Wikimedia seems to be getting more left wing every day. Whatever happened to NPOV? No mention at all here, just "consensus" and the consensus is consistently left. Equating net neutrality with censorship is absurd. Even with respect to censorship Wiki is inconsistent since a non-free image that runs afoul of child pornography censors gets the thumbs up but a promotional image of a living person consistently gets the thumbs down, regardless of what consensus is since it comes right from the top (Wikimedia Foundation). How about saving the whales or whatever the cause du jour is under one's own name?Bdell555 07:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not a good idea
May I personally sympathize with one or the other issues listed, I hardly think WMF is the right organization to act as an NGO on such political issues, be it net neutrality, censorship, environmental issues, or whatever. WMF's role is to oversee and manage Wikipedia and their other sister projects. Any mentioned political activity would result in detracting from the WMF's core business, fracturing the community, and - worst - an unrecoverable loss of reputation of Wikipedia and its sister projects as a neutral source of information. Nageh 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If Wikimedia favors Net Neutrality, that sounds like a good opinion to me, after reading the recommendation. I think high-speed being more expensive than dial up is unfair and probably causes businesses that use it to charge more, thus adding inflation to the economy. One web directory I found seems to include only advertisments, which seems unfair and that site also takes too long to get by dial up, as do many online newspapers and magazines. Net Neutrality also helps freedom of speech. While the news seems to favor "buy low and charge high" economics, there are valid alternatives, such as coining money for small business subsidy and so forth. Therefor it seems ok to me for wikimedia to advocate neutrality of the net. --Chuck Marean 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The section "On the Need to Be Prudently Cautious..." is a must-include. The author(s) have done an excellent job of addressing many of the concerns that might arise should WMF decide to go forward with an advocacy plan.--Cooldudefx 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this document is going to make it to a final publication, but some restructuring should be in order if that is the case. Suggested:
- Proposed WMF Advocacy position: put it first; it's the point of the whole page, like summaries on most regular WP pages.
- 1. Background (The principle...)
- 2. WMF Neutrality Considerations (On the Need to be Prudently Cautious...)
- 3. Affirmative Positions (Why Should WMF support...)
- 3.1. Who holds similar views...
- 3.2. Who is needed to support proposed policy stances.
- 4. Additional Information
- 4.1. Guide for Google users
--Cooldudefx 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What Difference Does It Make?/...Rather, Yes/China
How much advocasy can Wikimedia even do? Assumeing that it will not compromise the auntonomy or NPOV of its projects to do so, Wikimedia cannot directly do an awful lot.
Wasn't Wikipedia's policy towards the PRC circa 2004 basically unofficial anti-censorship advocasy?
It certainly should encorage its local "chapters" (or "Wikipedia clubs" or whatever we want to call them) to support causes which contribute directly to sustainability of Wikimedia (e.g.: Censorship laws directly relating to content of, or access to Wikimedia; fundraising), but certainly not encorage them to campaign for things indirectly related (We need to stop climate change so that Wikimedia serves aren't flooded by raising oceans). (Should local chapters be "excommunicated" for doing so? Probably not.)
Mr. Wales should be encouraged to follow the same guidelines as those for the "chaptors" above in his personal advocasy. (He should also remember that to most of the press, he is Wikimedia, and that whatever he advocates will be thought of as the opinion of all Wikimedia editors.)
Should Wikimedia be the "shinning non-profit on a hill" for others to look up to? I'm inclined to say not really. There are many great enviromentally miraculous organisations and businesses out there in the wide world. We need not, and should not, lead them. Should we use "green" and "sustainable" practices? Certainly, within reason. (What is reason? 10% more cost/time? 20% more? 50% more? I cannot answer that.)
Should Wikimedia practice "resilient" policies (such as backing up servers in as many different jurisdictions, climates, etc. as possible)? Without a doubt.
But should Wikipedia have a banner reminding people to recycle? No. It would wreck our credibility, our policies, our culture, our heritage, our everything.Chamberlian 23:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Minor grammatical mistake
In the "Need to be prudently cautious" section there is a minor grammatical mistake in the second sentence. The verb should be "are" instead of "is"; "phenomena", subject of the verb in question, is plural. 22.214.171.124
Not all of the references cited in the text are listed at the end of the article... I would like to review some of these to get the first-hand data / information before passing comment. Could they be included please (from 12 onwards)?