On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Not everybody uses the Internet in the same way. Many younger users are > > fairly inured to porn and gore, having seen it all before. But a lot of > the > > people who have something to offer Wikipedia in the, you know, > *educational* > > field, are turned off by it, finding it crass and juvenile. > > > This is the first I've seen a filter advocated as the solution to the > expert problem. Which was always previously put in terms of not being > able to keep idiots out of experts' faces. > > But you're late - the expert problem turns out to be dissolving in a > surprising manner, i.e. they're coming to us anyway, because they want > their fields properly represented in the biggest encyclopedia. Which > is not a reason for complacency, but it *is* a reason to think twice > about using claims of the expert problem as justification for bending > the encyclopedia all out of shape for any other reason. I wasn't actually saying that à propos the image filter, more in relation to the general point about editorial judgment. Cultures differ, and like attracts like. You know our demographics. They're still far from ideal. * Half of our editors are 21 or younger. * Only a quarter are 30 or older, yet this is the demographic with the most expertise. * 87.5 per cent are male. * Only about 1 in 50 is a mother. The more we adhere to professional standards, the more professionals we will be able to attract. You may view abandoning the standards of the male teenage/early twenties age group as bending the encyclopedia out of shape; I view it as Wikipedia growing up. The sooner, the better. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
