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(a)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/Sp… Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of coming across a particular page :)

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_sex>article (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 vagina<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina>article 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, ??? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; 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/Sp… > > > > 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? >

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett &lt;agarrett(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: 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?

Andrew Garrett wrote: The simplest solutions can often have the gravest consequences. As a PHP developer, I would've thought you would know this better than anyone.

On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett &lt;agarrett(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: So from the Foundation side, what are the current plans? I assume this is a subject of internal discussion.

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.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: There are no porn pages. There are articles in an encyclopedia. What's the problem here?

problematic to who?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ???&lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: 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.

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?

/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, ??? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 19/10/2011 20:04, Béria Lima wrote: 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. 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.

cimonavaro(a)gmail.com wrote: wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wikipedia this is called vandalism and trolling; and we *do* censor it :)

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

wrote:

opposition to it was not really built on the issue of censorship.

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.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. * 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: is most provide 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.

* Andreas K. wrote: to They're most 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

* Andreas K. wrote: http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf 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.

* Andreas K. wrote: survey most that 25% ones 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 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote: 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)

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<http:/… the median is always smaller than the average.

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

Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity that would shame a tree stump.

wrote:

is 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

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) ;)

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

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

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.

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.