On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com 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 off by it, finding it crass and juvenile.
This is the first I've seen a filter advocated as the solution to the expert problem. Which was always previously put in terms of not being able to keep idiots out of experts' faces.
But you're late - the expert problem turns out to be dissolving in a surprising manner, i.e. they're coming to us anyway, because they want their fields properly represented in the biggest encyclopedia. Which is not a reason for complacency, but it *is* a reason to think twice about using claims of the expert problem as justification for bending the encyclopedia all out of shape for any other reason.
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 a quarter are 30 or older, yet this is the demographic with the most expertise.
* 87.5 per cent are male.
* Only about 1 in 50 is a mother.
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 as Wikipedia growing up. The sooner, the better.
Andreas