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? No. > Where did you ask Gwern about this? My above question was a sincere response to your mention of specific details, not a rhetorical complaint (though I do believe that it was incumbent upon Gwern to volunteer such information to the community or the WMF for review *before* engaging in mass vandalism). > > > > As discussed in this thread, it isn't clear that Gwern's > > > > parameters are likely to yield useful information, so this might > > > > amount to nothing more than random vandalism. Imagine if > > > > hundreds or thousands of editors took it upon themselves to > > > > conduct such "experiments" without consulting the community or > > > > the WMF. > > > Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then > > > adding back the ones that deserve to be added back? Okay, I'm > > > imagining it.... Sounds like something that would improve the > > > encyclopedia. > > 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 that this would improve the encyclopedia? (Please keep in mind that knowledge of a time frame and commitment to restore the links "that deserve to be added back" aren't actually included in the scenario; we would know little or nothing about the hypothetical users' plans.) > Thousands of users all taking in upon themselves to act in in good > faith, without discussion and in ways which are potentially flawed, to > try to improve an encyclopedia in the way they see best. We should > come up with a catchy name for that. Maybe something based on a > Hawaiian word. good faith != prudence way they see best != best way wiki != anarchy An editor, acting in good faith, might believe that inserting original research and edit-warring to keep it in place improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that we're obligated to condone such behavior, let alone without discussion. > What doesn't make much sense is the simultaneous belief that 1) no one > cares; People obviously care about vandalism. This simply isn't a glaring type, nor does it affect an element of the utmost importance. > and 2) it is vandalism that absolutely *must be stopped* lest Kant > roll over in his grave. Our default position is to condemn vandalism and seek to counter it. The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special exception should be made. David Levy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
