On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> 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. On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > You haven't gone over your methodology. I highly doubt you've > selected the links randomly. And you don't seem to have done any > analysis of whether or not the links should be there or not. On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> 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 involving the draft back in Vietnam, where >the plaintiff's lawyer argued that the little cage and balls method was not >random and was unfair because the balls on top were much more likely to be >selected. The judge asked, "Unfair to *whom*?" Indeed. And I'd note that my methodology, while being quite as random as most methods, carries the usual advantages of determinism: anyone will be able to check whether I did in fact remove only last links which are not official or template-generated in External Link sections, and that I did not simply cherrypick the links that I thought were worst and so least likely to be restored. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
