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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Eduardo Testart (56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil

Very well put. S 🌍🌏🌎🌑 On Sat., Apr. 25, 2020, 10:06 p.m. Gnangarra, <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Rebecca and all, On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100 "Rebecca O'Neill" <rebeccanineil(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 .

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.

@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>:‬