Talk:Open Technology Fund

RFA, (still) run by CIA?

The article's Controversies and criticism section describes that "Radio Free Asia was also historically established as a CIA project". This contradicts the Radio Free Asia article, which describes the current incarnation (launched in 1996) bearing no relation to the CIA-funded project in 1950s.

Soon, I may start splitting a portion about CIA-funded RFA from 1950s into a new article. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I went through most of the citations this person listed and NONE of them say that the Open Technology Fund is or was funded by the CIA. Perhaps Radio Free Asia was many years ago, but not currently. The whole section on controversies and conspiracy theories is extremely biased, and not neutral. This PDF breaks down some of their funding, and mentions its an independent organization. This page specifically states this, "OTF operated as a program of RFA for seven years. Then, in 2019, the USAGM, with the help of Congress, created a new, restructured OTF - making OTF an independent Internet freedom non-profit organization." None of the those 'theories' mentioned in the page are written about by a current, citable source. Historically what something 'was' doesn't mean the project or group is still funded by that. Also, I can't find any other sources that corroborate that fact. So the book could be extremely biased. Additionally, I want to highlight the danger of writing about a civil society organization and saying it's funded by the CIA or any kind of governmental investigatory body. This person is clearly editing with an agenda. This whole section should be deleted. Cellarpaper (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Addition to Section 3 - Projects

With this reversion, User:Gamaliel removed my contribution, which I believe raises none of the issues he cites in his edit summary. My three sentences link to long-established WP:RS and present a short, straightforward narrative of a newsworthy OTF project from October 2019, that in no way violates NPOV. I respectfully request consensus to restore my contribution. NedFausa (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any BLP at all in what was removed. The articles were quoted correctly and are both reliable sources. Gamaliel please explain what you're seeing that's BLP. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the concerns were raised and discussed by Cellarpaper in their edit summaries. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I believe you have not answered the question. Cellarpaper did not revert my contribution. You did. Please explain in your own words how my contribution violated WP policies or guidelines. NedFausa (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel thanks for responding. I see the diff in question here , even though Cellarpaper doesn't explicitly use "BLP" I see that it's implied and I disagree entirely. The editor that she (she says her name on her page) reverted was reporting what was stated in not one, but two reliable sources.

Further, Cellarpaper seems to be intent on removing anything crticial of Open Talk Technology, including casting aspersions -see the edit summary.

I would disagree that any of this violates BLP in any shape and would move that it be reinstated into the article. Obviously, Cellarpaper deserves to have her say as well! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 18:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for this cordial discussion. A few things I want to highlight-- it's important that we take a step back and think about how or where Wikipedia pages set in the arena of public importance. Meaning, EN WP is an important resource that people check, these people including governments and government officials, border crossing guards, foreign entities that issue VISAs, etc. I am not removing things that are critical of OTF, in fact, I welcome criticism for the page, criticism rooted in citations. I am removing things that imply bias or could be misconstrued to harm, some of the word choices in the edits felt like they were POINTY, for example Controversies and Theories. Controversies and Theories could be retitled to New Work or Areas of Focus, or OTF in 2019 or anything else. The word choice of "anti-government" to describe some of the work that OTF funds seems to have an agenda, and honestly, could endanger any researcher who works with or is funded by OTF. Does supporting internet freedom, or fighting censorship on the internet translate to 'anti-government?' What is 'anti-government' work? Do any of the projects funded say they are anti-government? Which sources are saying which projects are 'anti-government'? Is the Tor Project anti-government, for example? My argument here is that let's welcome criticize on any part of Wikipedia, let's add skepticism or clarity to pages that need it, but let's do not with a POV. I do not think the wording of 'anti-government' is neutral. I question the agenda of the IP editor. I would love for us to come to a consensus on the descriptors within that page, and then add more information to the OTF page. Cellarpaper (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: I appreciate your analysis. However, I must clarify that I began this section to address my contribution removed by Gamaliel on 26 Dec 2019. The "diff in question" you cite is not in fact the diff in question. It is instead an earlier removal by Cellarpaper on 23 Dec 2019. Please let me emphasize that my contribution was not an attempt to restore the material removed by Cellarpaper. Rather, I rewrote the narrative expressly to avoid any issues of BLP or NPOV, and cited a better WP:RS. As we continue to discuss this matter, I hope you and other editors—plus administrator Drmies, who is now involved—will distinguish between these two separate diffs. NedFausa (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

NedFausa Your diff was the first one I addressed. I saw no BLP nor anything that wasn't reliably sourced.

Cellarpaper we do actually use the term "Controvery" on Wikipedia as you can see here. I don't see the logic in renaming it to something that takes away from the fact that it is a controversy. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, and I'm arguing that the framing of this 'controversy' isn't something that is controversial. To name it as a controversy is problematic- because it dangerous misconstrues what those projects do and can cause harm to those projects (projects being SMEX or Tor, etc etc). OTF doesn't fund anti-government work in Iran, and no documents back that up. They do fund tools that could be labeled internet censorship circumvention tools. That isn't controversial but core part of Internet freedom (and Wikimedia projects are a part of that open internet, and Internet freedom movement, too). To cite or label that as a controversy and then list Internet freedom projects as anti-government is inaccurate, and feels biased. What makes them 'controversies'? Cellarpaper (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Cellarpaper Please don't misconstrue this question, I'm not trying to run you off. However, do you have a COI connected with the Open Technology Fund? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I am an internet censorship researcher (I focus specifically on online harassment, though). I do know of the work of the Open Technology Fund, and I respect their work. However, I work in the field, and I know the dangers that can arise of word choices. So I am telling you that calling this a controversy is really dangerous for those who are funded by OTF, and those that work there :/ This is a thorny issue, for sure, but words matter. Words really really matter in how human rights NGOs are described. Cellarpaper (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant well, but I don't think this is an appropriate question, and if it were, it should also be addressed to the editors who have inserted very loaded language into the article. Gamaliel (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

NedFausa, were you interested in my opinion? Because I do have one: that bit of content, in my opinion, presents nothing that violates the BLP. Cellarpaper's edit summaries, which Gamaliel was correct in noting, are in fact specious, at least as it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for your response. I am much relieved to be reassured by an administrator—albeit one not involved as such on this page—that my contribution did not violate WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. NedFausa (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be taking it as a personal affront that someone questioned your edit. No accusation was made against you. I'm sure your edits were made in good faith, but when BLP is involved one is not "cleared" of a violation or "approved" to make an edit, we use the talk pages to discuss concerns and come to a consensus. I do not see any reason to rush to restore content nor do I see an attempt to use this page to address the concerns of Cellarpaper regarding this matter. As a result I'm removing it again. Gamaliel (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: You are clearly unwilling to explain in your own words, despite requests by Wekeepwhatwekill and by me, how my contribution violated WP policies or guidelines. Instead, you rely on "concerns" raised and discussed in edit summaries by Cellarpaper. So let me ask her directly. @Cellarpaper: Do you object to my contribution repeatedly removed by Gamaliel? If so, please specify what changes you require to make it acceptable. NedFausa (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel You did respond, but you didn't actually state what stood out as a BLP violation.

Cellpaper has also not stated what she sees as a BLP violation. She's pointed out what she believes is POV, and I disagree with her as does Ned.

In addition neither Ned nor I see any violation, thus there is no reason to remove something that's reliably sourced and hasn't been explained except with a single edit summary. Would you object to it's return in this case ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would be fine with restoring the material for now if the names were omitted and only the titles used. I don't see how the names are particularly pertinent and I don't see a reason they can't remain out of the article while discussion is ongoing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The two OTF executives mentioned in my contribution are Technology Director Sarah Aoun and Research Director Adam Lynn. Each is named by the respective WP:RS cited. Neither is defamed. When ABC's Good Morning America interviewed Sarah Aoun, they introduced her to their national audience by name. When The Washington Post quoted Adam Lynn for their international readership, they identified him by name. It is preposterous for Wikipedia to now redact their names as not "particularly pertinent." Gamaliel's compromise is utterly unfounded in Wikipedia policy. NedFausa (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

While you have an impressive grasp of Wikipedia policy for a two week old account, you should know that both compromise and an abundance of caution when dealing with living individuals are cornerstones of key Wikipedia policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thank you. I have struck that portion of my response. NedFausa (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose compromise for the reasons NedFausa just stated. Also, excluding their names doesn't make sense, it doesn't explain the removal per BLP reasons. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: It has been three days since I created this Talk section to request consensus to restore my contribution that you removed. In that interval, an admin and two editors (besides you and me) have joined the discussion. Neither Drmies nor Wekeepwhatwekill found violations of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Indeed, Drmies opined that Cellarpaper's edit summaries, upon which you based your removal, "are in fact specious." Cellarpaper herself, when asked if she specifically objected to my contribution, and if so what changes she would require to make it acceptable, did not respond. As I see it, then, you have no support for your position, whereas two Wikipedians support restoring my contribution. I construe this as consensus, and will act accordingly. If you continue to revert this contribution, it becomes a matter of Wikipedia:Edit warring rather than a good-faith dispute over content. NedFausa (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that Cellarpaper has now taken to Twitter to argue her case, instead of responding here, going so far as to label me "a persistent editor w no background on the topic." I find that extremely disappointing. NedFausa (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, just to note, it is the holiday season and I am not around my computer for editing. If there needs to be a time frame on responses, let me know and I'll do my best to accommodate. That being said, let me elucidate, and explain my points, including my Twitter thread. I stand by that thread, there was no outing or name calling, that thread was in good faith and asking a legitimate question- how can open source communities make space for outside experts and expertise. And that is, from my perspective, what is at the heart of this debate currently. NedFausa believes your edits were in the right, and brought in an admin to concur, and are reporting my edits are 'specious.' So allow me to argue my point- you believe experts should be named because they were interviewed by news sites and thus, are already public. My counter-argument is that EN:WP is the 5th most visited website in the world, and it is indexed higher in Google search results than any kind of article where someone would be interviewed. Good Morning America, for example, or VICE, or NBC News, may do a bad job of archiving their articles, or have poor SEO, and thus any article can appear on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th google search results pages, or depending upon the country a user is in, maybe appear even further down. But EN WP will always be at the top, because of how Google uses Wikipedia in quick search. Thus, when we edit, it carries a different bit of weight, especially with human rights groups. NedFausa you are making a commendable point by trying to add as much information to a page as possible, and in an accurate way, there's no doubt about it. But now, I ask you to hear me from the side of expertise that I have (since you seem to know who I am), human rights workers have to walk a fine line of sometimes being public, or being experts who are cited by public news sites, papers, etc, but have to be very careful about what and how they are portrayed. Human rights researchers, technologists, etc often get stopped or detained at borders, have VISAs withdrawn, and are jailed. What I am saying is sometimes in an effort to make the most accurate article with all information, we can endanger those who are mentioned. I ask that you think about this as you continue to edit articles. Many human rights researchers have privately reached out out of this fear, of the inaccuracies they've sometimes seen on Wikipedia, or in this case, how slighted towards wrongful conspiracies this page was. That endangers every person listed. Should we relist those specific people now? Perhaps, the page seems safe enough. But when this page is listed with supporting anti-governmental work in the Middle East (which is inaccurate) we endanger every name on this page. EN WP is a source that every person checks, so what we write and how we write can have radical affects on people's safety. I ask that you consider that in your writing and editing. I can't convince anyone otherwise, but this was at the heart of my thread- how can we come together and talk about this- what does knowledge equity look like while protecting those that are marginalized or in danger when mentioned in our edits? Cellarpaper (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

NedFausa (talk · contribs) Hang on! before you decide to "act accordingly", may I suggest not trying to place the disputed content back in, Yes, I and Drmies agree with you, however remember, Gamaliel and Cellarpaper disagree making this a 3 to 2 dispute . 3 to 2 is kind of like 1 to 2, it's not considered consensus. Yes, I realize neither Cellarpaper nor Gamaliel have actually stated what the BLP concern is, however, I would ask that you not replace the disputed content back in. Wait for more consensus, there's not a time limit here. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cellarpaper Please be careful about using twitter - this could be seen as possible Meatpuppetry. If you need to argue for your changes, you need to argue here and only here, not elsewhere, for that reason. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 for including their names per reliable sources. This isn't an outing situation - their job titles and photos are on the OTF websites, and Aoun in particular seems to be regularly quoted in the media on tech issues. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In light of our consensus 4 to 2, (Cellarpaper and Gamliel state BLP concerns, NedFausa, myself, Drmies and RaiderAspect state no BLP concerns exists , I move to re-add NedFausa's edit back in. I will also note that neither Gamaliel nor Cellarpaper have given any explanation for the BLP removal since December 26 either. Even though there's no deadline or anything, I believe the 3 week interval was more than enough time for explanations. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. For reasons stated by Wekeepwhatwekill. NedFausa (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done It has now been three days since Wekeepwhatwekill moved to restore my disputed contribution, citing our consensus 4 to 2. Since no editor has opposed this proposal, I am taking the liberty of executing it. NedFausa (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)