Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:22:23 -0400, Horologium wrote: I have seen pages with endless external links, and in those, there seems to be an equal number of spam links at the top and the bottom of the list. Usually the links in the middle are the best, but of course, YMMV. That might be an interesting thing to study... the more simpleminded spammers (like the more simpleminded among marketing types in general) would probably be inclined to put their spam links first in the list; they're not into any sort of subtlety or cleverness, just shoving in everybody's faces the stuff they're trying to promote. A slightly more devious spammer might realize that people will be looking for spam links at the top due to mindsets like that, so they'll put their links on the bottom so they won't be noticed as much by spam-fighters (even if they're also not noticed as much by normal readers). Then, if spam-fighters notice this and start defeating it by looking at the bottom too, the next stage would be to insert the links in the middle of a long list, where it would be least likely to be noticed. (Though, if the list has some sort of internal organization, such as alphabetical or chronological, then a misplaced link might still stand out to the sort of geeks who obsessive-compulsively maintain such lists.) -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ 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_
Anthony wrote: Oh c'mon, even the updated terms of use allow for limited vulnerability testing which is not *unduly* disruptive. Firstly, that text pertains to probing, scanning, or testing the vulnerability of any of our technical systems or networks. It has nothing to do with article content. Secondly, if we *were* to condone such experiments, they shouldn't be devised and implemented unilaterally. As discussed in this thread, it isn't clear that Gwern's parameters are likely to yield useful information, so this might amount to nothing more than random vandalism. Imagine if hundreds or thousands of editors took it upon themselves to conduct such experiments without consulting the community or the WMF. As Gwern (User:Gwern) continues to edit the English Wikipedia (today concluding a different experiment) and appears to have stopped participating in this discussion (thereby ignoring questions about the acknowledged vandalism), I agree that the account and associated IP addresses should be blocked until such time as a promise to cease the disruption and evidence that the damage has been repaired are forthcoming. David Levy ___ 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 Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: As Gwern (User:Gwern) continues to edit the English Wikipedia (today concluding a different experiment) and appears to have stopped participating in this discussion (thereby ignoring questions about the acknowledged vandalism), I agree that the account and associated IP addresses should be blocked until such time as a promise to cease the disruption and evidence that the damage has been repaired are forthcoming. There's nothing to answer; and I've been copying the most informative or hilarious quotes for posterity, such as an active administrator in good standing wondering if it might actually increase article quality and not constitute vandalism at all! The whole thing was worth it just for that quote; I could not have made up a better example of the sickness. As for today's experiment, I'm surprised anyone cares. After all, all that was involved was one single link to a webpage written by a non-expert. I should be getting a barnstar for removing it, judging by everyone's reactions. (The result, incidentally, was that click-through fell from 9 a day to 1 a day, which was 17% and not the 5% I had predicted.) -- gwern http://www.gwern.net ___ 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_
Gwern Branwen wrote: There's nothing to answer; Yes, there is. Your methodology has been challenged, and you've yet to identify the compromised articles, indicate that you've stopped performing such edits or confirm that the damage has been repaired. You've admitted to committing widespread vandalism, and you now appear to be boasting of the accomplishment and mocking the community's response. Why shouldn't you be blocked to prevent further disruption? (To be clear, this isn't a rhetorical question.) David Levy ___ 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 21 May 2012 00:09, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Gwern Branwen wrote: There's nothing to answer; Yes, there is. Your methodology has been challenged, and you've yet to identify the compromised articles, indicate that you've stopped performing such edits or confirm that the damage has been repaired. You've admitted to committing widespread vandalism, and you now appear to be boasting of the accomplishment and mocking the community's response. Why shouldn't you be blocked to prevent further disruption? (To be clear, this isn't a rhetorical question.) Because sometimes it's a good thing to ignore all rules to make a point? Michel ___ 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 Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Oh c'mon, even the updated terms of use allow for limited vulnerability testing which is not *unduly* disruptive. Firstly, that text pertains to probing, scanning, or testing the vulnerability of any of our technical systems or networks. It has nothing to do with article content. I understand this. I brought it up as something analogous. Secondly, if we *were* to condone such experiments, they shouldn't be devised and implemented unilaterally. Being devised and implemented unilaterally is the only way to get accurate results. As discussed in this thread, it isn't clear that Gwern's parameters are likely to yield useful information, so this might amount to nothing more than random vandalism. Imagine if hundreds or thousands of editors took it upon themselves to conduct such experiments without consulting the community or the WMF. Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding back the ones that deserve to be added back? Okay, I'm imagining it Sounds like something that would improve the encyclopedia. As Gwern (User:Gwern) continues to edit the English Wikipedia (today concluding a different experiment) and appears to have stopped participating in this discussion (thereby ignoring questions about the acknowledged vandalism), I agree that the account and associated IP addresses should be blocked until such time as a promise to cease the disruption and evidence that the damage has been repaired are forthcoming. [rolls eyes] ___ 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 Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, there is. Your methodology has been challenged I don't recall any challenges, just people expressing their contempt for external links, which is not a methodological challenge. Or did you mean the issue about editing logged in versus logged out as an anon? Obviously I did all my editing as an anon: if even an anonymous IP can get away this kind of blatant vandalism just by invoking the name WP:EL, then that's a lower bound on how much an editor can get away with. On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding back the ones that deserve to be added back? I think it's less questionable to just re-add all the links, no questions asked about 'deserving'. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net ___ 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_
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: Because sometimes it's a good thing to ignore all rules to make a point? Where is the evidence that this experiment is valid and will yield useful results? (Thus far, the only justification cited is the pleasure that Gwern takes in mocking the community's reaction.) Again, imagine if hundreds or thousands of users took it upon themselves to conduct such experiments without consulting the community or the WMF and confirming their methodologies' soundness. David Levy ___ 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_
Anthony wrote: Being devised and implemented unilaterally is the only way to get accurate results. There's no harm in discussing the methodology (but not the specific targets or IP addresses), thereby confirming its validity and ensuring that the effort isn't needlessly duplicated by multiple editors across countless articles. If general knowledge of the experiment were likely to impact its results, Gwern's public acknowledgment would have had that effect anyway. Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding back the ones that deserve to be added back? Where and when did Gwern specify a time frame and indicate that the appropriate links would be restored? Okay, I'm imagining it Sounds like something that would improve the encyclopedia. Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users, whose methodologies are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon themselves to conduct such experiments without consultation or approval? That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred. [rolls eyes] That's unconstructive. David Levy ___ 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 Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: There's no harm in discussing the methodology (but not the specific targets or IP addresses), thereby confirming its validity and ensuring that the effort isn't needlessly duplicated by multiple editors across countless articles. Alright, fine, I will copy in my current writeup minus the list of targets and the yet to be conducted analysis. Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users, whose methodologies are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon themselves to conduct such experiments without consultation or approval? That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred. It's unfortunate that I am such a prominent figure and powerful thought-leader that hundreds and thousands of Wikipedians have even a tiny chance of mimicking my actions; but that's a risk you just have to take when you are as world-renowned as I am. I'm sure Kant would understand. --- ... The procedure: remove random links and record whether they are restored to obtain a restoration rate. - Editors might defer to other editors, so I will remove links as a anonymous user from multiple proxies; the restoration rate will naturally be an *under*estimate of what a registered editor would be able to commit, much less a tendentious deletionist. - To avoid issues with selecting links, I will remove only the final external link on pages selected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random#External_links which have at least 2 external links in an 'External links' section, and where the final external link is neither an 'official' link nor template-generated. (This avoids issues where pages might have 5 or 10 'official' external links to various versions or localizations, all of which an editor could confidently and blindly revert the removal of; template-generated links also carry imprimaturs of authority.) - The edit summary for each edit will be `remove external link per [[WP:EL]]` - which has the nice property of being obviously meaningless to anyone capable of critical thought (by definition a link removal should be per one of WP:EL's criterions - but *which* [criterion](!Wikipedia Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided)?) but also official-looking like many deletionist edit-summaries. - To avoid flooding issues and be less obvious, no more than 5 or 10 links a day will be removed with at least 1 minute between each edit. - To avoid building up credibility, I will not make any real edits with the anonymous IPs After the last of the 100 links have been removed, I will wait 1 month (long enough for the edit to drop off all watchlists) and restore all links. I predict [at least half](http://predictionbook.com/predictions/6586) will not be restored and certainly not [more than 90%](http://predictionbook.com/predictions/6585). ... -- 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
Gwern Branwen wrote: I don't recall any challenges, just people expressing their contempt for external links, which is not a methodological challenge. It's been asserted (not by me) that you selected an element poorly representative of Wikipedia's content as a whole. Alright, fine, I will copy in my current writeup minus the list of targets and the yet to be conducted analysis. Thank you. That's helpful, but the idea should have been proposed and discussed in advance. As WereSpielChequers requested several days ago, please cease any ongoing vandalism and undo whatever hasn't already been reverted. Then seek consensus for this experiment or approval from the WMF. It's unfortunate that I am such a prominent figure and powerful thought-leader that hundreds and thousands of Wikipedians have even a tiny chance of mimicking my actions; but that's a risk you just have to take when you are as world-renowned as I am. I meant that there would be nothing to stop multiple editors, whose methodologies are unknown and unproven, from *unknowingly* duplicating each other's efforts. David Levy ___ 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] Page Ratings analysis?
Hi all, Just wondering if there is any published analysis from the Page ratings widget that appears on every page. My subjective impression is that the ratings data is pretty bad, but I'd be interested to read up. Thanks, Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
