On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Oh c'mon, even the updated terms of use allow for limited vulnerability testing which is not *unduly* disruptive.
Firstly, that text pertains to "probing, scanning, or testing the vulnerability of any of our technical systems or networks". It has nothing to do with article content.
I understand this. I brought it up as something analogous.
Secondly, if we *were* to condone such experiments, they shouldn't be devised and implemented unilaterally.
Being devised and implemented unilaterally is the only way to get accurate results.
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.
As Gwern (User:Gwern) continues to edit the English Wikipedia (today concluding a different "experiment") and appears to have stopped participating in this discussion (thereby ignoring questions about the acknowledged vandalism), I agree that the account and associated IP addresses should be blocked until such time as a promise to cease the disruption and evidence that the damage has been repaired are forthcoming.
[rolls eyes]