On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I believe I answered this above. 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.
I answered *that* by pointing out that we don't indiscriminately
permit good-faith editors to do whatever "they feel is in the
long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia". When they
operate outside the established framework (without consensus that an
exception is warranted), we intervene.
What established framework are you talking about, here?
There is a
difference between not-condoning the behavior, and calling
it vandalism.
_Gwern_ has called it "vandalism" continually (both in this discussion
and on Jimbo's talk page) and even mocked a user for suggesting
otherwise.
When, in this discussion (I haven't read the talk page), did he do
that? I just did a search for "vandalism" in this thread, and I don't
see it.
Do I think
Gwern made mistakes in his experiment? Absolutely.
And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the
Wikipedia editing community.
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.
Setting aside the issue of terminology (addressed
above), our default
position is to condemn the type of edit that Gwern performed and seek
to counter it. The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special
exception should be made.
If you say so. I'm not familiar with that part of the official handbook.
Assume good
faith.
At no point have I accused Gwern of acting in bad faith.
You accused Gwern, several times, of vandalism. Good faith edits are
not vandalism.