On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)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"?