Anthony wrote:
Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding back the ones that deserve to be added back?
Where and when did Gwern specify a time frame and indicate that the appropriate links would be restored?
If this is done, then does it cease to be vandalism?
No.
Where did you ask Gwern about this?
My above question was a sincere response to your mention of specific details, not a rhetorical complaint (though I do believe that it was incumbent upon Gwern to volunteer such information to the community or the WMF for review *before* engaging in mass vandalism).
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.
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.)
Thousands of users all taking in upon themselves to act in in good faith, without discussion and in ways which are potentially flawed, to try to improve an encyclopedia in the way they see best. We should come up with a catchy name for that. Maybe something based on a Hawaiian word.
good faith != prudence way they see best != best way wiki != anarchy
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.
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.
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.
David Levy