An update: I managed to fix the double-counting problem I mentioned was skewing the numbers upwards, and fixed a few other issues. (In retrospect, the solution was almost trivial: just discard any URL that appears *twice* in the diff, since none of the edits would repeat an added link.)
The updated numbers are: - My anime references: <8% - My non-anime references: <3% - Krebmarkt's references: <4% - Total references used: <4.15% of 1206 As one would expect from fixes removing false positives, all the new figures are smaller. I invite people to go through and double-check - everything you need is provided. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote: > The rest of that, about deletionism, may be at least as interesting. Or it's a rant, depends on your own inclinations, I think. (I do well on things like belief calibration and avoided political bias on tests, but who knows whether my beliefs on Wikipedia are correct.) Sue Gardner liked it, at least. > I wonder how the ban on canvassing is affecting deletion. Our system is set > up so that informing the very people who would be affected most by deleting > an article is not permitted. (And of course, we have WP:OWN, which prevents > even *recognizing* that some people may have a particular interest in an > article not being deleted.) It helps deletion, unsurprisingly; see the study quoted & linked in http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#fn22 On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Rob <gamali...@gmail.com> wrote: > This makes a lot of sense. Many times I've removed these from the > article for valid reasons - text/link dumps, mal- or unformed > sections, etc. - and placed them on talk so editors could use them for > future edits. They don't use them, as I've shown. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, <kgor...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > This rate, without additional context, is meaningless. As Rob pointed > out, there are many different reasons for moving > references/links/citations from an article to a talk page, and unless you > have more information about why people are moving these to talk pages, the > rate at which they move back doesn't really mean anything. By labeling > this rate a 'failure rate' you are strongly implying that success would be > keeping the link in the article. I don't believe this is right - I > believe that 'success' is doing what's best for the article. > > Even if 99% of things that were moved to talk pages were not subsequently > returned, I would not find this at all disturbing without evidence that a > large portion of the removed things should not have been removed. > Frankly, I would be surprised if 10% of things that I personally moved to > talk pages were moved back in to the article space. You and Rob have apparently completely missed the point of the exercise, the reason why I invested so much manual effort into this. I didn't look at a bunch of anonymous edits, precisely because I *knew* someone would say 'oh they're from dirty anonymouses and so they are probably crappy links - why be bothered by a 10% or a 1% rate?' This is wrong, but it has a surface plausibility and there's no point in compiling data that can be so glibly dismissed. So I looked *only* at known good links, links I and Krebmarkt had hand-selected as useful. Again, feel free to go through the links and look at them! My first 2 anime links were RSs for a director's next movie, and box office receipts; Krebmarkt's first 2 links were RS critics' reviews for manga that both have (note the present tense) 0 reviews in their articles. And so on. There is a known rate at which these links ought to be included. It's >90%. (I am being charitable in not saying 99% or 100%.) The actual inclusion rate is <10%. The difference should bother us. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#the-editing-community-is-dead-who-killed-it _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
