[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.

> Of course not.  You should revert the editor's changes.

Exactly.

You stated that "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".  My point is that
additional criteria are routinely applied.  Someone's good-faith
belief that a particular act "is in the long-term best interest of
creating an encyclopedia" doesn't automatically justify (let alone
mandate) its acceptance by the community.

> It wasn't vandalism.  The vandalism policy is clear about this.  It is
> not vandalism, but it is prohibited:  "What is not vandalism" "Editing
> tests by experimenting users:  Users sometimes edit pages as an
> experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from
> vandalism. "

That section pertains to newcomers testing the act of editing itself.
Here's the rest of its text:

"These users should be warned using the uw-test series of user warning
templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a
welcome and referral to the Wikipedia sandbox, where they can continue
to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive.
Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a user
subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider
placing the message {{uw-selfrevert}}, on their talk page."

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

> I believe the intent was to improve articles' quality.

I don't doubt that Gwern aspires to ultimately improve Wikipedia, but
the individual edits are intended to compromise the articles'
integrity.

I note that we *generally* frown upon such edits in acknowledgement
that the experiment might be justifiable.  But Gwern isn't entitled to
unilaterally determine this.  The Wikipedia editing community should
have received an opportunity to evaluate whether the potential
long-term benefit outweighed the short-term harm.

> The data may still be useful.

Agreed.  I don't assert that the experiment is invalid.  I note that
*others* do.

Such objections should have been solicited and addressed beforehand,
not disregarded or summarily dismissed while the experiment was in
progress.

> > Maybe the community cares.

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

If the community devises a consensus-backed experiment, of course I'll
"let them".

> 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.

But if others don't find a pursuit worthwhile, they aren't required to
cooperate (particularly when an experiment is designed to cause
short-term harm).

Gwern seeks to gather information of interest to him/her.  If it
doesn't interest the community (on the basis that its narrow scope
greatly limits its value), the disruption to 100 articles is
unjustified.

And even if the community agrees that the data *will* be useful, it
might disagree that the end justifies the means.

Gwern doesn't care.

David Levy