[WikiEN-l] Link removal experiment; Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

[Gwern Branwen]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> You can out a date limiter on that URL so it won't become outdated. This one should work indefinitely (unless some of the edits get deleted):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gwern&offset=201205301826&limit=100&target=Gwern

Neat. I didn't know we could do that.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> PS. You didn't have to spam links to your 'experiment' in the revert
> edit summaries, you know. Some good-faith editors may get upset by
> that.

I disagree. The edit summary box is far too short to include any real
explanation, so a link to the full explanation is best. The other
alternative is to include no explanation in any form, and I regard
that as unacceptable - people should know why some an apparently
useless edit and revert were done.

> The edit summary was:
>
> "rv test of editors for this page; you failed. see
> http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2"
>
> This is something else that could have benefitted from outside input.
> Some of the attitude you have towards all this rolls off the page,
> with phrases such as "perhaps editors collectively know that putting a
> link into a section named ‘External Links’ is painting a cross-hair on
> its forehead".

I should pretend I have no point of view and I am disinterested while
somehow not being uninterested? Academics may have to adopt such an
imposture, but I do not. As long as my 'snark' does not change the
results - as it does not - I do not care.

> My view is that if such experiments are to be carried
> out, it would be better if they were designed and conducted by those
> able to restrain themselves from such snark.

Better how?

-- 
gwern
http://www.gwern.net