I think there is some poor wording being used ignoring nuances of the
English language and how different people speak it. One point that hits
hard for me is the way its being framed as "policy" rather than
"principles". Policy is too strong a word for its something that is
beholden with political obligations that shifts the WMF away from the core
pillars. For many jurisdictions the term policy is going to translate into
activism, advocacy, even into the realm of labelling all Wikimedians as
lobbyists, or trouble makers.
Whereas if we take as a principle it sets this as an expectation of our
community and our internal activities, it does not cross that line into
areas which cause concern, dissent, and fear within governments, GLAMs,
government agencies with whom we need to work. It also limits the risk to
communities who are charitable organisations, and individuals that want to
contribute without the fear of being labelled as a subversive.
Its one thing to consider what we do and put guides in place its another
for the WMF to step into areas, or push our contributors into positions
that have implications beyond sharing knowledge.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 22:02, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski <dszymborski(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip)
The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
*is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
Best,
Dan
There's a misunderstanding here, I think. The Wikimedia movement and the
Wikimedia projects are community-driven and collaborative. The WMF itself
is not and has never been. People who expect the WMF to be managed by
consensus, determined by RfC, are destined to always be disappointed. The
WMF certainly knows many people in the Wikimedia world have that
expectation, and I suppose they considered and rejected the possibility of
engaging in a community process for this policy. My criticism of the policy
itself is that it contains very aspirational statements; I would have
preferred it to be focused on what practical actions the WMF can take, and
build a policy around how and when those actions will be taken.
In any case, the WMF is not a governance experiment. The projects are, to
some extent, although that is not their *purpose*. Expecting every policy
and decision to be workshopped with "the community" is essentially
demanding the WMF be dissolved.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
GN.
* 2021*
*Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*
Wikimania:
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop:
https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u