Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Excellent and extremely useful! A big thank you! :) A few questions: Could we get this for other projects? At Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview, could you in future include number of Internet users (f.e. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users ) and number of views per Internet user? IMO, this is more useful than population and could identify countries where Wikipedia should be advertised. At pages Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown and Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Trends, could you include more languages (ideally all languages)? Perhaps by making a separate page for every country? For example, I'd like to know data for all minority languages of Serbia. It would also be interesting to somehow show this data together with size of the Wikipedia and number of language speakers per country but I don't see how exactly (and I don't know how to find the number of language speakers). Perhaps I will do some of this manually, but just this time! :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Ethnologue has numbers for all languages although their information is often outdated or not 100% accurate, it is sufficient if you're doing a list with many languages. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Excellent and extremely useful! A big thank you! :) A few questions: Could we get this for other projects? At Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview, could you in future include number of Internet users (f.e. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users ) and number of views per Internet user? IMO, this is more useful than population and could identify countries where Wikipedia should be advertised. At pages Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown and Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Trends, could you include more languages (ideally all languages)? Perhaps by making a separate page for every country? For example, I'd like to know data for all minority languages of Serbia. It would also be interesting to somehow show this data together with size of the Wikipedia and number of language speakers per country but I don't see how exactly (and I don't know how to find the number of language speakers). Perhaps I will do some of this manually, but just this time! :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Except for Australia-Japanese, there is also this: Sierra Leone (0.0007% share of global total) Russian Wp 44.9% English Wp 43.7% Portal 8.4% Slovene Wp 1.1% Other 1.9% Why would Russian Wikipedia have so many visits from Sierra Leone? As a sidenote, there is also this: Suriname (0.003% share of global total) English Wp 62.5% Dutch Wp28.2% Portal 4.1% Serbian Wp 1.5% Afrikaans Wp1.4% Other 2.3% It is obvious why is Slovene Wikipedia highly visited in Sierra Leone, and Serbian in Suriname; URLs do matter :) (Although, I don't understand why so much. I would expect this distribution by visitors, perhaps, but not by visits.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. Japan: Japanese 92.2% over English (swing -0.4%) Germany: German 72.2% over English (swing 1.5%) France: French 67.5% over English (swing 4.1%) Poland: Polish 71.5% over English (swing 4.0%) Italy: Italian 71.5% over English (swing 4.7%) Mexico: Spanish 71.5% over English (swing 3.4%) Brazil: Portuguese 67.7% over English (swing 1.1%) Spain: Spanish 60.3% over English (swing 7.0%) - vernaculars 64.4% over English (swing 8.6%) Netherlands: Dutch 10.4% over English (swing 6.6%) Russia: Russian 70.2% over English (swing 4.9%) Sweden: Swedish 13.8% over English (swing 8.1%) Switzerland: German 36.6% over English (swing 2.1%) - vernaculars 55.0% over English (swing 2.7%) Austria: German 65.1% over English (swing -1.1%) Finland: Finnish 24.7% over English (swing 2.2%) - vernaculars 26.8% over English (swing 2.8%) China: Chinese 4.8% over English (swing -7.3%) Turkey: Turkish 48.7% over English (swing 11.7%) Belgium: Dutch 9.5% over English (swing 9.2%) - vernaculars 40.1% over English (swing 9.6%) Argentina: Spanish 66.2% over English (swing 1.2%) Norway: Norwegian (Bokmal) 0.9% UNDER English (swing 14.4%) - vernaculars 0.1% over English (swing 14.5%) Colombia: Spanish 56.3% over English (swing -3.8%) Czech Republic: Czech 44.3% over English (swing 10.2%) Hong Kong: Chinese equal to English (swing 1.0%) - vernaculars 1.4% over English (swing 1.2%) Taiwan: Chinese 45.5% over English (swing 3.7%) - vernaculars 45.7% over English (swing 3.7%) Chile: Spanish 60.6% over English (swing -2.0%) Israel: Hebrew 10.9% over English (swing 3.9%) - vernaculars 12.8% over English (swing 3.9%) Indonesia: Indonesian 10.2% over English (swing 8.5%) - vernaculars 11.3% over English (swing 8.4%) Portugal: Portuguese 11.9% over English (swing 2.2%) South Korea: Korean 2.7% over English (swing 12.8%) Malaysia: Malay 74.5% UNDER English (swing -1.0%) Peru: Spanish 74.5% over English (swing 2.1%) Venezuela: Spanish 77.5% over English (swing 11.1%) Ukraine: Ukrainian 56.6% UNDER RUSSIAN (swing 4.4%) Romania: Romanian 21.7% UNDER English (swing 12.6%) - vernaculars 18.5% UNDER English (swing 13.4%) Thailand: Thai 18.9% over English (swing -3.5%) Denmark: Danish 12.3% UNDER English (swing 10.7%) Hungary: Hungarian 23.8% over English (swing 6.1%) Uruguay: Spanish 72.4% over English (swing 1.1%) Vietnam: Vietnamese 31.0% over English (swing 8.8%) Greece: Greek 42.1% UNDER English (swing 9.0%) Bulgaria: Bulgarian 1.4% over English (swing 8.9%) United Arab Emirates: Arabic 66.8% UNDER English (swing 5.4%) Egypt: Arabic 18.5% UNDER English (swing 11.3%) Lithuania: Lithuanian 9.3% UNDER English (swing -6.4%) - vernaculars 9.3% under English (swing -6.6%) Iran: Persian 0.6% UNDER English (swing 0.5%) -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. I guess there are also a lot of cases similar to the Australia/Japanese one of IPs wrongly attributed to one country. For example, I remember that at least a few years ago (I'm not sure now) a lot of Italian customers of Tele2 had an IP that was Swedish. Maybe this is not a big effect given that the Sweden/Swedish relationship does not differ that much from the other Scandinavian countries. Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
H what saddens me is that such a low percentage use the Thai wikipedia in Thailand instead of the English one. Having lived in Thailand for over 10 years now my estimation is that only 10% of the populous would speak English good enough to be able to read English wikipedia articles at least partially. And this is the part of the population with the best education. This would mean that unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't reach the part of the population it is meant for. The part whom have less access to education. Waerth/Walter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
I think there are two main factors influencing this: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. In a country like Japan, basic English is widespread but real reading comprehension on the level necessary for reading WP articles is not (as far as I know at least). Scandinavians, on the other hand, fall at the other end of the spectrum - according to Wikipedia, 89% of Swedes have a working knowledge of English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia - if I can speak some English, would it be worth it to me to look for articles in English instead of my native language due to greater quality or completeness of the English Wikipedia? If I'm German, I have much less motivation to read articles in English than if my native language is Burmese. Of course, this is in purely relative terms - people in Arab countries preferring English to Arabic for Wikipedia does not mean that the Arabic Wikipedia is of poor quality, it just means that users feel that the English Wikipedia is a more reliable or complete resource in some way. Mark On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. Japan: Japanese 92.2% over English (swing -0.4%) Germany: German 72.2% over English (swing 1.5%) France: French 67.5% over English (swing 4.1%) Poland: Polish 71.5% over English (swing 4.0%) Italy: Italian 71.5% over English (swing 4.7%) Mexico: Spanish 71.5% over English (swing 3.4%) Brazil: Portuguese 67.7% over English (swing 1.1%) Spain: Spanish 60.3% over English (swing 7.0%) - vernaculars 64.4% over English (swing 8.6%) Netherlands: Dutch 10.4% over English (swing 6.6%) Russia: Russian 70.2% over English (swing 4.9%) Sweden: Swedish 13.8% over English (swing 8.1%) Switzerland: German 36.6% over English (swing 2.1%) - vernaculars 55.0% over English (swing 2.7%) Austria: German 65.1% over English (swing -1.1%) Finland: Finnish 24.7% over English (swing 2.2%) - vernaculars 26.8% over English (swing 2.8%) China: Chinese 4.8% over English (swing -7.3%) Turkey: Turkish 48.7% over English (swing 11.7%) Belgium: Dutch 9.5% over English (swing 9.2%) - vernaculars 40.1% over English (swing 9.6%) Argentina: Spanish 66.2% over English (swing 1.2%) Norway: Norwegian (Bokmal) 0.9% UNDER English (swing 14.4%) - vernaculars 0.1% over English (swing 14.5%) Colombia: Spanish 56.3% over English (swing -3.8%) Czech Republic: Czech 44.3% over English (swing 10.2%) Hong Kong: Chinese equal to English (swing 1.0%) - vernaculars 1.4% over English (swing 1.2%) Taiwan: Chinese 45.5% over English (swing 3.7%) - vernaculars 45.7% over English (swing 3.7%) Chile: Spanish 60.6% over English (swing -2.0%) Israel: Hebrew 10.9% over English (swing 3.9%) - vernaculars 12.8% over English (swing 3.9%) Indonesia: Indonesian 10.2% over English (swing 8.5%) - vernaculars 11.3% over English (swing 8.4%) Portugal: Portuguese 11.9% over English (swing 2.2%) South Korea: Korean 2.7% over English (swing 12.8%) Malaysia: Malay 74.5% UNDER English (swing -1.0%) Peru: Spanish 74.5% over English (swing 2.1%) Venezuela: Spanish 77.5% over English (swing 11.1%) Ukraine: Ukrainian 56.6% UNDER RUSSIAN (swing 4.4%) Romania: Romanian 21.7% UNDER English (swing 12.6%) - vernaculars 18.5% UNDER English (swing 13.4%) Thailand: Thai 18.9% over English (swing -3.5%) Denmark: Danish 12.3% UNDER English (swing 10.7%) Hungary: Hungarian 23.8% over English (swing 6.1%) Uruguay: Spanish 72.4% over English (swing
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Hello, Thank you for the numbers, Erik! I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? Kind regards Ziko 2010/1/14 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com I think there are two main factors influencing this: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. In a country like Japan, basic English is widespread but real reading comprehension on the level necessary for reading WP articles is not (as far as I know at least). Scandinavians, on the other hand, fall at the other end of the spectrum - according to Wikipedia, 89% of Swedes have a working knowledge of English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia - if I can speak some English, would it be worth it to me to look for articles in English instead of my native language due to greater quality or completeness of the English Wikipedia? If I'm German, I have much less motivation to read articles in English than if my native language is Burmese. Of course, this is in purely relative terms - people in Arab countries preferring English to Arabic for Wikipedia does not mean that the Arabic Wikipedia is of poor quality, it just means that users feel that the English Wikipedia is a more reliable or complete resource in some way. Mark On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. Japan: Japanese 92.2% over English (swing -0.4%) Germany: German 72.2% over English (swing 1.5%) France: French 67.5% over English (swing 4.1%) Poland: Polish 71.5% over English (swing 4.0%) Italy: Italian 71.5% over English (swing 4.7%) Mexico: Spanish 71.5% over English (swing 3.4%) Brazil: Portuguese 67.7% over English (swing 1.1%) Spain: Spanish 60.3% over English (swing 7.0%) - vernaculars 64.4% over English (swing 8.6%) Netherlands: Dutch 10.4% over English (swing 6.6%) Russia: Russian 70.2% over English (swing 4.9%) Sweden: Swedish 13.8% over English (swing 8.1%) Switzerland: German 36.6% over English (swing 2.1%) - vernaculars 55.0% over English (swing 2.7%) Austria: German 65.1% over English (swing -1.1%) Finland: Finnish 24.7% over English (swing 2.2%) - vernaculars 26.8% over English (swing 2.8%) China: Chinese 4.8% over English (swing -7.3%) Turkey: Turkish 48.7% over English (swing 11.7%) Belgium: Dutch 9.5% over English (swing 9.2%) - vernaculars 40.1% over English (swing 9.6%) Argentina: Spanish 66.2% over English (swing 1.2%) Norway: Norwegian (Bokmal) 0.9% UNDER English (swing 14.4%) - vernaculars 0.1% over English (swing 14.5%) Colombia: Spanish 56.3% over English (swing -3.8%) Czech Republic: Czech 44.3% over English (swing 10.2%) Hong Kong: Chinese equal to English (swing 1.0%) - vernaculars 1.4% over English (swing 1.2%) Taiwan: Chinese 45.5% over English (swing 3.7%) - vernaculars 45.7% over English (swing 3.7%) Chile: Spanish 60.6% over English (swing -2.0%) Israel: Hebrew 10.9% over English (swing 3.9%) - vernaculars 12.8% over English (swing 3.9%) Indonesia: Indonesian 10.2% over English (swing 8.5%) - vernaculars 11.3% over English (swing 8.4%) Portugal: Portuguese 11.9% over English (swing 2.2%) South Korea: Korean 2.7% over English (swing 12.8%) Malaysia: Malay 74.5% UNDER English (swing -1.0%) Peru: Spanish 74.5% over English (swing 2.1%) Venezuela: Spanish 77.5% over English (swing
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Ziko van Dijk wrote: Thank you for the numbers, Erik! I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? Bots? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote: Thank you for the numbers, Erik! I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? Bots? I think that's a likely explanation in the eu case (unless Erik is using an algorithm that filters out bots) - I see Poles come up high in more unexpected small languages (Telugu, Welsh, Alemannic, Frisian, Cebuan, Norman, Crimean Tartar) - although Basque seems to be the biggest of the lot. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? And, (sorry) one more question: is the first time that such reports are being released? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Andre Engels wrote: Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which are read from foreign countries more than from the country of origin (probably b/c readers from diaspora is richer and has better Internet access). For example, Macedonian Wikipedia is read more from Slovenia or Germany than from Macedonia: Macedonian (mk) (0.02% share of global total) Slovenia30.6% Germany 23.7% Macedonia 23.3% It would therefore make sense for WMDE to try to reach Macedonians living in Germany, and for future WMMK to help them in doing so. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Nikola Smolenski wrote: In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which Also, any ideas why is Commons so popular in Spain and Latin America? Commons (commons) (0.010% share of global total) Spain 30.0% United States 29.2% Brazil 8.5% Argentina 4.8% Mexico 3.9% ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
2010/1/14 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs: Nikola Smolenski wrote: In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which Also, any ideas why is Commons so popular in Spain and Latin America? Some Wikipedias - the ones which insist on only-free-images - do not use local uploads at all, and instead direct everyone to Commons. Both es.wikipedia and pt.wikipedia work this way, so they'll send a lot more of their users to Commons than a project which uses local image uploads. As a result, I suspect you'll find that traffic to Commons increases proportionately with traffic to Spanish/Portuguese Wikipedia usage. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Nikola Smolenski hett schreven: In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which are read from foreign countries more than from the country of origin (probably b/c readers from diaspora is richer and has better Internet access). For example, Macedonian Wikipedia is read more from Slovenia or Germany than from Macedonia: Macedonian (mk) (0.02% share of global total) Slovenia 30.6% Germany 23.7% Macedonia 23.3% It would therefore make sense for WMDE to try to reach Macedonians living in Germany, and for future WMMK to help them in doing so. It would make sense. But at the moment WMDE is not even actively doing anything for the _native_ languages of Germany except for German. I think that would be the first step to do. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/14 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: It would make sense. But at the moment WMDE is not even actively doing anything for the _native_ languages of Germany except for German. I think that would be the first step to do. I had a quick look at the native languages of Italy, and I found out that the percentage of visits from Italy is much smaller for the regional languages: Italian: 90.4% Neapolitan: 45.8% Tarantino: 43.2% Emiliano-Romagnolo: 34.5% Venetian: 33.9% Lombard: 29.5% Sicilian: 27.6% Sardinian: 26.4% Piedmontese: 24.8% Friulian: 17.8% Ligurian: 17.6% I see a couple of reasons for this difference: 1) Bot visits count proportionally much more in smaller wikis 2) We know that, at least in some of these projects, a lot of contributors are migrants (even 2nd or 3rd generation) that try to maintain the regional languages their parents/grandparents used (Italy had a lot of emigration in the 20th century), so it shouldn't be hard to imagine that the same happens for the readers. This also partly explains why Wikimedia Italia has little penetration within this projects. It would be interesting to see if the same happens for other countries, for example Germany Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] upload.wikimedia.org blocked in China?
upload.wikimedia.org blocked in China? ping upload.wikimedia.org no response in Beijing, China. Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://shizhao.org twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao [[zh:User:Shizhao]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: snip As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. What if they aren't used in an encyclopedic context? PM says he highlighted 17 images [1]. Assuming Commons Global File Links is accurate then these images appear on 27 content pages in Wikipedias and Wikibooks (not counting User and Talk pages, etc.). However, two of the images account for 16 of the uses, and 10 of the 17 images are not used on any project at all. This is of course a largely anecdotal sample (and there is no reason to assume that PM's set is random), but my personal impression has been similar. It seems to like we have seen a rise in unused sexual imagery being stored at Commons. I'll happily defend the usefulness of sexual imagery in many of the places where it is used, but there are downsides to allowing such collections grow far beyond the applications we have for them. -Robert Rohde [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Дана Thursday 14 January 2010 05:59:39 David Goodman написа: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] upload.wikimedia.org blocked in China?
Its Forbidden in here Finland too. Olli 2010/1/14 shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com upload.wikimedia.org blocked in China? ping upload.wikimedia.org no response in Beijing, China. Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://shizhao.org twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao [[zh:User:Shizhao]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, David Gerard wrote: 2010/1/14 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. - d. That's because it is exactly that. - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktPXm0ACgkQst0AR/DaKHuicwCg2x0Dcpv1nB8lh98NQx0RJEiM OPkAoKmotRssidFp74KIJuqCgwLdPFek =SB6G -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Explicit images don't need to be used in an encyclopedic context
(Wikimedia is more than just an encyclopedia). They just have to be
_potentially_ useful in any Wikimedia project context (that's the
narrow, utilitaristic view on Commons) or in any possible educative
context (that's the more broad view on Commons, that views Commons as a
project on it's own instead of a auxiliary project). For almost any
picture it's possible to construct some example cases where the image
could serve a demonstrational purpose even if the quality is low and
similar images are available abundantly on Commons. We have lot's of low
quality penis self-shoots? Lot's of material to illustrate the bad
examples section of the Wikibooks guide How to Present Yourself
Favorably in Adult Forum Profiles!
So we shouldn't think about the question How can we reduce the amount
of material. From the previous e-mails by private musings I got the
impression that he is mainly concerned about the fact that there is no
way to control the display of explicit images on a personal level. Even
if somebody accepts that others want to see the images and if he just
wants to have a method to get rid of them for him personally, there is
no way to achieve this except for don't click on Wikimedia links or at
least think twice whether it could contain explicit images. And I am
with private musings on this. I for myself have no interest to exclude
explicit images, but it means improved freedom for others if we
provide a method to allow excluding explicit content. A template at
Commons like {{explicit content|oral intercourse|penis|breasts}}
stating the explicit contents visible in the image would be an easy
starting point. Let the template add some invisible HTML divs, provide
some Javascript to evaluate the divs and make it a gadget. Then
everybody will be able to exclude the personally unwanted content. If a
school wants to exclude explicit images, they switch on the gadget by
default. It's at least better than having Wikipedia blocked cause the
content cannot be controlled. That way moral panics would be
impossible cause anything immoral can be controlled.
One other thing that as a side effect could reduce the amount of
explicit material is to introduce a more professional release procedure.
If we'd require proper USC 2257 releases for explicit content, that
would improve our legal position and it would automatically lead to less
anonymous low quality uploads. That's something I would support.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/13 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, email Mike Godwin. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
Hello! It is clear that much of sex-related multimedia stored in our project is of a very low quality, not meeting our requirements and needs. Often, it doesn't provide what we are looking for - high quality information. I propose to start a project which would encourage, by a form of contest and rewards, high quality (that means technical quality, usefulness for education, aesthetic value etc...) multimedia which could be used in our projects. Such multimedia can easily replace current low quality content. Once we will have multimedia excellently covering something particular, we can easily reject anything else trying to cover the same. And nobody could blame us for hosting bad images anymore. I understand that some people can say we don't support porn now. But this won't be porn but information! Our projects must cover also sex-related matters. We have to look for high quality multimedia for this area of knowledge as well as for others. There are projects supporting taking photographs of municipalities etc... Why not to use similar ways for improving this? I don't propose intentionally how such a project should decide what exactly the multimedia in the contest should depict nor how exactly the contest should be arranged. I feel this should be defined by a broader community. I only propose to use a new internet domain for this purpose in order to keep not yet chosen materials out of our projects until they are awarded. Don't forget that sex-related articles are the most viewed ones in Wikipedia. We need the high quality content in this field too, not to wait until somebody uploads something which could be useful. Also a license and personal rights are quite often an issue for sex-related multimedia. All this can be solved and we could obtain the best sex-related multimedia among all encyclopedias. Best regards, Jiri On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: snip As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. What if they aren't used in an encyclopedic context? PM says he highlighted 17 images [1]. Assuming Commons Global File Links is accurate then these images appear on 27 content pages in Wikipedias and Wikibooks (not counting User and Talk pages, etc.). However, two of the images account for 16 of the uses, and 10 of the 17 images are not used on any project at all. This is of course a largely anecdotal sample (and there is no reason to assume that PM's set is random), but my personal impression has been similar. It seems to like we have seen a rise in unused sexual imagery being stored at Commons. I'll happily defend the usefulness of sexual imagery in many of the places where it is used, but there are downsides to allowing such collections grow far beyond the applications we have for them. -Robert Rohde [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- * . . . ... . M45 .. M1. #. * . . Jiri Hofman ..Opiskelijankatu 38 B28 .*Tampere . ** 33720 ¤. . Finland **. * . .. . * * . . . *. . . *. * * .* gsm: +358504661860.. +358504384197*. http://www.aldebaran.cz/~hofmanj . * signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
I think this is a great idea actually. Probably a good place to start would be the WikiProject: Sex page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality Commons would probably be (or should be) interested as well. Cheers DM On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jiří Hofman hofm...@aldebaran.cz wrote: Hello! It is clear that much of sex-related multimedia stored in our project is of a very low quality, not meeting our requirements and needs. Often, it doesn't provide what we are looking for - high quality information. I propose to start a project which would encourage, by a form of contest and rewards, high quality (that means technical quality, usefulness for education, aesthetic value etc...) multimedia which could be used in our projects. Such multimedia can easily replace current low quality content. Once we will have multimedia excellently covering something particular, we can easily reject anything else trying to cover the same. And nobody could blame us for hosting bad images anymore. I understand that some people can say we don't support porn now. But this won't be porn but information! Our projects must cover also sex-related matters. We have to look for high quality multimedia for this area of knowledge as well as for others. There are projects supporting taking photographs of municipalities etc... Why not to use similar ways for improving this? I don't propose intentionally how such a project should decide what exactly the multimedia in the contest should depict nor how exactly the contest should be arranged. I feel this should be defined by a broader community. I only propose to use a new internet domain for this purpose in order to keep not yet chosen materials out of our projects until they are awarded. Don't forget that sex-related articles are the most viewed ones in Wikipedia. We need the high quality content in this field too, not to wait until somebody uploads something which could be useful. Also a license and personal rights are quite often an issue for sex-related multimedia. All this can be solved and we could obtain the best sex-related multimedia among all encyclopedias. Best regards, Jiri On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: snip As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. What if they aren't used in an encyclopedic context? PM says he highlighted 17 images [1]. Assuming Commons Global File Links is accurate then these images appear on 27 content pages in Wikipedias and Wikibooks (not counting User and Talk pages, etc.). However, two of the images account for 16 of the uses, and 10 of the 17 images are not used on any project at all. This is of course a largely anecdotal sample (and there is no reason to assume that PM's set is random), but my personal impression has been similar. It seems to like we have seen a rise in unused sexual imagery being stored at Commons. I'll happily defend the usefulness of sexual imagery in many of the places where it is used, but there are downsides to allowing such collections grow far beyond the applications we have for them. -Robert Rohde [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- * . . . ... . M45 .. M1. #. * . . Jiri Hofman ..Opiskelijankatu 38 B28 .*Tampere . ** 33720 ¤. . Finland **. * . .. . * * . . . *. . . *. * * .* gsm: +358504661860.. +358504384197*. http://www.aldebaran.cz/~hofmanj http://www.aldebaran.cz/%7Ehofmanj . * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
2010/1/14 Jiří Hofman hofm...@aldebaran.cz: It is clear that much of sex-related multimedia stored in our project is of a very low quality, not meeting our requirements and needs. Often, it doesn't provide what we are looking for - high quality information. That isn't clear to me. Could you elaborate? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
2010/1/14 Jiří Hofman hofm...@aldebaran.cz: It is clear that much of sex-related multimedia stored in our project is of a very low quality, not meeting our requirements and needs. Often, it doesn't provide what we are looking for - high quality information. That isn't clear to me. Could you elaborate? Originally, I was pretty angry with a mail by David Goodman. The video, he linked to, is a disgusting manipulation. I went through images listed as sources for the video. And I had to admit that at least some of those should not be a part of our projects. Not because they are depicting sex-related things and activities but because they are of quality which is would be unacceptable in many other fields. Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse . You will see there is no really high quality image of human sexual intercourse. Strange for an encyclopedy which wants to be the best in the world. Or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions , one of the most viewed pages of English Wikipedia. Do you think the images there are of excellent quality? I don't. Jiri signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/13 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, email Mike Godwin. Part of the problem is that people who think they understand the whole of the argument being made actually don't. Arguments against censorship address only a part of the concerns Privatemusings and others, including myself, have expressed. PM's comment above referring to Section 2257 alludes to much of the rest of the concerns - specifically, the rights of the individuals featured in the photographs themselves. There are ~25,000 images in the Commons category of potential personality rights problems, but the Commons policy (COM:PEOPLE) essentially leaves it to the ethical discretion (and nose for appropriate sounding file names) of the uploader to manage rights issues. Attempts to address this problem are sporadic - an example is a group of over a hundred images from a Dutch photographer with a checkered past, whose work has been largely removed from Flickr (from where it was imported to Commons). After quite a lot of debate and delay, many of these images were deleted on Commons in 2008 - but since then, many new ones have been uploaded. To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... I don't think having specific material documentation is necessarily as important as asking the questions and getting an identifiable person on the other end to assert that these issues have been considered responsibly. We accept copyright releases into OTRS that are little more than written assurances that everything is okay, and I don't see why we couldn't ask for the same thing here. And, in the unfortunate event that things aren't okay, we would be able to point a specific individual who misled us rather than simply saying that we closed our eyes and didn't care. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... I don't see that it is that unpractical. The language barrier is the most significant problem, but model releases are routine for professional photographers. It may be more difficult for amateur uploaders, but this only applies to sexually explicit photographs and the standard of attention to the rights of subjects may be more important than the convenience of amateur photographers in this area. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
Or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions , one of the most viewed pages of English Wikipedia. Do you think the images there are of excellent quality? I don't. I think they have a certain innocent charm. They look like pictures drawn by an illiterate who needed a hobby whilst on remand. And why not? People *should* have a hobby. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions , one of the most viewed pages of English Wikipedia. Do you think the images there are of excellent quality? I don't. I think they have a certain innocent charm. They look like pictures drawn by an illiterate who needed a hobby whilst on remand. And why not? People *should* have a hobby. IIRC those images were drawn for that article by a Wikipedian. They are accurate depictions of the acts in question and under a free license. I don't understand how a perfectly composed, high resolution photo would add relevant information to the diagrams. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
2010/1/14 Jiří Hofman hofm...@aldebaran.cz: Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse . You will see there is no really high quality image of human sexual intercourse. File:Housefly mating.jpg is a featured image. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Дана Thursday 14 January 2010 09:24:16 Nikola Smolenski написа: At Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview, could you in future include number of Internet users (f.e. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users ) and number of views per Internet user? IMO, this is more useful than population and could identify countries where Wikipedia should be advertised. Did it: http://smolenski.rs/blog/2010/01/wikipedia-page-views-per-country-with-internet-users/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
