On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner
<sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
It may seem that way, but it's not actually true. The Board's
conversation yesterday was thoughtful and serious: the Board members
take very seriously the concerns expressed by editors, and they don't
want to alienate them. We discussed Achim Raschka for example
specifically: he's a 70K-edit editor on the German Wikipedia with I
think 100+ good and featured articles. The last thing the Board wants
is for people like Achim to leave the projects.
Please read
Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted against.
The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
this will not be possible, but it's the goal. The Board definitely
does not want a war with the community, and it does not want people to
fork or leave the projects. The goal is a solution that's acceptable
for everyone.
But what happens in the event that such a goal cannot be achieved?
Ting has made it very clear that they intend some kind of image filter
to be implemented on all projects, regardless of community wishes. I
hope the community will come around and accept some kind of filter,
but if they don't then the WMF needs to accept that it has failed, do
so gracefully, and not try to start a war that in cannot possibly win
and will cause a great deal of damage.
I think that if the WMF made it clear that they will not implement any
kind of image filter on a project if there is overwhelming opposition
to it, the relevant communities would be much more willing to engage
in constructive dialogue.
Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what
to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can
make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what
you're saying here, but my hope is that even in the absence of such a
statement, people will be willing to join with the Wikimedia
Foundation to engage seriously on the topic and figure out a solution
that works.
I need to run -- I've got a meeting in the office with Ting, JB and
Kat. But thank you, Thomas, for your comments here -- I think they're
constructive. I would love for people on this list to help others
understand what's happening here. The Wikimedia Foundation does not
want a war: it is hoping for a solution here that is acceptable for
everyone. If the folks here can help editors understand that, that
would be a service to everyone, I think.
Thanks,
Sue
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate