Resolution talk:Personal image hiding feature

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki


Q - What does it mean to "affirm our support for user choice"?
A: It is important for readers to be able to customize their experience on the projects, and to make their browsing and searching useful and comfortable.
Q - If there is a simple feature like this that is designed by community members and supported by the vast majority of people in a community (say, in a long-running RfC), would it be implemented?
A: For features that are not controversial and supported by a vast majority of community members: yes. Gathering feedback on a feature request, and gauging community interest in it, is a bottleneck for implementation.
Q - What does this mean for suggestions proposed so far, by community members and others, to provide users with a choice in what images they see?
A: A variety of useful suggestions has been proposed to help customize image display; from solutions for individual pages where the curation and selection of images is controversial (e.g., Muhammad), to options for customizing search results, to options for all images. Those that gain widespread support may be developed and implemented; however there is no specific feature that has been singled out for development.
Q - Could different communities choose to implement different solutions to this set of feature requests?
A: Yes. Currently most communities implement their own solutions and editorial guidelines for issues that divide readers. Any tools or features developed could be implemented by communities that want them.

Vote change record

Dear all,

I am happy to announce that the Board of Trustees has now unanimously approved this resolution [1] rescinding our previous direction to the Executive Director to develop a personal image hiding feature.

At our in-person board meeting of 11 July 2012, the vote on this was provisionally recorded at 9-1, with Jimmy voting against. Jimmy has since changed his vote to a yes, on reviewing an FAQ accompanying this resolution which notes that the board is willing to approve a plan broadly backed by the community.

Thus the vote on this has now been changed to 10-0.

The FAQ accompanying the board resolution is on this talk page.

The resolution remains at: [1]