Re: [Foundation-l] Statistics and chapters: searching for chapters
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: Just a short remark: the most statistically explicative parameter for Wikipedia activity is not the number of internet connections but GDP (except for English and Chinese projects which exhibit singular behavior). Perhaps you could retry the analysis using GDP and find some more countries where chapters are achievable. Sorry for not providing references. This comes from a not yet published research work that applies reasonable hypothesis to transfer more than 20 parameters from country data into language data and then apply statistical methods to search for correlations between those data and size of Wikipedia projects. Actually, you are right. Nominal [1] and PPP GDP [2] are more accurate than anything else. At least for the first 20 countries. Here are results: * Number of Internet users: 9 chapters. * GDP, nominal, according to IMF: 12 chapters. * GDP, PPP, according to IMF: 12 chapters. However, I think that GDP, including nominal and PPP, wouldn't be so accurate when we come to other countries. For example, Nigeria has bigger nominal GDP than Israel, Ukraine, Egypt, New Zealand, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia etc., but mentioned countries have chapters or have strong initiatives for chapters. GDP per capita (nominal and PPP) is more confusing because a lot of small countries have very high GDP/pc. For example, it is not realistic to expect Lichtenstein or even Luxemburg to create chapters before India, as well as many significantly poorer countries already have chapters (Serbia, Macedonia, Indonesia). But, it is true that we need some more complex scale for targeting countries for the future chapters. And for Erik: If it is possible, I would like to have regional statistics for some huge countries, if possible. I am almost sure that it is possible for USA, as well as it is maybe possible for India, Brazil and Russia. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 ___ 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? QA
Дана Saturday 16 January 2010 12:25:58 Nikola Smolenski написа: Дана Saturday 16 January 2010 10:40:06 Mark Williamson написа: It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular compared to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English Wikipedia. Next thing to do: Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown Adjusted by Wikipedia Size. Erik, are you planning to do this one as well? :D Did it: http://smolenski.rs/blog/2010/01/wikipedia-page-views-by-country-breakdown-with-wikipedia-size-and-quality/ ___ 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
Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The image in question has been deleted from commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 ..and I think it's also been oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is the right thing to do; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=28221view=findpostp=216072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short term, that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so! best, Peter, PM. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ 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 Sunday 17 January 2010 22:13:28 private musings написа: Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic eboard/Incidentsoldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The image in question has been deleted from commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastu rbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 ..and I think it's also been oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is the right thing to do; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=28221view=findpostp=216 072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short term, that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so! This is an interesting case, but I don't see what it has to do with policies on explicit images on WMF projects. Even if the policies would be changed to be the strictest possible (for example, no explicit images allowed at all), the exact same thing could happen. ___ 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
I'm more raising the issue that what could be child pornography remains available to wmf volunteers with 'oversight' op.s on commons - I don't think the foundation should facilitate that, and I hope a decent enough system can be quickly implemented (it's also quite possible that there is in fact a system in place, but it's unknown to me!) for the depressingly inevitable 'next time' I'd probably go a step further and say that sub-optimal / insufficient systems for dealing with predictable problems indicate a general lack of responsible governance in this area (ie. I'm sadly not surprised that this issue occurs in this way) - but mileage inevitably varies... I'm hopeful of hearing of a strong resolution to this one imminently. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rswrote: Дана Sunday 17 January 2010 22:13:28 private musings написа: Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic eboard/Incidentsoldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The image in question has been deleted from commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastu rbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 ..and I think it's also been oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is the right thing to do; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=28221view=findpostp=216 072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short term, that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so! This is an interesting case, but I don't see what it has to do with policies on explicit images on WMF projects. Even if the policies would be changed to be the strictest possible (for example, no explicit images allowed at all), the exact same thing could happen. ___ 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
iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be completely removed from the servers. I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. Is that capability still available? Which users have access to it? If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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 Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be completely removed from the servers. I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. Is that capability still available? Which users have access to it? If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it. -- John Vandenberg That was rewritten ages ago to allow the files to be kept and undeleted and need be (so in theory they are now only removed from accessible part of the software, not the file system), they would need to be kept and not destroyed if they were brought you in court/criminal proceedings because they would become evidence. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
