Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Rebecca O'Neill]

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  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,
> 



-- 
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Nathan]

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Ziko van Dijk]

I totally agree with you, Shlomi.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am So., 26. Apr. 2020 um 17:02 Uhr schrieb Shlomi Fish <
shlo...@shlomifish.org>:

> Hi Rebecca and all,
>
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100
> "Rebecca O'Neill"  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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Yair Rand]

"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 <‪
jeb...@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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

[James Salsman]

I have another question about that document:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline

In particular, I believe this part is out of date:

> Legislative Activities (Lobbying)
>
> At the federal level, there are serious restrictions on lobbying, including 
> “direct” and “grassroots” efforts:
>
> Direct lobbying consists of “attempts to influence a legislative body through 
> communication with a member or employee of a legislative body, or with a 
> government official who participates in formulating legislation.”
> Grassroots lobbying consists of “attempts to influence legislation by 
> attempting to affect the opinion of the public with respect to the 
> legislation and encouraging the audience to take action with respect to the 
> legislation. In either case, the communications must refer to and reflect a 
> view on the legislation.”

I believe there has since been case law from the Supreme Court
allowing nonprofits including advocacy organizations, churches, and
civic groups, to communicate with legislators and attempt to influence
public opinion. I note that the irs.gov links from those paragraphs
are now dead.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.



On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:19 AM James Salsman  wrote:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:45 AM Andy Mabbett  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 07:27, Yair Rand  wrote:
> >
> > > Also importantly, the Foundation's Policy and Political Association
> > > Guideline, which was written by WMF Legal in the aftermath of SOPA
> >
> > Link, please.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett@pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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, 
> > 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Samuel Klein]

Very well put.  S

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Sat., Apr. 25, 2020, 10:06 p.m. Gnangarra,  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  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  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
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Rebecca and all,

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:11:55 +0100
"Rebecca O'Neill"  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Meet

[Amir Sarabadani]

Hey,
A quick update. In order to improve its security, from now on,
ticketmasters don't need to know your username and password (and don't send
them your desired username and password anymore). You ask them a token and
they generate you an one-time-use token for you and then you can use that
in https://meet-auth.wmflabs.org/create to create your account for yourself.

Stay safe, stay home.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 1:11 AM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  I told so many times WMF should support infrastructure for the
> volunteers, so thank you very much for this step in that direction.
> A.M.
>
> Il domenica 26 aprile 2020, 01:08:01 CEST, Tito Dutta <
> trulyt...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Hello,
> That's super great news. I definitely want to try it. Thanks a lot for
> working on this.
>
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
> Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> me over email or phone call.
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:57, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> > "Wikimedia Meet" [0] (https://meet.wmcloud.org), is a project in
> Wikimedia
> > CloudVPS for Wikimedians to meet virtually instead of using commercial
> > services like Zoom which might have security and privacy implications
> > [1][2]. Currently it's a jitsi (jitsi.org) installation.
> >
> > If you want to just use/test it, let me know and I create you a user and
> > password. You can share the username and password with anyone you want to
> > meet but please do not post it publicly. In your email you can also give
> me
> > your desired user and password. **Do not reuse any password**. You can
> also
> > contact any of the ticketmasters instead of me:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Meet#List_of_ticketmasters
> >
> > In order to make this project more robust, I'm looking for Ticketmasters
> > too, Ticketmasters create accounts for others (It doesn't require any
> > technical knowledge, you fill a form in web for others)
> >
> > If you want to help maintaining it (which would be greatly appreciated)
> let
> > me know and I give you the needed access. I put the technical
> documentation
> > in mediawiki.org [3]. There are several bits you can help with, like
> > puppetizing it, scalability, observability, improving authentication,
> > trying to see if BBB can be used as well, and so much more. You can find
> > the tickets in the phabricator board and assign a ticket to yourself if
> you
> > feel like helping out.
> >
> > [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Meet
> > [1] https://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2020/03/27/zoom/
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/02/zoom-technology-security-coronavirus-video-conferencing
> > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Meet
> >
> > Hope that would be useful for our users :)
> > Best
> > --
> > Amir (he/him)
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Benjamin Lees]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:50 AM John Erling Blad  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
___
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,