Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb David Gerard:
Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case? Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
There is no room for interpretation. It clearly says that no category based filtering of any illustrative media will be accepted.
"Filters, for illustrative media based on categories that can be enabled or disabled by the readers, ..."
"Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden können, ..."
This also includes that there will be no "filter-categorization" of any media stored inside the local project.
"... and there shall not be any filter categories for files/media stored localy on this Wikipedia."
"... und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden."
I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the "should we actually have this at all?" question on the referendum generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake
- I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum
questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely natural.
Correctly. The referendum itself was described as manipulative wording. This does not only apply to the DE community. Here are some examples:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Noticias/201...
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Image_filter_referend...
I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and this is what has happened).
It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea.
- d.
It was clearly insulting to everyone that participated inside the opposition, just being ignored, despite the arguments and project policies.
It would be even more insulting to ask the german community to work out a filter proposal. All you can expect is white bag or an empty page. The decision is clear: No filter at all!
(filter = selective display of content)