[Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb David Gerard:
> Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case?
> Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
There is no room for interpretation. It clearly says that no category
based filtering of any illustrative media will be accepted.

   "Filters, for illustrative media based on categories that can
    be enabled or disabled by the readers, ..."

   "Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der
    Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden
    können, ..."

This also includes that there will be no "filter-categorization" of any
media stored inside the local project.

   "... and there shall not be any filter categories for files/media stored
    localy on this Wikipedia."
    
   "... und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser
    Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden."

> I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the
> "should we actually have this at all?" question on the referendum
> generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake
> - I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum
> questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without
> running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent
> whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having
> people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely
> natural.
Correctly. The referendum itself was described as manipulative wording. 
This does not only apply to the DE community. Here are some examples:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Noticias/2011/08#Referendo_sobre_filtro_de_im.C3.A1genes

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Image_filter_referendum#Riassunto_delle_puntate_precedenti

> I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered
> at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and
> reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the
> filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when
> the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not
> actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed
> non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and
> this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and
> this is what has happened).
>
> It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea.
>
>
> - d.
>
It was clearly insulting to everyone that participated inside the 
opposition, just being ignored, despite the arguments and project policies.

It would be even more insulting to ask the german community to work out 
a filter proposal. All you can expect is white bag or an empty page. The 
decision is clear: No filter at all!

(filter = selective display of content)