Dear English speaking Wikipedia users,
Sjarlot Stal and Nick Geurts, both Master students at Tilburg University, would
like to gather more insight in the motives of your Wikipedia behaviour.
This survey will be spread among the various Wikipedia sites of several
cultures. The duration of the
On 22 May 2012 17:48, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 5/22/12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian McNeil's productive work in Edinburgh. I particularly like the
idea of recruiting newbies at libraries - with all those lovely old
printed references right there to hand.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What established framework are you talking about, here?
I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more
importantly, the underlying principles).
An editor, acting in good faith, might
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Anthony's complaint there is more one complaining about what he thinks
is a misleading summary.
It's been asserted that your experiment's parameters were poorly
selected (and therefore won't yield
Anthony wrote:
What established framework are you talking about, here?
I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more
importantly, the underlying principles).
An editor, acting in good faith, might believe that creating pages
for dictionary definitions or dessert
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What established framework are you talking about, here?
I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more
importantly, the underlying principles).
An editor, acting in good faith,
Anthony wrote:
You certainly should revert Gwern's changes. There's no dispute about that.
Indeed, but that's a different context; we were discussing the
appropriateness of Gwern's experiment and ones like it.
The data may still be useful.
Agreed. I don't assert that the experiment is
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
You certainly should revert Gwern's changes. There's no dispute about that.
Indeed, but that's a different context; we were discussing the
appropriateness of Gwern's experiment and ones like it.
So we
Even with the retention problems, getting more people to even start
will help.. Even if only 1% of the people who make their first edit go
on to write substantial articles, getting more people to make that
first edit will improve our numbers at every stage.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:34 AM,
Anthony wrote:
So we need to weigh the harm vs. the benefits, right?
Right.
I don't know whether this experiment's benefits will outweigh its
harm. I only know that the community had no opportunity to discuss
the matter (including possible improvements) and arrive at a
determination.
10 matches
Mail list logo
