[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 03:34, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 3:19 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
>> for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
>> participate into the "Next steps" [3]
>
> Milos, I think you're stepping out to the backyard there.  I'm probably
> one of the more vocal (and arguably acerbic) opponents of that entire
> filter idea, and the fact that (at least some members of) the board is
> actually willing to now listen to concerns is a _good_ thing.

I think that damage produced by this <whatever> should be localized.
The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in
other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which means
that it should be localized on English Wikipedia.

By stating that it will affect just English Wikipedia and just other
projects which explicitly said that they want that filter, many
concerns would be addressed.

After that, significant period of time will have to pass up to the
filter implementation and there will be plenty of time for discussing
about particular details.

Without that localization, we have now serious problems:
* It is not yet clear would that filter be implemented or not. Board
said "yes", but, obviously, Censorship committee didn't recommend its
implementation. That question requires simple yes/no answer and
someone should make that decision. Note that even the most moderate
regulations of sexually explicit images doesn't have chance to pass
any community confidence [1]. At the other side, Board wants that and
there are just two options for the Board: to say yes or to say no. Any
of the answers is better sooner than later: "no" would finish the
drama; "yes" would intensify it for a couple of days and then the
discussion about details could be continued. Otherwise, more emotions
would be involved and as "yes" is likely to be the answer, just more
people would be more frustrated with the outcome.
* Strong opposition inside of the second-largest community. If not
addressed immediately, referendums like that one on German Wikipedia
could be sparked all over the projects and we would have just more
problems.
* Note that the whole thing around image filter is not well understood
out of US and Australia. The most of the world knows to live with
"rouge images" and censorship isn't usually imposed by people
themselves, but by governments. Including others in internal issues of
US society triggers just more emotional reactions.

We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
better than wasting willingness on one nonconstructive and decadent
project. If that time and energy was spent on rewriting Parser, we
would have WYSIWYG editor a year or two ago.

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_6#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29