Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05: I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's porn problem is a serious issue. The point was, I think, that no software is perfect (not even parents' brain) and that parents can't rely on software too much. Not that hard to understand, hence please avoid off-topic (see subject) paternalism. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05: I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's porn problem is a serious issue. The point was, I think, that no software is perfect (not even parents' brain) and that parents can't rely on software too much. Is this supposed to be a parody of the people who point out the flaws in software solutions but fail to point out the flaws in non-software solutions? Because, it seemed to me to be an instance of it. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This assumption is entirely unsubstantiated. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This assumption is entirely unsubstantiated. YouTube's age restricted content policy is good. That is to say, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than Wikipedia's policies. My kids are much more likely to run across hard core pornography while clicking around on Wikipedia than clicking around on YouTube. Personally I'd prefer they rely more on whitelisting than on blacklisting - but what they do is already a *lot* better than Wikipedia. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 15 June 2012 13:21, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's actually a demand for one? I think we had this conversation almost a year ago ;-) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-September/114562.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-September/114569.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-September/115530.html are my comments from the last round. In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do. (Alternatively, it might suggest there's no demand at all for any meaningfully variant derivatives of Wikipedia, which is a demoralising thought..) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do. Which comes back to someone testing our practical forkability, then (as I've noted before) - arguably an important part of backup hygiene, but one which is in no way actually urgent at present. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do. Which comes back to someone testing our practical forkability, then (as I've noted before) - arguably an important part of backup hygiene, but one which is in no way actually urgent at present. I certainly don't think it's urgent to try now - I'm sanguine that the WMF WP we have now will be around for a second decade at least - but I do think it's important to remember when bringing up the issue of competitors. As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that conclusion. This applies whether the hypothetical fork is one using an image filter, one using stable versions, one using peer-review editorial control, one dynamically switching between varieties of English, or anything else... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 17 June 2012 15:43, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that conclusion. This applies whether the hypothetical fork is one using an image filter, one using stable versions, one using peer-review editorial control, one dynamically switching between varieties of English, or anything else... I haven't seen those being shouted for like this is. That is, there are people actually asking for this, and there aren't really for those other things. So I think my question - if this is so obviously the right thing, then where are the existing attempts? - still stands as relevant. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 17 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This assumption is entirely unsubstantiated. Well the various attempts by collages to block game sites were somewhat effective. And that did have the effect of freeing up more computers for actual college work. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Am 17.06.2012 17:16, schrieb Anthony: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: So I think my question - if this is so obviously the right thing, then where are the existing attempts? - still stands as relevant. The fact that it is the right thing isn't obvious, and forking of free content is generally a last resort, when all else has failed. Those recent statements by board members that the filter is alive and well make a fork less likely, not more. It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted revision) or even entirely automated for articles or images marked as unproblematic. There would be some programming work (an confirm update button), but overall it would be easy to implement and maintain. That way you could easily create a Wiki suited for the needs of a special audience which is quickly updated and expanded to the latest versions. A subset of Wikipedia. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012
Tilman, Thanks for the report. I would like to suggest that for the foreseeable future (not just for June), these monthly reports should include a fuller set of updates on the editor engagement and retention efforts. My understanding is that this is a high priority effort for WMF, it seems to involve a fairly significant number of WMF FTEs and LTEs, and I think it is of interest to the global Wikimedia community. Personally I am very concerned about the continuing slide in the number of active editors. There are many areas on ENWP where having a few more active editors would be very helpful, and I speculate that other projects would also appreciate having additional active editors. My concerns are illustrated beautifully on some of the graphs here: http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors;, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors;, and http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors_target;. I would like to hear more about what progress is being made to improve the trends. We heard about the Teahouse and new initiatives for Arabic Wikipedia, which are very good, and I especially appreciated the detailed reports on the Teahouse pilot that were sent to ENWP participants' talk pages through The Tea Leaf newsletter, including links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Metrics; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Pilot_report;. I also appreciated reading about the progress of India communications and community support. I would like to hear more about what the projected effects of these initiatives will be on the editor statistics in the global report cards, have the projections compared to actuals, and get updates on these projections and actuals each month. The amount of staff and financial resources that are invested in editor engagement (including development of the visual editor), and the importance of the outcomes of those efforts for the movement and Wikimedia Strategic Plan priorities, are of significant interest to me and I imagine to many other members of the global Wikimedia community. Thank you, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50: In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do. A filtered mirror is not something clever and we have plenty of mirrors. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012
It may well be that the trends are distorted due to major bug in wikistats. That bug has been isolated, but we need 7-10 days to regenerate all reports. See also http://infodisiac.com/blog/2012/06/wikistats-editor-counts-are-broken/ Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience. Erik Zachte -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ENWP Pine Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:20 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012 Tilman, Thanks for the report. I would like to suggest that for the foreseeable future (not just for June), these monthly reports should include a fuller set of updates on the editor engagement and retention efforts. My understanding is that this is a high priority effort for WMF, it seems to involve a fairly significant number of WMF FTEs and LTEs, and I think it is of interest to the global Wikimedia community. Personally I am very concerned about the continuing slide in the number of active editors. There are many areas on ENWP where having a few more active editors would be very helpful, and I speculate that other projects would also appreciate having additional active editors. My concerns are illustrated beautifully on some of the graphs here: http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors;, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors;, and http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors_target;. I would like to hear more about what progress is being made to improve the trends. We heard about the Teahouse and new initiatives for Arabic Wikipedia, which are very good, and I especially appreciated the detailed reports on the Teahouse pilot that were sent to ENWP participants' talk pages through The Tea Leaf newsletter, including links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Metrics; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Pilot_report;. I also appreciated reading about the progress of India communications and community support. I would like to hear more about what the projected effects of these initiatives will be on the editor statistics in the global report cards, have the projections compared to actuals, and get updates on these projections and actuals each month. The amount of staff and financial resources that are invested in editor engagement (including development of the visual editor), and the importance of the outcomes of those efforts for the movement and Wikimedia Strategic Plan priorities, are of significant interest to me and I imagine to many other members of the global Wikimedia community. Thank you, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Am 17.06.2012 21:41, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo): Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50: In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do. A filtered mirror is not something clever and we have plenty of mirrors. Nemo May i ask why? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted revision) or even entirely automated for articles or images marked as unproblematic. There would be some programming work (an confirm update button), but overall it would be easy to implement and maintain. That way you could easily create a Wiki suited for the needs of a special audience which is quickly updated and expanded to the latest versions. A subset of Wikipedia. I don't see how that isn't a fork. And I don't think it would be easy to implement or to maintain. Citizendium tried to do this without even doing the automatic updating part, and they quickly decided that it was more trouble than it was worth. Maybe things have gotten better since then. Maybe they have gotten worse. I don't know. Is there even a way to export an article, including (recursively) all the templates it depends on? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012
Erik, Thanks for replying. Let me make sure that I understand. The graph at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors isn’t affected by the bug, and we still believe that we have a declining number of new editors per month. However, the graphs for the number of active editors may be wrong, since edit counts may be wrong. Is this correct? The bulk of my previous comments would stand even with upward revisions to the counts of active editors. WMF is investing multiple staff and what I perceive to be a significant amount of financial resources with the goal of increasing the number of active editors, and the statistics related to these efforts are relevant to the strategic plan. I believe that monthly updates would be appropriate and welcome. Thanks, Pine -Original Message- From: Erik Zachte ezac...@wikimedia.org To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012 Message-ID: 004b01cd4cca$1ae54430$50afcc90$@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It may well be that the trends are distorted due to major bug in wikistats. That bug has been isolated, but we need 7-10 days to regenerate all reports. See also http://infodisiac.com/blog/2012/06/wikistats-editor-counts-are-broken/ Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience. Erik Zachte -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ENWP Pine Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:20 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012 Tilman, Thanks for the report. I would like to suggest that for the foreseeable future (not just for June), these monthly reports should include a fuller set of updates on the editor engagement and retention efforts. My understanding is that this is a high priority effort for WMF, it seems to involve a fairly significant number of WMF FTEs and LTEs, and I think it is of interest to the global Wikimedia community. Personally I am very concerned about the continuing slide in the number of active editors. There are many areas on ENWP where having a few more active editors would be very helpful, and I speculate that other projects would also appreciate having additional active editors. My concerns are illustrated beautifully on some of the graphs here: http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors;, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors;, and http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors_target;. I would like to hear more about what progress is being made to improve the trends. We heard about the Teahouse and new initiatives for Arabic Wikipedia, which are very good, and I especially appreciated the detailed reports on the Teahouse pilot that were sent to ENWP participants' talk pages through The Tea Leaf newsletter, including links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Metrics; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Pilot_report;. I also appreciated reading about the progress of India communications and community support. I would like to hear more about what the projected effects of these initiatives will be on the editor statistics in the global report cards, have the projections compared to actuals, and get updates on these projections and actuals each month. The amount of staff and financial resources that are invested in editor engagement (including development of the visual editor), and the importance of the outcomes of those efforts for the movement and Wikimedia Strategic Plan priorities, are of significant interest to me and I imagine to many other members of the global Wikimedia community. Thank you, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted revision) or even entirely automated for articles or images marked as unproblematic. There would be some programming work (an confirm update button), but overall it would be easy to implement and maintain. That way you could easily create a Wiki suited for the needs of a special audience which is quickly updated and expanded to the latest versions. A subset of Wikipedia. I don't see how that isn't a fork. And I don't think it would be easy to implement or to maintain. Citizendium tried to do this without even doing the automatic updating part, and they quickly decided that it was more trouble than it was worth. Maybe things have gotten better since then. Maybe they have gotten worse. I don't know. Is there even a way to export an article, including (recursively) all the templates it depends on? Every stupid bot could do this. There is no running out of the box solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this would be minimal compared to anything else. I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains selected/checked content. That way a childrens Wiki could easily be created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of already written articles) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
