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

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> What established framework are you talking about, here?

I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more
importantly, the underlying principles).

An editor, acting in good faith, might believe that creating pages for
dictionary definitions or dessert recipes improves the encyclopedia.
Does this mean that we're required to refrain from intervening?  Of
course not.

IAR is one of our most important policies, but it isn't a license to
dismiss others' concerns.  Perhaps a one-off exception to our
vandalism policy *would* improve the encyclopedia, but it isn't
Gwern's place to unilaterally determine this and disregard requests to
seek consensus.

> > _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.

>From this discussion:

"There's nothing to answer; and I've been copying the most informative
or hilarious quotes for posterity, such as an active administrator in
good standing wondering if it might actually increase article quality
and not constitute vandalism at all!  The whole thing was worth it
just for that quote; I could not have made up a better example of the
sickness."

"Obviously I did all my editing as an anon: if even an anonymous IP
can get away this kind of blatant vandalism just by invoking the name
WP:EL, then that's a lower bound on how much an editor can get away
with."

>From Jimbo's talk page:

"If you read the methodology I posted or even just noticed how I keep
using the past tense, you'd know that the vandalism stopped weeks
ago."

> 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.

Gwern provided more information than necessary to convey the
experiment's essence.  I believe that it would have been fairly easy
to omit enough details to avoid impacting the community's scrutiny of
the changes, particularly given Wikipedia's quantity of articles and
edits.

If not, another option was to consult the WMF.  (I've noted this several times.)

> > 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.

You weren't aware that we generally frown upon edits intended to
reduce articles' quality?

> > > Assume good faith.

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

> You accused Gwern, several times, of vandalism.

I "accused" Gwern of engaging in an act that he/she has repeatedly
acknowledged committing?

> Good faith edits are not vandalism.

Again, we define vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of
content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of
Wikipedia."  Gwern's experiment is based upon compromising the
integrity of Wikipedia and observing editors' reactions (or lack
thereof).  "Vandalism" refers to the immediate harmful act, regardless
of any long-term benefits that someone believes will arise from it.

And again, we're quibbling over terminology.  You may have interpreted
my use of the word "vandalism" as an accusation of a bad-faith motive
on Gwern's part, but I've explained that it isn't one.

David Levy