Bassel Khartabil/Banner/Straw poll/Against

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed: the time scheduled has ended
  1. Per NoW and as someone already raising awareness on the subject outside of WikipediaArkanosis 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Wikimedia's role is to serve free educational content to the world. I think Wikimedia should remain apolitical as much as possible. Individual Wikimedians or groups of Wikimedians may have strong beliefs and want to see political change and they're certainly free to advocate for that change, but not on Wikimedia wikis. That's not their purpose. Our projects have a long-standing tradition of not being battlegrounds, forums for general discussion, soapboxes, etc. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. This is not something Wikipedia should be used for. If we go down this road, then there is no end to all good causes we should support. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia and sharing it freely, period. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. What they↑ said (but applied to Wikimedia generally. Wikimedia ≠ Wikipedia).—msh210@enwikt 22:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. I firmly believe that Wikimedia projects are the wrong place for any form of advocacy, see Neutrality of Wikipedia. A petition is more appropriate for this kind of issue. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Out of the scope of the projects, the WMF can lobby but should leave the projects out of it. If this dam is broken once, there can't be drawn a line anymore. --Julius1990 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Wikipedia have to be protected against politicization. --SleaY (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. --Lluis tgn (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    -jkb- 00:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) like MZMcBride and Julius1990. When we do such political statement once, shall wie repeat it in the future? And when not, why do we this for this person and not for another? Folks, we cannot change to Amnesty International, we have our scope and AI has its scope.
  9. While I understand the importance and urgency of this issue, this is not what Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia Foundation is for. Remain neutral, avoid taking any stand, simple as that. --Hydriz (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Rien à voir avec la mission de Wikimedia. Avoir créé un article dans Wikipedia, c'est très bien (en s'asseyant sur les soi-disant "critères d'admissibilité", ce que j'approuve). Un persécuté est-il plus digne d'être défendu parce qu'il appartient à la communauté du libre ? Et puis battre le tambour officiellement, sur un sujet où nous ne connaissons pas tout, amènera un déchaînement dont nous n'avons pas idée. Exemple: un persécuté en Chine (pourquoi pas, il y en a) : le Parti chinois sera, cette fois, fondé à interdire tout Wikipedia pour des raisons rationnelles. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Sorry FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Neutrality of point of view should be absolute. We know when we get into this, but we do not know when we will ever get out... Defunes43 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. Wikimedia must respect NPOV. It's not a danger for the project and we haven't all informations.--Gratus (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  14. Involivng in politics, as well as language of that banner is not acceptable in neutral projects. PuchaczTrado (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  15. Wikipedia should not be used as a political tool. Mdann52 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  16. Wikimedia must respect NPOV, Wikipedia should not be used as a political tool. Saschaporsche (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  17. A banner on Wikipedia will in no way help Bassel in his current situation. /Esquilo (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  18. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should remain apolitical. --Silesianus (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  19. I support the campaign, but I don't support the banner, and especially this kind of a banner. The wording, as mentioned by Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης, goes way too far. Anyway, I will try to bring attention to the case at least with the little bit of my capabilities, and I urge the organizers of the campaign, to work closely with the Wikimedia Foundation management and staff, as they have the budget, the tools and the specialists who can tackle the problem, as well as the Wikimedia chapters who can bring the attention to the case in their respective countries. --Okino (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  20. Wikipedia is neutral and apolitical. --Andreykor (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  21. Wikipedia should not be used as a political tool. Kinamand (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  22. Wikipedia must stay outside of political issues. We're building a encyclopedia, not a weapon. --Consulnico (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  23. Wikipedia is not (or should not be) an activist site. Canaricarnivore (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  24. We should not use Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia projects in any form. Plus, please let the professionals like AI handle this. This poll should have been anonymous though since it feels a bit awkward voting here in public. public Plus do we have any evidence that this punishment is related to his Wikimedia activity's? Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  25. Bassel has all my sympathy, for seemingly being a like-minded individual, possibly facing death on the hands of a murderous, tyrannical regime. That said, at this point I do not understand how he is related to any Wikimedia project. It says above that he is a "Wikipedia volunteer". Which Wikipedia are we talking about, what were his contributions? Are there any indications that his work on Wikipedia is related to his sentence? If that is the case or likely to be the case, I will change my vote. As it stands I don't see how his predicament relates to us and why we as a project should care about this case more than any other of the thousands of similar cases worldwide. --Sebari (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  26. No politics for Wikipedia, ever. If you create a precedent, you open the floodgates and won't be able to ever close them again. From a legal point of view, you establish a case to which you can then return to, whenever a new case is submitted (case law).--Monozigote (talk)
  27. It won't help Bassel, but will start a slippery slope. נרו יאיר (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  28. This issue does not directly concern our mission, contrary to the case of SOPA/PIPA. Wikipedia itself is not apolitical, but throwing our weight around on all sorts of semi-related free culture issues will dilute our message. Also, as Gratus pointed out, we do not know enough about this person's situation for informed action. — Yerpo Eh? 12:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  29. As Gratus pointed out, we do not know enough about this person's situation for informed action--Fuucx (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  30. I do not think any banner on the Wikimedia projects will have any influence on the Syrian government. Ruslik (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  31. Wikipedia is not a political movement.--Erokhin (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  32. Let Wikipedia be free of propaganda of any kind. Nickpo (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  33. Il n'a rien à voir avec Wikipédia. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  34. It's also because I truly believe that the implicit notion, namely that the banner or an email to Syrian officials will help or at least have any effect, is completely wrong. And it's not what I would call "acting". → «« Man77 »» [de] 13:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  35. There are tens of new such cases published by Amnesty International every month, if we start using WP banners for this WP will soon be banned in half the countries of the world. Oliv0 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  36. Sebleouf (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  37. No politics for Wikipedia. Boston9 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  38. NoW, Neutrality of Wikipedia. It isn't what Wikipedia is made for.--- Luc - (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  39. I would like to see him released. But Wikipedia is not a place for politics. Maybe a spin-off rally should be organised, without any reference to wikipedia. --Otets (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  40. Si l'idée peut-être louable je ne pense pas que ce soit une bonne chose de mettre une telle bannière. Et créer un précédent est un risque. Si on commence, j'ai toute une liste de persécutés à vous proposer. --Le ciel est par dessus le toit (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  41. No politics for Wikipedia. Demidenko 15:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  42. I sympathize with Bassel, but I don’t think Wikipedia should be used for these kinds of campaigns, as this will affect Wikipedias neutrality. --Savfisk (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  43. Wikipedia is not a place for political campaining, regardless of cause. It is also pointless, as it is stupid to think that any action of Syrian officials will be affected by some kind of banner on internet site. --Grebenkov (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  44. No politics for Wikipedia. דוד שי (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  45. I support Bassel, but this kind of support isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It could set a precedent for another political actions. Uzu2009 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  46. No utilization of Wikipedias and sister projects for political purposes. Better join an external support campaign, such as --Martina Nolte (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  47. I don't want the Wikimedia sites to become the medium for for-the-cause banner campaigns. I'm ready to support the freeBasel campaign with donation. --WikedKentaur (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  48. No politics for Wikipedia.--Arbnos (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  49. The reason for a banner is good, but staying neutral would benefit wikipedia, its purpose and its developers in a long term. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  50. Again, just another attempt to abuse Wikipedia for political purposes.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  51. Orlodrim (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  52. Je trouve que c'est la porte ouverte à toutes sortes de dérives. C'est triste pour cet homme, mais pourquoi lui et pas un autre ? Guil2027 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  53. Wikipedia should remain as neutral as possible. It's the only sensible approach to building an encyclopaedia. I didn't join a political movement when I started editing Wikipedia. I don't want that to change. If this proposal is accepted, the gates will be irreversibly open for any kind of banners. --Pxos (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  54. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! This project is supposed to be about building encyclopedia knowledge. All these agendas and political campaigns have brought working on wiki into a horrible, miserable experience. I am sorry - and I hope s/he is released - but that is NOT what Wiki is supposed to be for. Ched (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  55. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi je me retrouve sur ce site en anglais alors que j'ai cliqué sur un lien sur la Wikipédia en français, mais je suis absolument contre toute bannière de soutien à qui que ce soit. Wikipédia est une encyclopédie, par un panneau d'affichage. Si vous voulez soutenir une cause, faites-le, mais faites-le en dehors de Wikipédia. Il y a plein de manières de le faire ! 02:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  56. Though Wikipedia has the "power" to some extend in raising awareness, please stay neutral as much as possible since Wikipedia is for providing free knowledge. Kenrick95 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  57. We can lobby as individuals and organisations, but should leave the projects out of it--Kippelboy (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  58. Regretfully, per the above. — Earwig talk 05:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  59. Je suis contre la récupération de Wikipédia, même pour une noble cause. --ManiacParisien (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  60. Contributing to the projects is a political choice, as it is a matter of social posture. However, in this case, the projects are not endangered. I support Bassel and sincerely hope he will be free and safe, but he is, sadly, only one among many persons in the same situation worldwide. We cannot support all of them without denying our own principles of neutrality, designating ourselves as a target for censorship and thus endangering our capacity to bring free educational content to the whole world. Litlok (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  61. Popo le Chien (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC) don't like the Idea of Wikipedia beeing used as political tool.
  62. Too political...where do we stop? Casliber (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  63. Would you like to do politics, there are plenty of opportunities to do so. But not here, thank you ! Manoillon (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  64. Instrumentalisierung von Khartabil durch Wikipedia. [1] --° (Gradzeichen) 13:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. --Umberto NURS (msg) 13:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  66. Altsprachenfreund (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  67. Oppose Oppose --Ephraim33 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  68. I don't like sentimental action without obvious and clear goal. --Nouill (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  69. No politics for Wikipedia! -- Bwag (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  70. Our objective is to disseminate free knowledge, and in no way does a banner campaign like this contribute to that goal (we don't know that mr. Khartabil's incarceration is in any way related to his Wikimedia activities). Leave political lobbying to organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and also keep in mind that the case has been brought under the attention of the United Nations. I agree with Natuur12, by the way, that this poll should have been conducted on an anonymous basis. I can imagine people will be hesitant to publicly oppose a banner campaign because it makes them look indifferent toward mr. Khartabil's fate. Woodcutterty (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  71. I have sympathy for the plight of Bassel Khartabil and other political prisoners, but Wikipedia should be apolitical. Protopone primigena (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Oppose I support the cause but wikipedia have to be neutral and apolitical. And anyway, we don't have enough information for doing anything. Metamorforme42 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  73. No politics please.
  74. ...Sicherlich Post 21:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  75. Wikipedia is outside politics.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  76. I'm sure I am but one of many who find themselves in this section not because we don't care, but because Wikimedia should not be political. Also, and please forgive my bluntness, but given the behavior of the Assad regime this is more likely to get him killed sooner than to prevent that happening. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  77. No, thanks. This guy was not arrested and sentenced due to his Wikipedia activities, hence there is no convincing reason for Wikipedia to actively get involved in that case. --Gretarsson (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  78. No. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International.--Sammyday (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  79. Unfortunately I find my self agreeing with the above. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  80. Good cause, wrong venue. Multichill (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  81. Wikipedia is not an activist group.--Snaevar (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  82. No politics, be neutral. --Sir James (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  83. I take the stance that Wikipedia as a whole should not take stances on political issues unless they are a direct threat to our mission and we can have a meaningful impact on the resolution. I find neither of these to be true, so I will oppose. Winner 42 (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  84. It is sad for this valuable contributor, but this is not a direct threat to the very principle of Wikipedia, which should be the only reason why we can put our political neutrality aside with such banners. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful this kind of initiative will weight anything in this kind of situation... Some of Wikipedia's contributors can show their sympathy toward Bassel, for instance through their user pages, but not with a global banner engaging all the communities. Rhadamante (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  85. Rhadamante's commentary convinced me, and made me change my mind. I will do something on my user page. --Pakeha (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  86. Not through any lack of concern for Bassel, but I do feel that sticking up a banner and making demands is unlikely to help his situation, and may actively make it worse. Craig Franklin (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC).
  87. Global banner, if any, must express concern of our community and support to all those undertaking efforts to free Bassel - not an ad calling others to act. Keeping in mind cultural differences, every every local wiki must be given the right to decide on the issue themselves. -- Frhdkazan (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  88. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg From what I understand, Bassel was not arrested and sentenced due to his Wikipedia activities, therefor we should remain neutral, avoid taking any stand in the events of Syrian Civil War. --Gnosis (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  89. per Gnosis in general. I've written a letter and hope that all the 152 supporters did this as well. -- Ата (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  90. Oppose OpposeThere are thousands of (good) people in prison in Syria, singling someone prominent is not a good idea. WP can't take sides, especially when the good and the bad can't be easily distinguished. WP should remain neutral, it is not in itself a tool or primary source, but a window. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 17:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  91. Wikipedia should not be mixed with politics, although I understand that the purpose is to help release the active contributor. Anyway, a banner campaign is not the right way. --Stryn (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  92. Oppose Out of project scope. jni (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  93. Good and just cause, there's little doubt of that, but I don't think this is the right way to act, especially if based just on a poll of a few hundred participants. – Haltiamieli (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  94. Bassel, though I did not have a chance to interract with him, looks like a very good and brave guy and his work, though as I understand mostly was not directly Wikipedia editing, definitely is a good example for all free knowledge and open software movements thus for us, for Wikimedians including. But Wikimedia projects' goal is to collect the sum of free knowledge and distribute it to everybody, unfortunately it is not protecting those who are doing it. Those of us who want to act have ways described for that. Wikiprojects are to relate reality not influence it. We should not change this lest we change what we are. I also agree that this vote would better be anonymous but as I do not know a way to organise one this way fast I also understand why it is not. --Base (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  95. any politics and any campagnes in Wikipedia. On the other hand, why only "Free Bassel"? and not "free Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning" They did much more for freedom of speech than Bassel. Or "free prisoners of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo" (maybe there are some real or potential Wikimedians)? --Piotr967 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Votes cast after the deadline follow below.

  1. good cause but wrong forum, wrong means. Ctande (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Fanchb29 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Braveheart (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)