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 shouldn't advertise your experiment as "the > removal of 100 random external links", because that is not what you > did.
OK, do you have a better summary in 7 words? On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy <lifeisunf...@gmail.com> wrote: > And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the > Wikipedia editing community. Anthony's complaint there is more one complaining about what he thinks is a misleading summary. I don't regard it as a mistake, and so no consultation would have been useful: if I were to do it again, I would do it the same way - I don't care about how well official links are defended, because they tend to be the most useless external links around and also are the most permitted by EL. Worrying about them is roughly akin to an inclusionist worrying that [[George Washington]] or [[Julius Caesar]] might not be as well-defended as possible. They are the entries that will be the very last to go under any scenario of decline. The endangered links are links to news article, reviews, that sort of thing, and my procedure examines them. (No matter if those links were reverted at as much as 100%, since fortunately they still only make up a fraction of external links, they can under every scenario affect the final result only so much.) As for the terminological dispute, if you take intent into account, perhaps they are not vandalism; but the edits themselves in isolation were designed to look like ordinary deletionist vandalism. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l