On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
My experiment has concluded and all the link removals reverted*. The
full writeup is at
http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2
Result: Of the 100 removals, just 3 were reverted.
On 5/31/12, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On average, the articles concerned had less than 100 page views a day
going off stats.grok.se, so by just a few days, most of the edits
should have been reverted - if they were going to be, of course.
This assumes that page views correspond to
On 1 June 2012 11:19, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And deletionists have no policy knowledge?
Deletionists are not the monolithic body of people that you seem to
think they are. Those with these tendencies (though I'm reluctant to
lump people under a label) vary widely in
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
This assumes that page views correspond to people reading the pages. I
suspect that a lot of people viewing a page just scan briefly for what
they are looking for (I typically use Ctl+F to find something if I am
in a
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
This assumes that page views correspond to people reading the pages. I
suspect that a lot of people viewing a page just scan briefly for what
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Result: Of the 100 removals, just 3 were reverted.
You removed 100 external links and only 3 of the removals were
reverted. I don't find that very surprising. My experience with
external links is that *on average* they are
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course there are good external links, but they
are a minority on the articles I follow. Examples include these
removals:
On 5/31/12, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Separately, the median number of watchlisters for the 100 pages you
edited is 5.
Where is this figure coming from?
Possibly some variant of this:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Separately, the median number of watchlisters for the 100 pages you
edited is 5.
Where is this figure coming from?
There is a redacted (no user info) table in the toolserver database
that can be used to count the number of
There were a number of flaws in this experiment that IMHO reduce its value.
Firstly rather than measure vandalism it created vandalism, and vandalism
that didn't look like typical vandalism. Aside from the ethical issue
involved, this will have skewed the result. In particular the edit
summaries
On 31 May 2012 16:59, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
There were a number of flaws in this experiment that IMHO reduce its value.
Firstly rather than measure vandalism it created vandalism, and vandalism
that didn't look like typical vandalism. Aside from the ethical
On 31 May 2012 17:03, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
This, I think, is a major issue which make the results useless
* The edit summary implies policy knowledge, I'd only check an edit like
that on my watchlist on occasion. Not every edit needs checking, so we use
our common
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a redacted (no user info) table in the toolserver database
that can be used to count the number of editors who watchlist a page.
I fetched the counts for the 100 articles and found the median.
Ah. That's
My experiment has concluded and all the link removals reverted*. The
full writeup is at
http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2
Result: Of the 100 removals, just 3 were reverted.
3% is even lower than I expected, and very different from Horologium's
On 5/30/12, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gwernoffset=limit=100target=Gwern
You can out a date limiter on that URL so it won't become outdated.
This one should work indefinitely (unless some of the edits get deleted):
PS. You didn't have to spam links to your 'experiment' in the revert
edit summaries, you know. Some good-faith editors may get upset by
that. The edit summary was:
rv test of editors for this page; you failed. see
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
You can out a date limiter on that URL so it won't become outdated. This one
should work indefinitely (unless some of the edits get deleted):
On 30 May 2012 20:41, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that if such experiments are to be carried
out, it would be better if they were designed and conducted by those
able to restrain themselves from such snark.
Better how?
I'll add this to my list of If you have to ask, you
18 matches
Mail list logo
