Dear James, I don't think the Fram ban has anything to do with this, TBH. I understand that the board is currently under pressure with the two letters sent by the Congress and that some people experience fear to stand for the values of inclusivity the movement professed in our strategic orientation. The fact remains that a woman has experienced a smear campaign for expressing concerns about Palestine that were badly translated from Arabic and then used against her. By choosing to refuse her as a candidate and make her responsible for views expressed when she was not even a candidate, the board takes a position that can be qualified as non-neutral. People either from Palestine or Israel should not be stopped from becoming candidates.
Wikipedia is not a democracy either, and many people have been harassed and continue to be without being able to get justice. As for democracy, the wish for democracy goes two ways: some people representing gender gap projects have long been pointing out the lack of respect for underrepresented communities, and it's not like we are heading towards an improvement now. The community is not transparent either: pseudos are not transparent, and nobody in our movement is criticizing this. So democracy and transparency are arguments that need to be examined in context. The foundation is ... a foundation and is not a democracy either (and this would not change anywhere else in the world). It has nevertheless been improving, IMO. The balance between the power of communities and the power of the foundation seems to me to achieve a certain balance of power, which can be called an imperfect dystopian status, certainly not a democracy. I don't think we should be opposing "the community" to "the foundation" here. There are so many communities in our movement, that there is no such thing as "the community". There are many different opinions, and the positive thing is for them to be able to express themselves within the boundaries of respect. I understand (even if I don't quite agree) how the board could take these decisions, but in my opinion this is more a blow to projects wishing for more inclusivity than to transparency and democracy. It sends an ambiguous message: you shall not express views that are overtly "woke", so to speak, or you can be left alone to deal with smear campaigns as we wish to protect our image. I don't think it is an encouraging view to pursue. I can see why the board would fear for their image and want more discreet candidates, but I think strong, experienced candidates are just what we strategically need now to overcome hurdles, candidates like Ravan and Lane. To finish, I will quote a famous Francophone Haitian writer, Marie Vieux-Chauvet: " Fear is a vice that takes root once it is cultivated. It takes time to recover from it ". Now is the moment to stand for free knowledge, to express our concern and respect for each other, as history of the past shows that progressive movements have always been brought down by internal divisions, orchestrated mostly by smear campaigns..... With WikiLove to the board, to the communities, and to you, James. Nattes à chat _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/75P4SSMNKEXUL37WEKMRWC4B2TFI3WF2/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
