QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 8th March 2012, 12:30am) 
Stepping back for a moment, what does this tell us?
The WMF, the board that is responsible for the health of the project, has admitted when they tries to implement a simple change in the project to try and ensure that people were not unwittingly exposed to controversial content that they were subject to bullying and abuse from the community and therefore they changed their mind.
Now let's link that with Commons. There we have clear evidence that an unsavoury bunch of characters are using the project to further their own ideology on controversial content. In the process of doing this they are prepared to foster admitted pedophiles and when challenged are now going around altering the history of the project to cover up some of their tactical errors. There is a small reactive response to specific issues, but there is no sign that there is any controlling body that is going to attempt any corrective action.
So the WMF has no control over the policies of Wikimedia; accepts being bullied out of making decisions to improve the reach and acceptability of the project; and has no control over the ruling elite of the various projects and that the board members are content to operate in such an environment.
Now, let's consider where this leaves Wiki UK Ltd. They have claimed that there is policy that directs the proper governance of the project, yet here we have a fine example of an attempt at implementing a responsible publishing policy and they admit that they have no ability to implement it.
The joys of mob rule.
WMF knows they have a problem with Commons. They don't understand that there is only one way to fix it, given the fact that there are legal barriers to their micro-managing content — and that is to blow the mother up, assigning image hosting to the various language-WPs with a mandate that graphic content is to have educational connection via article links.
The image filter remains the key to the problem, in their view. If only there were a way to sift out the terrabytes of dix pix, then everything would be peachy. Actually, no, the right wing is gonna make political hay out of Commons porn forever and donors and serious contributors are going to be driven away as the porn hobbyists continue to entrench themselves.
Still, this has not been noted: the last time the vaunted image filter was put up for a vote the Muhammed Images issue was running hot. I myself opposed it on this basis, I don't want to make it simple for reactionary governments to "filter" content which they find uncomfortable. I'm not quite positive how a second try at the brass ring will turn out for WMF, particularly if they were to pare down the filtering capabilities to make it clear that their filter is about porn rather than "violence" or "religiously sensitive matters"...
t
