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

[Anthony]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

What established framework are you talking about, here?

>> 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.

When, in this discussion (I haven't read the talk page), did he do
that?  I just did a search for "vandalism" in this thread, and I don't
see it.

>> Do I think Gwern made mistakes in his experiment? Absolutely.
>
> And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the
> Wikipedia editing community.

As I said before, the experiment wouldn't have been at all accurate if
he had consulted beforehand.  People would have been on the lookout
for the removal of external links by IP addresses.

> 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.

If you say so.  I'm not familiar with that part of the official handbook.

>> Assume good faith.
>
> At no point have I accused Gwern of acting in bad faith.

You accused Gwern, several times, of vandalism.  Good faith edits are
not vandalism.