[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro at gmail.com
Wed Oct 19 13:03:05 UTC 2011

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett <agarrett at 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?

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

More information about the foundation-l mailing list