[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 18:04, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I'm very interested in hearing the opinion of our current editors, I
> disagree that we will can collect and disseminate information in a neutral
> way to all the people of world if we continue to  listen solely to our core
> group of editors. Our current editors come from much too narrow a
> demographic group to think that we are making content decision that
> represent a global view.
>
> I realize that change is uncomfortable, but we must find ways to be more
> inclusive in order to achieve the WMF core mission.
>
> A WMF offered content filter is one way that we can reach people who
> otherwise would not be inclined to read or edit WMF projects. Although I may
> not necessarily agree with the viewing options of some of the people who use
> the filter, I respect their choice because I believe that they know better
> than me what is best for them.
>
> I strongly oppose any decision making process that does not look outside of
> WMF for ideas. The surest way for WMF to grow stagnant is to work in an echo
> chamber. And it is imperative for WMF staff, WMF Board, and WMF community to
> welcome diverse views in our discussions.
>
> On a final note, I ask our regular community members to be welcoming and
> tolerant of  people who they think have different ideas from their own.
> There is no doubt that I have learned the most when I was in dialogue with
> people who had vastly different  opinions from mine.  I think that this will
> be true in our community, too.

I didn't say that we shouldn't look into readers' opinions; I said
that *decision* is on editors, as it is not the question of life and
death; not even a high profile question out of right-wing US. (Many
Muslim countries already filter sexually explicit images; which means
that it is not their question, as well.)

Contrary to your premises, I don't think that raising number of
readers and editors lays in filtering any image. All of the numbers
show that it is about other things, like, for example, that Facebook
is more attractive than editing Wikipedia. If you have some data to
support your position, please let us know.

The last issue is the fact that modern encyclopedia is well
*ideologically* defined. It is positivist phenomenon and its roots are
in scientific method. Wikipedia has Five pillars and a number of other
policies which define it ideologically, as well. Those who think that
such project is unacceptable are free to use other sums of knowledge
and to build their own ones. It is not possible to be absolutely
inclusive. Being fully acceptable for ~50% of population is also very
questionable.