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

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

The data may still be useful.  After discussing things with Gwern I
think he's mostly right that the problem was more his summary of the
experiment.  He intentionally tried to choose links which he felt were
more vulnerable, not random links.

Gwern asked me earlier "do you have a better summary in 7 words?"  I
think we're going to have to wait for the results before coming up
with a summary.  But if the results show this, something like
"Wikipedia is vulnerable to the unjustified removal of certain types
of external links." (13 words)  Before the results are released, maybe
"I removed 100 random external links of a certain type." (10 words)

Yes, it uses the weasel words "of a certain type", but these can be
clarified in the details.

>> I don't care about how well official links are defended,
>
> Maybe the community cares.

Then the community can come up with its own experiment.  Or, they can
if you'll let them.

>> 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.

His experiment's parameters was based on his beliefs.  This is how
experimentation is supposed to work.  You don't set up an experiment
to determine something you don't care about.