On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by >> assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work >> out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website >> appearing to take sides in a major international dispute. >> > > What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides > with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: > U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism > would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine > if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable > hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly > politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and > in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow > political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia > Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in > that region.
I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be. Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know what the consequences will be seems like a very bad idea to me. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
