[Advocacy Advisors] Advocacy_Advisors Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7

Fri Nov 29 12:38:13 UTC 2013

Can we stick to advocacy issues on this list please?

On 29 November 2013 12:01, <advocacy_advisors-request at lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:

> Send Advocacy_Advisors mailing list submissions to
>         advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         advocacy_advisors-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         advocacy_advisors-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advocacy_Advisors digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (Amgine)
>    2. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (James Salsman)
>    3. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (Raul Veede)
>    4. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (James Salsman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:09:40 +0100
> From: Amgine <amgine at wikimedians.ca>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia
>         <advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
>         more?
> Message-ID: <52974EA4.1060203 at wikimedians.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 27/11/13 02:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> > The idea that the economic and physiological health of the editor
> > pool isn't a large determinant of the proportion choosing to edit,
> > if not the largest that we may have any meaningful control over
> > after everything we've tried so far, simply does not seem
> > defensible. What does it mean to empower a potential editor with
> > the ability to share knowledge, if their circumstances leave them
> > without the inclination to do so? That is the difference between
> > empowering and merely enabling, is it not? A slightly more complete
> > encyclopedia with society crumbling around it is not an improvement
> > over a less complete  encyclopedia in symbiosis with a flourishing
> > society.
>
>
> Two points of disagreement:
> * "that we may have any meaningful control over"
> * "does not seem defensible"
>
> I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
> or the physiological health of the editor pool. We do note even have
> significant relevance to either hugely divergent measure.
>
> Therefore it *is* completely defensible.
>
> Until you can support your statements with objective, repeatable,
> observations you should probably avoid castigating others for what is
> your beliefs or moral codes. It tends to make people less aligned with
> your goals because of their opposition to your methods.
>
> Amgine
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:23:44 +0800
> From: James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
>         <advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
>         more?
> Message-ID:
>         <CAD4=uZYT8zS9xZGNwWQXwMNKEBi6ULcnV_B5eLuwjU=
> hiYFCmQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Nov 28, 2013 10:09 PM, "Amgine" <amgine at wikimedians.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
> > or the physiological health of the editor pool.
>
> It has been established by example that the English Wikipedia is able to
> influence its readership politically to generate very large scale effective
> political change from calls to action. We are also a primary source of
> information about health for both physicians and lay people. More directly,
> the Foundation now makes decisions about how to compensate editors and
> chapters based on the merit of their proposals as submitted, directly.
>
> So, for example, if there were a banner directing people to  fixmyjob.comor
> heathcare-now.org, there is no reason to believe it would not generate
> very
> substantial support from readers and have a large actual, and probably
> measurable, impact on the extent to which they are truly empowered to
> contribute.
>
> Ignoring political realities of the factors that influence the day to day
> lives of editors, potential, current, and former, is just that -- willful
> ignorance. When the legal team was threatened with the potential
> troublesome overhead of removing links due to SOPA/PIPA, the community
> supported action to prevent that. When are we going to take action to
> support the wider editor community?
>
> Pretending that political and economic factors are somehow out of the scope
> of the mission requires imagining that the mission statement says something
> about them. It does not. What is the relative impact on a potential editor
> who might not be able to include hyperlinks to copyrighted media because of
> SOPA versus one who has to work two jobs to make ends meet?
>
> Why is political neutrality on economic issues preferable to political
> neutrality on intellectual property law issues? The latter is a subset of
> the former. Acting as though one side of economic political debates is not
> more accurate than their opposition in the face of overwhelming evidence to
> the contrary is tantamount to the worst kind of "he said, she said"
> journalism, which in this case is not only an affront to the readers who
> expect occasional rational calls to action, but actively harms the rate at
> which the encyclopedia is improved.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20131129/e0dde29f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:14:06 +0200
> From: Raul Veede <raul.veede at gmail.com>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia
>         <advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
>         more?
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAG_2RZrYmZDDqVgUZZKtydZtdUW5pF_KeXZrt6vguqe4Q65MZg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> "...very large scale effective political change..."
>
> Well, if you're really believing that, perhaps you would like to focus on
> real global problems that are also connected to the problems of the
> Wikimedian community like creating a reliable education system in
> Sub-Saharan Africa? If you insist that the greatest problem we as a global
> movement face is the low living standard in U.S., we should, of course,
> start collecting donations in Bangladesh and Botswana right away.
>
> Many members of this very mailing list are people from countries facing far
> worse situations than Americans (or Estonians, for that matter). Once you
> realize that, calls to support local Amerocentric actions don't sound very
> smart - even if they were relevant to this list's agenda.
>
> Raul
>
> On Thursday, November 28, 2013, James Salsman wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 2013 10:09 PM, "Amgine" <amgine at wikimedians.ca<javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'amgine at wikimedians.ca');>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
> > > or the physiological health of the editor pool.
> >
> > It has been established by example that the English Wikipedia is able to
> > influence its readership politically to generate very large scale
> effective
> > political change from calls to action. We are also a primary source of
> > information about health for both physicians and lay people. More
> directly,
> > the Foundation now makes decisions about how to compensate editors and
> > chapters based on the merit of their proposals as submitted, directly.
> >
> > So, for example, if there were a banner directing people to
>  fixmyjob.comor
> > heathcare-now.org, there is no reason to believe it would not generate
> > very substantial support from readers and have a large actual, and
> probably
> > measurable, impact on the extent to which they are truly empowered to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Ignoring political realities of the factors that influence the day to day
> > lives of editors, potential, current, and former, is just that -- willful
> > ignorance. When the legal team was threatened with the potential
> > troublesome overhead of removing links due to SOPA/PIPA, the community
> > supported action to prevent that. When are we going to take action to
> > support the wider editor community?
> >
> > Pretending that political and economic factors are somehow out of the
> > scope of the mission requires imagining that the mission statement says
> > something about them. It does not. What is the relative impact on a
> > potential editor who might not be able to include hyperlinks to
> copyrighted
> > media because of SOPA versus one who has to work two jobs to make ends
> meet?
> >
> > Why is political neutrality on economic issues preferable to political
> > neutrality on intellectual property law issues? The latter is a subset of
> > the former. Acting as though one side of economic political debates is
> not
> > more accurate than their opposition in the face of overwhelming evidence
> to
> > the contrary is tantamount to the worst kind of "he said, she said"
> > journalism, which in this case is not only an affront to the readers who
> > expect occasional rational calls to action, but actively harms the rate
> at
> > which the encyclopedia is improved.
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20131128/7749851f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:02:27 +0800
> From: James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
>         <advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
>         more?
> Message-ID:
>         <CAD4=
> uZa1z4dEs1ONQa-azky-+0cN8z_5d42A8ymsQZ0VOvu2Hw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Nov 29, 2013 5:14 AM, "Raul Veede" <raul.veede at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >... you would like to focus on real global problems that
> > are also connected to the problems of the Wikimedian
> > community like creating a reliable education system
> > in Sub-Saharan Africa?
>
> That is in fact my day job. I have been unable to effect as positive change
> in the field in large if not largest part due to the economic and political
> conditions in the United States, where I used to live. Why isn't USAID
> doing as much for Africa as it did for the Pacific Rim? Because the
> diplomats have been losing out to the arms dealers internationally.
> If Wikimedians wanted to address that problem within the confines of not
> taking a stand on U.S. economic issues, we could have a drive to translate
> instructions for obtaining exchange student visas and invitations. I think
> that would be great, but much less effective than taking a principled stand
> on the economic issues which enable the arms dealers to operate with
> impunity in the largest economy where most of them are connected with to
> begin with.
>
> I have done plenty for education in the developing world, including
> improving some of the most important health care articles and preparing
> them for translation. If I thought the most positive overall change could
> be effected by doing something about the developing world, then I would say
> so, and I have long been on record as supporting the ratification of the
> Convention on the Rights of the Child and its protocols without
> reservation, e.g. at http://j.mp/amendmentact
>
> Best regards,
> James Salsman
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20131129/396d2438/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
> End of Advocacy_Advisors Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7
> ************************************************
>

-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20131129/d51ff353/attachment-0001.html>