[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia research
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 survey will be approximately 5-10 minutes. Participation is fully voluntarily and you are free to stop your participation at any time. Your information will be processed strictly confidential and will not be passed on to other people. By clicking on the following link, you will be directed to the survey: http://www.thesistools.com/web/?id=275775 If you have any questions you can contact either s.s...@uvt.nl or n.j.l.geu...@uvt.nl. If you wish to receive a copy of the whole research you can leave your e-mailaddress at the end of the survey. We would like to thank you in advance! Kind regards, Sjarlot Stal Nick Geurts ___ 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 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. Get those library computers being used for more than webmail. This could work anywhere. You are not telling [me] 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. Would be time to discuss the how, not just the what, then. How to get newcomers over initial hurdles. Just as with the issue of article quality, there is a bit more to it than may seem at first sight. 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 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 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. Of course not. You should revert the editor's changes. 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. It wasn't vandalism. The vandalism policy is clear about this. It is not vandalism, but it is prohibited: What is not vandalism Editing tests by experimenting users: Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. 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. Thanks for this. I guess he called it vandalism. Unless he's been lying about his motive, he was wrong, though. 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. [] If not, another option was to consult the WMF. (I've noted this several times.) I doubt that would have worked. And it's not a good use of WMF employee time anyway. The new TOS is pretty clear that WMF doesn't want to get involved in such minutiae. You weren't aware that we generally frown upon edits intended to reduce articles' quality? I believe the intent was to improve articles' quality. And again, we're quibbling over terminology. Fair enough. ___ 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 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 useful data). The data may still be useful. After discussing things with Gwern I think he's mostly right that the problem was more his summary of the experiment. He intentionally tried to choose links which he felt were more vulnerable, not random links. Gwern asked me earlier do you have a better summary in 7 words? I think we're going to have to wait for the results before coming up with a summary. But if the results show this, something like Wikipedia is vulnerable to the unjustified removal of certain types of external links. (13 words) Before the results are released, maybe I removed 100 random external links of a certain type. (10 words) Yes, it uses the weasel words of a certain type, but these can be clarified in the details. I don't care about how well official links are defended, Maybe the community cares. Then the community can come up with its own experiment. Or, they can if you'll let them. because they tend to be the most useless external links around and also are the most permitted by EL. You're acknowledging that you based your experiment's parameters on your personal biases. His experiment's parameters was based on his beliefs. This is how experimentation is supposed to work. You don't set up an experiment to determine something you don't care about. ___ 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.
Of course not. You should revert the editor's changes.
Exactly.
You stated that 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. My point is that
additional criteria are routinely applied. Someone's good-faith
belief that a particular act is in the long-term best interest of
creating an encyclopedia doesn't automatically justify (let alone
mandate) its acceptance by the community.
It wasn't vandalism. The vandalism policy is clear about this. It is
not vandalism, but it is prohibited: What is not vandalism Editing
tests by experimenting users: Users sometimes edit pages as an
experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from
vandalism.
That section pertains to newcomers testing the act of editing itself.
Here's the rest of its text:
These users should be warned using the uw-test series of user warning
templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a
welcome and referral to the Wikipedia sandbox, where they can continue
to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive.
Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a user
subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider
placing the message {{uw-selfrevert}}, on their talk page.
You weren't aware that we generally frown upon edits intended to
reduce articles' quality?
I believe the intent was to improve articles' quality.
I don't doubt that Gwern aspires to ultimately improve Wikipedia, but
the individual edits are intended to compromise the articles'
integrity.
I note that we *generally* frown upon such edits in acknowledgement
that the experiment might be justifiable. But Gwern isn't entitled to
unilaterally determine this. The Wikipedia editing community should
have received an opportunity to evaluate whether the potential
long-term benefit outweighed the short-term harm.
The data may still be useful.
Agreed. I don't assert that the experiment is invalid. I note that
*others* do.
Such objections should have been solicited and addressed beforehand,
not disregarded or summarily dismissed while the experiment was in
progress.
Maybe the community cares.
Then the community can come up with its own experiment. Or, they can
if you'll let them.
If the community devises a consensus-backed experiment, of course I'll
let them.
His experiment's parameters was based on his beliefs. This is how
experimentation is supposed to work. You don't set up an experiment
to determine something you don't care about.
But if others don't find a pursuit worthwhile, they aren't required to
cooperate (particularly when an experiment is designed to cause
short-term harm).
Gwern seeks to gather information of interest to him/her. If it
doesn't interest the community (on the basis that its narrow scope
greatly limits its value), the disruption to 100 articles is
unjustified.
And even if the community agrees that the data *will* be useful, it
might disagree that the end justifies the means.
Gwern doesn't care.
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 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, 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. Of course not. You should revert the editor's changes. Exactly. You stated that 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. My point is that additional criteria are routinely applied. Someone's good-faith belief that a particular act is in the long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia doesn't automatically justify (let alone mandate) its acceptance by the community. You certainly should revert Gwern's changes. There's no dispute about that. The data may still be useful. Agreed. I don't assert that the experiment is invalid. I note that *others* do. Which others? I thought you were referring to me as one of the others. Maybe the community cares. Then the community can come up with its own experiment. Or, they can if you'll let them. If the community devises a consensus-backed experiment, of course I'll let them. Heh. What's a consensus-backed experiment? ___ 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: 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 invalid. I note that *others* do. Which others? Ian Woollard, Carcharoth and David Gerard have questioned the experiment's value. My point, of course, doesn't relate to those comments in particular. As I said, criticism should have been solicited and addressed beforehand. What's a consensus-backed experiment? An experiment whose validity and appropriateness have been affirmed by the community. 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 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 need to weigh the harm vs. the benefits, right? What's a consensus-backed experiment? An experiment whose validity and appropriateness have been affirmed by the community. I'm not letting you out that easy. What does it mean to have been affirmed by the community? ___ 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
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, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: 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. Get those library computers being used for more than webmail. This could work anywhere. You are not telling [me] 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. Would be time to discuss the how, not just the what, then. How to get newcomers over initial hurdles. Just as with the issue of article quality, there is a bit more to it than may seem at first sight. 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 -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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: 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. Presumably, we all agree that the harm caused by the temporary removal of 100 external links is relatively minor. But if the resultant data collection lacks substantial value, this relatively minor harm is unjustified. And if other users engage in similar experimentation, it will multiply. What's a consensus-backed experiment? An experiment whose validity and appropriateness have been affirmed by the community. I'm not letting you out that easy. What does it mean to have been affirmed by the community? I'm not trying to dodge your question. I honestly don't understand what's unclear. I'm referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the Wikipedia editing community has evaluated a proposed experiment's basic parameters (with enough details withheld to prevent impacting the results) and reached consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus] that the plan is sensible and should be implemented (either with or without modification). 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
