On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200
From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
Content
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <4E9FFFFD.8010303(a)googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias
Oelgarte<
tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY
PROJECT?!
>>
>>
> First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not
initially
promise
results by project. Even now, I've never promised that. What
I've
> said is that we would attempt to do so. But it's not solely in the
WMF's
> purview - the election had a team of folks
in charge of it who came
from
the
> community and it's not the WMF's role to dictate to them how to do
their
job.
I (finally) have the full results parsed in such a way as to make it *
potentially* possible to release them for discussion by project.
However,
I'm still waiting for the committee to
approve that release. I'll
re-ping
> on that, because, frankly, it's been a week or so. That will be my
next
email.
:)
pb
Don't get me wrong. But this should have been part of the results in the
first place. The first calls for such results go back to times before
the referendum even started. [1] That leaves an very bad impression, and
so far the WMF did nothing to regain any trust. Instead you started to
loose even more. [2]
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/Archive1#Quanti…
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_fo…
nya~
Hi nya,
At the point when you sent the link to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_fo…
only people commenting in that section were myself and Sue Gardner. I
don't know how you interpreted that discussion as the Foundation losing
more
trust, but as the only non Foundation person commenting there I would like
to put it on record that neither Sue nor the foundation lost my trust in
that discussion, rather the reverse. To me building consensus means
discussing our differences and working to accommodate each others concerns,
I see Sue's acceptance that "a category-based solution is a non-starter"
as
a major step from the Foundation towards those who opposed the previous
image filter proposal. As far as I'm concerned one gains trust by listening
to those you disagree with and accepting those of their arguments that you
find convincing. That doesn't mean that it will now be easy to get a
consensus based solution, but in my opinion it will be easier than it was
as
a major disagreement is resolved.
WereSpielChequers
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I've got to agree with WereSpielChequers. Sue's post on the user talk page
resolves a few important concerns, and provides some assurances that
alternative models are in fact being considered. In fact, to me that is the
most solid evidence that I've seen so far against the assertion that the
filter has already been all but decided and that everything else is just
formalities. (though granted, I haven't been actively checking all the
threads/pages/discussion so maybe I missed something else to that effect).
It's not 100% what I'd have liked to see, in that it implies that in the
next two to three months if things aren't resolved the filter may just go
ahead as originally planned anyway (again, correct me if I missed something
on that). But it's an opening of a dialogue that the category based system
has critical problems and some other solution is needed. I hope we can all
assume good faith here and restore trust in each other because if we don't
have it, we won't have a positive and fruitful dialogue on how to move
forward -- and without one it COULD lead to bad decisions being made.
-Dan