Am 21.09.2011 22:20, schrieb Kanzlei: > Am 21.09.2011 um 20:10 schrieb Tobias > Oelgarte<tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>: > >> Am 21.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Kanzlei: >>> Am 21.09.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Tobias >>> Oelgarte<tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>: >>> >>>> 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 >>> 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. >> 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 really is. >> After the discussion settled, we opened a Meinungsbild (Poll) to >> question if any article/image would be suitable for the main page >> (Actually it asked to not allow any topic). The result was very clear. >> 13 supported the approach to leave out some content from the main page. >> 233 (95%) were against the approach to hide some subjects from the main >> page. > This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some > German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research found that Germa editors > are not representative for German speaking people but far more > environmetal-liberal-leftists than avarage Germans. The poll was even not > representative for German editors because only a few voted. > This needs a big *CITATION NEEDED*. We have the opposite examples like the article "Futanari", which i mentioned before. >> You said that my assumption is wrong. We can repeat this for hundreds of >> articles and you would get the same result. Now proof that this >> assumption, which is sourced (just look at it) is wrong or say what is >> wrong with my assumption (in detail). > See above > >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
