[Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows

[Kanzlei]

Am 21.09.2011 um 20:10 schrieb Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>:

> Am 21.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Kanzlei:
>> Am 21.09.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>:
>> 
>>> Don't you think that we would have thousands of complaints a day if your
>>> words would be true at all? Just have a look at the article [[hentai]]
>>> and look at the illustration. How many complaints about this image do we
>>> get a day? None, because it is less then one complain in a month, while
>>> the article itself is viewed about 8.000 times a day.[1] That would make
>>> up one complainer in 240.000 (0,0004%). Now we could argue that only
>>> some of them would comment on the issue. Lets assume 1 of 100 or even 1
>>> of 1000. Then it are still only 0,04% or 0,4%. That is the big mass of
>>> users we want to support get more contributers?
>>> 
>>> [1] http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/hentai
>> Your assumtion is wrong. The 8.000 daily are neither neutral nor representative for all users. Put the picture on the main page and You get representative results. We had that in Germany.
> Yes we put the "vulva" on the main page and it got quite some attention. 
> We wanted it this way to test out the reaction of the readers and to 
> start a discussion about it. The result was as expected. Complains that 
> it is offensive together with Praises to show what neutrality really is. 
> After the discussion settled, we opened a Meinungsbild (Poll) to 
> question if any article/image would be suitable for the main page 
> (Actually it asked to not allow any topic). The result was very clear. 
> 13 supported the approach to leave out some content from the main page. 
> 233 (95%) were against the approach to hide some subjects from the main 
> page.

This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some German wikipedia editors.  Scientifically research found that Germa editors are not representative for German speaking people but far more environmetal-liberal-leftists than avarage Germans. The poll was even not representative for German editors because only a few voted.

> 
> You said that my assumption is wrong. We can repeat this for hundreds of 
> articles and you would get the same result. Now proof that this 
> assumption, which is sourced (just look at it) is wrong or say what is 
> wrong with my assumption (in detail).

See above

> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l