* Frédéric Schütz wrote in gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation:
On 11.01.2012 22:04, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
So the numbers are rather rough and won't really tell you anything you
did not already know (Sex Astrobiology, no surprise there), and you
can't really say Steve Jobs Justin Bieber based
* Frédéric Schütz wrote:
So, why would 404 error and File:Hardy_boys_cover_09.jpg be ranked
so high ? 404 error is constant through the year (it may be a link
from a 404 page on a web server, but I'd be still surprised that it is
clicked so often), but the other is viewed in bursts (see e.g.
* Mateus Nobre wrote:
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement,
there's no reason to disagree improvements.
If you create a new account and edit a bit, on some projects odds are
some other editor will place on your Talk
* Dirk Franke wrote:
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to
give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think
and say it
* Erik Moeller wrote:
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has
explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution
would be done in partnership with the community, including people
who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date.
* Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Who is this we you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone
to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if
their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and
not Your Problem.
When your filtering or categorization
* Andreas K. wrote:
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
* Andreas K. wrote:
Sounds good. I was going by last year's United Nations University survey,
http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf
which is older, but had a much larger sample size (176,000 vs. 5,300,
comprising both readers and editors).
I think the
* Andreas K. wrote:
The median and quartiles are on page 7 of the report:
---o0o---
Valid responses were received from respondents between 10 – 85 years.
Overall, the average age of the Wikipedians that participated in the survey
is 25.22 years. Half of the respondents are younger than 22
* Andreas K. wrote:
I see our vision and mission as entirely service-focused. We are not doing
this for our own amusement:
You are talking about the Wikimedia Foundation while I was talking about
Wikipedians. I certainly do this for my own amusement, not to satisfy.
That's a fascinating piece of
* 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:
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms
in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness,
from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a
sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter
* David Gerard wrote:
Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...
There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect
would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size.
The
* Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Zooming out is something that works for me pretty much everywhere
* Sue Gardner wrote:
This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been
* church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
On 10/01/2011 02:46 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
This only works in recent desktop versions of Opera and Firefox and only
on devices where you can easily hover.
How good are chances it can be implemented in a feasible way for other
browsers?
Webkit-derived browsers
Hi,
A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on the
english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the image.
I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.js
* Keegan Peterzell wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
I don't think this is contributing much to the discussion. The point in
the blog post is basically just that people should discuss how to make
articles better. Everybody agrees. That, in the sense of the
* m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven
everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review
process would never have been created if a long discussion would have
preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised
* WereSpielChequers wrote:
For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available
set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop
other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
This cannot be prevented. You just need a bot that
* Kanzlei wrote:
Your assumtion is wrong. The 8.000 daily are neither neutral nor
representative for all users. Put the picture on the main page and You
get representative results. We had that in Germany.
That's missing the point. Putting an image on the front page is putting
it out of context,
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Yes we put the vulva on the main page and it got quite some attention.
We wanted it this way to test out the reaction of the readers and to
start a discussion about it. The result was as expected. Complains that
it is offensive together with Praises to show what neutrality
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Does it mean basically this: deWP put the Vulva article on its front
page, and then held a poll to decide whether to i) stop putting
articles like Vulva on its front page, because they might surprise or
shock some readers, or ii) continue putting articles like Vulva on the
* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
The poll asked whether there should be formalized restrictions beyond
the existing ones (only good articles can be proposed). Voters decided
against that and to keep the status quo instead where it is decided on
a case-by-case basis which articles to feature on the
* David Gerard wrote:
233 would be a *large* turnout on en:wp. What is a large turnout on de:wp?
Most Meinungsbilder have between 100 and 300 editors participating and
the 300s are seen regularily. Participation maxes out at around 500 so
large probably begins somewhere in the 300s. This largely
* Andre Engels wrote:
Thereby giving those who have objections nothing just because there are
others who we can't give what they want. If we had the same attitude towards
article creation, we would not have published Wikipedia until we had
articles on all subjects we could think of.
They are
27 matches
Mail list logo
