[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[John Vandenberg]

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

-- 
John Vandenberg