Date: 15 July 2012
Poster: Larry Sanger
Background: Larry was commenting on the news that the Wikimedia Foundation board had
voted to rescind the image filter resolution. There was some initial confusion as to whether Wales, who had
confirmed a few weeks prior that he was a strong supporter of the image filter ("
if I could write it myself and turn it on tomorrow I would.") had voted for or against rescinding it. The page announcing the new resolution first said Wales had voted
against the rescission, and then was
changed to say he had voted
for rescission.
Related discussion thread.
Edit summary: none.
Deleted text:
Jimbo, the situation regarding your view is so confusing as to be incoherent. The resolution page says you opposed. Above, you say you voted "yes" on the resolution--which has the only ''real'' effect, namely of rescinding the resolution. Then you say that you support the creation of a filter, and that, "In my view, stated vigorously at the board meeting, an early version of the resolution would have been interpreted incorrectly as the board rejecting the image filter completely." Huh? So, the board, despite voting 10-0 (according to you, and not 9-1 as the page says) on a resolution that clearly rescinds the earlier resolution, does not reject the image filter completely?
On my blog, I'm going to report that you voted for it, as you said, but that you still support a filter; I'll let people draw their own conclusions from that. You're going to have to explain in much greater detail if you want to make it the slightest bit plausible that the board has not "completely" rejected a filter. So, yes, I'll be looking forward to reading the FAQ. I'll be expecting more double-talk, "I voted against it before I voted for it," "we'll start making a new filter that will make everyone happy really soon now," etc. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Larry's assessment proved accurate. Jimbo
said:
I strongly support the creation of a personal image filter. I worked very hard to reach a compromise resolution which does not close off the possibility of real progress on this. SJ and I will be releasing an FAQ about this soon (tomorrow, I think, but time zone differences may mean a delay of a day or so). In my view, stated vigorously at the board meeting, an early version of the resolution would have been interpreted incorrectly as the board rejecting the image filter completely.
What I think we can do is convene a small group of people (design by massive wiki discussion tends to suck) to design a very lightweight solution, taking into account and resolving genuine and thoughtful objections, and hold a project-wide vote to get a clear instruction for the Foundation. I am confident that this can take place relatively quickly.
I think it important to note publicly that an early version of the resolution was, in my opinion, deeply disrespectful to the community. At least some senitments were expressed that we actually should reach "closure" on this and pass a resolution that would cause the community to think that they should not work together on a new proposal. Those sentiments did not carry the day. [...]
I'm starting a page where I hope to see a constructive discussion of the desired characteristics of a personal image filter, with a view towards getting a very high degree of community support for the concept.
User:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter with discussions at
User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter. I'll kick the main page off in the next few minutes with some initial thoughts.
Jimbo created the
subpage, as promised. This took the pressure off the situation, and silenced critics. Jimbo only made a few edits to the subpage and its talk page; after two days, he stopped working on it and
never returned to it.