On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:35, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Seeking outside opinions, and outreach efforts to bring more people into our Communities are high on my list of priorities because WMF contributor base is too homogeneous for me to be comfortable that our community members are making neutral decisions.
Agreed. So, how can we do that? On ad hoc basis and by lying the community that it's about referendum or a bit more organized?
- We have people speaking up publicly saying that they are not able to edit
from some locations because of the presence of some images on our Projects. Numerous editors have told me this in private, too. 2) We regularly have people put up "controversial content" for deletion because they find it offensive or out of scope. 3) Image filters are commonly available on other internet website, often by default.
That doesn't give a picture of how deep that problem is. Without harder evidences, I could freely conclude that it's just about particular portion of US society which is anyway positioned far from our ideals, so not worthy of efforts. (Similarly to that, I have no intention to work ma making Wikipedia closer to Serbian morons of any kind. The necessary prerequisite for using internet and Wikipedia is not to be a moron.)
The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think that it is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having conflicts over this topic when other website don't. One possible reason is that our base of editors is different from other websites. If that is true, then I think we need to allow for this difference when we make features to appeal to readers.
I don't see that as a problem and something unusual. We are community driven and we don't depend on Rupert Murdoch et al., unlike any other commercial sites.