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