[WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm feeling about this *feels* just like hindsight bias, but I
> vaguely recall saying something just like that.

It certainly sounds like it too. :) But if you ever refind where you
said that, you get some Gwern points.

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> You haven't gone over your methodology.  I highly doubt you've
> selected the links randomly.  And you don't seem to have done any
> analysis of whether or not the links should be there or not.

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> So, you are not removing random links at all.

>.< I should just link XKCD here, but I'll forebear. I am reminded of an anecdote describing a court case involving the draft back in Vietnam, where the plaintiff's lawyer argued that the little cage and balls method was not random and was unfair because the balls on top were much more likely to be selected. The judge asked, "Unfair to *whom*?" Indeed.

And I'd note that my methodology, while being quite as random as most
methods, carries the usual advantages of determinism: anyone will be
able to check whether I did in fact remove only last links which are
not official or template-generated in External Link sections, and that
I did not simply cherrypick the links that I thought were worst and so
least likely to be restored.

-- 
gwern
http://www.gwern.net