[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[WereSpielChequers]

As this debate has ploughed on I've become less likely to use this feature
myself. But am still utterly unconvinced by the opposition arguments.

Re: Demagogy of "multiculturalism" when it means "pushing POV by right-wing
US". As long as the image filter would enable Moslems to opt out of seeing a
certain set of cartoons, then this to me is about globalisation not about
appeasing Conservapedia and its fans. Actually one of the most predictable
risks of implementing this is that we will be attacked by our American
critics "Wikipedia enables censorship, Moslems now allowed to censor images
they dislike, but naturally no "block all porn" option for Christians" (all
porn is bound not to be an option because definitions of porn are so
divergent. But if it were they'd pick another unimplemented option such as
"swimsuit" or "respectable swimsuit").

As for Kim's Red team Blue team shenanigans, why would anyone bother? I can
understand why spammers try to subvert our processes and add their links and
spamcruft - they see us as a free source of advertising worth their time to
try and sneak their message in. But if devout Bahais decide to use this
filter to screen out certain images, how likely is it that there will be an
opposing team trying to sneak those images past their filter? Especially if
the filters are personal options that other editors can't see.

WereSpielChequers

Board is filled with a bunch of amateurs (not derogatory meaning!) --
> including yourself in the past and hypothetically including myself if
> I passed last election -- which position is the product of political
> will (community, chapters, Board will itself).
>
> Any sane body -- which is aware that it is there because of political
> will and not because of their expertise (no, Stu and Jan-Bart are not
> in the Board as experts when they act as apologists of Jimmy's
> deletion of artworks on Commons [1][2]) -- knows that it should
> delegate responsibilities to those who know the matter better.
>
> However, Wikimedia Foundation Board acts dilettantish whenever one of
> the Board member (or a friend of that Board member) has strong
> position toward some issue.
>
> For example, Wikipedia in Tunisian Arabic has been rejected by the
> Board, although relevant international institutions (and reality, as
> well) recognize it as a separate language [3]. Just after long
> discussion (in short period of time) between two Board members and
> Language committee, it was threw under the carpet as "waiting" [4]
> with the excuse to wait for non-existent initiative to create North
> African Arabic Wikipedia (it was my initiative at the end, just to end
> with grotesque Board's dilettantism, by claiming that their members
> are better introduced in linguistic diversity than relevant
> international bodies and Language committee as well; which I see as
> humiliating for the Board, but Board members don't think so).
>
> I didn't want to open this issue; but the flow of discussion --
> claiming that Board *really* knows what it is doing -- forced me to
> give it as an example.
>
> While I am sure that at least Arne cares about German Wikipedia and
> Bishakha cares about Hindi Wikipedia -- collectively, Board reacts
> just if someone points to their POV related to English Wikipedia.
> Everything else, including Serbian Wikipedia in 2005 and including
> Kazakh Wikipedia in 2011, are just safari-like care about interesting
> and strange species. Yes, Board cares when some project dares to
> question Jimmy's authority, like when Wikinews did it well and
> Wikiversity badly.
>
> If the Board members would be more honest in their intentions, not to
> hide behind demagogy of "multiculturalism" when it means "pushing POV
> by right-wing US" and similar phrases with similar opposite meanings,
> we could start to have real discussion. Not to mention that it is
> obvious that some of the motivations of some of the Board members are
> not even politically motivated, but very personally (and "very" has
> the meaning inside of the phrase).
>
> [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058026.html
> [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057795.html
> [3]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWikipedia_Tunisian&action=historysubmit&diff=2744156&oldid=2741178
> [4]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWikipedia_Tunisian&action=historysubmit&diff=2748151&oldid=2744156
>
>
>