An update: I managed to fix the double-counting problem I mentioned
was skewing the numbers upwards, and fixed a few other issues. (In
retrospect, the solution was almost trivial: just discard any URL that
appears *twice* in the diff, since none of the edits would repeat an
added link.)
The updated numbers are:
- My anime references: <8%
- My non-anime references: <3%
- Krebmarkt's references: <4%
- Total references used: <4.15% of 1206
As one would expect from fixes removing false positives, all the new
figures are smaller. I invite people to go through and double-check -
everything you need is provided.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
The rest of that, about deletionism, may be at least
as interesting.
Or it's a rant, depends on your own inclinations, I think. (I do well
on things like belief calibration and avoided political bias on tests,
but who knows whether my beliefs on Wikipedia are correct.) Sue
Gardner liked it, at least.
I wonder how the ban on canvassing is affecting
deletion. Our system is set
up so that informing the very people who would be affected most by deleting
an article is not permitted. (And of course, we have WP:OWN, which prevents
even *recognizing* that some people may have a particular interest in an
article not being deleted.)
It helps deletion, unsurprisingly; see the study quoted & linked in
http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#fn22
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This makes a lot of sense. Many times I've
removed these from the
article for valid reasons - text/link dumps, mal- or unformed
sections, etc. - and placed them on talk so editors could use them for
future edits.
They don't use them, as I've shown.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, <kgorman(a)berkeley.edu> wrote:
This rate, without additional context, is meaningless.
As Rob pointed
out, there are many different reasons for moving
references/links/citations from an article to a talk page, and unless you
have more information about why people are moving these to talk pages, the
rate at which they move back doesn't really mean anything. By labeling
this rate a 'failure rate' you are strongly implying that success would be
keeping the link in the article. I don't believe this is right - I
believe that 'success' is doing what's best for the article.
Even if 99% of things that were moved to talk pages were not subsequently
returned, I would not find this at all disturbing without evidence that a
large portion of the removed things should not have been removed.
Frankly, I would be surprised if 10% of things that I personally moved to
talk pages were moved back in to the article space.
You and Rob have apparently completely missed the point of the
exercise, the reason why I invested so much manual effort into this.
I didn't look at a bunch of anonymous edits, precisely because I
*knew* someone would say 'oh they're from dirty anonymouses and so
they are probably crappy links - why be bothered by a 10% or a 1%
rate?' This is wrong, but it has a surface plausibility and there's no
point in compiling data that can be so glibly dismissed.
So I looked *only* at known good links, links I and Krebmarkt had
hand-selected as useful. Again, feel free to go through the links and
look at them! My first 2 anime links were RSs for a director's next
movie, and box office receipts; Krebmarkt's first 2 links were RS
critics' reviews for manga that both have (note the present tense) 0
reviews in their articles. And so on.
There is a known rate at which these links ought to be included. It's
90%. (I am being charitable in not saying 99% or 100%.)
The actual
inclusion rate is <10%. The difference should bother us.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#the-editing-community…