On 22 October 2011 20:58, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > If not, would > you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether > there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki > community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is > that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Result , the official translation of the de:wp poll, says: "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia." This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of the vote. I think that says "should be scrapped" pretty blindingly clearly. Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case? Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing? 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. 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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l