On 20 May 2012 22:32, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
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
You haven't gone over your methodology. I highly doubt you've
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding
back the ones that deserve to be added back?
Where and when did Gwern specify a time frame and indicate that the
appropriate links would
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
The procedure: remove random links and record whether they are
restored to obtain a restoration rate.
- To avoid issues with selecting links, I will remove only the final
external link on pages selected by
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2012 22:32, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Okay, I'm imagining it Sounds like something that would
improve the encyclopedia.
Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users,
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm feeling about this *feels* just like hindsight bias, but I
vaguely recall saying something just like that.
It certainly sounds like it too. :) But if you ever refind where you
said that, you get some Gwern points.
Anthony wrote:
Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding
back the ones that deserve to be added back?
Where and when did Gwern specify a time frame and indicate that the
appropriate links would be restored?
If this is done, then does it cease to be vandalism?
Hi Steve,
• results of early tests of AFT4 are here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Research
• Adam Hyland recently posted a series of compelling analyses comparing AFT
data with WP1.0 ratings here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Protonk/Article_Feedback
• there are recent
On 5/21/2012 12:33 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
one was a link to a find-a-grave page with a photo of the
subject (unneeded because we already had a photo of the subject)
That is arguable. It depends whether it is the same photo at the same
time of life or not. If the only free photo of someone shows
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
So, you are not removing random links at all.
. I should just link XKCD here, but I'll forebear. I am reminded of an
anecdote describing a court case
Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users, whose methodologies
are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon
themselves to conduct such experiments without consultation or
approval? That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred.
Yes, I know.
And you believe
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
How could we do that? You could have just cherrypicked the worst
links that were last links which are not official or
template-generated in External Link sections. I'm not saying I think
you did that. But you certainly could
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
How could we do that? You could have just cherrypicked the worst
links that were last links which are not official or
template-generated in External Link
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
