Re David's point that "The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered". I can relate to that, it isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands, I've now posted my blog response in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where really it should have gone in the first place.

Regards

WereSpielChequers ------------------------------

Message: 3 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700 From: phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <CAAi3vqFkVi6_-8gC-9yrPkECfXaGhzTctt-TRb4AnXkBaHDnKA@mail.gmail.com

...

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. ?Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.

The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.

So here's one that's particularly apposite:

http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett...

...

He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.

• d.

For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments notwithstanding)... I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be traced to a single person).

The quotation you have made stands as a separate point, and is unrelated to the discussion of the de main page above. She simply says: "Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and agitators need to stop." -- not identifying particular people, or even particular topics. When I read this, what comes to *my* mind is some of the recent dialog on Foundation-l -- some of which was certainly intentionally provocative, and some of which did get very personal and personally hurtful, to myself and others.

Sue's post is *not about the image filter*. It's about the dialog around the image filter, some of which has been great and some of which has sucked. It is, indeed, hard to talk to people when they attack you for it. But I don't think there was any attacking in Sue's post.

-- phoebe