Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelo michelcastelobra...@gmail.comwrote:
On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote:
the
median is always smaller than the average.
There's no such relation between median and average:
{20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (23.8)
{20, 22, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) = Average (24)
{20, 23, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (24.2)
Andreas wrote in full:
For the relative position of mode, median and average in a right-skewed
distribution see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svg--
the
median is always smaller than the average.
The four distributions that you give definitely are not all right-skewed.
--
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] Is random article truly random
On 21-10-2011 04:11, Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelomichelcastelobra...@gmail.comwrote:
On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote:
the
median is always smaller than the average.
There's no such relation between median and average:
{20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (23.8)
{20, 22, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) = Average (24)
{20, 23, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) Average (24.2)
Andreas wrote in full:
For the relative position of mode, median and average in a right-skewed
distribution see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_mean_median_mode.svg--
the
median is always smaller than the average.
The four distributions that you give definitely are not all right-skewed.
Sorry, i took only the final sentence. Is ok that (in this kind of
distribution) the median is always smaller than the average.
You're both right.
P.S. I gave only three distributions.
Castelo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random
2011/10/18 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com: Hi Fae, I don't know about other projects, but on EN wki random article means just that. There have been a number of proposals to skew things and filter certain things out, but these have foundered on the twin concerns that including everything in Random articles best serves those who want to intersperse some random reading with things that they can easily improve, and that it would be dishonest to tell someone that these were random articles when actually we'd filtered out stubs or the unreferenced. There may well be demand for random Good Article as an additional option, but that would be an extra not something we could describe as random article. There is actually a nice Toolserver tool that can do this, as well as provide random articles filtered by any other category: http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php The following yields a random Good article on the English Wikipedia: http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=enfamily=wikipedianamespaces=-1categories=Good+articlessubcats=1d=0action=1submit=Submit (providing the link to this tool at the risk of enabling teh censorshipz by dark and powerful outside organizations who might abuse it to restrict Wikipedia's own unfiltered, free speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random according to their own world views ;) Regards, HaeB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 04:19, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Somehow David Gerard, Milos Rancic, Kim and Tobias Oelgarte made it to 96, 95, 89 and 83 posts last month. Last month Thomas Dalton, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen and I posted 39, 37 and 35 times respectively, and everyone else was under the 30 post soft limit. Could the mods please enforce this a bit more. I think it has been detrimental to the list to allow so few people to dominate the discussions here. I think that the decision (if any?) not to impose soft limit is related to the hot topic (image filter) which is still ongoing. Complaining about image filter is better than complaining about image filter and moderation. So, I suppose that the limit will be imposed again after the drama about image filter vanish. BTW, although I am among the top posters from time to time, I fully support the limit, but I also think that the limit is impractical during the times of hot substantial debates. To solve the problem, we need to have less unsolvable issues. (And, according to the last Board's email and Phoebe's interpretation, I suppose that the Board is on the right way to fix image filter issue.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
I wrote: I believe that we should focus on the criteria behind reliable sources' illustrative decisions, *not* the decisions themselves. Andreas Kolbe replied: Ah well, that *is* second-guessing the source, because unless the author tells you, you have no way of knowing *why* they didn't include a particular type of image. I've repeatedly addressed this point and explained why I regard it as moot. You needn't agree with me, but it's frustrating when you seemingly disregard what I've written. You actually quoted the relevant text later in your message: We needn't know why a particular illustration was omitted. If we apply similar criteria, we'll arrive at similar decisions, excepting instances in which considerations applicable to reliable sources (e.g. those based on images' upsetting/offensive nature) are inapplicable to Wikipedia ... I used the phrase why a particular illustration was omitted, which is remarkably similar to why they didn't include a particular type of image. I've made such statements (sometimes with further elaboration) in several replies. Again, I don't demand that you agree with me, but I humbly request that you acknowledge my position. If we did that for text, we'd be guessing why an author might not have mentioned such and such a thing, and applying our correction. Again, the images in question don't introduce information inconsistent with that published by reliable sources; they merely illustrate the things that said sources tell us. And again, we haven't pulled our image evaluation criteria out of thin air. They reflect those employed by the very same publications. Our application of these criteria entails no such guessing. You seem to envision a scenario in which we seek to determine whether a particular illustration was omitted for a reason inapplicable to Wikipedia. In actuality, we simply set aside such considerations (but we retain the others, so if an illustration was omitted for a reason applicable to Wikipedia, we're likely to arrive at the same decision). . I don't subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia should go out of its way (= depart from reliable sources' standards) to upset or offend readers where reliable sources don't. Do you honestly believe that this is our motive? David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: This is very very meta. But in my own defence, I haven't posted anything for over a year. Mourning my dearly departed mother. I have said before that monthly limits are prejudicial against those that rarely post, but do post when the expletive hits the fan; and do so with the full force of conviction they are expressing the views of the community. Nuff said. Go ahead and moderate this, if you like. It's all very well to say that you should be able to post as much as you like when something you feel really passionate about comes up. But if you can't get your point across in thirty posts over a month, maybe it's time to stop trying. These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting their entrenched positions again and again. There's no reason to think that these loud people on foundation-l are representative of the community at large. There's no reason to think that any of them are likely to change their minds. And, as I say, at this point, they've probably made their arguments as well as they can. I don't think many people are even reading the discussion any more. -- Andrew Garrett Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit
On 21 October 2011 16:02, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting their entrenched positions again and again. I'm not sure that's true. There were 1382 posts to foundation-l in September (more than double the average for the few months before). The 7 of us that posted more than 30 times (I was surprised to see myself back on a frequent posters list - I'd been doing so well!) accounted for 474 of those (34% of the total). In August, the top 7 posters (different people) accounted for 158 out of 614 posts (26%). In July, it was 161 out of 489 (33%). (Feel free to check those numbers, I worked them out very quickly and may have made mistakes.) It seems that the distribution of posts between posters was about the same in September as it was in previous months, it's just that everyone was posting more. Perhaps the soft limit should be the greater of 30 and 5% of the total posts so far that month (for most months in the last year, those would be about the same). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
