On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Pete Forsyth wrote:
I think there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're related to our vision, our mission, our strategic plan, and our model of community governance.
Yep.
Though since you mention SOPA, it's been over two years and I hope the passage of time has made people more circumspect following that spectacle. In my opinion, the video of Wikimedia Foundation staff members actively cheering blacking out the English Wikipedia and the weaponization of the CentralNotice extension did a lot more harm to Wikimedia than any bill that the U.S. Congress was considering at the time probably would have.
MZMcBride
A fair point.
But let me just underscore -- my point was narrower than the point you seem to be responding to.
I made no claim above that SOPA blackout was a good idea, or that it was executed properly; I just wanted to point out that *when the decision was made to pursue a specific course of action,* as far as I know, the Legal department did what was necessary to ensure that the WMF's legal status was not threatened.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]