[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Julius Redzinski]

That can't be meant serious anymore. You first make a Board decision and then
want to research how big the problem is or if it at all exists, after you already made
the decision about the solution? The Board seems to act on a highly confused
and amateur level ... it is not to understand anymore what is going on there. 

On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision researched
really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different regions and
the understanding that germany maybe has different needs than the arabic room and
that a making them all the same is not a good idea, and not empathic at all. Before a
Board decision there would have been to be a poll that really ask the right questions,
not this fake thing with no impact at all. The way the Board acted on this and now not
even says "yes, we fucked it up, we take the decision back and start at point zero 
again" is a shame for teh complete Wikimedia world and community.

Second last point: Give back to the editors the responsibility to amke the choice how the can
present their educational content to the readers. That is no Board decision. If a 
community says we don't need the filter, then the Board doesn't know any better
about the needs and wishes of teh users of this project and shouldn't act into it
this way.

Last point: The Board should start fisrt thinking and then deciding. It would reduce much
the danger of splitting the communities an the Wikipedias. The Board seems a little 
bit too american, first shooting by feeling threatend and then asking ... That is not
the way the Board should work. So act responsible and take back the decision
until a really good decision process would have been made through ...

Julius Redzinski (de:Julius1990)

> On 10.10.2011 13:24, wrote Ting:
> 
> Hello Fae,
> 
> thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit 
> the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some 
> plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment 
> what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because this 
> often can be seen as an intervening of the staff activity. But I think 
> it is ok for me to spoil this a bit now: So Sue suggests a two step 
> approach. In the first step we will only collect reader reactions on 
> images, to see if there is a problem at all, how big is the problem, and 
> where are the problems. And on a second step, when we have those data 
> and can work out an understanding of it, then we can go on to work out 
> dedicated solutions for the problems, as I said in my letter, together 
> with the community.
> 
> Greetings
> Ting
> 
> On 09.10.2011 23:55, wrote Fae:
> > Hi Ting,
> >
> > Thanks for explaining the position of the board in your own words. I
> > appreciate the board is listening. I am concerned that you state that
> > the board is acting from "belief", I recommend you consider how this
> > can move to proposing a strategy based on facts and non-controversial
> > analysis.
> >
> > I suspect that any proposal for change will be strongly resisted and
> > continue to divide our community until well understood and well
> > communicated facts underpin the board's resolution rather than
> > personal belief.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fae