Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: I believe I answered this above. Trusting people to act in good faith in the way that they feel is in the long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia is all about. I answered *that* by pointing out that we don't indiscriminately permit good-faith editors to do whatever they feel is in the long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia. When they operate outside the established framework (without consensus that an exception is warranted), we intervene. What established framework are you talking about, here? There is a difference between not-condoning the behavior, and calling it vandalism. _Gwern_ has called it vandalism continually (both in this discussion and on Jimbo's talk page) and even mocked a user for suggesting otherwise. When, in this discussion (I haven't read the talk page), did he do that? I just did a search for vandalism in this thread, and I don't see it. Do I think Gwern made mistakes in his experiment? Absolutely. And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the Wikipedia editing community. As I said before, the experiment wouldn't have been at all accurate if he had consulted beforehand. People would have been on the lookout for the removal of external links by IP addresses. Setting aside the issue of terminology (addressed above), our default position is to condemn the type of edit that Gwern performed and seek to counter it. The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special exception should be made. If you say so. I'm not familiar with that part of the official handbook. Assume good faith. At no point have I accused Gwern of acting in bad faith. You accused Gwern, several times, of vandalism. Good faith edits are not vandalism. ___ 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] Looks like this might apply to us as well
http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1959 ___ 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] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise
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. Get those library computers being used for more than webmail. This could work anywhere. - d. -- Forwarded message -- From: brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org Date: 22 May 2012 13:03 Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise To: wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org Hola! From a non-Wikipedian Wikimedian - in Edinburgh - who is delighted with the response from some tentative outreach work. I spend around an hour this morning touring Edingburgh's Central Library with Fiona Myles, took around 150 photos of the interior of the building, and _hope_ I've laid the groundwork for us to work far more closely in future. I have, dependent on copyright, a verbal agreement to get high-res scans of the plans of the building (A Carnegie Library), a keen interest to have librarians briefed on Wikipedia - if not outright encouraged to contribute, and the possibility of running recruitment/induction sessions in Edinburgh. Which, for the unwashed masses, is a UNESCO City of Literature. Given the piss-poor representation up here in Scotland, I think that's a major win. My next job, as interim 'cowboy liasion' between Wikimedia UK and Museums Galleries Scotland is to get a few councillors calling for all publicly funded publications to be under a CC-BY license. Any, and all, encouragement welcome. Any Englandshire Wikimedians wh plan to visit Edingburgh in the next 6-12 months, please feel free to drop me a mail. If I can get you meetings with people, or privileged access for photography, I will. Fun and frivolity aside, with limited Internet access I've come to the conclusion that public libraries are the way to recruit. Brief the staff of what makes a good Wikipedia article - half of them know already - then a simple static display may encourage locals to try their hand. Here in Edinburgh I suspect I can, without too many problems, get articles put into about a half-dozen languages with keen help from library staff. And this message's title? Purloined from a book on the city's libraries. Brian McNeil -- Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcn...@o2.co.uk Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ 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 Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: All of this is fine, by the way, depending on what your intention was to show. If it was to show that a certain type of external link can be removed without likely being reverted, then your methodology is fine. But then you shouldn't advertise your experiment as the removal of 100 random external links, because that is not what you did. OK, do you have a better summary in 7 words? On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the Wikipedia editing community. Anthony's complaint there is more one complaining about what he thinks is a misleading summary. I don't regard it as a mistake, and so no consultation would have been useful: if I were to do it again, I would do it the same way - I don't care about how well official links are defended, because they tend to be the most useless external links around and also are the most permitted by EL. Worrying about them is roughly akin to an inclusionist worrying that [[George Washington]] or [[Julius Caesar]] might not be as well-defended as possible. They are the entries that will be the very last to go under any scenario of decline. The endangered links are links to news article, reviews, that sort of thing, and my procedure examines them. (No matter if those links were reverted at as much as 100%, since fortunately they still only make up a fraction of external links, they can under every scenario affect the final result only so much.) As for the terminological dispute, if you take intent into account, perhaps they are not vandalism; but the edits themselves in isolation were designed to look like ordinary deletionist vandalism. -- 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] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise
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. Get those library computers being used for more than webmail. This could work anywhere. You are not telling that this isn't a perennial proposal? It's blindingly obvious. The issue is not recruiting newbies, but keeping them and getting them to understand how Wikipedia works, and then to be productive instead of getting sucked into the various drama-fests. Carcharoth ___ 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] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise
Insert me after telling below... On 5/22/12, 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. Get those library computers being used for more than webmail. This could work anywhere. You are not telling that this isn't a perennial proposal? It's blindingly obvious. The issue is not recruiting newbies, but keeping them and getting them to understand how Wikipedia works, and then to be productive instead of getting sucked into the various drama-fests. Carcharoth ___ 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] Looks like this might apply to us as well
http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1959 All too familiar. A shit that can write a featured article is A-OK. Fred ___ 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: 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 recipes improves the encyclopedia. Does this mean that we're required to refrain from intervening? Of course not. IAR is one of our most important policies, but it isn't a license to dismiss others' concerns. Perhaps a one-off exception to our vandalism policy *would* improve the encyclopedia, but it isn't Gwern's place to unilaterally determine this and disregard requests to seek consensus. _Gwern_ has called it vandalism continually (both in this discussion and on Jimbo's talk page) and even mocked a user for suggesting otherwise. When, in this discussion (I haven't read the talk page), did he do that? I just did a search for vandalism in this thread, and I don't see it. From this discussion: 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. 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. From Jimbo's talk page: If you read the methodology I posted or even just noticed how I keep using the past tense, you'd know that the vandalism stopped weeks ago. As I said before, the experiment wouldn't have been at all accurate if he had consulted beforehand. People would have been on the lookout for the removal of external links by IP addresses. Gwern provided more information than necessary to convey the experiment's essence. I believe that it would have been fairly easy to omit enough details to avoid impacting the community's scrutiny of the changes, particularly given Wikipedia's quantity of articles and edits. If not, another option was to consult the WMF. (I've noted this several times.) Setting aside the issue of terminology (addressed above), our default position is to condemn the type of edit that Gwern performed and seek to counter it. The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special exception should be made. If you say so. I'm not familiar with that part of the official handbook. You weren't aware that we generally frown upon edits intended to reduce articles' quality? Assume good faith. At no point have I accused Gwern of acting in bad faith. You accused Gwern, several times, of vandalism. I accused Gwern of engaging in an act that he/she has repeatedly acknowledged committing? Good faith edits are not vandalism. Again, we define vandalism as any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Gwern's experiment is based upon compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and observing editors' reactions (or lack thereof). Vandalism refers to the immediate harmful act, regardless of any long-term benefits that someone believes will arise from it. And again, we're quibbling over terminology. You may have interpreted my use of the word vandalism as an accusation of a bad-faith motive on Gwern's part, but I've explained that it isn't one. 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
