On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com javascript:; wrote:
I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
progress of fisting on the mainpage? No problem for me. Reading your
comments?
Sorry to take a tangential point from Tom's email, but is the random
article tool truly random or does it direct to only stable articles or
some other sub-set of article space?
Thanks
Fae
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Am 18.10.2011 09:57, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comjavascript:; wrote:
I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
progress of fisting on the mainpage? No
And that is a mature and sensible attitude.
Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to
them are rude or offensive things.
Are they wrong?
Should they be doing what you (and I) do?
Tom
The question is, if we should support them to not even try to start
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
I don't assume that. I say that they should have the opportunity to
change if they like to.
Absolutely - we do not disagree on this.
That controversial content is hidden or that we
provide a button to hide
--
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:26 +0100
From: Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
Content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
I would guess that the odds of arriving at such article are so low, that it
would not be worth the huge discussion it would definitely result into, to
make this change because there is barely any improvement. Have we ever
received complaints from people who arrived at such articles after pressing
Just to clarify the technical details for those interested... the code is
located here:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/specials/SpecialRandompage.php?view=markup
It gets a random number using PHP's build into pseudo-random number
generator and uses that to recover
On 18 October 2011 15:17, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
He did it 5 times from 2005 to 2008, and I never saw a sex article on it. In
fact we used to joke that pt.wiki is made only by French villages and
asteroids (because EVERYONE get one of them in their 15 articles) ;)
en:wp was
Repeating the test, I still get an asteroid and villages in my sample
of a random 15 today.
It would be a more useful test if someone were to do the random walk
and see how many articles it takes before they find something they
feel could be called NSFW.
As for not having complaints, we don't
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Never tryed in en.wiki, but in PT.wiki we even have a 15 radom articles
selection to see the quality of pt.wiki articles in a small scale.
He did it 5 times from 2005 to 2008, and I never saw a sex article on it. In
fact
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Repeating the test, I still get an asteroid and villages in my sample
of a random 15 today.
It would be a more useful test if someone were to do the random walk
and see how many articles it takes before they find something
On 18 October 2011 15:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll admit it: If you were to propose a method for filtering NSFW
article topics, I would stop and stare at the train wreck. It's an
embarrassing character flaw, but I know I wouldn't be able to avoid
watching the carnage and counting
Am 18.10.2011 14:00, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
That controversial content is hidden or that we
provide a button to hide controversial content is prejudicial.
I disagree on this, though. There is a balance between
Lodewijk, 18/10/2011 16:02:
I would guess that the odds of arriving at such article are so low, that it
would not be worth the huge discussion it would definitely result into, to
make this change because there is barely any improvement.
I agree. Just to say, I'm more worried by this problem:
Perhaps it may be a practical response to lobby for a nice big
feedback button (rather than the link to a complex contact us page)
before we have another great image filter debate/train wreck?
If nothing else this would give us hard data on how many readers
complain about NSFW articles in
Fae, 18/10/2011 17:02:
Perhaps it may be a practical response to lobby for a nice big
feedback button (rather than the link to a complex contact us page)
before we have another great image filter debate/train wreck?
If nothing else this would give us hard data on how many readers
complain
Short answer: no
Long answer:
we have uneven chances for different pages to show up.
It is based on the idea that every page gets inserted into discreetly random
position in a certain linear space, so you end up with [[Poisson
distribution]], which from a distance seems to return stuff
That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
not anything is. This imposes our judgment to the reader. That means,
that
You mean, something like that huge annoying box at the end of all en.wiki
articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool ;-)
Nemo
Yes, but not so massively annoying that people can't see it or
instantly disable it on sight.
Out of interest, how many users have used
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
neutrality which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
neutrality almost as much as the next man!).
... and
Hello Wiki World,
On *2011-10-18* (today)*@ 20:00 - 21:30 UTC*, we are running a global
campaign for an hour and a half to test our ability to and strategy for
handling donations coming from *every country*! The test will run for
every language but will only have English banners and appeals with
On *2011-10-18* (today)*@ 20:00 - 21:30 UTC*, we are running a global
campaign for an hour and a half to test our ability to and strategy for
handling donations coming from *every country*!
Hello Charles,
Hopefully you are not doing this in the countries which have chapters that
are
Sorry for the confusion. No we are not testing in*US, AU, DE, FR, CH, GB.*
Charles A. Barr
Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org
On 10/18/11 10:39, Chris Keating wrote:
On *2011-10-18* (today)*@ 20:00 - 21:30 UTC*, we are running a global
campaign for an
Sorry for the confusion. No we are not testing in*US, AU, DE, FR, CH, GB.*
Thanks for clearing that up. Good luck with the test. :-)
Chris
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a wide
spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this in the past, with long
discussions about contentious cases like the goatse image, or
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a
wide spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this
Thank you. I didn't know about this WikiProject.
After discussing it a bit with my professor, I've posted a request over at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ESIT_translation_project_-_French_to_English_%28First_semester_2011-12%29
Maria Fanucchi /
Am 18.10.2011 17:23, schrieb Thomas Morton:
That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
not anything is. This imposes our
Am 18.10.2011 19:04, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
neutrality which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
neutrality
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a
wide spectrum of opinion on such matters.
Of course. But consensus != unanimity.
Your interpretation of the English Wikipedia's neutrality policy
contradicts that under which the site operates.
The global test is delayed due to operations issues. The test is still
planned for later today. More information will be sent along when available.
Charles A. Barr
Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org
On 10/18/11 10:47, Chris Keating wrote:
Sorry for the
This is only no problem, as long we don't represent default settings, aka
categories, which introduce our judgment to the readership. Only the
fact that our judgment is visible, is already enough to manipulate the
reader in what to see as objectionable or not. This scenario is very
much
The global test is now set for today @ *21:00 - 22:00 UTC.*
Charles A. Barr
Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org
On 10/18/11 13:23, Charles A. Barr wrote:
The global test is delayed due to operations issues. The test is still
planned for later today. More
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other
news organization) uses Stuff My Dad Says. So does the Los Angeles
Times, which states that the subject's actual name is unsuitable for
a family publication.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at
the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of
this websites did?
What I mean is that we should not
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a good
model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters)
who call the Twitter feed by its proper name, Shit my dad says.
The sources to which I referred are the most reputable
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a
good
model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters)
who call the Twitter feed by its proper
Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at
the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of
this websites
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:17 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to
look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the
user to filter, and what media Flickr and
* Andreas K. wrote:
Satisfying most users is a laudable aim for any service provider, whether
revenue is involved or not. Why should we not aim to satisfy most our users,
or appeal to as many potential users as possible?
Many Wikipedians would disagree that they or Wikipedia as a whole is a
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an
educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or
inherited from 4chan. Would you agree?
Yes, and I dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed
in this respect.
As
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Satisfying most users is a laudable aim for any service provider, whether
revenue is involved or not. Why should we not aim to satisfy most our users,
or appeal to as many potential users as possible?
It depends on the context. There's nothing inherently bad about
43 matches
Mail list logo
