Clearly the movement is in a bit of a quandary here.
The Board, some of whom have been elected by the whole community, has
decided to implement an image filter, the full details of which have not yet
The Foundation announced a referendum, but actually ran a consultation, the
results of which give many pointers as to what features of a filter would be
more acceptable, workable or the reverse.
But it didn't give a clear answer as to the level of support for an image
filter as that wasn't a question in the consultation.
Our third largest project has held a referendum with a very clear result,
though as we don't yet know how the filter would work, I do wonder which
potential version(s) of the filter they were voting on.
An image filter would inevitably involve Commons, our largest project at
least in number of mainspace pages; But it could be implemented in such a
way that any other project could opt out of it.
One possible solution to the current divide would be:
1 The Board publicly accepts that this system will not be implemented
without the support of the community in a referendum.
2 Using the results of the consultation the devs code up a filter and
install it on a test wiki. This will enable people to know how it would
actually work and what (dis)functionality it would contain. This might need
to involve choices in the form of different versions of the filter. A
version or versions of the filter only get to be considered for full
implementation if they've been tested and there are people who want to
commend that version of the filter to the community.
3 The movement commissions some research among readers and potential readers
as to their attitudes to this sort of censorship on wikimedia sites. This
research would attempt to answer amongst other things, how many, if any
people who avoid us now would use our sites if we offered such a filter (for
me and I suspect some others there would be no point in progressing this if
the people who currently don't use us would not be mollified by such a
4 Decide the electorate(s), question wording and interpretation of a
referendum. This includes deciding between a Federal solution, (we have/have
not support over the movement as a whole so this will/will not be
implemented on all wikis) and a Confederal solution (those wikis that vote
for it get it, those that voted against don't). If its a confederal solution
we need to remember that some of our wikis are inactive and many are not yet
created, so we need to decide whether this is Opt in or Opt out. The
electorate also needs to be agreed, this is almost simple for a Federal
election, but for a confederal one you have to decide if somebody who is
active on three wikis get one vote on the federal total, but can vote in
three different wikis as to whether they opt in or out. If the devs can't
code all the feedback into one version of the filter and instead offer us a
choice of different types of filter then this referendum could start to get
complex. Getting one series of questions where we can agree what the
questions mean, how the results will be interpreted, and where everyone who
can make up their mind on the issue will be able to express their opinion
with a particular set of answers, will not be easy. But I think it is
5 Translate the referendum into multiple languages, and then hold the
6 Announce, discuss and if we have a green light, implement the result. If
we have a red light then we can stop the process, otherwise:
7 If some or all projects decide to implement this, then we need to tell our
readers how this works.
8 Monitor the results
9 After an agreed time review the results. This is the time to ponder
questions such as who is actually using the filter, what are they filtering
out, are they happy with the result? If we've implemented it in some
languages spoken in the Islamic world have we gained readership there?
While I personally probably wouldn't use a filter I'm more than happy that
those who want to filter out spiders, penises, artwork banned by their
religion and indeed various degrees of nudity can do so. But more important
to me is that we find a way to discuss and resolve this that leaves both
sides, and especially whoever doesn't get their way, thinking that they've
been listened to, and that the process has been fair.
For me it would be better to be on the losing side of a fair and open
process that on the winning side of an unfair one.
___ _ _
/___\ _ __ (_) _ __ (_) ___ _ __
// //| '_ \ | || '_ \ | | / _ \ | '_ \
/ \_// | |_) || || | | || || (_) || | | |
\___/ | .__/ |_||_| |_||_| \___/ |_| |_|
Year: 2011 Week: 38 Number: 128 BIS
An independent internal news bulletin
for the members of the Wikimedia community
=== Wikizine needs YOU! ===
Wikipedia has already changed the world. Wikimedia movement is at the
beginning of that task. To push the movement into that direction,
Wikizine needs your '''bold''' ideas and personal perspectives! Send
your ideas to us or simply add them into the appropriate section. What
YOU think can change the world!
[Name] - Working title of this edition is "Wikizine Talk Edition"
because we didn't have better idea. Send us suggestions for the name!
=== Contents ===
In the news
=== Editorial by Milos ===
As you could read in Wikizine 127 , I took initiative and began a
Wikizine revival. You may notice some changes and I can say that there
will be more changes, as such changes keep all of us alive.
Editorial is one of those changes and it will have two main parts: (1)
presentation of one of the Wikizine feature and (2) analysis of the
most important event from the previous week or two. Opinion or Talk
Edition of Wikizine will be published on Friday and ?previous week?
means approximately Friday-Thursday time frame.
Last week had begun with such intensity, I thought I could close this
edition by Monday.
==== (Un)acceptible Foundation influence on chapters ====
On August 27th, almost 20 days before the conclusion of this edition,
CasteloBranco, a member of the initiative for Wikimedia Brazil, sent
an email to foundation-l  with the description of agreement inside
of Brazilian Wikimedian community about chapter creation. That was the
main obstacle toward formalizing the chapter, as Brazilian Wikimedians
didn?t feel comfortable with the idea of having a formal organization.
That day five more Wikimedians discussed the outlines of this
agreement on foundation-l, including a note from Ray Saintonge that
it?s not the best idea to have a Wikimedia Foundation appointee in
chapter?s Board (as suggested by WM Brazil?s agreement).
For five days discussion was dead, when Jimmy Wales said that having a
WMF appointee is, actually, a good idea. That sparked long discussions
on both foundation-l and internal-l (the latter one is a non-public
list of the core of Wikimedia movement). A number of chapters
representatives felt offended by the idea of having a WMF appointee on
==== Image filter retrospective (from spring 2008 to early 2011) ====
For those who have forgotten what?s behind the image filter
?referendum?, here is a retrospective.
The initial point of the drama started on 7 May 2008 . Because of
religion, of course. US-based ?social conservative? site WorldNetDaily
reported Wikipedia  because of the cover art for the Scorpions?
album Virgin Killer . According to Concerned Women of America,
another ?social conservative? group, ?Wikipedia is helping to further
facilitate perversion and pedophilia.?
On 5 December 2008, in the moment of madness, worthy of the best of
surreal poetry, Internet Watch Foundaiton (IWF) , the association
of UK internet providers, listed Wikipedia as a child pornography site
 because of the same album cover . It seems that IWF needed just
four days to find someone who knows what Wikipedia is. IWF reversed
their blacklisting on 9 December.
In a moment of desperate need for self-promotion, Larry Sanger ,
known because he didn?t believe that his project (Wikipedia, for which
has sometimes been described as a co-founder), would succeed and not
so known because of a number of failed projects, reported Wikipedia to
the FBI  on 10 April 2010 because, of course, ?child pornography?.
Just a short 17 days later, Fox News discovered the hot news and
published it  in a well known form of spreading FUD to everything
which doesn?t fit to their retarded worldview.
The action of the IWF prompted discussions on Wikimedia Commons in
2008. However, just after the Commons community declined to change
well defined policy toward images, which are handled based on their
quality, not the biased opinion on content, on May 6th, 2010 Jimmy
Wales started to delete not just poor quality Second Life animated
pornography, but artworks, as well. That sparked a huge revolt among
editors . At the other side, the
action was praised by Fox News, of course .
Between May 6th and May 9th, the most striking event was the fact that
smart people from the Board were talking nonsense just to stand behind
Jimmy?s irrational behavior.
The Board?s statement from May 7th  was actually quite good. Note
that part of the statement says ?In saying this, we don't intend to
create new policy, but rather to reaffirm and support policy that
already exists.? Yet as it could be seen, in around one month the same
Board changed their mind and pushed development with the aim to
implement new policy.
After that the Kafkaesque parody started. Jan-Bart de Vreede, a Board
member, interpreted Board?s statement as supporting Jimmy?s deletion
of artworks . Ting Chen, Board chair, also supported deletion of
artworks . Stuart West thinks that some deleted artworks are
?hardcore pornography?, as well .
Digression about artworks for the complete picture. Jimmy deleted
, among others, the next images:
Painting  by Édouard-Henri Avril, a 19th and early 20th century
French painter .
Graphics  by Franz von Bayros, a late 19th and early 20th century
Austrian illustrator .
Graphics  by Félicien Rops, a 19th century Belgian artist .
What is interesting with all of those artists is that they belong to
the Decadent movement in art . Which, by the way, says that you
can create the most important educational resource in the history, but
not be able to make distinction between pornography and art. And no
matter of your ignorance, you would be supported by your fellow Board
On May 9th, 2010, by concluding his regular behavioral iteration --
first makes a problem, then does the right thing to fix it --, Jimmy
abandoned his permissions .
But, of course, that wasn?t the end of the drama. On June 24th, 2010
Board commissioned the Executive Director to find a way to satisfy Fox
News and those who take Fox News seriously. 
I had personal conversation with Robert Harris, the person employed by
the WMF to ?solve? the problem. It was a very surprising discussion.
During the first iteration of our communication, at the time when he
presented some facts, including a perspective of one Canadian
librarian , which clearly stated that libraries do not mark
?objectionable? content in any particular way, it was a real pleasure
to hear his insights.
But a month or two later it was clear that he wasn?t employed to make
a decent suggestion, based on our values. He was employed to make a
decision which would satisfy Fox News adherents. Instead of mentioning
anywhere that it is not usual to mark sexually explicit content,
instead of giving a multicultural perspective by adding at least
Muhammad depictions to the list, he just produced a conclusion to
please those to whom it is much more problematic that their daughter
educate herself in sexual hygiene and contraception, then to see her
pregnant at the age of 15. Of course, by mentioning ?multiculturalism?
just when it is in favor of those, exclusively American right-wing
Then the Censorship workgroup [not able to find public link; it was
likely announced on internal-l] was created. The task of the group was
to articulate what the censorship would look like. I offered,
hesitantly, to participate in it, as a part of the responsibility
which I had as one of the most vocal opponents of that task. Not
unexpectedly, all of us were happy without me on the workgroup.
After a period of workgroup work, it presented the design of
censorship software . To be honest, it is not bad at all. People
are able to click on ?show image?, nothing is cemented. In an ideal
world, such an image filter would be a very good option. However, we
don?t live in an ideal world.
I?ll describe current events (the second part of 2011) after enough
time passes and some distance from the current events would be created.
==== Song of the week ====
For the end of the editorial, here is the song of the week:
=== Personal perspective ===
This week we have personal perspective from Salmaan Haroon,
Theo is from India. He is originally from English Wikipedia but mostly
active on Meta these days. He worked extensively on the WMF strategic
plan on Strategy Wiki  a couple of years ago. He has been involved
in Movement roles since early this year. He wrote for the Signpost
He worked for WMF for 3 months last year during the fundraiser, and
got the chance to interact with chapters and see the fundraising issue
from different perspectives.
Wikimedia chapters council  is his proposal.
I was invited to write about my perspective on the recent chapter and
fundraising issues that have been doing the rounds. Let me first start
out by making this disclosure- I am not affiliated with any chapter
beyond a regular membership acquired a few weeks ago, I never sat on a
chapter board, attended a general meeting, and neither do I plan on
starting any time soon. Given a different set of circumstance, I am
not sure if my perspective would be deemed completely neutral in the
Previously, as an outsider to the internal working of Wikimedia and
chapter relations, I viewed the idea of chapters as a regular
unaffiliated community member would i.e. with a mix of ignorance and
skepticism. Chapters are viewed in some circles as legal organizations
formed in different countries by a handful of people who then use
Wikimedia trademarks and fundraising to raise funds to just exist and
occasionally serve as a local outreach point. Somewhere during the
last year, I actually started meeting some of these people. I began to
see the other side, how chapters perceive themselves and each other.
True, there is an entire spectrum where each chapter falls and how
close they actually are to what they want to be. Some of these people
became my friends, I started seeing things from their perspective.
Over the last year, I saw chapters organize and take on activities
like Wiki Loves Monuments, something the foundation never tried to do.
I saw them do local GLAM outreach and activities in Germany and
France, again, something that the foundation could not take on
directly. They all do their own thing individually in their part of
the world whether it be some open-license lobbying to their local
institutions or outreach to a local exhibition. I can not in good
conscience accept that our movement would be any better off without
them being independent. They are completely decentralized, and do
their own thing independently, I love that model. A few dozen
organizations doing their own things in tandem in different parts of
the world is an unmatched model when it comes to productivity.
Lately however, there have been overtures that this model might be
under threat. The distance and the relation between the foundation and
the chapters has been getting more and more strained. The fundraising
issue and the board letter that started the recent debate at the core
placed concerns, that really no one disagreed with. I am yet to talk
to a single person who thinks that most of those concerns aren't
legitimate or there isn't a need for a sustained model of
accountability. Almost every chapter in private and public, agrees
that the issues are serious and require some action on everyones part.
The biggest issue is however how these concerns are being addressed.
Some of the foundation's recent actions are being perceived as a
heavy-handed towards chapters and the community at large. The
conceptual directives have been coming from the board, perceptually
overlooking an important distinction someone else made earlier- the
board is the Wikimedia Foundation's board, not the chapter's,
certainly not the movement's, the larger community is even less
inclined to agree.
When the questions about the fundraising issue started, there were 2
large concerns that took over after the board's announcement. One, if
the chapters that already agreed to participate in the fundraiser
being allowed to continue, and second, if new half-a-dozen chapters
that wanted to participate would be able to do so. The timing as
others pointed out was less than ideal, having the staff and the board
in person at Wikimania didn't help and instead compounded the
problems. The cross-talk between the board and staff at that stage
seemed minimal. Sue gave a lengthy explanation about the issues and
the board's concern, as did several board members who offered their
perspective, staff members however seemed to be on a different page.
Instead of giving any time to discuss and coordinate on how to address
these issues, the entire fundraising model was taken away in what some
perceive as a knee-jerk reaction and being replaced quietly by a
In hindsight, effective planning, and better timing might have avoided
the initial confusion. But springing such an important change on
chapters so close to the fundraiser, even after chapters attended an
entire 'fundraising summit' just a few weeks prior could not have gone
well. Chapters were told how to participate in the fundraiser by WMF
staff that attended the aforementioned 'summit'. They were now being
told to re-evaluate it all, and forget about fundraising and focus on
a grants-based model. With all the arguments and the questions that
ensued, the staff hasn't addressed most of the issues publicly.
Delphine pointed out facts about WMDE, how the ideal independent
chapter, the only one who would be allowed to fundraise came to be.
How its independence, and the ability to stand on its own two feet
made WMDE an example to follow for others. The notion that independent
fundraising by chapters wouldn't affect the money needed by the
movement is a fallacy. The movement as a whole would lose millions
every year, if the chapters are not allowed to do this locally. At
some point, we have to realize - a one size fits all, global solution
doesn't work. Our movement is decentralized, I think it's only logical
that the fundraising be decentralized as well.
There is also a general sense of questioning the ownership of the
fundraiser among the larger community. There are people who believe
that it is the foundation's prerogative to only allow anyone it wants
to fundraise or not, since it is the sole entity in charge of
everything related to the movement. This would inevitably lead to more
questions about ownership of the projects, and who is entitled to
raise money in the name of Wikipedia?
Non-profits around the world use a decentralized model similar to the
one we might have. The current structure looks identical to theirs. if
someone were to visit Oxfam.com, they would be directed to the nearest
office in their region where they can donate to the cause. In our
case, the biggest identity would be our projects, a banner could serve
the same purpose locally. Why do we then question the same model that
already exist and work elsewhere?
Around the time these discussions were going on, I recalled something
that we talked about during the Chapters conference in Berlin. An idea
about a Chapters council, composed of all individual chapters to say
"We, the chapters...." - The community itself is large enough that it
can never completely agree on any point together, an important
distinctions that chapters might not suffer from. The number of
chapters are not large, and some of the issues are so central that a
single unanimous voice is not hard to form. There are and have been
several iterations of this body, over the years and there is a clear
need for it now than ever before. I have no idea if it can bridge the
gap and address some of the concerns everyone has, but I do believe,
it is worth trying, now more than ever.
Chapters, should ideally be the face of the movement- young,
hard-working, active and mostly unpaid volunteers that take the
good-nature and ethos of our movement, offline. Be it some small
project in their backyard, outreach to a local library or museum or a
small exhibition in their city, they should be given freedom to decide
what works for them locally and then the ability to do so. The
foundation should ideally, do its best to support and decentralize
this model as much as possible. When chapters work, they work
Salmaan Haroon, User:Theo10011
=== In the news ===
[Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner in US diplomatic cable] - Jimmy Wales was
mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable under the name Jimmy Walker.
Among many people with that name, one Jimmy Walker was the mayor of
New York City from 1926 to 1932. Another one is Jimmie Walker,
comedian. Sue Gardner has been presented as "Wikipedia's leading
[Inventor of eBook died] - Michael Stern Hart, inventor of the eBook
concept and Project Gutenberg, has died at the age of 64.
[Celebrities? Autographs] - Crushable reports (not quite) news that
Wikipedia has started including celebrities' autographs in articles
about them. In a related event, User:Hindustanilanguage uploaded ~300
autographs on Wikimedia Commons in mid-August.
["How do i edit a page on wikipedia without it gettin removed?"] - A
classic high school question about editing Wikipedia appeared on Yahoo
[Positive critique in Washington Post] - The Washington Post
journalist Valerie Strauss published article on "Wikipedia is not
wicked!" by The Daring Librarian, otherwise known as Gwyneth Anne
Jones, on her blog.
[Branding company plays with Wikipedia] - Branding company Moving
Brands, invited by Viewpoint magazine to showcase their process,
created a proposal for a new Wikimedia identity. While the value of
the final product could be debated, it is interesting that the company
has a clear understanding of Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Wikipedia's core
Five Pillars, which they included in their creative process.
[Wikipedia editors motivation] - Business life has published the
article "Why do people contribute to Wikipedia for free?"
[New York Times on Wikipedia and 9/11] - New York Times published an
article "On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 ?Edit Wars?".
[Jimmy Wales guest of Cambridge Network] - Jimmy Wales gave a lecture
to the Cambridge Network members. The Cambridge Network is a
commercial business networking organization for business people and
academics working in technology fields in the Cambridge area of the
UK. In response to his lecture, Cambridge Business Media published the
article "Running Wikipedia, possibly not as easy as Jimmy Wales makes
[The worst Kindle eBooks] - "The worst Kindle eBooks ever written" is
a compilation of Wikipedia articles.
[Copyright in EU] - Copyright on musical recordings extended by twenty
years in EU.
[WikiSweeper] - Ushahidi and Wikimedia Foundation joint initiative to
create a hot news tool for Wiki editors
[Jimmy Wales in Indianapolis] - Jimmy Wales was talking to 3,000
marketing experts in Indianapolis.
[Columnist for Independent and Wikipedia] - The award-winning
Independent columnist Johann Hari has apologized for editing the
Wikipedia entries of people he had clashed with, using the pseudonym
[Campus paper The Bell Ringer on Wikipedia] - Columnist of The Bell
Ringer, the campus paper of the Augusta State University, published
text "In the Defense of Wikipedia".
=== From Wikipedia ===
[Hungry ghost] - Hungry ghost is a Western translation of an Eastern
phrase representing beings who are driven by intense emotional needs
in an animalistic way.
[Fenian raids] - The Fenian raids of the Fenian Brotherhood based in
the United States on British army forts, customs posts and other
targets in Canada were fought in order to bring pressure on Britain to
withdraw from Ireland, between 1866 and 1871.
[Monte Cristo, Washington] - Monte Cristo is a ghost town northwest of
Monte Cristo Peak, in eastern Snohomish County in western Washington.
Prospecting in the region began in the Skykomish River drainage with
the Old Cady Trail used for access. In 1882 Elisha Hubbard improved
the trail up the North Fork Skykomish, from Index to Galena, then
north up the tributary Silver Creek. A boom shortly followed at
Mineral City. The mineral belt was traced in various directions,
including north over the divide between the Skykomish and Sauk River
[Persin] - Persin is a fungicidal toxin present in the avocado. It is
generally harmless to humans, but when consumed by domestic animals in
large quantities it is dangerous. It has been suggested as a treatment
for breast cancer.
[Progress trap] - A progress trap is the condition human societies
experience when, in pursuing progress through human ingenuity, they
inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or
political will to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status,
stability or quality of life. This prevents further progress and
sometimes leads to collapse.
[Phosphene] - A phosphene is an entoptic phenomenon characterized by
the experience of seeing light without light actually entering the
eye. The word phosphene comes from the Greek words phos (light) and
phainein (to show). Phosphenes are flashes of light, often associated
with optic neuritis, induced by movement or sound.
[HD 85512 b] - HD 85512 b is an extrasolar planet orbiting the star HD
85512 approximately 36 light-years away in the constellation of Vela.
The planet was discovered by the scientists at University of Geneva,
Switzerland, led by the Swiss astronomer Stéphane Udry of the GTO
program of High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS), a
high-precision echelle spectrograph installed on ESO's 3.6 m telescope
at La Silla Observatory in Chile. HD 85512 b is one of the smallest
exo-planets discovered to be in the habitable zone. HD 85512 b is
considered to be the best candidate for habitability as of August 25,
[Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin] - Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (May 10, 1900 ?
December 7, 1979) was an English-American astronomer who in 1925 was
first to show that the Sun is mainly composed of hydrogen,
contradicting accepted wisdom at the time.
[List of people claimed to be Jesus] - John Nichols Thom (1799?1838),
Cornish tax rebel who claimed to be the "saviour of the world" and the
reincarnation of Jesus Christ and his body temple of the Holy
Ghost in 1834. He was killed by British soldiers at
the Battle of Bossenden Wood, on May 31, 1838 in Kent, England. Arnold
Potter (1804?1872), Schismatic Latter Day Saint leader; he claimed the
spirit of Jesus Christ entered into his body and he became "Potter
Christ" Son of the living God, he died in an attempt to "ascend into
heaven" by jumping off a cliff. His body was later
retrieved and buried by his followers. Bahá'u'lláh (1817?1892), born
Shiite, adopted Bábism later in 1844, he claimed to be the prophesized
fulfilment and Promised One of all the major religions. He founded the
Bahá'í Faith in 1866. Followers of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the
fulfillment of the prophecies of the second coming of Jesus, as well
as the prophecies of the 5th Buddha Maitreya and many other religious
prophecies, were begun by the Báb in 1844 and then by Bahá'u'lláh.
They commonly compare the fulfillment of Christian prophecies to
Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, where in both cases people
were expecting the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic statements. ...
@@@@@@@@ Wikizine seeks editors @@@@@@@@@
Editor(s): Millosh, Theo10011, Kpjas
@@@@@@@@@ Wikizine seeks editors @@@@@@@@
Wikizine.org makes no guarantee of accuracy,
validity and especially but not limited to,
correct grammar and spelling. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Some content can be highly inspired or directly copied from other sources.
Those sources are listed above at "Sources-Attributions".
Wikizine.org is published by [[meta:user:Walter]].
Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
Rarely, a community consensus will emerge for a particular wiki
configuration change that is technically feasible to implement, but is
rejected by the system administrators. Arguably this is a demonstration of a
technocracy. This page serves to document these instances.
If anyone knows of any other bugs/requests, please feel free to list them.
As the page notes, these rejections are rare, but in my opinion they offer a
fascinating look into the "Wikipedia power structure."
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
Please note that the results are not final: although the vote count is, and
has been finalized, the analysis of comments is ongoing.
Posted on behalf of the committee,
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
I just wanted to announce that there will be an office hours with Sue
Gardner in #wikimedia-office Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 17:00 UTC.
Likely topics include current events like the image filter referendum and
Sue's new Executive Director's Barnstar, among many other possibilities. As
usual, links to time conversion and other materials are on Meta.
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
Not long ago I had a gaffe on internal-l, by publicly expressing
opinion what do I really think about Wiki Loves Monuments, although my
intention was to send a private email. However, WLM has a number of
good sides: Commons will be filled with photos, people will spend time
together, it makes at least some parts of the movement more coherent.
Besides the fact that making depictions of depictions is a classical
European type of decadency. Anyway, if that's the worst thing in our
movement, I could live with that.
But, it is not.
If Board doesn't intervene *now*, it could be easily concluded that
the worst thing ever happened to our movement has started these days.
Up to the end of the so called "referendum", everything was as usual:
Because of <I promised to myself that won't use at this point phrase
"Jimmy's sexually impaired rich friends"> Board articulated something
in opposition of majority of editors (yes, majority of editors; I
really don't care what one sexually impaired member of Concerned Women
for America with 17 edits thinks about Wikipedia ); then it
wanted to implement it anyway, including bizarre questionnaire called
"referendum"; then heated discussion sparked; then results came; then
results from German Wikipedia came, as well.
Logically, we have the solution: If Board really cares what Concerned
Women for America think, let it, please, implement that filter on
English Wikipedia and leave the rest of the projects alone -- if they
don't ask for the filter explicitly. As members of that organization
probably don't know any other language except English, everybody will
be happy. Except the core editors of English Wikipedia, of course. But
Board doesn't care about them, anyway; which means that English
Wikipedia is reasonable scapegoat for Wikimedia movement to please
sexually impaired Americans and others.
But, we have one much more serious problem in front of us. Instead of
going toward the solution, we are going in opposite direction. Instead
of concluding this three years long drama, Censorship Committee and
Board want to "analyze" the numbers and prolong agony for another
three years. And if that agony has something useful, important at the
end, I could even say that we need to make reasonable sacrifice (in my
area it would be solved by slaughtering pig or goat or whatever, which
is more reasonable than wasting three more years, by the way).
But, it doesn't have.
The most important reason for this bizarre expression of mismanagement
is to please, as mentioned before, sexually impaired Americans. If
that's the main reason, please, please them *now* or forget
Like WLM, this Board's pet project is expression of decadency. This
time American. However, unlike WLM, this project won't fill Commons
with photos. Quite opposite, this project will make significant
problems to the Commons community. People will spend time together
indeed, but in arguing who is right and who's not. It already divides
the movement on a couple of lines.
I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
participate into the "Next steps" ! Holy Thing! That will produce
much more sexual content than any "porn" photo on Commons. In Serbian
we say for that "fucking in healthy brain". If not exterminated at the
beginning, that brainfuck (unfortunately, not programming language
) will produce much more problems than any image filter or any Fox