On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelo michelcastelobra...@gmail.comwrote:
On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote:
the
median is always smaller than the average.
There's no such relation between median and average:
{20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (23.8)
{20, 22, 24, 26, 28}:
On 21-10-2011 04:11, Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelomichelcastelobra...@gmail.comwrote:
On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote:
the
median is always smaller than the average.
There's no such relation between median and average:
{20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24)
2011/10/18 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com:
Hi Fae, I don't know about other projects, but on EN wki random article
means just that. There have been a number of proposals to skew things and
filter certain things out, but these have foundered on the twin concerns
that including
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 19/10/2011 20:04, Béria Lima wrote:
/me does.
And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT.
I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide
famous - for have
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
I note that the TV shows the scenes after 9pm, or in other words they
apply some filter on the content if only based on time.
As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than
As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
culture, We did confront a teacher who was in her retirement age with
images worse than genital piercings. And, yes, she not only blushed
but turned livid, But she kept on teaching us biology. ! Not saying
what we did was
Perhaps she believes in fair tales, perhaps she was so used to see penis and
percing in her life that was only one more, perhaps we would buy the crap
you trying to selling us...
... all a question of probabilities ;)
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
culture, We did confront a teacher who was in her retirement age with
images worse than genital piercings. And, yes, she not only blushed
but
On Wikipedia this is called vandalism and trolling; and we *do* censor it
:)
No we don't and that is the whole point. We edit. We don't censor,
We remove suppress such material. This is censoring the troll/vandals
contribution.
I am sorry but you don't get to use a potential straw man
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wikipedia this is called vandalism and trolling; and we *do* censor it
:)
No we don't and that is the whole point. We edit. We don't censor,
We remove suppress such material. This is censoring the
Okay, We do not censor, because censorship is prior referral to a body
to approve publication. We edit live, so a priori we don't censor.
Ouch, no it isn't. It's just suppression of material. That we edit publicly
and in real time is just a product of advancing technology :)
Very clear to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
* I know flagged rev's petered out and is in limbo at the moment - but
opposition to it was not really built on the issue of censorship.
Note that this is only true in the English Wikipedia. Flagged revisions
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
culture, We did confront a teacher who was in her retirement age with
images worse than genital piercings. And, yes, she not only blushed
On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com 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*
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
culture, We did confront a teacher who was in her retirement age with
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com 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
Ok, this discussion has 60 arguments and we are getting nowhere. Why don't
we follow Google's example (what that is is for you to figure out)?
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
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;
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
I find something very odd in that statement. But first, What professional
standards? I always assumed, Wikipedia was the amateur alternative to the
professionals, the same white, grey, male academicians that skew the
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I never assumed that, and it is not consistent with basic Wikipedia
policies
that have existed for almost as long as Wikipedia has existed. Wikipedia is
based on professionally published sources. They are privileged as
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I never assumed that, and it is not consistent with basic Wikipedia
policies
that have existed for almost as long as Wikipedia has existed.
* 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
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).
Andreas
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at
* 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
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com 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,
On 19/10/11 02:15, Domas Mituzas wrote:
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
Tim Starling, 21/10/2011 02:29:
There's no bias towards or away from porn, however. The distributions
of page_random gaps are independent of any variable you might want to
study, like quality or age.
If you try to get a lot of random pages from Special:Random,
eventually you will notice that
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.netwrote:
* 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
* 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
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* 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
On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote:
the
median is always smaller than the average.
There's no such relation between median and average:
{20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (23.8)
{20, 22, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) = Average (24)
{20, 23, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (24.2)
On 18/10/2011 15:14, Thomas Morton wrote:
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
Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of
I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know
how many people see the porn section*** of Wikipedia or to remove those
articles from Random article button and them make it a random article (but
porn safe) button? Maybe if I start to complain about French villages (I
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know
how many people see the porn section*** of Wikipedia or to remove those
articles from Random article button and them make it a random article (but
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I've said this before. I would like to not look at women with
humongously oversize breasts (And yes, Dolly Parton, this means you
too) or women with perfect teeth whitened to porcelain level shine,
smiling with
I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population
(btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?)
are offended by ANYTHING.
If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a way to
create a filter.
_
*Béria Lima*
Yes, that was an unfortunate use of un-statistics. I had a {{facepalm}}
moment when I read it.
On the other hand I do not think it is a ludicrous or unexpected claim that
most people do not wish to view images of gore or bodily functions :)
Tom
___
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population
(btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?)
are offended by ANYTHING.
If you show me, I myself change course in College
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
..
Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to
say and that 90% is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Just in case, I'll recap without using statistics for rhetorical
purposes: My
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
..
Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to
say and that 90% is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Just
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite
grasp?
Sorry, you're claiming this as non-negotiable in favour of your view? What's
that discussion about censorship again?
Apologies for being so bluntly critical but of all your rather odd emails
today this one had me
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp?
I'm not sure I understand. Could you tell me what you think is non-negotiable?
--
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia Foundation
Andrew Garrett wrote:
My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion
(that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering
readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that
people commonly don't want to see.
The simplest solutions can often have the
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion
(that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering
readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that
people
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter
that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those
consequences. You won't find any argument from me on that.
--
Andrew Garrett
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion
(that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering
readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that
people
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter
that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those
I'm more worried about lack of user requirements gathering, vague
problem definition, and over-engineering coupled with an expectation
for 'the community' to build a dataset that they appear reluctant to
build.
Second this concern - particularly the comment r.e. problem definition.
This
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4
million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one
person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100
people
en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4
million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one
person will have recieved porn. If there are 100
problematic to who?
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19
That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is
also problematic.
Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography -
On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
problematic to who?
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
problematic to who?
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
___
You've
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
The word empathy was the one Sue Gardner chose to use too. I would
rather see something like respect instead. Any of us might lack
empathy with someone from a very different cultural background
On 19/10/2011 18:17, Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
problematic to who?
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
Did I miss anything?
Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack
on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by
showing how much you disrespect them?
Thanks,
Fae
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 19/10/2011 18:52, Fae wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack
on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by
showing how much you disrespect them?
Disrespect? That is odd in odd word to use in a discussion
/me does.
And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT.
I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide
famous - for have several (like hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls
and boys dancing Samba.
And here is the catch. You know
I might be from one of the most restrictive cultures, ethnicity and
background than most people on this list. I assumed, it was people from my
part of the world, that the board and WMF was trying to be considerate of.
In all of this, I can't help but wonder where would it stop, there are
probably
On 19/10/2011 20:04, Béria Lima wrote:
/me does.
And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT.
I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide
famous - for have several (like hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls
and boys
--
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
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
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
75 matches
Mail list logo
