On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 18:04, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
While I'm very interested in hearing the opinion of our current editors,
I
disagree that we will can collect and disseminate information in a
neutral
way to all the people of world if we continue to listen solely to our
core
group of editors. Our current editors come from much too narrow a demographic group to think that we are making content decision that represent a global view.
I realize that change is uncomfortable, but we must find ways to be more inclusive in order to achieve the WMF core mission.
A WMF offered content filter is one way that we can reach people who otherwise would not be inclined to read or edit WMF projects. Although I
may
not necessarily agree with the viewing options of some of the people who
use
the filter, I respect their choice because I believe that they know
better
than me what is best for them.
I strongly oppose any decision making process that does not look outside
of
WMF for ideas. The surest way for WMF to grow stagnant is to work in an
echo
chamber. And it is imperative for WMF staff, WMF Board, and WMF community
to
welcome diverse views in our discussions.
On a final note, I ask our regular community members to be welcoming and tolerant of people who they think have different ideas from their own. There is no doubt that I have learned the most when I was in dialogue
with
people who had vastly different opinions from mine. I think that this
will
be true in our community, too.
I didn't say that we shouldn't look into readers' opinions; I said that *decision* is on editors, as it is not the question of life and death; not even a high profile question out of right-wing US. (Many Muslim countries already filter sexually explicit images; which means that it is not their question, as well.)
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.
Contrary to your premises, I don't think that raising number of readers and editors lays in filtering any image. All of the numbers show that it is about other things, like, for example, that Facebook is more attractive than editing Wikipedia. If you have some data to support your position, please let us know.
1) 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.
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.
The last issue is the fact that modern encyclopedia is well *ideologically* defined. It is positivist phenomenon and its roots are in scientific method. Wikipedia has Five pillars and a number of other policies which define it ideologically, as well. Those who think that such project is unacceptable are free to use other sums of knowledge and to build their own ones. It is not possible to be absolutely inclusive. Being fully acceptable for ~50% of population is also very questionable.
On WMF projects images are not collected using anything remotely close to the "Five pillars" that define content on Wikipedia projects. Much of the content is self made, low quality, and without out descriptions that would be adequate to give proper captions for publication in the general media, and certainly not in a scholarly works.
The way that WMF collects and uses images is one of the biggest differences between us and other organizations that have a similar mission. Libraries, museums, universities, publishers of reference works, and other educationally minded organizations do not solicit for amateur images for their collections. Lack of peer review of our images prior to acquisition is at the heart of the problem and is large part of what is causing the disconnect between the people who do not approve of our "controversial content" and our editors who upload the images.
Sydney