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

[David Levy]

Gwern Branwen wrote:

> Anthony's complaint there is more one complaining about what he thinks
> is a misleading summary.

It's been asserted that your experiment's parameters were poorly
selected (and therefore won't yield useful data).  I'm not expressing
agreement or disagreement with this claim.  I'm saying that either the
Wikipedia editing community or the WMF should have been invited to
evaluate your general plan beforehand.

> I don't regard it as a mistake, and so no consultation would have been
> useful: if I were to do it again, I would do it the same way

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't value outside
input.  That's the problem.

> I don't care about how well official links are defended,

Maybe the community cares.

> because they tend to be the most useless external links around and
> also are the most permitted by EL.

You're acknowledging that you based your experiment's parameters on
your personal biases.  Perhaps the community would have preferred that
a different set of criteria be applied.  You don't care.  You decided,
without consultation, to proceed on *your* terms.

This, of course, is an issue because your experiment entailed
deliberately compromising articles' integrity.  *That's* why the rest
of us have a say in the matter.

David Levy