On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
However, the editor community could sabotage it in various ways. For example, there's no guarantee that anyone will tag any images, or that tagged images won't be untagged by bots run by administrators. If the Board really does want a useful image-hiding feature, then it's essential that the community be persuaded that it is a good idea.
Personally, I think the filter will be mostly harmless, and that it's not worth the effort to rail against it. It will be useful for PR -- it will seem as if we are trying to accomodate all points of view even if the feature is not particularly useful for parents.
-- Tim Starling
Because of the dictat nature of the board resolution, I think the key question omitted from the questionnaire was:
When (not if) we implement this feature, would you be willing to participate actively in a fork of Wikipedia?
Not kidding.
Since the leadership of the foundation seems to be unable to speak for themselves, let me speak *for* them.
"We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a situation where we can go on with the 'your opinions have been duly noted' haughty attitude. We apologize for even going that route ever in the first place. The community rules, we serve, that is what we are being payed for.
We do realize how demoralizing it must be for the people in the trenches trying to weed out behaviours that can be only charitably called "gaming the system", when -- it is admitted -- we egregiously did that at the highest of levels of Foundation goverment, and for that we are duly sorry. Lessons shall be learned."