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

Thanks, I have used the random article from a category tool before (creating buttons as part of the GLAM work) but what we really need is a 'Safe for Work' random link. I guess the answer is the usual, if Tom wants to browse Wikipedia from his tablet on the train and never run into the 0.1% chance

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

2011/10/18 WereSpielChequers : >> >> > Hi Fae,  I don't know about other projects, but on EN wki random article > means just that. There have been a number of proposals to skew things and > filter certain things out, but these have foundered on the twin concerns > that including everything in Rando

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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

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

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] 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

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

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 hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls > > and boy

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

I might be from one of the most restrictive cultures, ethnicity and background than most people on this list. I assumed, it was people from my part of the world, that the board and WMF was trying to be considerate of. In all of this, I can't help but wonder where would it stop, there are probably

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

/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 hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls and boys dancing Samba. And here is the catch. You know what

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

On 19/10/2011 18:52, Fae wrote: >> Did I miss anything? > > Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack > on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by > showing how much you disrespect them? > Disrespect? That is odd in odd word to use in a discus

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

> Did I miss anything? Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by showing how much you disrespect them? Thanks, Fae ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation

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

On 19/10/2011 18:17, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wrote: >> On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote: >>> problematic to who? >> >> Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity >> that would shame a tree stump. >> >> >> _

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

> Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity > that would shame a tree stump. The word empathy was the one Sue Gardner chose to use too. I would rather see something like "respect" instead. Any of us might lack empathy with someone from a very different cultural backgroun

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wrote: > On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote: >> problematic to who? > > Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity > that would shame a tree stump. > > > ___ You've been making several c

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > > > > That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the > > contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital > > piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts > is > > a

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

On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote: > problematic to who? Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity that would shame a tree stump. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.

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

> > That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the > contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital > piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is > also problematic. > > Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography

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

problematic to who? _ *Béria Lima* (351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer .* On 1

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

en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wrote: > > So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4 > > million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one > > person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wrote: > So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4 > million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one > person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100 > people will receive porn each day.

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

> > I'm more worried about lack of user requirements gathering, vague > problem definition, and over-engineering coupled with an expectation > for 'the community' to build a dataset that they appear reluctant to > build. Second this concern - particularly the comment r.e. problem definition. Thi

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett wrote: > >> Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter >> that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those >> consequences. You won't find any argument fr

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Garrett wrote: >> My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion >> (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering >> readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that >> people commonly don't

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

On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett wrote: > Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter > that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those > consequences. You won't find any argument from me on that. > -- > Andrew Garrett > Wikimedia Foundation >

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Garrett wrote: >> My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion >> (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering >> readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that >> people commonly don't

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

Andrew Garrett wrote: > My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion > (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering > readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that > people commonly don't want to see. The simplest solutions can often have the g

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > If I may be so  blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp? I'm not sure I understand. Could you tell me what you think is non-negotiable? -- Andrew Garrett Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedia.org ___

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

> > If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite > grasp? > Sorry, you're claiming this as non-negotiable in favour of your view? What's that discussion about censorship again? Apologies for being so bluntly critical but of all your rather odd emails today this one had me

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett > wrote: >>.. >> Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to >> say and that "90%" is not intended to be interpreted literally. >> >> Just in case, I'll recap withou

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: >.. > Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to > say and that "90%" is not intended to be interpreted literally. > > Just in case, I'll recap without using statistics for rhetorical > purposes: My point is about qui

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Béria Lima wrote: > I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population > (btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?) > are offended by ANYTHING. > > If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a

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

Yes, that was an unfortunate use of un-statistics. I had a {{facepalm}} moment when I read it. On the other hand I do not think it is a ludicrous or unexpected claim that most people do not wish to view images of gore or bodily functions :) Tom ___ fou

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

I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population (btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?) are offended by ANYTHING. If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a way to create a filter. _ *Béria Lima*

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > I've said this before. I would like to not look at women with > humongously oversize breasts (And yes, Dolly Parton, this means you > too) or women with perfect teeth whitened to porcelain level shine, > smiling with their teeth. If y

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Béria Lima wrote: > I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know > how many people see the "porn section"***  of Wikipedia or to remove those > articles from Random article button and them make it a "random article (but > porn safe)"

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

I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know how many people see the "porn section"*** of Wikipedia or to remove those articles from Random article button and them make it a "random article (but porn safe)" button? Maybe if I start to complain about French villages (

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] 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] 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] 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