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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
All of this is fine, by the way, depending on what your intention was
to show. If it was to show that a certain type of external link can
be removed without likely being reverted, then your methodology is
fine. But then you
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
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?
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
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
On 5/19/2012 8:00 AM, Andrew Grey wrote:
I just went through 19 random pages (9 of them didn't have any ELs, so I
didn't count them, and I found three articles in which the last EL was not a
useful link. One of them was a spam link to a (non-WMF) wikiproject, one was
Did you test first links,
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
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
: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught
by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
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
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
66 matches
Mail list logo
