Keegan Peterzell wrote: > http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Both the Wikimedia Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff have treated the image filter as a fait accompli. I think downplaying this reality is predictable and lamentable in Sue's post. Individuals and organizations are free to implement their own filters. The Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to promote and spread free educational content. Focusing on features like an image filter, when features that are critical to Wikimedia's goal are left by the wayside, is mind-boggling. People can't edit wiki pages, but it's a gaping vagina on the front page that's top priority? The Wikimedia Board has failed the community in passing its controversial content resolution. It caved to political and social pressures rather than defending what Wikimedia is supposed to stand for. The Wikimedia Board knew that an acceptable filter couldn't be implemented given technical and social constraints, but chose to pass a resolution as an empty gesture. Board members have acknowledged as much privately. The controversial content resolution has done no good, but has done plenty of harm. I think it's fairly shameful on the part of the Board, a very small body of individuals whose primary objective is to protect the projects. Instead, they chose this? MZMcBride _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
