gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

David Levy — 2012-05-23T20:48:25


Right.

I don't know whether this experiment's benefits will outweigh its
harm.  I only know that the community had no opportunity to discuss
the matter (including possible improvements) and arrive at a
determination.

Presumably, we all agree that the harm caused by the temporary removal
of 100 external links is relatively minor.  But if the resultant data
collection lacks substantial value, this relatively minor harm is
unjustified.  And if other users engage in similar experimentation, it
will multiply.




I'm not trying to dodge your question.  I honestly don't understand
what's unclear.

I'm referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the Wikipedia
editing community has evaluated a proposed experiment's basic
parameters (with enough details withheld to prevent impacting the
results) and reached consensus
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus] that the plan is
sensible and should be implemented (either with or without
modification).

David Levy

__________________________________________

Re: Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise

David Goodman — 2012-05-23T20:22:38

Even with the retention problems, getting more people to even start
will help.. Even if only 1% of the people who make their first edit go
on to write substantial articles, getting more people to make that
first edit will improve our numbers at every stage.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews< at >ntlworld.com> wrote:

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Anthony — 2012-05-23T19:56:59

So we need to weigh the harm vs. the benefits, right?


I'm not letting you out that easy.  What does it mean to "have been
affirmed by the community"?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

David Levy — 2012-05-23T19:54:23


Indeed, but that's a different context; we were discussing the
appropriateness of Gwern's experiment and ones like it.




Ian Woollard, Carcharoth and David Gerard have questioned the
experiment's value.

My point, of course, doesn't relate to those comments in particular.
As I said, criticism should have been solicited and addressed
beforehand.


An experiment whose validity and appropriateness have been affirmed by
the community.

David Levy

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Anthony — 2012-05-23T19:20:39

You certainly should revert Gwern's changes.  There's no dispute about that.


Which others?  I thought you were referring to me as one of the others.


Heh.  What's a "consensus-backed experiment"?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

David Levy — 2012-05-23T18:23:46




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.


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."



I don't

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Anthony — 2012-05-23T11:06:44

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.


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

_

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Anthony — 2012-05-23T10:49:19

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


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. "


Thanks for this.  I guess he called it vandalism.  Unless he's been
lying about his motive, he was wrong, though.


I doubt that would have worked.  And it's not a good use of WMF
employee time anyway.  The new TOS is pretty clear that WMF doesn't
want to get involved in such minutiae.


I believe the intent was to improve articles' quality.


Fair enough.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise

Charles Matthews — 2012-05-23T10:34:11

Would be time to discuss the "how", not just the "what", then. How to
get newcomers over initial hurdles. Just as with the issue of article
quality, there is a bit more to it than may seem at first sight.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Wikipedia research

N.J.L. Geurts — 2012-05-22T11:07:29

Dear English speaking Wikipedia users,

Sjarlot Stal and Nick Geurts, both Master students at Tilburg University, would like to gather more insight in the motives of your Wikipedia behaviour. 

This survey will be spread among the various Wikipedia sites of several cultures. The duration of the survey will be approximately 5-10 minutes. Participation is fully voluntarily and you are free to stop your participation at any time.

Your information will be processed strictly confidential and will not be passed on to other people.

By clicking on the following link, you will be directed to the survey:
http://www.thesistools.com/web/?id=275775 

If you have any questions you can contact either 
s.stal< at >uvt.nl or n.j.l.geurts< at >uvt.nl. If you wish to receive a copy of the whole research you can leave your e-mailaddress at the end of the survey.

We would like to thank you in advance!

Kind regards,

Sjarlot Stal
Nick Geurts


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedi

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

David Levy — 2012-05-22T21:45:25


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.


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


Maybe the community cares.


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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

David Levy — 2012-05-22T21:43:14


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.



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 edi

Re: Looks like this might apply to us as well

Fred Bauder — 2012-05-22T17:17:14

All too familiar. A shit that can write a featured article is A-OK.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise

Carcharoth — 2012-05-22T16:48:55

Insert "me" after "telling" below...

On 5/22/12, Carcharoth <carcharothwp< at >googlemail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise

Carcharoth — 2012-05-22T16:48:28

You are not telling that this isn't a perennial proposal? It's
blindingly obvious. The issue is not recruiting newbies, but keeping
them and getting them to understand how Wikipedia works, and then to
be productive instead of getting sucked into the various drama-fests.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Gwern Branwen — 2012-05-22T15:50:37

OK, do you have a better summary in 7 words?

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair< at >gmail.com> wrote:

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

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 - I don't
care about how well official links are defended, because they tend to
be the most useless external links around and also are the most
permitted by EL. Worrying about them is roughly akin to an
inclusionist worrying that [[George Washington]] or [[Julius Caesar]]
might not be as well-defended as possible. They are the entries that
will be the very last to go under any scenario of decline. The
endangered links are links to news article, reviews, that sort of
thing, and my procedure examines them.

(No matter if those links were reverted at as much as 100%, since
fortunately they still only make up a fraction of external links, they
can under every scenar

Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise

David Gerard — 2012-05-22T13:13:24

Brian McNeil's productive work in Edinburgh. I particularly like the
idea of recruiting newbies at libraries - with all those lovely old
printed references right there to hand. Get those library computers
being used for more than webmail. This could work anywhere.


- d.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <brian.mcneil< at >wikinewsie.org>
Date: 22 May 2012 13:03
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Lum Hats in Paradise
To: wikimediauk-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org


Hola! From a non-Wikipedian Wikimedian - in Edinburgh - who is delighted
with the response from some tentative outreach work.

I spend around an hour this morning touring Edingburgh's Central Library
with Fiona Myles, took around 150 photos of the interior of the
building, and _hope_ I've laid the groundwork for us to work far more
closely in future.

I have, dependent on copyright, a verbal agreement to get high-res scans
of the plans of the building (A Carnegie Library), a keen interest to
have librarians briefed on Wikipedia - if not outright encourage

Looks like this might apply to us as well

Martijn Hoekstra — 2012-05-22T11:58:18

http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1959

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Anthony — 2012-05-22T11:49:51

What established framework are you talking about, here?


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.


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.


If you say so.  I'm not familiar with that part of the official handbook.


You accused Gwern, several times, of vandalism.  Good faith edits are
not vandalism.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l< at >lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

David Levy — 2012-05-22T00:02:39


I answered *that* by pointing out that we don't indiscriminately
permit good-faith editors to do whatever "they feel is in the
long-term best interest of creating an encyclopedia".  When they
operate outside the established framework (without consensus that an
exception is warranted), we intervene.


_Gwern_ has called it "vandalism" continually (both in this discussion
and on Jimbo's talk page) and even mocked a user for suggesting
otherwise.


And those mistakes could have been prevented via consultation with the
Wikipedia editing community.


Agreed.  I haven't equated the two.


Then why does Gwern keep referring to it as such?


Agreed.  But "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content
in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."
The experiment is based entirely upon compromising the integrity of
Wikipedia and observing editors' reactions (or lack thereof).  That
Gwern presumably perceives some long-term benefit has no bearing on
the immediate effect.

Of course, Gwe

Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

Anthony — 2012-05-21T22:33:05

Yes.  I'm not saying I think you did that.  It never crossed my mind
that you might have intentionally tried to bias the sample, until you
said "anyone will be able to check whether I did".  We can't check.
We simply have to trust you that you picked the links in the way that
you claim to have picked the links.

In any case, it really doesn't matter, because your sample *was*
biased, regardless of your intention.


You should read more about sampling bias.  Or talk to someone who has.

PRNGs are acceptable, though you do have to be careful to avoid
publication bias.

If you took a list of all external links, and then used a PRNG to pick
100 numbers between 1 and N (the number of links), and then removed
those external links, then you would have a random sample.  The fact
that you can predict each output if you know the seed and run the PRNG
appropriately would only come into play if you ran the test several
times, with different seeds, and selected one of the runs.

By picking articles first, then picking l