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 <yyairr...@gmail.com> 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 be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
