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, 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. > > Exactly. > > You stated that "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". My point is that > additional criteria are routinely applied. Someone's good-faith > belief that a particular act "is in the long-term best interest of > creating an encyclopedia" doesn't automatically justify (let alone > mandate) its acceptance by the community.
You certainly should revert Gwern's changes. There's no dispute about that. >> The data may still be useful. > > Agreed. I don't assert that the experiment is invalid. I note that > *others* do. Which others? I thought you were referring to me as one of the others. >> > Maybe the community cares. > >> Then the community can come up with its own experiment. Or, they can >> if you'll let them. > > If the community devises a consensus-backed experiment, of course I'll > "let them". Heh. What's a "consensus-backed experiment"? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
