Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

jayen466 at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 7:00 PM

Post #26 of 30 (76 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

> Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination
> about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's
> mission? This is what's confusing me.
>
> People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki have seemed to suggest that you would
> _want_ this type of policy to cover administrator actions as administrators
> are often unelected and hold lifetime appointments.
>
> It's completely possible that it's just me, but something still isn't
> adding
> up in my head when I consider this policy and what exactly it covers and
> does not cover.
>

I'd suggest what you're struggling with may be the impression that someone
very much *wants* Wikimedia or Wikipedia to lobby for political causes. I
wouldn't even be surprised if the idea that Wikimedia should have a
community advocacy department was suggested by some of Wikimedia's partners
and sponsors.

Basically, Wikipedia has enough traffic to be a top-ten website. So if
Wikipedia says or does something, it's noticed by a heck of a lot of
people. The job of the Advocacy Advisory Group seems to be to make sure
that "the community" says the right thing.

Several of the six decision types listed on the proposed policy page, e.g.
"Collaborative Advocacy" (collaborating with another organization to take
action on a particular policy or political question) and "Limited Trademark
Endorsement" (permitting another organization to use the Wikimedia name and
trademark to promote a policy or political cause), require neither board
input nor wider community input, just consultation of the AAG.

As I said on the proposed policy's talk page, that Advocacy Advisory Group
is an odd thing. On the one hand, the proposed policy insists the AAG is a
community organ, implying it is not under the Foundation's control. On the
other hand, though, the proposed policy says the group is "managed by the
Legal and Community Advocacy Department", which is part of the Foundation.
So what does that mean? And who is in this group? Its name is hyperlinked
to yet another mailing list:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

nawrich at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 7:24 PM

Post #27 of 30 (73 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline [In reply to]

Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his
perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious
attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its
projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg
Group, using Google as its tool, has subverted the movement for its own aim
of global domination.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> I'd suggest what you're struggling with may be the impression that someone
> very much *wants* Wikimedia or Wikipedia to lobby for political causes. I
> wouldn't even be surprised if the idea that Wikimedia should have a
> community advocacy department was suggested by some of Wikimedia's partners
> and sponsors.
>
> Basically, Wikipedia has enough traffic to be a top-ten website. So if
> Wikipedia says or does something, it's noticed by a heck of a lot of
> people. The job of the Advocacy Advisory Group seems to be to make sure
> that "the community" says the right thing.
>
> Several of the six decision types listed on the proposed policy page, e.g.
> "Collaborative Advocacy" (collaborating with another organization to take
> action on a particular policy or political question) and "Limited Trademark
> Endorsement" (permitting another organization to use the Wikimedia name and
> trademark to promote a policy or political cause), require neither board
> input nor wider community input, just consultation of the AAG.
>
> As I said on the proposed policy's talk page, that Advocacy Advisory Group
> is an odd thing. On the one hand, the proposed policy insists the AAG is a
> community organ, implying it is not under the Foundation's control. On the
> other hand, though, the proposed policy says the group is "managed by the
> Legal and Community Advocacy Department", which is part of the Foundation.
> So what does that mean? And who is in this group? Its name is hyperlinked
> to yet another mailing list:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

risker.wp at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 7:55 PM

Post #28 of 30 (74 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline [In reply to]

On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> <lots of stuff>
>

Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for
quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that
the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate something
like this with Google?

Now, could you please get back to the subject, which is how the WMF should
handle third party requests to participate in advocacy, and drop this whole
Google/SOPA thing, or at least take it off this list?

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

jayen466 at gmail

Aug 4, 2012, 3:34 AM

Post #29 of 30 (69 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline [In reply to]

Well, if you don't see a problem, please explain how you see the matter.

Who is the advocacy advisory group, and why is it said that they
(a) represent the community's voice and (b) are managed by a Foundation
department?

I presume the underlying idea of the policy is that there should be checks
and balances. The Foundation and the community are supposed to balance each
other, in some sense. But there is something odd about a proposed policy
that says that the Foundation has to consult only one community organ � one
which is "managed" by the Foundation � and that the community proper will
only be consulted "if there is time" (a vague expression if ever I've heard
one).

In addition, the proposed policy says that everything it says in it may be
ignored at will, for it ends with the sentence,

"WMF reserves the right to deviate from this policy depending on the
circumstances. The General Counsel must approve any such deviation."

So, per this policy, the combined weight and value of over a decade's worth
of contributions by tens of thousands of volunteers with completely
disparate political views can be thrown behind any political cause just as
long as the General Counsel approves. Great! What do you think of that?

Andreas

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > <lots of stuff>
> >
>
> Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for
> quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that
> the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate something
> like this with Google?
>
> Now, could you please get back to the subject, which is how the WMF should
> handle third party requests to participate in advocacy, and drop this whole
> Google/SOPA thing, or at least take it off this list?
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

wiki-list at phizz

Aug 4, 2012, 4:16 AM

Post #30 of 30 (76 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline [In reply to]

On 04/08/2012 00:44, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? <wiki-list [at] phizz> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, <wiki-list [at] phizz>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1
>>>> day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits
>>>> alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which
>>>> sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that
>>>> derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated,
>>>> or who make money from advertising on pirate sites.
>>>
>>> I don't know what "other representatives" you could be referring to.
>>
>> You have two board members that are closely associated with or paid by
>> Google. One of which is a development manager for YouTube
>
> I see, you mean https://creativecommons.org/board#glenn who moved on
> to Twitter almost a year and a half ago. Someone will update that
> listing appropriately.
>

When I'm on committees and such like we swap email addresses, and
contact details, and what is astonishing those contact details don't all
change simple because someone has moved on elsewhere.

I note that also on the board you have listed three members from the
Berkman Center, and Google provides 10% of all the Corporate Funding of
that organisation. Direct corporate donations to Creative Commons are I
believe dominated by large companies whose interests are similarly
aligned with Google.

The issue here isn't that there is some smoking gun of direct corruption
where people are told to do the Emperor's bidding, but that the
antecedence of a SOPA boycott on wikipedia came 1 day after a CC board
meeting the members of whom are Google friendly.

For legitimate content creators and filesharers in the US, SOPA held no
worries, for the mega corporations of the internet that derive a large
part of their income from infringing content, SOPA could be seen as a
problem. Both wikipedia and Creative Commons sided with the Fat Cat's
against the interests of the small content creators. In the case of
Wikipedia the justification for doing so was tenuous in the extreme.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads