[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[Andreas K.]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. <jayen466 at 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