Marcus wrote:
Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation. The _real_ task of the foundation.
Cimon wrote:
"Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most persistently promoted by the same precise individual who began the "ethical breaching experiment" project
I wasn't thinking of privatemusings, but of Marcus's comment and the recent comments on this bugzilla bug (about supporting ICRA): https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=982
Again, I'm generally opposed to this particular idea. But Marcus is right about the foundation's role in supporting technical solutions where needed. Community groups that need a well-defined technical solution should ask boldly for it.
Wedrna, later:
The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly. The infrastructure would be technically simple.
Yes. Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.
David Levy writes:
Deletions are easily reversible. Multi-wiki image transclusion removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from Wikimedia projects? Less so.
True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.
SJ
Anthony writes:
(BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?)
No, he gets an Instigator flag, enabling him to chiefly instigate an argument with the Cunctator on any page.