Policy talk:Human Rights Policy/Archive 1

Mirror to Meta?

Hi @Varnent:, are you hoping to have all future policies on f.w.o only? It would be nice to maintain a full set of mirrored policies, like the Privacy and CoC pages. –SJ talk  05:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Sj: sorry - meant to post these edits from my staff account vs. volunteer. But on holiday leave - so was logged into volunteer account. Although either way for this particular edit... Anyway, to respond to your question. I am curious what your thoughts are on advantages of mirrored policies. My understanding is the origin of that is primarily related to restrictions placed on what was at that time Foundation Wiki. We have recently expanded capabilities on Governance Wiki (formerly Foundation Wiki) to greater facilitate community interaction (specificially allowing for translations and use of talk/user pages by SUL accounts) and reduce need for duplication. However, there may be advantages to duplication that has just not come up yet, so curious what you see as advantages as someone with more historical knowledge. Our desire has been to reduce the need for duplication as it has caused problems over the years, but I recognize there may be issues which have simply not come up in regards to housing them primarily on one wiki. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

:) Both seem fine. It's good to have just a single set of talk pages and just one place to work on translations. But perhaps also worth doing something for WMF policies that scales well to those from other parts of the movement -- say having a complete category here of whose pages may be protected mirrors from a 'wiki of origin', w/ talk pages redirecting to that wiki. –SJ talk  03:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sj: Ah - I think I see what you mean. So some sort of technical method we could use to "mirror" content (maybe translated if available) from central wikis (or one central wiki) and a notice stating the wiki of origin (similar to Global Userpages) and then talk page automatically redirect users to the originating central wiki's talk page for that content. I wonder if this idea, Phab ticket, or extension already exists somewhere. I do not think without several middle and duplicate maintenance steps this is currently possible - but I think the setup we are building on Governance Wiki could adapt to support this rather easily if it is technically doable (which - parts of it seem like they should be - but - that's usually the statement right before we learn it's insanely complicated). Does that sound like an accurate summary and roadmap reaction? Are you aware of anything similar to this out in the wild right now? I think we sort of came close to that with the previous setups - but the need for duplicate maintenance created problems over time. - Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Be the change you want to see

WMF is not the ACLU of the world and its primary Mission is quite big already. Therefore, the best way WMF promotes human rights has always been by doing and setting an example. This document barely acknowledges this role (at "both relies upon and enables human rights"); mostly it states that «Wikimedia's free knowledge projects depend upon the human right to freedom of expression». That's correct in a legal sense but focuses on a passive role. The four actions listed in "How We Implement Our Commitments" can be summarised as: avoid, talk, beg, defer.

(See also Sj's message for a more diplomatic way to say the same.)

Some examples of things Wikimedia does which directly reinforce human rights (articles per UDHR):

• free licenses and free software (articles 18, 19, 22, 26, 27);
• right to fork, democratic Wikimedia chapters, governance by consensus and community rule (article 20);
• open data and transparency (article 21);
• free software and privacy (article 17 as extended to include privacy e.g. in CFR art. 7, 8);
• multilingualism (article 2).

WMF in recent years has been backsliding or even actively working against most of these things it was created to defend. It's therefore in no position to preach to anyone about human rights and should get the house in order first. Nemo 11:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Countries and applicable law

Hard decisions about applicable laws have always been necessary, particularly for copyright laws, which are the main reason Wikimedia projects were needed in the first place.

This proposed policy adds many words but has no teeth beyond what wmf:Legal/Legal_Policies#Applicable_Law_Determination states (basically "we may or may not follow non-USA laws"). The only change in that policy compared to its 2012 version is that WMF has stopped pretending it is insulated from (arguably extraterritorial) application of e.g. EU privacy or defamation laws. (WMF had implicitly acknowledged as much by defending itself in EU courts.)

The most concrete part of the proposed policy seems to be this sentence: «in some countries, national law may offer weaker protections [...] than international standards or may directly conflict with them». Previously, WMF merely acknowledged/stated that it must follow USA law because it's forced to, but no value judgement was made (except implicitly, by choosing to reside in USA). Now WMF says that "some countries" are "weaker" and can/should be ignored sometimes.

Obviously, by the numbers and by law, the biggest threat to human rights globally are the USA. However, the policy explicitly waives USA laws from being subject to a "determination" of whether they are "applicable" despite being contrary to human rights. It is therefore very easy for people to interpret that WMF takes the side of the USA government in international disputes (and therefore supports USA imperialism and neocolonialism), while attacking USA/NATO stated adversaries (old, new or future; real or invented).

The damage is done, but there may still be time for some harm reduction. The WMF needs to show that it's really committed to its mission and therefore doesn't let extraneous considerations get in the way. That will be hard for people to believe if this policy is invoked first to justify some action against Russia, China or whatever is the bête noire of the day in Washington. A smart move would be to first invoke this policy to investigate human rights issues with some nominal USA allies: what about a (public) report on how/whether WMF is involved in illegal Israeli occupations or illegal Saudi Arabia activities? Or maybe start small, with a catalogue of federal and state laws in USA which violate the First Amendment and WMF considers illegal/unconstitutional and potentially not applicable. And if you say that's a step too far, then maybe this policy is. Nemo 11:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)