[Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2008 will happen in Alexandria, Egypt

[David Strauss]

George Herbert wrote:
> On 10/9/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human
>> rights issues only came to light *today*.
> 
> You claimed to have noticed, but not said anything, earlier in the
> process, because you felt that nobody would possibly vote for
> Alexandria because the violations were so self-evident and
> overwhelmingly disqualifying.
> 
> The time for you to intervene in standards for judging WM2008
> selection, and argue against Alexandria on that basis, was then not
> now.  For any reasonable interpretation, you were neglegent in not
> doing so then if this was such an important issue to you.

Negligent? You should look up the definition of that word. If anyone
would be negligent, it would be someone voting on the locations without
being aware of the human rights records.

The human rights issues in Egypt have been brought up by others. Are you
saying I can't speak because others brought up the issue, just not me?

>>> Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without
>>> being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local
>>> treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
>>>
>>> Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local
>>> political issues.  Most of the factions in those agree that bothering
>>> western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of
>>> terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away.  Alexandria was
>>> also far from the areas which were affected by that.
>> I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the
>> atrocities not affecting them.
> 
> I am disturbed to find that you believe I'm trying to justify Egypt's
> oppression.

You responded to my objections by stating that the problems don't affect
most Wikimania attendees.

> We live in a real world.  Some fraction of that has disturbing,
> uncivilized tendencies.  One can look at that narrowly (Myanmar,
> Iran's leadership, North Korea) or more widely (East Oakland, Egypt,
> Guantanamo, etc).
> 
> Yes, there are things wrong in Egypt.  It's functionally a single
> party government or a dictatorship, and has some severe social and
> religious uphevals in progress.  Anyone following events in the middle
> east or geopolitics on the wider scale should know that.

So, you would agree than anyone involved in picking the Wikimania
location would be cognizant of Egypt's human rights record without any
help from me.

>>> I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or
>>> in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or
>>> freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
>> As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned
>> for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?
> 
> We just had a vocal heckler tasered a bunch at a political rally in
> the United States not that long ago.  Does that qualify?  Do we need
> to rule Florida out of future Wikimania events?

I've never said any place was perfect. In any case, tasering is
generally not as severe as years of imprisonment, and blogging is not as
threatening as vocal heckling (which can be quite aggressive).

> There is a grey area.  The line for "Yes, there's a problem" is less
> than the line for "...and we should cut off all cultural and
> intellectual exchanges...".  Wikimania falls into the latter category.
>  You're arguing, with no opposition, and my agreement, that Egypt is
> past the first line.  You are asserting that it's past the second.  I
> believe that the assertion is unsupported and unreasonably harsh, in a
> real world context.

I'm still waiting to hear where you do draw the latter line.

>>> Rangoon would be
>>> bad.  Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any
>>> Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization
>>> and country.   Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical
>>> sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your
>>> Blackwater".
>>>
>>> Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and
>>> western-style freedoms issues significance in judging.  But Alexandria
>>> is a fine choice now.  Arguing to change the selection criteria after
>>> selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make
>>> statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
>> The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human
>> rights issues only came to light *today*.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20071009/b63a9590/attachment.pgp