Am 21.09.2011 18:41, schrieb Andrew Gray: > On 21 September 2011 16:53, David Gerard<dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> They do it by crowdsourcing a mass American bias, don't they? >> >> An American POV being enforced strikes me as a problematic solution. >> >> (I know that FAQ says "global community". What they mean is "people >> all around the world who are Silicon Valley technologists like us - >> you know, normal people." This approach also has a number of fairly >> obvious problems.) > I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago, I think, but this effect cuts both > ways. > > We already know that our community skews to - as you put it - "people > all around the world who are technologists like us". As a result, that > same community is who decides what images are reasonable and > appropriate to put in articles. > > People look at images and say - yes, it's appropriate, yes, it's > encyclopedic, no, it's excessively violent, no, that's gratuitous > nudity, yes, I like kittens, etc etc etc. You do it, I do it, we try > to be sensible, but we're not universally representative. The > community, over time, imposes its own de facto standards on the > content, and those standards are those of - well, we know what our > systemic biases are. We've not managed a quick fix to that problem, > not yet. > > One of the problems with the discussions about the image filter is > that many of them argue - I paraphrase - that "Wikipedia must not be > censored because it would stop being neutral". But is the existing > "Wikipedian POV" *really* the same as "neutral", or are we letting our > aspirations to inclusive global neutrality win out over the real state > of affairs? It's the great big unexamined assumption in our > discussions... You describe us as geeks and that we can't write in a way that would please the readers. Since we are geeks, we are strongly biased and write down POV all day. If that is true, why is Wikipedia such a success? Why people read it? Do they like geeky stuff?
Don't you think that we would have thousands of complaints a day if your words would be true at all? Just have a look at the article [[hentai]] and look at the illustration. How many complaints about this image do we get a day? None, because it is less then one complain in a month, while the article itself is viewed about 8.000 times a day.[1] That would make up one complainer in 240.000 (0,0004%). Now we could argue that only some of them would comment on the issue. Lets assume 1 of 100 or even 1 of 1000. Then it are still only 0,04% or 0,4%. That is the big mass of users we want to support get more contributers? [1] http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/hentai _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
