most perfectly in the e-mail by Rebecca O'Neil, who claims that
if
WMF doesn't take a position on any issue (or every issue?), it is taking
a
position in support of the status quo.
That is absurd. The movement and the WMF have a purpose. That purpose is not koala habitats, nor Superfund sites, nor opioid addiction nor LGTB rights in Uganda. All those issues are valuable purposes for an organization to have, but the WMF has a different purpose. Its activities should be in pursuit of its mission. Not any and every mission that at least some Wikimedians think is valuable.
All that said, how many views did the wikimediafoundation.org site get during the time the banner was up? A few hundred? A few thousand? Varnum apologized, the banner was a bit of a rush job. Rather than arguing why
WMF
should support all your pet causes or, alternatively, hand over the keys
to
"the community" - maybe just move on. _______________________________________________ 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
-- PhD in Digital Media Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland http://wikimedia.ie She/Her _______________________________________________ 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, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:50 AM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical.
I'm not sure I've seen anybody say that. I have seen people say that we should avoid political activism or lobbying when it is not part of our core mission, and that we should try to maintain the appearance of being apolitical when we can. Being political is not a binary thing; it is entirely possible for us to choose to be activists when it comes to some issues but not others.
It's true that remaining silent is in some sense an act in favor of the status quo, but activists make strategic calculations all the time in deciding whether taking a particular stand is worth the risks of fragmentation of their coalition and dilution of their message. They also make decisions about how strong a message to send--when should the language be dialed to 11, and when is a polite expression of disapproval sufficient?
Saying "we are not apolitical" tells us nothing about whether we should send a particular political message at a particular time. It also tells us nothing about how we should make those decisions. The movement, however we define it, ought to have input to ensure that campaigns reflect our shared values and (sometimes-conflicting) goals.
Emufarmers
"Is the Wikimedia movement political?"
For starters, some important points: 1. If you redefine a word to include "literally everything", you've defined the word out of existence. The word becomes no longer useful for conveying any information, and therefore, by any measure, you've simply made it harder to communicate. 2. If two people are debating "Is X Y", and they completely disagree about the meaning of Y, they're debating words, not things.
I have to bring these points up, because in these situations some people, completely seriously, state that "everything is political". Obviously, this completely reduces the debate down to nonsense, as much as it would to say "everything is apolitical". The answer to the question "Is Wikimedia X?" when defining X to be universally-inclusive, is yes regardless of what series of letters you fill in there. Similarly, when X is a null set, the answer is always no. (In the likely event that there was a more subtle point being made with the wording, I'm afraid I missed it entirely.)
So, to the actual concepts here: Assuming we mean "political" as in "relating to government policy, legislation, or electoral activities" (given that it is, you know, what the word means), then the answer is _generally_ no. There is broad agreement that Wikimedia must never deliberately influence elections, and, excluding the efforts by our affiliated corporations, the Wikimedia projects typically avoid trying to influence government policy/legislation except in order to avoid being seriously harmed by the government. The WMF and affiliates also occasionally make limited efforts to influence governments (without getting involved in elections) in ways that will advance the Wikimedia Mission.
Nobody editing some article on prehistoric vombatiforms is thinking, "if I improve this article, my side will win the election!".
If one wants to argue, "freeing knowledge is inherently tied to government actions, so Wikimedia must be broadly involved in all areas of politics and elections", that's, well, wrong. If one wants to argue, "freeing knowledge doesn't necessarily need to be associated with elections and such, but Wikimedia should get involved in indigenous rights and labor reform because we, as individuals, care about those things", it's not nonsense, but it's also a position extremely strongly opposed by the Wikimedia community, for good reason.
Wikimedia is about allowing people to freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Its purpose is not to influence elections or governments. If one uses a definition of "apolitical" which falls under that, then yes, the Wikimedia movement is apolitical.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך שבת, 25 באפר׳ 2020 ב-11:50 מאת John Erling Blad < jeblad@gmail.com>:
It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never will be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a very strong political statement.
So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align with any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still not apolitical.
/jeblad _______________________________________________ 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