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

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> I believe I answered this above.  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.

I answered *that* by pointing out that we don't indiscriminately
permit good-faith editors to do whatever "they feel is in the
long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia".  When they
operate outside the established framework (without consensus that an
exception is warranted), we intervene.

> There is a difference between not-condoning the behavior, and calling
> it vandalism.

_Gwern_ has called it "vandalism" continually (both in this discussion
and on Jimbo's talk page) and even mocked a user for suggesting
otherwise.

> Do I think Gwern made mistakes in his experiment? Absolutely.

And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the
Wikipedia editing community.

> There's also a difference between temporarily removing 100 external
> links, and edit-warring over the insertion of original research.
> Gwern wasn't edit-warring at all.  What he did was much less
> disruptive.

Agreed.  I haven't equated the two.

> It isn't vandalism.

Then why does Gwern keep referring to it as such?

> He wasn't doing it for the purpose of hurting the encyclopedia.

Agreed.  But "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content
in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."
The experiment is based entirely upon compromising the integrity of
Wikipedia and observing editors' reactions (or lack thereof).  That
Gwern presumably perceives some long-term benefit has no bearing on
the immediate effect.

Of course, Gwern openly acknowledges that he/she committed "blatant
vandalism", so you needn't dispute this on his/her behalf.

> > 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.

> It isn't vandalism.

Setting aside the issue of terminology (addressed above), our default
position is to condemn the type of edit that Gwern performed and seek
to counter it.  The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special
exception should be made.

> Assume good faith.

At no point have I accused Gwern of acting in bad faith.  I merely
believe that he/she has behaved inappropriately.

David Levy