On 16 May 2012 19:41, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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
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 gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ian Woollard
On 17 May 2012 03:58, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com 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,
On 17 May 2012 12:54, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com 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.
On 5/17/12, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
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
On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com 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
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 charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are.
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com 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
On 17 May 2012 20:37, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com 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 nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are.
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
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012 12:54, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
