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

On 21-10-2011 04:11, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelowrote: > >> 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.

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelo wrote: > 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) = Averag

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

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)

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Levy wrote: > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should consider ourselves *bound* > by > > others' decisions either. But I do think that the presence or absence of > > precedents in reliable sources is an important factor that

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann 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 participated i

Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Davis wrote: >> > IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make >> > sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewh

Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > > IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make > > sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I > got > > was that if you wanted t

Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make > sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I got > was that if you wanted to send 100 at least semi-constructive emails, you'd > get through. If

Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I got was that if you wanted to send 100 at least semi-constructive emails, you'd get through. If you want to flame and flame and flame ... you'd get cut at

[Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

topic was: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Andreas K. wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy wrote: > >> Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> >> > Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a >> > cost/benefit

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

* 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

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * 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 si

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

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should consider ourselves *bound* by > others' decisions either. But I do think that the presence or absence of > precedents in reliable sources is an important factor that we should weigh > when we're contemplating the addition of a pa

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

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

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

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]]

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

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:45 AM, 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

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

* 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

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

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 10:

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

* 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

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy wrote: > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a > > cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make > > sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial, > > outweighs a

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. 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 profes

Re: [Foundation-l] Trust, consensus building and the image filter - was Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > -- > > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200 > > From: Tobias Oelgarte > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial > >Co

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

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a > cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make > sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial, > outweighs any cost, however large and substantive. Agreed. I'm not arguin

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. 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 the most > (or f

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Theo10011 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 > professional standards

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Andreas K. 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; > I > view it

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM, David Levy wrote: > > Indeed, but *not* when it comes to images' basic illustrative > properties. Again, I elaborated in the text quoted below. This process can be applied to images depicting almost any subject, > even if others decline to do so. I mention

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

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. wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > > On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. w

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. 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 offe

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andreas K. wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > 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 pierc

[Foundation-l] Trust, consensus building and the image filter - was Letter to the community on Controversial Content

-- > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200 > From: Tobias Oelgarte > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial >Content > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Message-ID: <4e9d.8010...@googlemail.com> > Content-Ty

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

On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. 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* > field, are turned of

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 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 turned livid, Bu

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Morton 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 is fully implemented (across

The Signpost – Volume 7, Issue 42 – 17 October 2011

News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-17/News_and_notes In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social mod

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia UK report, September 2011

Below is the Wikimedia UK monthly report for the period 1 to 30 September 2011. If you want to keep up with the chapter's activities as they happen, please subscribe to our blog, join our mailing list, and/or follow us on Twitter. If you have any questions or comments, please drop us a line on t

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Report, September 2011

Hello all, please find below the WMF report for September, in plain text. As always, the editable and formatted version is on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_September_2011 The reports are posted on the Wikimedia blog, too: http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/corpora

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

> > 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

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Thomas Morton 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 troll/vandals

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

> > > 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 st

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Morton 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 turned livid, But

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

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* (351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo on

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

> > 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

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

cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? 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 brazilian > cult

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

Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte< > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY PROJECT?! >> >> > First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not init

Re: [Foundation-l] Canadia Supreme Court Finds in Favour of Hyperlinker

On 10/19/11 12:48 PM, Risker wrote: > Today, the Canadian Supreme Court found that an online writer who used > external hyperlinks could not be held liable for the contents of the > hyperlinked materials: > > http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362--supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-i

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? 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 several (like