[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[Andreas K.]

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 at gmx.net>wrote:

> * 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>