On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
You can out a date limiter on that URL so it won't
become outdated. This one should work indefinitely (unless some of the edits get
Neat. I didn't know we could do that.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
PS. You didn't have to spam links to your
'experiment' in the revert
edit summaries, you know. Some good-faith editors may get upset by
I disagree. The edit summary box is far too short to include any real
explanation, so a link to the full explanation is best. The other
alternative is to include no explanation in any form, and I regard
that as unacceptable - people should know why some an apparently
useless edit and revert were done.
The edit summary was:
"rv test of editors for this page; you failed. see
This is something else that could have benefitted from outside input.
Some of the attitude you have towards all this rolls off the page,
with phrases such as "perhaps editors collectively know that putting a
link into a section named ‘External Links’ is painting a cross-hair on
I should pretend I have no point of view and I am disinterested while
somehow not being uninterested? Academics may have to adopt such an
imposture, but I do not. As long as my 'snark' does not change the
results - as it does not - I do not care.
My view is that if such experiments are to be carried
out, it would be better if they were designed and conducted by those
able to restrain themselves from such snark.