On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Oh c'mon, even the updated terms of use allow
for limited
vulnerability testing which is not *unduly* disruptive.
Firstly, that text pertains to "probing, scanning, or testing the
vulnerability of any of our technical systems or networks". It has
nothing to do with article content.
I understand this. I brought it up as something analogous.
Secondly, if we *were* to condone such experiments,
they shouldn't be
devised and implemented unilaterally.
Being devised and implemented unilaterally is the only way to get
accurate results.
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.
As Gwern (User:Gwern) continues to edit the English
Wikipedia (today
concluding a different "experiment") and appears to have stopped
participating in this discussion (thereby ignoring questions about the
acknowledged vandalism), I agree that the account and associated IP
addresses should be blocked until such time as a promise to cease the
disruption and evidence that the damage has been repaired are
forthcoming.
[rolls eyes]