Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Advocacy

We invite everyone to have a look at the existing documentation of the Working Groups, and then add comments, additional input or share concerns via this talk page. Your comments will be taken into consideration by the respective Working Groups.

General political advocacy

It seems we are starting to see some political advocacy by the WMF and its affiliate organization that seem way beyond our core mission. This is being justified with the Strategy 2017 texts, as well as with a loose interpretation of Wikimedia Values. When looking at the initial material for the Advocacy Working Group, it seems to me that this kind of general political advocacy is expected to increase.

I'll be upfront about it: I oppose such trend and I think it could severely damage the community in the long term. Here are some of the questions that, if this continues, I think should be answered:

• Given WMF advocacy activity against en:Executive Order 13769:
  • Will the WMF engage in advocacy in the immigration field?
  • If it does, will it be limited to the US? What are the guiding principles of WMF position with respect to immigration?
  • Will the WMF expand this advocacy to cover root causes for immigration?
  • Given the recent immigration crisis in Europe, which can be partially attributed to the en:2011 military intervention in Libya, will the WMF advocate against further US or NATO military interventions abroad?
• Given that WMF signed an amicrus brief together with major US tech companies:
  • Does the WMF share everything written in the amicus brief?
  • Does the WMF consider its interests should be aligned with US tech industry?
  • The amicus brief praises en:Ronald Reagan: does the WMF officially defend his political legacy?
• Given the following statement by WMF: The Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects ([1]).
  • Does the WMF consider that US approach to freedom is unique and the best one?
  • Does it consider that the WMF could not exist in other country?
  • More generally, does the WMF officially promote en:Liberal democracy, whether it is in any particular country or globally?
• Given recent support by Wikimedia Israel for legislation for en:Surrogacy for en:LGBT ([2]):
  • Does the WMF support en:Surrogacy? If Wikimedia chapters advocate for it, is that aligned with the strategy?
  • When considering this, does the WMF support the idea that consent can only be determined by the presence of physical or legal coercion or the threat of such coercion? Is there any other guiding principle that the WMF will use to evaluate advocacy on this kind of issue?

If we expand political advocacy beyond our core mission, we will be forced to have these debates within the community, and there is simply no single obvious or correct answer that matches the "equity" principle. I think that, as a global and diverse community, we will not be able to cope with such approach to politics within WMF and Wikimedia projects. --MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

See Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations. Working Group recommendations do not include substance about exact advocacy fields. --MarioGom (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. It#s not our role to define the boundaries. What we recommend is to come to a common understanding of the scope of Wikimedia advocacy. Answered [Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Advocacy/Recommendations/6|here]]. Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)