User talk:Wavelength/Global agenda

Historical background for starting this page

My motivation for starting Wikipedia:Global agenda came from comments in the third paragraph posted by Jimbo Wales on his talk page at 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC). That paragraph is reproduced below.

I have always said that we are more than just a highly technical effort - Wikipedia is a moral statement about the kind of world we would like to live in. I see room for action in this kind of situation, but rather than having this conversation at the moment of emergency, where all the usual complexities tend to weigh against action of any kind, I'd rather see us have a more focussed and serious conversation about how we ought to use our invisible and unused power to put things on the global agenda in a major way.

Those comments were made by Jimbo Wales, and I am very interested to learn his thoughts about Wikipedia:Global agenda. Please note that the discussion began with an appeal to use links on Wikipedia to help victims of the 2015 Nepal earthquake, and that many non-political organizations providing that help are listed at "Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake". The scope of Wikipedia:Global agenda does not need to include political matters.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Charitable donations

I'd like to see this page started with a fairly limited scope:charitable donations links on Wikipedia. Whether the scope can be expanded would seem to be a matter for discussion.

I'm not sure I know what type of charitable link policy I want, but here is a starting place.

• All links asking for donations for charitable causes must be placed in the external links section and be of the form
  • "Donations accepted for the victims of xxxx - [link to well known organization]"
  • The link should be in an article about a particular catastrophe, earthquake, etc, and may be kept there for only 6 months
• All organizations who place such a link must be well-known and internationally respected. They must be pre-approved by the xx committee and are expected to include organizations such as the International Red Cross/Red Crescent, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, and Oxfam.
• Pre-approval means that approval takes place *before* the catastrophe takes place. The approval process will general take several weeks and includes reviewing the charity's public financial statement, official documents related to its charitable status, etc.
• All funds raised via the link must go to victims of the catastrophe. No "commissions" can be paid to individuals or professional fund-raising organizations.
• The charitable organization must publish a report within one year of the posting on Wikipedia on where the funds raised on the site linked to Wikipedia were spent.
• At most 10 organizations per year will be pre-approved by the committee.
• After pre-approval of an organization, its name and contact details will be sent to the WMF legal department to inquire if they have any reason to question the legitimacy of individuals donating money to that organization. Any responsibility for making illegal payments (perhaps related to money laundering or terrorist organizations) is held by the editor or organization placing the link in the article, or by the donor of the funds.

Well, you get the idea of what I want by now. Any solicitations for funds on Wikipedia must be very, very limited with no possibility of scandals. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I largely agree with the above. I particularly like your suggestion of 'prior approval' - which also gives the opportunity for WMF to give at least a little look and make sure they're in broad agreement with the orgs we decide on. More comments,

• If the issue really is complicated, then perhaps we can at least agree on a more simple subset which might be more agreeable; for example, "A strictly limited number (I was thinking of 3) external links to (recognized, accepted) donations on an article about the event of a national disaster of sufficient proportions to hit worldwide news headlines".
• I think the "All funds raised via the link must go to victims..." and "The charitable organization must publish a report within one year" are probably moot, given the strict criteria you suggest for the status of the charity - ie, if the charity meets the criteria and has been approved, we already know they will do the right thing with the money.
• Perhaps any such list can be a guideline, and it can say that 'All such links are still subject to consensus agreement in the normal way, and must be in accord with EL policy'. In other words, it could be similar to GNG "Subject-specific notability guidelines" - a guide about the general acceptability of donation links in specific limited cases, which in no way contradicts or overrides normal considerations.
• Where possible, at least one of the links should allow donations worldwide, not just e.g. USA. 88.104.22.30 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed. Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. Besides, any extra political or social agenda does not belong to encyclopedia. As if the noble goal of making knowledge free is not huge enough. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Alignment with Wikimedia Foundation mission

The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is as follows:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
— Wikimedia Foundation bylaws, Article II - Statement of Purpose

Accordingly, if any global outreach actions are undertaken by the Wikimedia community, I believe they should be limited to the furtherance of this mission. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Any global outreach actions is a job of Wikimedia, which has all global money donations. Wikipedia is for creating encyclopedia. If someone wants to Save the World, they are free to create a new Wikimedia project, in addition to Wikinews, Wikibooks and Wikivoyage, they may create WikiVolunteer, WikiLobbyForBetterWorld, whatever. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, my comments were related to global outreach actions by the Wikimedia community, if any consensus is reached to pursue them. isaacl (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Any items in the "global agenda" must have global approval

Befor adding any items to Global agenda, please seek approval of significant community of wikipedians. 2-3 persons cannot decide it for all of us. Of course, when you move it in a personal user space, you may write there whatever you want. It will be considered as draft, a work in progress. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)