On 10/16/11 2:53 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

In the last weeks i hold myself back and watched over the comments at multiple places to see what is the current development. At first i have to point out that I'm very disappointed by the current progress. Sue called for a more general discussion. Ting stated again, like in Nürnberg, that it is already decided. That is controversial in itself and can't lead to a constructive discussion.

It also means that contributors to the conversation are more likely to respond defensively.

That aside, I looked at the various comments and the "brainstorming" pages. It is really boring to look at them, since 99% of the comments miss the point. There are a whole lot of comments regarding how the image filter should look like. That are all comments/suggestions not related to the fundamental questions. But they only serve to disrupt the thought progress, ignoring anything aside how it should look like, and even ignoring the basic complaints (non-neutral categorization).

I may have suggested something like a filter some five of seven years ago, at about the time categories were newly implemented. There was no support, so I quickly dropped the idea. My view remained more or less stable until the current controversy blew up. I have now drifted away from my original views; there has been so much personalised verbiage that I now find it difficult to know what the issue is.

The first question should be: Is controversial content a problem for the project?

Some might now say "yes" or "no". But I'm not interested in this answers. I'm also not interested in single examples. I'm interested in whole view and sources that speak in general about this question.

If we might come to the conclusion that there is a general (not specific) problem, then we might talk about the image filter and if it can be a solution to that problem.

I agree. Obsession about reputation can mask the problem too. Describing single examples is about as helpful as testimonials in the ads for patent medicines.

Ray