Anthony wrote:
You certainly should revert Gwern's changes.
There's no dispute about that.
Indeed, but that's a different context; we were discussing the
appropriateness of Gwern's experiment and ones like it.
> > The data may still be useful.
> Agreed. I don't assert that the experiment
is invalid. I note that
> *others* do.
Which others?
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.
What's a "consensus-backed experiment"?
An experiment whose validity and appropriateness have been affirmed by
the community.
David Levy