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)