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

[Anthony]

>> > Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users, whose methodologies
>> > are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon
>> > themselves to conduct such "experiments" without consultation or
>> > approval?  That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred.
>
>> Yes, I know.
>
> And you believe that this would improve the encyclopedia?  (Please
> keep in mind that knowledge of a time frame and commitment to restore
> the links "that deserve to be added back" aren't actually included in
> the scenario; we would know little or nothing about the hypothetical
> users' plans.)

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.

Anyway, the world would be drastically different if hundreds or
thousands of people were curious enough to conduct such experiments.
In my opinion, it would probably be a better place.

> An editor, acting in good faith, might believe that inserting original
> research and edit-warring to keep it in place improves the
> encyclopedia.  That doesn't mean that we're obligated to condone such
> behavior, let alone without discussion.

There is a difference between not-condoning the behavior, and calling
it vandalism.  Do I think Gwern made mistakes in his experiment?
Absolutely.  I've already said many times that I think his sample was
biased.

There's also a difference between temporarily removing 100 external
links, and edit-warring over the insertion of original research.
Gwern wasn't edit-warring at all.  What he did was much less
disruptive.

>> What doesn't make much sense is the simultaneous belief that 1) no one
>> cares;
>
> People obviously care about vandalism.  This simply isn't a glaring
> type, nor does it affect an element of the utmost importance.

It isn't vandalism.  He wasn't doing it for the purpose of hurting the
encyclopedia.

>> and 2) it is vandalism that absolutely *must be stopped* lest Kant
>> roll over in his grave.
>
> Our default position is to condemn vandalism and seek to counter it.
> The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special exception should be
> made.

It isn't vandalism.

Assume good faith.