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 10:18 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.netwrote:
- 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 a quarter are 30 or older, yet this is the demographic with the
most
expertise.
Per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011/Profiles you seem to be quite mistaken, only 27% are 21 or younger, and 47% are 30+. With various statistical caveats that I haven't researched, and this is "us" as in editors, I am not aware of a representative study of readers, and they would count as editors when they get involved in editorial matters. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l