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

[Andreas K.]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:17 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to
> > look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the
> > user to filter, and what media Flickr and YouTube require opt-ins for?
> > Why should we not take our cues from them? The situation seems quite
> > analogous.
>
> Again, those websites are commercial endeavors whose decisions are
> based on profitability, not an obligation to maintain neutrality (a
> core element of most WMF projects).  These services can cater to the
> revenue-driving majorities (with geographic segregation, if need be)
> and ignore minorities whose beliefs fall outside the "mainstream" for
> a given country.
>
> This probably works fairly well for them; most users are satisfied,
> with the rest too fragmented to be accommodated in a cost-effective
> manner.  Revenues are maximized.  Mission accomplished.
>


Satisfying most users is a laudable aim for any service provider, whether
revenue is involved or not. Why should we not aim to satisfy most our users,
or appeal to as many potential users as possible?



> The WMF projects' missions are dramatically different.  For most,
> neutrality is a nonnegotiable principle.  To provide an optional
> filter for one image type and not another is to formally validate the
> former objection and not the latter.  That's unacceptable.



This goes back to our fundamental disagreement about what neutrality means.
You give it your own definition, which, as I understand you, means
refraining from making judgments. But that is not how we work. We constantly
apply judgment, based on the judgment of reliable sources.

We constantly discriminate.

We say, This is unsourced; it may be true, but you can't have it in the
article.

We say, This is interesting, but it is synthesis, or original research, and
you can't have it in the article.

We say, This is a self-published source, it does not have an editorial
staff, therefore it is not reliable.

By doing so, we are constantly empowering the judgment of the professional,
commercial outfits who produce what we term reliable sources.

If this is unacceptable to you, do you also object to our sourcing policies
and guidelines?

Andreas