on 11/29/11 8:01 AM, David Gerard at dgerard(a)gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
... And I still want to see the "good reason
for doing so". So far i
could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that
Yes.
The Board voted unanimously *twice* for the filter. They need to
individually reveal their reasoning and what convinced them so
strongly - the second time in the face of the threat of the
second-largest project forking.
Really. You just haven't told us what you each personally find so
compelling about the idea, and we can't see it. So people presume
there's financial influence or some other reason going on.
Board, if you want this problem to go away, you need to explain
yourselves, in a way that actually answers detractors. Your reasoning
is really not obvious.
- d.
I agree with you completely, David. Wikipedia is supposed to be a
collaborative effort. And the board should not be the law enforcement part
of that collaboration. This parental, "We know what's best for you, and
don't have to explain our decisions to you" makes a farce (or worse) of any
claim of such collaboration. And the more silent they remain about the
reasoning behind their decisions, the louder the suspicions become about
that silence - and the motives behind it.
Marc Riddell