On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What established framework are you talking about, here?
I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more importantly, the underlying principles).
An editor, acting in good faith, might believe that creating pages for dictionary definitions or dessert recipes improves the encyclopedia. Does this mean that we're required to refrain from intervening? Of course not.
Of course not. You should revert the editor's changes.
Exactly.
You stated that "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". My point is that additional criteria are routinely applied. Someone's good-faith belief that a particular act "is in the long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia" doesn't automatically justify (let alone mandate) its acceptance by the community.
You certainly should revert Gwern's changes. There's no dispute about that.
The data may still be useful.
Agreed. I don't assert that the experiment is invalid. I note that *others* do.
Which others? I thought you were referring to me as one of the others.
Maybe the community cares.
Then the community can come up with its own experiment. Or, they can if you'll let them.
If the community devises a consensus-backed experiment, of course I'll "let them".
Heh. What's a "consensus-backed experiment"?