Message: 3 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:26 +0100 From: Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <CAHRYMYVZGEqXtxmW78+A71os9DP12HMquAsKVWfQnnVsYYnOrg@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
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 Random articles best serves those who want to intersperse some random reading with things that they can easily improve, and that it would be dishonest to tell someone that these were random articles when actually we'd filtered out stubs or the unreferenced.
There may well be demand for "random Good Article" as an additional option, but that would be an extra not something we could describe as random article.
WereSpielChequers
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
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 the random article button?
Best, lodewijk
No dia 18 de Outubro de 2011 16:00, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk escreveu:
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 mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just to clarify the technical details for those interested... the code is located here: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/specials/Spe...
It gets a random number using PHP's build into pseudo-random number generator and uses that to recover an article from the DB.
Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of coming across a particular page :)
(I say ostensibly because it appears to be a little more complicated than that - but it does for back-of-the-napkin discussions)
Tom
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/Spe...
Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of coming across a particular page :)
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.
So how many porn pages and how many button presses per day?
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 (I get REALLY offended by them) we can create a "Random article (but French Villages safe)" and if someone complain about..... to infinite.
*** Porn is very different of nudity or anatomy. While I can understand you might fell offended by Group sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_sexarticle (even without pictures and only with illustrations), I really can't place Nudity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity article (btw, this article has only back nudity, no frontal nudity here ;) ) or vaginahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginaarticle in the same category.
*Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19 October 2011 07:37, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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/Spe...
Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of coming across a particular page :)
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.
So how many porn pages and how many button presses per day?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com 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)" button? Maybe if I start to complain about French villages (I get REALLY offended by them) we can create a "Random article (but French Villages safe)" and if someone complain about..... to infinite.
*** Porn is very different of nudity or anatomy. While I can understand you might fell offended by Group sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_sexarticle (even without pictures and only with illustrations), I really can't place Nudity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity article (btw, this article has only back nudity, no frontal nudity here ;) ) or vaginahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginaarticle in the same category.
*Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19 October 2011 07:37, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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/Spe...
Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of coming across a particular page :)
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.
So how many porn pages and how many button presses per day?
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 you must smile, do it with the lips, not the teeth. But am I going to get that from wikipedia. No chance. Should I get that from wikipedia. Emphatically no. As offensive as I find huge bazoomba-lollobrigidas, they should be served to me and to everyone else on wikipedia. Because we don't hide huge bosoms on wikipedia. Period.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com 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 you must smile, do it with the lips, not the teeth. But am I going to get that from wikipedia. No chance. Should I get that from wikipedia. Emphatically no. As offensive as I find huge bazoomba-lollobrigidas, they should be served to me and to everyone else on wikipedia. Because we don't hide huge bosoms on wikipedia. Period.
Let's not pretend that there's no difference between this sort of preference and a preference for not seeing medical things, or for not seeing nudity, or for not seeing things that are religiously offensive, or for not seeing PTSD triggers or whatever.
It's not a black and white issue, and we need to exercise some common sense and praxis. You need to weigh the administrative burden of maintaining categorisation (along with any other consequences of offering personal opt-out to individual classes of images, such as interface clutter and, yes, the potential for use by totalitarian regimes) against the participatory benefits afforded by giving readers more choice about what they see.
Because images are high impact, they are good candidates for personal, opt-in content filtering. There are certain classes of image that allow us to attack 90% of the problem – that is, nudity that causes embarrassment at work and in public places, gore and bodily functions that 90% of the general public are offended by, and triggers for medical conditions such as PTSD or vasovagal conditions. I don't think anybody is suggesting we run around and identify every last image that could possibly offend anybody.
Sure, there's no *qualitative* difference between things that offend 90% of the general public and some arbitrary thing that you make up that offends you. But there sure as hell is a quantitative difference, and any nuanced perspective on this argument should have an understanding of this. In my opinion it's worth giving a simple way for people to avoid 90% of the things that they might be offended by.
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* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19 October 2011 10:23, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com 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 you must smile, do it with the lips, not the teeth. But am I going to get that from wikipedia. No chance. Should I get that from wikipedia. Emphatically no. As offensive as I find huge bazoomba-lollobrigidas, they should be served to me and to everyone else on wikipedia. Because we don't hide huge bosoms on wikipedia. Period.
Let's not pretend that there's no difference between this sort of preference and a preference for not seeing medical things, or for not seeing nudity, or for not seeing things that are religiously offensive, or for not seeing PTSD triggers or whatever.
It's not a black and white issue, and we need to exercise some common sense and praxis. You need to weigh the administrative burden of maintaining categorisation (along with any other consequences of offering personal opt-out to individual classes of images, such as interface clutter and, yes, the potential for use by totalitarian regimes) against the participatory benefits afforded by giving readers more choice about what they see.
Because images are high impact, they are good candidates for personal, opt-in content filtering. There are certain classes of image that allow us to attack 90% of the problem – that is, nudity that causes embarrassment at work and in public places, gore and bodily functions that 90% of the general public are offended by, and triggers for medical conditions such as PTSD or vasovagal conditions. I don't think anybody is suggesting we run around and identify every last image that could possibly offend anybody.
Sure, there's no *qualitative* difference between things that offend 90% of the general public and some arbitrary thing that you make up that offends you. But there sure as hell is a quantitative difference, and any nuanced perspective on this argument should have an understanding of this. In my opinion it's worth giving a simple way for people to avoid 90% of the things that they might be offended by.
-- Andrew Garrett Wikimedia Foundation agarrett@wikimedia.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com 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 way to create a filter.
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 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.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org 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 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.
This is the first _productive_ post in a while. We know the hot button images. We even have an FAQ page which tells readers how to hide pictures of Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
How many other images on Wikipedia are widely viewed as problematic and yet there is consensus to keep them in the article?
I think we should develop the finite list of 'real' problems, to feed into a defined scope of said problem, and find minimalistic solutions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org 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 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.
This is the first _productive_ post in a while. We know the hot button images. We even have an FAQ page which tells readers how to hide pictures of Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
How many other images on Wikipedia are widely viewed as problematic and yet there is consensus to keep them in the article?
I think we should develop the finite list of 'real' problems, to feed into a defined scope of said problem, and find minimalistic solutions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp?
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 going "what the fuck"?
Your attitude here is far far worse than the one you are opposing...
Tom
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com 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 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 gravest consequences. As a PHP developer, I would've thought you would know this better than anyone.
MZMcBride
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com 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 want to see.
The simplest solutions can often have the gravest consequences. As a PHP developer, I would've thought you would know this better than anyone.
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.
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org 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 agarrett@wikimedia.org
So from the Foundation side, what are the current plans? I assume this is a subject of internal discussion.
- d.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org 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.
So from the Foundation side, what are the current plans? I assume this is a subject of internal discussion.
To clarify, I'm not privy to any internal discussion and am posting as a community member.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com 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 want to see.
The simplest solutions can often have the gravest consequences. As a PHP developer, I would've thought you would know this better than anyone.
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.
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.
This really needs a working group or project team tasked with:
- gauging community views - gauging reader requirements - formalising the problem and expected solution
And they should do it publicly.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk 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.
So how many porn pages and how many button presses per day?
There are no porn pages. There are articles in an encyclopedia. What's the problem here?
--Dan
en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk 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.
So how many porn pages and how many button presses per day?
There are no porn pages. There are articles in an encyclopedia. What's the problem here?
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.
problematic to who? _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19 October 2011 15:22, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk
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.
So how many porn pages and how many button presses per day?
There are no porn pages. There are articles in an encyclopedia. What's the problem here?
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.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk 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 comments like this recently, and it's at the point where a moderator needs to step in to help you understand that your posts are inappropriate.
On 19/10/2011 18:17, Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ???wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk 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 comments like this recently, and it's at the point where a moderator needs to step in to help you understand that your posts are inappropriate.
These posts are just as educational as some random articles on snowballing (sexual practice). They are also clearly labelled so one shouldn't have any problem ignoring them or not looking at them, and if one finds them objectionable or disagreeable to one's culture that is really a problem on the part of the reader, who needs to consider that others have a different cultural background that is not as cosseted as one's own.
Did I miss anything?
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 discussion where one side maintains that controversial content cannot be pre ascertained; that controversial content is culturally biased; that those so biased should be educated, against their will if necessary, to be more accepting towards content they find objectionable.
The observation I made was directed at the observation that dumping random controversial images onto someone's computer screen was not a problem. I know of none that honestly hold that view, do you?
/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 the Television comment on that? (yes, is in public television and pass from 9pm to 8 am during 4 days + a retransmission on a saturday afternoon ), the comments are: "Person X has a fantasy of YYY", "Girl Z praticed samba for 4 months to that, and she is dancing really good" or similar. I saw +15 festivals (before I was too young to be up at 10pm) and never saw as pornography.
That is one the reasons I can tell you that nudity and porn are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
PS: A sock account? Really? Don't have balls to write with your own account? _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19 October 2011 19:24, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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 discussion where one side maintains that controversial content cannot be pre ascertained; that controversial content is culturally biased; that those so biased should be educated, against their will if necessary, to be more accepting towards content they find objectionable.
The observation I made was directed at the observation that dumping random controversial images onto someone's computer screen was not a problem. I know of none that honestly hold that view, do you?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 more restrictive cultures. The definition of offensive is rather arbitrary, when it crosses so many cultures and nationalities, there is no end to what might be considered offensive. Pornography is illegal in most parts of South-east Asia, even when it is not enforced there are different ways to control morality, different outlook on what is offensive.
Regards Theo
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com 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 boys dancing Samba.
And here is the catch. You know what the Television comment on that? (yes, is in public television and pass from 9pm to 8 am during 4 days + a retransmission on a saturday afternoon ), the comments are: "Person X has a fantasy of YYY", "Girl Z praticed samba for 4 months to that, and she is dancing really good" or similar. I saw +15 festivals (before I was too young to be up at 10pm) and never saw as pornography.
That is one the reasons I can tell you that nudity and porn are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
PS: A sock account? Really? Don't have balls to write with your own account? _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19 October 2011 19:24, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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 discussion where one side maintains that controversial content cannot be pre ascertained; that controversial content is culturally biased; that those so biased should be educated, against their will if necessary, to be more accepting towards content they find objectionable.
The observation I made was directed at the observation that dumping random controversial images onto someone's computer screen was not a problem. I know of none that honestly hold that view, do you?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 boys dancing Samba.
And? Regardless of carnival Brazilian TV does not randomly show images of genital peircings in between childrens TV shows. Brazillian TV does not suddenly show images of women being ejaculated over, and nor will you find such images in school books. Nor do you get such images delivered in your morning papers.
And here is the catch. You know what the Television comment on that? (yes,
is in public television and pass from 9pm to 8 am during 4 days + a retransmission on a saturday afternoon ), the comments are: "Person X has a fantasy of YYY", "Girl Z praticed samba for 4 months to that, and she is dancing really good" or similar. I saw +15 festivals (before I was too young to be up at 10pm) and never saw as pornography.
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.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk 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 hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls
and boys dancing Samba.
And? Regardless of carnival Brazilian TV does not randomly show images of genital peircings in between childrens TV shows. Brazillian TV does not suddenly show images of women being ejaculated over, and nor will you find such images in school books. Nor do you get such images delivered in your morning papers.
And here is the catch. You know what the Television comment on that? (yes,
is in public television and pass from 9pm to 8 am during 4 days + a retransmission on a saturday afternoon ), the comments are: "Person X has a fantasy of YYY", "Girl Z praticed samba for 4 months to that, and she is dancing really good" or similar. I saw +15 festivals (before I was too young to be up at 10pm) and never saw as pornography.
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 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 was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk 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 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 was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
Perhaps she considered that at her time in life a quite time was more preferable than to deal with a bunch of trollish kids, who shortly would be gone out of her life, and if they ended up failing biology that was their problem, after all she had her career and her pension was secure and the bell would go in a few minutes, and the little fuckers would be on their way home.
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* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 20 October 2011 13:06, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk
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 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 was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
Perhaps she considered that at her time in life a quite time was more preferable than to deal with a bunch of trollish kids, who shortly would be gone out of her life, and if they ended up failing biology that was their problem, after all she had her career and her pension was secure and the bell would go in a few minutes, and the little fuckers would be on their way home.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
On Wikipedia this is called vandalism and trolling; and we *do* censor it :)
Tom
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com 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 she kept on teaching us biology. ! Not saying what we did was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
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,
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 straw man and then defend it by redefining censorship of that material as "editing".
As it is I don't really get the context of the point you were trying to make. In the story is the teacher Wikipedia? In which case we *are* doing more to stop penis images. Or are you trying to show that because she could handle these apparently offensive images and still continue to confront you that the world at large should have the same attitude to Wikipedia?
Tom
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com 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 contribution.
I am sorry but you don't get to use a potential straw man and then defend it by redefining censorship of that material as "editing".
As it is I don't really get the context of the point you were trying to make. In the story is the teacher Wikipedia? In which case we *are* doing more to stop penis images. Or are you trying to show that because she could handle these apparently offensive images and still continue to confront you that the world at large should have the same attitude to Wikipedia?
Tom
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. Very clear to anybody of a legal mind. We don't as a community suppress material, there have been attempts to do so, but they have all failed. We excercise editorial judgement where needed. Which is as it should be.
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 to anybody of a legal mind.
Like me? *waves* No it isn't clear. Our office lawyer is amused as well.
We don't as a community
suppress material, there have been attempts to do so, but they have all failed.
RevDel, Oversight, Normal deletion, reversion, flagged revisions*
We excercise editorial judgement where needed. Which is as it should be.
You understand this is the absolute definition of censorship?
If someone puts a penis image on a page as an act of vandalism we consider this not in keeping with our goal of education (rather than shock, or entertainment, or political pressure) and so we suppress it, censoring the addition of the vandal.
The vandal will call this censorship; and he is right.
I think we are right to do that act, and so do you, so do all of us here. Still censorship.
Censorship, as anyone with a legal mind will tell you, is not a black and white act. There are degrees and varieties; from self-censorship to government suppression and everything between.
This is why I cannot buy the argument that a filter which hides an image on initial page load (with a description and an unhide button) is a higher form of censorship (if at all!) than removing vandal pics which offend or confuse people.
Tom
* 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.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
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 all articles) in a number of Wikipedias, incl. German, Polish, and Russian.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
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 she kept on teaching us biology. ! Not saying what we did was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
Note that your biology teacher is actually the sort of person we would like to start contributing to Wikipedia.
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.
Andreas
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.
- d.
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
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. jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com 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 as Wikipedia growing up. The sooner, the better.
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. The professional group might be more homogeneous than anything else, the only thing that differs is that there no barrier of entry for Wikipedia.
Wikipedia was made and is constantly maintained by "male teenage/early twenties age group" you can not reconstitute an entire demographic of a community to satisfy some politically-correct notions of inclusiveness.
Regards Theo
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com 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.
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 for practical purposes almost only) reliable sources on which to base Wikipedia content.
Wikipedia is set up to reflect and summarise these sources, not to provide an alternative worldview. We do not allow unsourced statements, or self-published sources (except in well-circumscribed exceptional cases).
The professional group might be more homogeneous than anything else, the only thing that differs is that there no barrier of entry for Wikipedia.
Wikipedia was made and is constantly maintained by "male teenage/early twenties age group" you can not reconstitute an entire demographic of a community to satisfy some politically-correct notions of inclusiveness.
Wikipedians of any age group subscribe to the principle of reliable sourcing. And reliable sources can be written and published by (almost) any age group.
Andreas
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com 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 for practical purposes almost only) reliable sources on which to base Wikipedia content.
Wikipedia is set up to reflect and summarise these sources, not to provide an alternative worldview. We do not allow unsourced statements, or self-published sources (except in well-circumscribed exceptional cases).
I never said Wikipedia provides an alternative worldview. Let me quote myself "amateur alternative to the professionals", as in an encyclopedia written by amateurs, non-academicians, the general public, or just about anyone, as opposed to a straight-forward publication written by professionals, as in only scholars, intellectuals, academician.
Please stop re-stating general Wikipedia policies and ideologies. Most of us here are editors, and well aware of how the content came to be. Your constant use of 'We' includes most of us, repeating 'We' as if you are explaining things to an outsider seems slightly condescending, just in case it is intentional.
Wikipedians of any age group subscribe to the principle of reliable sourcing. And reliable sources can be written and published by (almost) any age group.
My thoughts exactly, but then again, I wasn't the one who brought up the demographic and said it's time for Wikipedia to grow up. As long as anyone satisfies the principle of reliable sourcing, I have no objection whatever demographic they belong to and neither should anyone else, even if it seems homogeneous.
Regards Theo
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com 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 for practical purposes almost only) reliable sources on which to base Wikipedia content.
Wikipedia is set up to reflect and summarise these sources, not to
provide
an alternative worldview. We do not allow unsourced statements, or self-published sources (except in well-circumscribed exceptional cases).
I never said Wikipedia provides an alternative worldview. Let me quote myself "amateur alternative to the professionals", as in an encyclopedia written by amateurs, non-academicians, the general public, or just about anyone, as opposed to a straight-forward publication written by professionals, as in only scholars, intellectuals, academician.
What you did say was,
"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."
That sounded like you were hostile to the standards according to which our sources are written, and considered them skewed. If I misunderstood you, you have my apologies. (Incidentally, many of those sources are written by women.)
Please stop re-stating general Wikipedia policies and ideologies. Most of us here are editors, and well aware of how the content came to be. Your constant use of 'We' includes most of us, repeating 'We' as if you are explaining things to an outsider seems slightly condescending, just in case it is intentional.
English is a poor language in a way, as it is unable to distinguish between inclusive we (= all of us) and exclusive we (= we over here as opposed to you over there). When I said "we do not allow unsourced statements", I was quite confident that that included all of us here – all of us here "swear allegiance" to the editorial judgment of reliable sources when it comes to text.
However, that allegiance to sources' editorial judgment is less unanimous when it comes to illustrations, for no good reason that I can discern. I find that an interesting anomaly worth noting, analysing and questioning.
Andreas
* 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.
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
* 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 earlier study concluded some time in November 2008 while the more recent one concluded in April 2011, so there are about 2 1/2 years between them. Unfortunately the earlier study, at least in the report a- bove, only has average age for contributors, no median or quartiles or other groups that would allow for a meaningful comparison to the current study. It's normal and expected that younger people are more likely to make extensive use of an encyclopedia as they study the most. With only 7.42% regular contributors in the 2008 study, the age distribution does not tell us much about possible bias due to age in editorial judgement. There may be more detailed results but I could not immediately find any.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.netwrote:
- 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 earlier study concluded some time in November 2008 while the more recent one concluded in April 2011, so there are about 2 1/2 years between them. Unfortunately the earlier study, at least in the report a- bove, only has average age for contributors, no median or quartiles or other groups that would allow for a meaningful comparison to the current study. It's normal and expected that younger people are more likely to make extensive use of an encyclopedia as they study the most. With only 7.42% regular contributors in the 2008 study, the age distribution does not tell us much about possible bias due to age in editorial judgement. There may be more detailed results but I could not immediately find any.
Björn,
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 years. The most frequent age that can be observed within the respondents is 18 years. Splitting the respondents in four equally large age groups shows that 25% are younger than 18 years old, 25% are between 18 and 22, a further 25% are between 22 and 30 (e.g. half of the respondents are between 18 and 30 years) and the remaining 25% are between 30 and 85 years old. There is a slight age difference between readers and contributors - readers are, on average, 24.79 years old while contributors show an average age of 26.14 years. Finally, female respondents are younger (23.79 years) than male ones (25.69 years).
---o0o---
So the median was below 22, the lower quartile below 18, and the upper quartile 30.
The mode (most frequently observed age) was 18.
The total sample was N = 176,192. The English Wikipedia sample was almost exactly a quarter of that, at n = 43,912 (page 3).
Occasional contributors were 23.25 per cent, regular contributors 7.42 per cent, administrators 0.75 per cent of the overall sample (page 5).
Andreas
* 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 years. The most frequent age that can be observed within the respondents is 18 years. Splitting the respondents in four equally large age groups shows that 25% are younger than 18 years old, 25% are between 18 and 22, a further 25% are between 22 and 30 (e.g. half of the respondents are between 18 and 30 years) and the remaining 25% are between 30 and 85 years old. There is a slight age difference between readers and contributors - readers are, on average, 24.79 years old while contributors show an average age of 26.14 years. Finally, female respondents are younger (23.79 years) than male ones (25.69 years).
---o0o---
You made a point about editorial judgement and age, so I looked at data on editor age. As far as I can tell, the above only mentions the average age of "contributors", it does not say "The median age of contributors is 30 years" or some such thing.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.net 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 in the
survey
is 25.22 years. Half of the respondents are younger than 22 years. The
most
frequent age that can be observed within the respondents is 18 years. Splitting the respondents in four equally large age groups shows
that
25% are younger than 18 years old, 25% are between 18 and 22, a further
25%
are between 22 and 30 (e.g. half of the respondents are between 18 and 30 years) and the remaining 25% are between 30 and 85 years old. There is a slight age difference between readers and contributors - readers are, on average, 24.79 years old while contributors show an average age of 26.14 years. Finally, female respondents are younger (23.79 years) than male
ones
(25.69 years).
---o0o---
You made a point about editorial judgement and age, so I looked at data on editor age. As far as I can tell, the above only mentions the average age of "contributors", it does not say "The median age of contributors is 30 years" or some such thing.
The quoted text says that "half of the respondents are younger than 22 years". This is the same as saying that "the median age of respondents was below 22 years of age", because that's how the median is defined.
The average age of contributors was higher than the average age of respondents (readers + contributors) overall, but the difference was very minor (1.35 years). So the median age of contributors wouldn't have differed much either.
For the relative position of mode, median and average in a right-skewed distribution see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svg -- the median is always smaller than the average.
Best, Andreas
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)
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelo michelcastelobranco@gmail.comwrote:
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)
Andreas wrote in full:
For the relative position of mode, median and average in a right-skewed distribution see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svg-- the median is always smaller than the average.
The four distributions that you give definitely are not all right-skewed.
On 21-10-2011 04:11, Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelomichelcastelobranco@gmail.comwrote:
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)
Andreas wrote in full:
For the relative position of mode, median and average in a right-skewed distribution see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svg-- the median is always smaller than the average.
The four distributions that you give definitely are not all right-skewed.
Sorry, i took only the final sentence. Is ok that "(in this kind of distribution) the median is always smaller than the average".
You're both right.
P.S. I gave only three distributions.
Castelo
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com 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).
Andreas
I was under the assumption we were talking about English Wikipedia. The largest respondents in the survey you linked to are Russian, with a very good mix of other languages and nationalities.
Just to clarify, 'we' would then include all languages and projects, readers and editors. And your comment about Wikipedia growing up would apply to all communities?
Regards Theo
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
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 she kept on teaching us biology. ! Not saying what we did was right, as kids. Not saying she shouldn't have done more to get the stuff from being thrown about. But there is a point there about tolerances. If an elderly lady was able to keep teaching while being bombarded with images of withered old female genitals being inserted with electrical appliance cable stashing piping, why can't wikipedia? I know this sounds totally offensive on the face of it, but surely that is the whole point. Being against censorship only matters when there is a potential outrage there...
Note that your biology teacher is actually the sort of person we would like to start contributing to Wikipedia.
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.
In principle yes, but not really. She was suffering from senile dementia, and insisted on spelling each "foreign" word like "Egypt" letter by letter, and for good measure writing it out on the blackboard. As students we were quite fond of her, in our juvenile way. Loved to discuss how we hated her anyway, which is nearly the same thing. The oldest teacher in the school she also got to teach in the only two classrooms still on a tiered desk system with ink-well holes and all.
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 background to our own, this does not mean that we cannot respect their viewpoint or their culture.
If someone lacks respect for a different culture, that is truly shameful. Someone who lacks empathy for others is unfortunate and may always have difficulty understanding context no matter how loudly others shout at them.
Cheers, Fae
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 - because the intent behind the images is not to arouse, but to inform.
I realise that is being pedantic in definition - but it is important, because if an image on an article is genuinely "pornography" in the strictest sense, then it should be removed as un-encyclopaedic :)
All of the images that might be problematic should have educational validity.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
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
also problematic.
Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography - because the intent behind the images is not to arouse, but to inform.
I realise that is being pedantic in definition - but it is important, because if an image on an article is genuinely "pornography" in the strictest sense, then it should be removed as un-encyclopaedic :)
All of the images that might be problematic should have educational validity.
Tom
Well, here is one of those edge cases. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Old_Naughty_Days contains an embedded pornographic short film, which is "genuinely pornography in its strictest sense". Made for showing in brothels, it is old (1920s), black and white, but does feature spanking, cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio, and penetration.
The same video is embedded in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polissons_et_galipettes
Another similar example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent_pornography – this includes an embedded video, also from the 1920s, featuring cunnilingus, fellatio, and anal as well as vaginal penetration.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornografie includes the same video.
I wouldn't say that these videos (part of a cinema release of old porn videos a few years ago) do not have educational validity, but it is worth noting that their propagation via the internet – without access protection via an age verification system – is a criminal offence in Germany, and that this content would be illegal on a German server under German youth protection law, according to the German Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons* *(Bundesprüfstelle):
http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english,did=33902,render...
Looking at intent to arouse vs. intent to inform, 26 out of 28 images used to illustrate the articles listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bondage_positions show women. It's a striking gender imbalance that seems more reflective of male pornographic interest than actual gender-specific preferences.
Andreas
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 (because EVERYONE get one of them in their 15 articles) ;)
You people can see it all here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Indech/15_artigos_aleat%C3%B3rios _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(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 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 18 October 2011 15:02, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
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 the random article button?
Best, lodewijk
No dia 18 de Outubro de 2011 16:00, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk escreveu:
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 mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18 October 2011 15:17, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com 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 - of the 200k articles, about 30k were Rambot articles about US towns. Anyone fond of Special:Random got a lot of them ...
- d.
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 actually have an easy to use complaints button on the page so it's not that surprising.
Cheers, Fae
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk 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 called NSFW.
As for not having complaints, we don't actually have an easy to use complaints button on the page so it's not that surprising.
Cheers, Fae
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.
Nathan
On 18 October 2011 15:40, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com 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.
So if we filtered on [[Category:Railway accidents]], we could just redirect it to [[Kurt Gödel]] ...
- d.
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 comparison to all the other problems they complain about, such as "my article was unfairly deleted" or "everyone is so unfriendly" or "someone put cookies on my page, why do you support cannabis use" (yeah, that's a real one).
Cheers, Fae
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 complain about NSFW articles in comparison to all the other problems they complain about, such as "my article was unfairly deleted" or "everyone is so unfriendly" or "someone put cookies on my page, why do you support cannabis use" (yeah, that's a real one).
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
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 used the feedback tool to complain about NSFW articles? As much as 2% of all feedback or less because the feedback tool does not give you that as an option?
Fae
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com 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 that pt.wiki is made only by French villages and asteroids (because EVERYONE get one of them in their 15 articles) ;)
You people can see it all here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Indech/15_artigos_aleat%C3%B3rios
Back in 2005 it.wp almost doubled the number of articles by bot-adding 37000 French municipalities, and people started complaining at the Village Pump that Special:Randompage was always returning French municipalities. We have a specific page explaining that fact: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Una_voce_a_caso
Of course there are far fewer pages about sex-related stuff, so the chances to get two of them are pretty low. Finding porn on the internet still remains much easier. Marco
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator :-p
Nemo
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 randomly enough, but one page can have 1000x higher chance to be returned than other.
Well, frankly, we have some pages that have infinitely larger chance to be returned than others (there are over 1000 pages with random collisions, yay [[Birthday paradox]]), as others don't have any chance at all, some of values we save with precision of 12 decimals, others with 18 ;-) So, largest gap is 0.0001 whereas smallest (collisions aside) is 0.0000000000001, so even with non-collision articles, the 'chance gap' can be of a billion times ;-)
So, if we put these numbers into buckets, we see that there're 1259 articles that have 10x higher chance than 3.6M, which have 10x higher chance than other 4.49M which have 10x higher chance than a poor set of 700k pages, which still have 10x higher chance than 71k pages, which still have 10x higher chance than 7k, which still have higher chance than 700, which still have infinitely larger chance than remaining 1000 which will never show up on Special:Random.
I won't even go into discussions how this all gets distorted by all the feature requests like 'give me random page from a category X'.
;-)
Cheers, Domas
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]], which from a distance seems to return stuff randomly enough, but one page can have 1000x higher chance to be returned than other.
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 that some pages are missing and some pages come up more often. But if you are only fetching a small fraction of the total number of articles, then the statistics of the returned sample will look more or less the same as a true random sample.
-- Tim Starling
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 that some pages are missing and some pages come up more often. But if you are only fetching a small fraction of the total number of articles, then the statistics of the returned sample will look more or less the same as a true random sample.
So this is a problem only for users who (inefficiently) visit Special:Random thousands of times (perhaps millions combined) looking for (untagged) things to be fixed. Poor abandoned less popular pages, what a sad and unjust condition. :-(
Nemo
2011/10/18 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
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 Random articles best serves those who want to intersperse some random reading with things that they can easily improve, and that it would be dishonest to tell someone that these were random articles when actually we'd filtered out stubs or the unreferenced.
There may well be demand for "random Good Article" as an additional option, but that would be an extra not something we could describe as random article.
There is actually a nice Toolserver tool that can do this, as well as provide random articles filtered by any other category: http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php
The following yields a random Good article on the English Wikipedia: http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedi...
(providing the link to this tool at the risk of enabling teh censorshipz by dark and powerful outside organizations who might abuse it to restrict Wikipedia's own unfiltered, free speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random according to their own world views ;)
Regards, HaeB
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 of offending someone looking over his shoulder, he'd better switch off images or at least avoid the temptation to click on [[Fisting]]. At the moment it's slightly ironic as it is hard to find mainstream news websites not showing gory pictures of a dead man in their lead articles and they have no warnings or options to hide the images either.
Cheers, Fae
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org