While this is a compelling interpretation - for the sake of argument - I am not sure the words of the ED of the WMF can bind the Board of the WMF in the decisions they make. I could imagine situations where they could, and normally the ED advises the Board on what direction to take, but normally it should be the other way around when it comes to binding statements.
Best regards, Bence
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Marc,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 04/28/2014 10:29 PM, Russavia wrote:
because the WMF Executive Director's words are pretty clear, and the "movement"
should
not be putting one cent into such positions.
That's an interessing conclusion you reach, because the Executive Director's words *are* indeed clear - as you quoted:
"In the future, *the Wikimedia Foundation* will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus [...]"
(emph. mine)
I'm pretty sure I don't see the "movement" mentionned anywhere in there.
Whether the chapters intend to take such a position themselves is indeed an interesting question, but that they are obligated to do so or that the FDC is obligated to ensure that they do does not follow from what Sue has been saying.
My native language is English, and understanding the sentence:
"In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process."
is a case of simple comprehension.
Let's use another way of putting across what this sentence is saying.
Timmy's parents are noted anti-drug activists, speaking out against the horrors of drugs. But, Timmy is a drug addict, and whilst his parents publicly speak out against drugs, they had been quietly paying for Timmy's habit. When this was brought to the attention of the public, Timmy's parents put out a statement that read:
"In the future, we (Timmy's parents) will not support or endorse Timmy's drug addiction, regardless of who buys or enables the supply of drugs."
Now, Timmy continues to do drugs, and it later comes out that his continued habit was as a result of Timmy getting money from his uncle, who in turn was given money by Timmy's parents, with Timmy's parents knowing full well that a percentage of the money which was being given to Timmy's uncle was continuing to feed Timmy's habit.
Wouldn't Timmy's parents be totally hypocritical in this instance? Wouldn't anyone who pointed out that the statement only said "we (Timmy's parents)" be avoiding the issue that Timmy's parents are in fact continuing to support Timmy's habit, when they have explicitly said that they would not?
I know that the chapters have a reason for not asking, but unlike the chapters (and over parties), I don't have a financial and vested interest in WMF funds.
So, Marc, perhaps, "movement" was the incorrect word to use, but other than that the obvious intent of the comments and questions I've raised stay the same. So, I will rephrase to allow for zero semantics.
"Can chapters please advise what "paid editing" positions are planned, and whether those positions will be covered as part of WMF allocated funds, or whether outside organisations will be covering funding of such positions, because the WMF Executive Director's words are pretty clear, and the WMF will not be putting one cent into (supporting) such positions."
I await an official response from the WMF on this issue.
Regards,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe