Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 odd

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe 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? It depends on the context. There's nothing inherently bad about sati

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an > educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or > inherited from 4chan. Would you agree? Yes, and I dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed in this respect. As

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

* 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 "se

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte< > > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> You said that we should learn from Google and other top w

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:17 PM, David Levy wrote: > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to > > look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the > > user to filter, and what media Flickr and YouTube require opt-i

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte< > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at >> the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of >> this we

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM, David Levy wrote: > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a > good > > model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters) > > who call the Twitter feed by its proper name, "Shit m

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a good > model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters) > who call the Twitter feed by its proper name, "Shit my dad says". The sources to which I referred are the most reputa

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at > the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of > this websites did? What I mean is that we should not

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: David Levy > > The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other > > news organization) uses "Stuff My Dad Says."  So does the Los Angeles > > Times, which states that the subject's actual name is "unsuitable for > > a family publication." > > > > http://www.nytimes.com

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

The global test is now set for today @ *21:00 - 22:00 UTC.* Charles A. Barr Production Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation On 10/18/11 13:23, Charles A. Barr wrote: > The global test is delayed due to operations issues. The test is still > planned for later today. Mo

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> > This is only no problem, as long we don't represent default settings, aka > categories, which introduce our judgment to the readership. Only the > fact that our judgment is visible, is already enough to manipulate the > reader in what to see as objectionable or not. This scenario is very > much

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

The global test is delayed due to operations issues. The test is still planned for later today. More information will be sent along when available. Charles A. Barr Production Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation On 10/18/11 10:47, Chris Keating wrote: >> Sorry for the

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to > look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the > user to filter, and what media Flickr and YouTube require opt-ins for? > Why should we not take our cues from them? The situa

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a > wide spectrum of opinion on such matters. Of course. But consensus != unanimity. Your interpretation of the English Wikipedia's neutrality policy contradicts that under which the site operates. > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 19:04, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > > From: Tobias Oelgarte >> Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton: >>> It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of >>> "neutrality" which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack >>> neutrality almost as much as

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 17:23, schrieb Thomas Morton: >> That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal. >> At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the >> option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what >> "not anything" is. This imp

Re: [Foundation-l] University project on Wikipedia

Thank you. I didn't know about this WikiProject. After discussing it a bit with my professor, I've posted a request over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ESIT_translation_project_-_French_to_English_%28First_semester_2011-12%29 Maria Fanucchi / [[User:Arria

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > > > The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a > wide spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this in the past, > with long discuss

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a wide > spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this in the past, with long > discussions about contentious cases like the goatse image, or the Katzouras

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

> Sorry for the confusion. No we are not testing in*US, AU, DE, FR, CH, GB.* > > Thanks for clearing that up. Good luck with the test. :-) Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

Sorry for the confusion. No we are not testing in*US, AU, DE, FR, CH, GB.* Charles A. Barr Production Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation On 10/18/11 10:39, Chris Keating wrote: >> >> >> On *2011-10-18* (today)*@ 20:00 - 21:30 UTC*, we are running a global >> campaig

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

> > > > On *2011-10-18* (today)*@ 20:00 - 21:30 UTC*, we are running a global > campaign for an hour and a half to test our ability to and strategy for > handling donations coming from *every country*! Hello Charles, Hopefully you are not doing this in the countries which have chapters that are

[Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

Hello Wiki World, On *2011-10-18* (today)*@ 20:00 - 21:30 UTC*, we are running a global campaign for an hour and a half to test our ability to and strategy for handling donations coming from *every country*! The test will run for every language but will only have English banners and appeals with a

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: Tobias Oelgarte > >Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton: >> It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of >> "neutrality" which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack >> neutrality almost as much as the next man!). >... and that is exactly what m

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> 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 use

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> > That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal. > At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the > option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what > "not anything" is. This imposes our judgment to the reader. That means, >

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 randoml

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 > comp

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 compar

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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:

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 14:00, schrieb Thomas Morton: > On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias > Oelgartewrote: > >> That controversial content is hidden or that we >> provide a button to hide controversial content is prejudicial. > > I disagree on this, though. There is a balance between encouraging people to >

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 18 October 2011 15:40, Nathan 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 the bodies.

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Fae 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 they > feel could be

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Béria Lima 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 we used to joke

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 act

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 18 October 2011 15:17, Béria Lima 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 like that in 2004 -

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 we used to joke that pt.wiki is made only by French villages and asteroids (b

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

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 t

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

Rather than filtering the unreferenced, I had in mind articles such as [[Human penis]] and [[Vagina]] where the lead may be NSFW (Tom's main thrust) or unstable articles that are currently locked due to edit-warring, blatant lobbying or similar. Cheers, Fae ___

[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:26 +0100 > From: Fae > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial >Content > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; char

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > I don't assume that. I say that they should have the opportunity to > change if they like to. Absolutely - we do not disagree on this. > That controversial content is hidden or that we > provide a button to hide controversial content is prejud

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton: >>> And that is a mature and sensible attitude. >>> >>> Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to >>> them are rude or offensive things. >>> >>> Are they wrong? >>> >>> Should they be doing what you (and I) do? >>> >>> Tom >> The

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 18 October 2011 11:08, David Gerard wrote: > On 18 October 2011 10:43, Thomas Morton > wrote: > > > If an individual expresses a preference to hide certain content, it is > > reasonable for us to provide that option for use at their discretion. > > Anything else is like saying "No, your views

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 18 October 2011 10:43, Thomas Morton wrote: > If an individual expresses a preference to hide certain content, it is > reasonable for us to provide that option for use at their discretion. > Anything else is like saying "No, your views on acceptability are wrong and > we insist you must see th

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> > > And that is a mature and sensible attitude. > > > > Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to > > them are rude or offensive things. > > > > Are they wrong? > > > > Should they be doing what you (and I) do? > > > > Tom > The question is, if we should support "them" t

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 09:57, schrieb Tom Morris: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote: > >> On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte >> > wrote: >>> I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing >>> progress of fisting on the mainpage? No problem for me. Reading your >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 18.10.2011 01:54, schrieb Thomas Morton: > On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: > >> Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???: >>> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: > On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: >> On 16 October 2011 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Sorry to take a tangential point from Tom's email, but is the random article tool truly random or does it direct to only stable articles or some other sub-set of article space? Thanks Fae ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Un

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote: > On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte > > wrote: > > I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing > > progress of fisting on the mainpage? No problem for me. Reading your > > comments? No problem for me. Reading your ins