[WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

[David Levy]

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