jayen466 at gmail
Jul 15, 2012, 6:29 AM
Post #3 of 4
(129 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolution on personal image hiding feature
[In reply to]
|
|
The board resolution announcement presently shows that it passed 9-1, with
Jimbo's the only voice dissenting:
http://www.webcitation.org/69AyEvzIS
On his talk page, however, Jimbo claims that this misrepresents him, and
that he voted to scrap the image filter like everyone else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=502410086#Image_filter_resolution
It was an in-person meeting. How can there be any doubt about how someone
voted? At any rate, a few weeks ago on Twitter, Jimbo still told Larry
Sanger that he strongly supported the filter, and would write it himself
and switch it on tomorrow if he could:
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/207750504405667842
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/207838261689851904
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:53 AM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
> Bishakha Datta wrote:
> > At its 11 July board meeting, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution
> > rescinding its previous direction to implement the personal image hiding
> > feature.
> >
> > The resolution is online at
> >
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature
>
> Well, all right. I suppose this gives you all some legitimacy (your
> resolution won't be flatly ignored) and allows Sue/the Wikimedia Foundation
> to focus on more pressing matters. Good job.
>
> At the moment, I'm mostly of the mind that this is something that outside
> groups need to focus on themselves. When you look at the individual
> problems
> presented here (pornography in search results at school or work, articles
> with graphic imagery, etc.), there's simply no good answer. Particular
> problems require particular solutions. That's been one of the reasons that
> creating a technical tool has been so difficult. There was never any clear
> problem, there were a thousand mostly clear problems, each with different
> slightly different solutions and complexities.
>
> If people are truly pining for a School-Safe Wikipedia, there's a small
> business waiting to be born, isn't there? There are already similar
> projects, e.g., <http://schools-wikipedia.org/>.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation should focus its resources on helping the
> community
> develop quality, free educational content. If someone wants to create
> Porn-Free Wikipedia or School-Safe Wikipedia or whatever else, I think we
> shouldn't encourage or discourage it. The line should be: the content is
> under a free license; do what you want with it.
>
> That also means exercising reasonable and mature editorial judgment on the
> various Wikimedia wikis. This is something that Wikimedians are often
> terrible at. It'd be good if there were a way to address this.
>
> > We are working on a Q&A document that will be published after Wikimania.
>
> I hope you all include "What has been learned from this?" :-) Lots of good
> lessons for all three sides here, I think (staff, Board, and community).
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
