[Foundation-l] Trust, consensus building and the image filter - was Letter to the community on Controversial Content

WereSpielChequers werespielchequers at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 15:28:42 UTC 2011


> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
>        Content
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4E9FFFFD.8010303 at 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 at googlemail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY
> >>
> >>
> > 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#Quantification_of_representation_of_the_world-wide_populace
> [2]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_for_this_proposal.2C_WereSpielCheqrs
> nya~
> Hi nya,

At the point when you sent the link to
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.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list