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

2020-04-27 Thread Yair Rand 
My point about NPOV was referring to article content, as the previous post
seemed to suggest that the WMF can and does try to influence articles
non-neutrally.

I don't understand your point about the Sustainability Initiative. To the
best of my knowledge, the Sustainability Initiative (which was approved by
the Board, IIRC) does not include any public advocacy efforts. I haven't
said anything against the Initiative, and I don't oppose it myself. I do
think the WMF should not undertake any public advocacy efforts which do not
comply with the guidelines[1].

Earth Day Live was pushing many, many political positions, not just
campaign finance reform.

It doesn't take much searching to find any of the on-wiki discussions which
show conclusively that the community opposes general political advocacy. On
the wikis themselves, this isn't a matter of controversy. Activism outside
the five identified areas that relate to Wikimedia activities (Access,
Censorship, Copyright, Intermediary liability, and Privacy; see the public
policy portal and associated documents) is not acceptable, and advocacy is
only acceptable even within those areas under limited circumstances.

-- Yair Rand

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline


‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 27 באפר׳ 2020 ב-20:00 מאת ‪Bill Takatoshi‬‏ <‪
billtakato...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
> >
> > 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 be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."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.
>
> Are you suggesting that the Foundation may not take any political
> positions at all?
>
> > The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include
> > promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for
> environmentalism.
>
> I doubt that more than 20% of the long-term project editor base share
> that opinion. Can you point to even a single instance other than your
> own dozen or two complaints to this list of anyone opposed to the
> WMF's Sustainability Initiative. The only comments about it ever say
> that it should be doing more (I agree: we should be flexing our muscle
> with the datacenter operators to ask them to buy renewable power,
> perhaps in return for the visibility of a joint press release or
> acknowledgment on a high-traffic page, or both.)
>
> And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
> campaign finance reform, which was the only only issue championed by
> the Earth Day Live sponsors, and I doubt less than 10% thinks that
> both issues support the Mission to "engage and empower" free content
> contributors. Similarly for living wage standards, which support the
> ability of editors to fund their living so they don't, for example,
> need to take two jobs and thereby lack time to edit. I am sure you can
> see the connection, but for whatever reason you simply choose not to.
>
> I repeat my request for the Foundation to survey the editor base to
> put an end to this disruptive bickering.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> 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?

2020-04-27 Thread Bill Takatoshi 
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
>
> 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.

Are you suggesting that the Foundation may not take any political
positions at all?

> The Wikimedia Foundation's mission still stands. It does not include
> promoting a higher minimum wage, nor public advocacy for environmentalism.

I doubt that more than 20% of the long-term project editor base share
that opinion. Can you point to even a single instance other than your
own dozen or two complaints to this list of anyone opposed to the
WMF's Sustainability Initiative. The only comments about it ever say
that it should be doing more (I agree: we should be flexing our muscle
with the datacenter operators to ask them to buy renewable power,
perhaps in return for the visibility of a joint press release or
acknowledgment on a high-traffic page, or both.)

And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
campaign finance reform, which was the only only issue championed by
the Earth Day Live sponsors, and I doubt less than 10% thinks that
both issues support the Mission to "engage and empower" free content
contributors. Similarly for living wage standards, which support the
ability of editors to fund their living so they don't, for example,
need to take two jobs and thereby lack time to edit. I am sure you can
see the connection, but for whatever reason you simply choose not to.

I repeat my request for the Foundation to survey the editor base to
put an end to this disruptive bickering.

-Will

___
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?

2020-04-27 Thread Yair Rand 
 @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 <‪
rebeccanin...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> 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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost – Volume 16, Issue 4 – 26 April 2020

2020-04-27 Thread Wikipedia Signpost 
News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/News_and_notes

In the media: Coronavirus, again and again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/In_the_media

Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Discussion_report

Featured content: Featured content returns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Featured_content

Arbitration report: Two difficult cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Arbitration_report

Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Traffic_report

Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Gallery

Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Recent_research

Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Essay

By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational
resource during the pandemic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/By_the_numbers

Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Opinion

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/On_the_bright_side

Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/Interview

In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/In_focus

WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/WikiProject_report


Single-page view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single


https://facebook.com/wikisignpost
https://twitter.com/wikisignpost


-- 
*Signpost* team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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] Passing of User:Kattenkruid

2020-04-27 Thread Pine W 
Dear Wikimedia-l colleagues,

I am writing to share the news of the passing of User:Kattenkruid. He
was an administrator on Dutch Wikipedia who made over 73,000
contributions.

His final edit to Dutch Wikipedia placed a welcome template on another
user's talk page.

His user talk page on Dutch Wikipedia,
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Kattenkruid, holds
more information regarding his passing. Many comments have been left
there.

May he rest in peace.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-04-27 Thread Tito Dutta 
 On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 02:07, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> ... ...
> FAQ 2.6: "... findings of the 2030 research and planning community review
> [link to email],"
> -- Perhaps a "link to email" is missing? If it so, it's a minor thing of
> course and can be fixed.
>
-- While revisiting the page I saw the changes have been made. Perhaps a
response to the email could have been better, anyway, thanks for making
changes on the FAQ

Comment in personal capacity, thanks
User:Titodutta


>
> 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, 12 Apr 2020 at 23:22, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> I think at this point, someone needs to answer: who has predetermined
>> this outcome?
>>
>> It's clear nobody at (say) Samir's level can or will answer this
>> question - just repeat the same things again, as if nobody ever
>> objected.
>>
>> So precisely who is so gung-ho for this idea?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 13:58, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > My comments are in a personal capacity, and kindly note my posts are not
>> > directed towards anyone specifically/at all. Sincere thanks for
>> > understanding these two points.
>> >
>> > " We recommend you to have a look at these updates before making further
>> > conclusions here.
>> > -- Thanks for the recommendation. Kindly do not assume that we are not
>> > reading the updates "before making further conclusions here".
>> >
>> > " the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
>> about
>> > it"
>> > --Yes, RfC needs a closure/summary, from which we get action points.
>> Now,
>> > there is something called WP:INVOLVED. Someone who is
>> > supporting/opposing/promoting/demoting an idea or in other words someone
>> > who is "involved" often may not close or summarise a debate/discussion
>> with
>> > due weight to all the arguments. As a result, conclusions may be faulty,
>> > and action points may not reflect the actual opinion of the RfC. Example
>> > below.
>> >
>> > FAQ: Why is this project moving forward after the RfC resulted in clear
>> > majority opposition?
>> > (
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ#Why_is_this_project_moving_forward_after_the_RfC_resulted_in_clear_majority_opposition
>> > ?)
>> > -- Even after reading the answer I also don't understand "why?" A point
>> I
>> > get there is "exploring further options". On the report page, "What is
>> > happening with the feedback?" (intended action points section perhaps)
>> is
>> > taking me to FAQ page. From the FAQ page the last paragraph sends me
>> back
>> > to the report page, making it a loop.
>> >
>> > " The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
>> > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
>> > itself. "
>> > -- unlike other statements here any footnote or reference is not given.
>> > Would love to learn what are those activities and how was the RfC
>> feedback
>> > integrated into the agenda/activity. (Please note that I have read the
>> > brand workshop report.)
>> >
>> > That's all for now, with regards, and good wishes during the global
>> > pandemic time,
>> > User:Titodutta
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 14:19, Samir Elsharbaty <
>> selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
>> > > about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page
>> [3]
>> > > in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the
>> development
>> > > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
>> > > itself.
>> > >
>> > > The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ
>> [4]. The
>> > > RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project
>> talk page
>> > > [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever
>> they
>> > > are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before
>> making
>> > > further conclusions here.
>> > >
>> > > The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
>> > > Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
>> > > well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
>> > > convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central
>> concept
>> > > is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming
>> convention
>> > > proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word
>> "Wikimedia"
>> > > with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more
>> possibilities.
>> > >
>> > > Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
>> > > conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project
>> timeline
>> > > [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
>> > > communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of