Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 17 May 2012 12:54, WereSpielChequers wrote: >> Hi, unless I read this wrong you are admitting to 100 random vandalisms of >> Wikipedia? If so please stop your experiment now and revert any vandalisms >> not yet spotted. > > Indeed. Then read WP:POINT. Oh c'mon, even the updated terms of use allow for limited vulnerability testing which is not *unduly* disruptive. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
> > > Thank you for the clarification. > > Charles > > He raises an interesting possibility. What would really be a better test of the idea would be to edit unlogged from a wi-fi hotspot and add around 2 dozen external links each to several articles as he describes along with a general improvement and expansion. If no difficulties arise after 10 or more articles then providing a good context for links might really be an ideal solution. Recent changes patrol tends to be fast moving and because of that it incorporates a trust factor: the basic things to check for is whether a link is relevant, informative, and useful. Most patrollers frown on deliberate efforts to exploit external links and send traffic to particular websites; also in the view of some patrollers the external links section doesn't exist to replicate the top results of major search engines. That last point might be debatable, yet most of us appreciate it when someone who knows a subject provides a referral to a useful but non-optimized site. Carcharoth has basically explained usefulness for the new page patroller. That makes the patroller's task easier. The question is whether that explanation alone makes a difference: Carcharoth is a model wikicitizen so a patroller could conclude that his choices are trustworthy for any number of other reasons. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On 17 May 2012 20:37, Durova wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Charles Matthews < > charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova wrote: >> >> > That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. >> >> That's [[ad hominem]] against Carcharoth, and you really need either >> to withdraw it, or back it up. The former option is much preferable. >> >> Charles >> > > That reaction certainly comes as a surprise. Why would you construe an > attack or a fallacy? > > In any meaningful experiment the researcher attempts to reduce the > variables to a single factor. Surely you'll agree that an established > registered editor's contributions might encounter a different degree of > scrutiny from an unregistered IP's edits. Carcharoth himself concedes the > possibility. What need could there be to apologize for agreeing? Thank you for the clarification. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova wrote: > > > That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. > > That's [[ad hominem]] against Carcharoth, and you really need either > to withdraw it, or back it up. The former option is much preferable. > > Charles > That reaction certainly comes as a surprise. Why would you construe an attack or a fallacy? In any meaningful experiment the researcher attempts to reduce the variables to a single factor. Surely you'll agree that an established registered editor's contributions might encounter a different degree of scrutiny from an unregistered IP's edits. Carcharoth himself concedes the possibility. What need could there be to apologize for agreeing? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
It's also not the first post in this thread it could have been said about... On May 17, 2012 5:38 PM, "Charles Matthews" wrote: > On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova wrote: > > > That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. > > That's [[ad hominem]] against Carcharoth, and you really need either > to withdraw it, or back it up. The former option is much preferable. > > Charles > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova wrote: > That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. That's [[ad hominem]] against Carcharoth, and you really need either to withdraw it, or back it up. The former option is much preferable. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > > About six months ago now, I stumbled on an article that wasn't in > great shape, added some text over a series of edits, and increased the > number of links in the 'external links' section from 5 to 22. Now, > admittedly I wasn't editing as an IP (I always edit logged in) and I > added the external links in such a way as to make clear why they were > useful, but still, I didn't arouse some huge storm of editors > demanding that I reduce the number of external links (they are all > still there). The number of external links will reduce as the article > is expanded, but if you format external links and arrange them > logically, they can function as a holding place for sources to be used > later to write/expand the article. > > Maybe that means that the question of external links is more one of > quality, and your analysis is oversimplistic? I submit that > well-formatted and well-chosen external links tend to stick, while > drive-by additions (or removals) don't. Which is not entirely > surprising. > > Carcharoth > > That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On 5/17/12, Gwern Branwen wrote: > Incidentally, I have been finishing an experiment involving the > removal of 100 random external links by an IP; I haven't analyzed it > yet, so I don't know the outcome, but this gives us an opportunity! I carried out another experiment (though I didn't realise it was one until now, and it is not a breaching one as yours seems it might be - your wording above is unclear). About six months ago now, I stumbled on an article that wasn't in great shape, added some text over a series of edits, and increased the number of links in the 'external links' section from 5 to 22. Now, admittedly I wasn't editing as an IP (I always edit logged in) and I added the external links in such a way as to make clear why they were useful, but still, I didn't arouse some huge storm of editors demanding that I reduce the number of external links (they are all still there). The number of external links will reduce as the article is expanded, but if you format external links and arrange them logically, they can function as a holding place for sources to be used later to write/expand the article. Maybe that means that the question of external links is more one of quality, and your analysis is oversimplistic? I submit that well-formatted and well-chosen external links tend to stick, while drive-by additions (or removals) don't. Which is not entirely surprising. Carcharoth PS. We have gone way off-topic. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On 17 May 2012 12:54, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Hi, unless I read this wrong you are admitting to 100 random vandalisms of > Wikipedia? If so please stop your experiment now and revert any vandalisms > not yet spotted. Indeed. Then read WP:POINT. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On 17 May 2012 03:58, Gwern Branwen wrote: > But no, you don't need to guess: you edit Wikipedia, you already know > what external links usually look like, and how many are bad on > average. (From actually doing the deletions, my own appraisal is that > <10% were at all questionable, and I felt pretty bad deleting most of > them.) > Ignoring the ethics of vandalising Wikipedia in the first place, if you'd have picked something other than external links, that might, or might not have been a good test. Last time I checked (which admittedly was a while ago) Wikipedia had a noticeboard whose entire purpose, was essentially to delete as many external links as possible, they'd even added a policy that said they could do that in every single case unless you could get a majority in a poll to keep individual links; oh and in practice they pretty much !vote-stuffed those polls too by announcing the polls on the noticeboard, so the chances of a clear majority was low. Oh, and there was a bunch of shady anonymous IPs involved as well that swing around after the fact to edit war them away anyway if an external link they didn't favor gets through all that. Basically, external links are one of the most hated parts of Wikipedia, and if hardly any of them got fixed it wouldn't surprise me, and wouldn't prove anything very much. But nevertheless, thanks for admitting to vandalising Wikipedia 100 times. If you supply your Wikipedia account details we can arrange for it to be blocked. -- > gwern > -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
Hi, unless I read this wrong you are admitting to 100 random vandalisms of Wikipedia? If so please stop your experiment now and revert any vandalisms not yet spotted. WereSpielChequers On 17 May 2012 02:14, Gwern Branwen wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ian Woollard > wrote: > > The number of > > editors is fairly static, although there were about 25% more people > > volunteering in 2006 when there were lots of new things to write about. > > Staticness is a serious problem: the world is not staying still. We > can't keep up with a growing world with a editor base that is static > in absolute terms. Productivity improvements like > anti-obvious-vandalism bots offer limited gains which can keep our > heads over the rising water, temporarily, but they don't change the > bigger picture. > > As I demonstrated earlier with my external link experiment, editors > are not keeping up with even the clearest, best intentioned, highest > quality suggestions. How can you hope that this means that more > sophisticated and difficult tasks like anti-troll, vandalism, hoax, > etc. are still being performed to past standards? > > Incidentally, I have been finishing an experiment involving the > removal of 100 random external links by an IP; I haven't analyzed it > yet, so I don't know the outcome, but this gives us an opportunity! > > Would anyone in this thread (especially the ones convinced Wikipedia's > editing community is in fine shape) care to predict what percentage or > percentage range they expect will have been reverted? > > Or what percentage/percentage range they would regard as an acceptable > failure-to-revert rate? > > -- > gwern > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
On 16 May 2012 19:41, Gwern Branwen wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: >> And why haven't they taken those who generalise broadly from a single >> example with them? > > Are you denying the general decline in editors, even as Internet usage > continues to increase? Are you perpetrating a "straw man" fallacy? I'll happily assert that I find fewer hoax articles than I used to (in fact none I think for a couple of years). One crafted to get past New Pages Patrol doesn't mean much. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
