[Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2008 will happen in Alexandria, Egypt

Wed Oct 10 01:58:18 UTC 2007

On 10/9/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human
> rights issues only came to light *today*.

You claimed to have noticed, but not said anything, earlier in the
process, because you felt that nobody would possibly vote for
Alexandria because the violations were so self-evident and
overwhelmingly disqualifying.

The time for you to intervene in standards for judging WM2008
selection, and argue against Alexandria on that basis, was then not
now.  For any reasonable interpretation, you were neglegent in not
doing so then if this was such an important issue to you.

> George Herbert wrote:
> > One outside the US (and a few inside it...) might reply that the US
> > has been illegally holding terror suspects without trial and torturing
> > some of them, intercepting telecommunications widely both
> > internationally and domestically, and waging illegal war in Iraq.
>
> We're talking about Egypt, not the United States. Your assertion that
> few people in the U.S. are critical of U.S. policy is specious at best.

Many criticize it; a majority are against the war, for example.  But
few think the US government is now a huge human rights abuser, despite
what we have done to a few hundred terror suspects.  There is a
staunch minority who do, however.

> > We could hold an even in ... London (no, wait, tube/bus bombings)...
> > Paris (race riots?)... Moscow (organized crime? government
> > oppression?)... Madrid (train bombings?), San Francisco (a few
> > murders, and might all fall down in an earthquake...), Seattle (less
> > murders, but both likely to fall down and be sunk by a Tsunami in a
> > quake, and there's a volcano waiting to spew Lahar all over the
> > southern parts of the city...).
> >
> > Let us be practical.  There are moral and practical concerns with
> > about every possible venue we could chose.  At least some of those
> > concerns are legitimate in a wider scope.  We cannot not chose
> > somewhere to go, or rule out any given place, due to legitimate but
> > not overwhelming concerns.
>
> What is your standard for "not overwhelming"?
>
> > Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without
> > being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local
> > treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
> >
> > Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local
> > political issues.  Most of the factions in those agree that bothering
> > western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of
> > terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away.  Alexandria was
> > also far from the areas which were affected by that.
>
> I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the
> atrocities not affecting them.

I am disturbed to find that you believe I'm trying to justify Egypt's
oppression.

We live in a real world.  Some fraction of that has disturbing,
uncivilized tendencies.  One can look at that narrowly (Myanmar,
Iran's leadership, North Korea) or more widely (East Oakland, Egypt,
Guantanamo, etc).

Yes, there are things wrong in Egypt.  It's functionally a single
party government or a dictatorship, and has some severe social and
religious uphevals in progress.  Anyone following events in the middle
east or geopolitics on the wider scale should know that.

> > I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or
> > in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or
> > freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
>
> As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned
> for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?

We just had a vocal heckler tasered a bunch at a political rally in
the United States not that long ago.  Does that qualify?  Do we need
to rule Florida out of future Wikimania events?

There is a grey area.  The line for "Yes, there's a problem" is less
than the line for "...and we should cut off all cultural and
intellectual exchanges...".  Wikimania falls into the latter category.
 You're arguing, with no opposition, and my agreement, that Egypt is
past the first line.  You are asserting that it's past the second.  I
believe that the assertion is unsupported and unreasonably harsh, in a
real world context.

> > Rangoon would be
> > bad.  Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any
> > Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization
> > and country.   Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical
> > sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your
> > Blackwater".
> >
> > Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and
> > western-style freedoms issues significance in judging.  But Alexandria
> > is a fine choice now.  Arguing to change the selection criteria after
> > selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make
> > statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
>
> The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human
> rights issues only came to light *today*.

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com