http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/
Print:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/
A woman opens an old steamer trunk and
On 16 May 2012 16:49, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Why *are* the skeptical geeks now on Reddit and not Wikipedia?
And why haven't they taken those who generalise broadly from a single
example with them?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing
This discussion has flowed onto Wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#False_articles_created_for_the_good_of_education
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Charles Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 1:34 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 at 16:49, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Indeed. Why *are* the skeptical geeks now on Reddit and not Wikipedia?
26 minutes? I'm trying to imagine how much the angry inclusionists would be
soiling my talk page with accusations of BITEyness if I had IAR deleted this
page after
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 as Internet usage
continues to increase?
--
gwern
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 at 16:49, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Indeed. Why *are* the skeptical geeks now on Reddit and not Wikipedia?
26 minutes? I'm trying to imagine how much the angry inclusionists would
be soiling my
If you spot something is a blatant hoax and delete it after 26 seconds I
think you'll find that even the most ardent inclusionists are as intolerant
of hoaxes as we are of attack pages.
WSC
On 16 May 2012 19:38, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 at 16:49, Gwern
There's no great drop in the number of editors:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28September_2011%29.png
The number of new articles appearing has been dropping, but it looks like
we're just running out of things to write about- the rate of decrease of
new
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com 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.
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
There's no great drop in the number of editors:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28September_2011%29.png
See
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
Editors making
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
There's no great drop in the number of editors:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28September_2011%29.png
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 17 May 2012 02:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Editors making 100+ edits a month in English Wikipedia were at 5,000+ in
early 2007, and are now down to less than 3,500.
Sounds about right.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:14 PM, 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!
Would anyone in this
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
First shouldn't we guess as to what percentage of the links were
actually good in the first place?
I must say, I didn't expect to see someone rationalizing the results
even *before* they happened.
But no, you don't need to
On 17/05/2012 2:21 p.m., Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Given that en:WP now has 4 million articles, a healthy core editor base is
essential to ensure maintenance. A declining core editor base combined with
a rising number of articles is not a good development.
Andreas
I strongly agree. Better still, a
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
First shouldn't we guess as to what percentage of the links were
actually good in the first place?
I must say, I didn't expect to see someone
On 17/05/2012 3:49 a.m., Gwern Branwen wrote:
Indeed. Why *are* the skeptical geeks now on Reddit and not Wikipedia?
I take (took?) a hard line on keeping articles when doing new page
patrol, especially for an unreferenced article from a new contributor.
WP is under continual attack from
Some time ago {{fact}} I had real trouble getting an admin to delete a
blatant hoax.
Alan
On 17/05/2012 12:09 p.m., WereSpielChequers wrote:
If you spot something is a blatant hoax and delete it after 26 seconds I
think you'll find that even the most ardent inclusionists are as intolerant
of
18 matches
Mail list logo
