On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM, David Levy <[email protected]> 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 believe that creating pages for > dictionary definitions or dessert recipes improves the encyclopedia. > Does this mean that we're required to refrain from intervening? Of > course not.
Of course not. You should revert the editor's changes. > IAR is one of our most important policies, but it isn't a license to > dismiss others' concerns. Perhaps a one-off exception to our > vandalism policy *would* improve the encyclopedia, but it isn't > Gwern's place to unilaterally determine this and disregard requests to > seek consensus. It wasn't vandalism. The vandalism policy is clear about this. It is not vandalism, but it is prohibited: "What is not vandalism" "Editing tests by experimenting users: Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. " > "Obviously I did all my editing as an anon: if even an anonymous IP > can get away this kind of blatant vandalism just by invoking the name > WP:EL, then that's a lower bound on how much an editor can get away > with." Thanks for this. I guess he called it vandalism. Unless he's been lying about his motive, he was wrong, though. >> As I said before, the experiment wouldn't have been at all accurate if >> he had consulted beforehand. People would have been on the lookout >> for the removal of external links by IP addresses. > [....] > If not, another option was to consult the WMF. (I've noted this several > times.) I doubt that would have worked. And it's not a good use of WMF employee time anyway. The new TOS is pretty clear that WMF doesn't want to get involved in such minutiae. > You weren't aware that we generally frown upon edits intended to > reduce articles' quality? I believe the intent was to improve articles' quality. > And again, we're quibbling over terminology. Fair enough. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
