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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.)
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
