Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/Case 1

Warning: this page has been archived
In this edit Salmon of Doubt removed current discussions from this page to an archive page. I can't imagine why. --JWSchmidt 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It headed off a worthless edit war. Salmon of Doubt 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are feeling tempted to edit war, why not first discuss what is bothering you? Isn't your archiving a case of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"?--JWSchmidt 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have discussed numerous times that I have a problem with Moulton logging out and using his IP, and signing edits with false signatures to make it appear as if his positions are held by more individuals then they are. It is disruptive. Salmon of Doubt 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realize he's not actually trying to sockpuppet (since he's made it clear that it's his IP address elsewhere) but just needle you? Some editors have consistently been major drama queens over every little things he does.  Instead of making an attempt at discussion, you just encourage him by attracting attention and making him feel more like a victim. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moulton doesn't feel like a victim. He feels like a Schmeggegy Scientist in a culture populated by clones of Pope Urban.  —Montana Mouse (Talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Applied Action Research
Cormaggio's Question #1. Are people in full control of their sections?


 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: The answer to this is either "yes" or "no." If "yes," Moulton should not be editing my section. If "no," then we should go back to my neutralized version of this page (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Case_Studies&oldid=309068).
 * Moulton's Response: It occurs to me that editors are often "out of control", where the locus of control could be either an external regulating umpire or personal self-control.

Cormaggio's Question #2. Does each section constitute a "case study"?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: The answer to this should be "yes." It is however, currently "no." Each section is either a thought-experiment or a screed against a Wikipedia contributor.
 * Moulton's Response: How may an impartial observer adjudge whether a purported case is an objectively presented characterization of a cited historical event, a hypothetical thought experiment, or an ill-tempered polemic screed against another editor?

Cormaggio's Question #3. What is a case study meant to achieve?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: A case study should be a specific incident meant to illuminate a problem and then show the attempted solution to that problem and the results of that attempted solution. It allows for the evaluation of problem-reactions.
 * Moulton's Response: Would it be possible to adopt the protocols of Action Research to jointly and creatively solve specific, well-identified, well-documented, and well-presented cases?

Cormaggio's Question #4. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of having individual sections and depersonalised pages?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: A depersonalized version allows individuals to focus on the actual problems and actions taken. A personalized version allows for the examination of actual interactions. In this case, a personalized version is actually being used a vector for vengeance against contributors to the English Wikipedia.
 * Moulton's Response: Could a depersonalized version be presented as an allegory? In a personalized version presented on-wiki with only keyboarded text, how do observers detect the non-verbal affective emotional states of the participants, as normally signaled in transient facial expressions, tone of voice, and gross body language?  What is Salmon of Doubt's evidence and reasoning to support his thesis that case studies "are being used as a vector for vengeance" against other editors of the English Wikipedia?

Cormaggio's Question #5. How can this overall process of describing and analysing case studies help us learn something about Wikipedia — and perhaps ourselves?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: It cannot until such time as this project is no longer being used for vengeance by vested contributors.
 * Moulton's Response: Again, what is Salmon of Doubt's evidence and reasoning to support his thesis that the Ethics Project is "being used for vengeance by vested contributors", rather than as an appropriate vehicle for studying the problems arising on the English Wikipedia and devising best ethical practices for dealing with them? Also, who are the "vested contributors" whom Salmon of Doubt is accusing of being vengeful?

Moulton 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd much rather if both of you really engaged with each other, instead of seemingly trying to impress an impartial observer (ie me). How about firstly representing the case, identifying key events/edits/statements, and discussing these comments, and acknowledging your own perspectives? It seems to me like discussing specifics would be much more productive in identifying various practices in Wikipedia - and only on that basis will claims like "vested contributors" and "remarkable conclusions" be mutually understandable. Cormaggio talk 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My perspective is simple to state. Salmon of Doubt presents preposterous claims, unsupported by evidence or reasoning.  I am challenging him to produce the evidence and exhibit the reasoning to support his preposterous claims.  —Moulton 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to ask: how do you think action research could be of help in this conflict? My own suggestion (as I've said before) is that any approach should firstly attempt to represent the case (including different POVs), instead of trying to "solve" it. Cormaggio talk 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think action research will resolve this conflict. Moving this discussion to the pages dedicated to action research, will only replace the conflict. I don't think it is good to have one conflict exported to several parts of Wikiversity. The outside world who might be interested in Wikiversity in a positive way might back down, because of the lack of seriousness.


 * I suggest to keep this conflict out of the Colloquium. There have been a couple of topics on the Colloquium dedicated to this conflict and i think it will not be productive to continue giving attention to it. It is better to positively try to build up Wikiversity instead of to spend too much time to internal disputes.--Daanschr 08:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Action Research is a joint problem-solving approach, where all parties cooperate to solve their joint problems. If one party is antagonistic to the concept of cooperation, then it is unlikely that Action Research can be employed.  But in any event, the venue would not be in the pages of the Action Research Learning Project itself (unless students engaged in learning the subject elected to undertake such a case as a practicum exercise).  As far as I know, Salmon of Doubt has not declared himself a student of the subject.  And while I am hardly an authority on the subject, my role so far has been to explain the subject to those who wish to learn something about it.


 * For this reason, I expect that Salmon of Doubt and I will be obliged to employ his preferred method of engagement, which is an atrocious dramatic encounter method. I've never been warm to the approach adopted by Encounter Groups, as I'm not fond of the dramatic arts or playing uncharacteristic thespian roles. I barely function as a player in traditional role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, for the simple reason that I find it difficult to adopt a persona other than my own native temperament as a schmeggegy scientist who is hopelessly didactic and boring as sin. For me to play George to Salmon of Doubt's Martha in an obnoxious reprise of Virgina Woolf is about as far from my own comfortable skin as one can imagine. Nevertheless, if Geek Theater is the only method acceptable to my counterpart in this curious and asymmetrical learning exercise, I'll don the greasepaint and do my level best to play the role of my half of an atrociously gut-wrenching odd couple. —Gastrin Bombesin (Talk) 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Salmon of Doubt had recently taken a vow to discontinue reading Moulton's writings. I am chagrinned to see that he now appears to have broken his commendable vow.  What's even more curious to this reporter is that Salmon of Doubt appears to be tampering with Moulton's lessons here.  Perhaps he doesn't care for Moulton's peculiar methods of education.  —Montana Mouse (Talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Salmon, if the rules regarding signing are broken, than you could ask someone of the organization to interphere. Edit warring is not an appropriate way of solving such an issue. Moulton, why don't you want to sign your edits on this talk page?--Daanschr 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Daanschr, to the best of my knowledge, I did sign all my edits. Did someone suggest otherwise?  As to rules about signing edits, I am not aware of any applicable or enforceable rule that has been breached here, but if one exists and is mandated by local site policy (and there is a demonstration of a breach), I have no doubt the Wikiversity Custodians will raise it to everyone's attention in the most appropriate manner.    —Moulton 14:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above edit, which is signed by Gastrin Bombesin has been written by you, according to the history of this talk page. Is everything all right with you, Moulton? I can't imagine that someone actually likes to spend his time this way on the Internet. Is there something about Wikiversity, or certain users on Wikiversity that you don't like in such a way, to behave the way you do?--Daanschr 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm just dealing with an obnoxiously vexatious litigant. No big deal.  Have you taken a minute to research the character of Gastrin Bombesin?  That's one of my alter egos whom I occasionally invoke to demonstrate the affective state of dyspepsia which arises from time to time when dealing with a particularly vexatious character.  —Moulton 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you expect to engage positively with such a disdainful attitude. An action research or any other type of positive action process would only work within some bounds of mutual respect (if even to disagree profoundly). I'd ask you to please stop making put-down comments — I don't understand why you do this in a purported project about ethics. Cormaggio talk 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't mind Moulton. He's just engaging in his idiosyncratic methods of education, when dealing with resistant learners.  —Montana Mouse (Talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And how are you — Moulton — attempting to facilitate learning in this context? Cormaggio talk 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking, Cormaggio. See the next subsection, below.  —Moulton 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Facilitated Education Through Muppetry
Permit me to reproduce, verbatim, this thread from the discussion page for the Participants and Objectives of the Ethics Project...

Moulton 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask for a history of (sock)-puppetry — I was asking how your general behaviour (not limited to sock-puppetry) was facilitating learning. All I can see is an escalation of drama, which is entirely unproductive, and from which you seem to absolve yourself from all responsibility. Cormaggio talk 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have committed to learn in the Ethics Project, Cormaggio, is ethics. We have committed to learn the theory and practice of ethics. Permit me to quote for you a passage from the theory portion of that study in ethics... John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance

Perhaps there is none more esteemed among modern English-speaking Ethicists than the late John Rawls. He is especially known for his notion of the Veil of Ignorance in the Philosophy of Ethics.

The Veil of Ignorance corresponds to the notion that any Universal Principle of Ethics must be the same for all players. If one were to trade places with any other player, the same Ethical Principle must still apply. Note that Einstein used the same reasoning when he worked out the Theory of Relativity. Einstein reasoned that the Laws of Nature must be the same for all observers. If two observers trade places, they should not swap out their proposed Laws of Nature for a new set, keyed to a different vantage point. Hillel expressed the same idea in the Golden Rule. His version said, "That which is abhorrent to yourself, do not visit upon your fellow Wikipedian. That is the whole of the Ethical Law. All the rest is talk-page commentary." This precept is known as "Indifference to Role Reversal" and applies equally to Einstein's thinking, Hillel's thinking, and the Twentieth Century thinking of John Rawls. Another name for this precept is The Symmetry Principle. If there is an asymmetry present, there is something lopsided in the applicable ethics. In the presence of an asymmetry or imbalance, there will arise a restoring force that will manifest as drama (or karma) to those embedded within an unfair system. Look again at the last line of the above analytical review, Cormaggio: If there is an asymmetry present, there is something lopsided in the applicable ethics. In the presence of an asymmetry or imbalance, there will arise a restoring force that will manifest as drama (or karma) to those embedded within an unfair system. Now where, you ask, is the annoying, troublesome, and disturbing asymmetry that is generating the dramatic, karmatic restoring force?

Let me show you where the asymmetry arises...

There is your asymmetry, Cormaggio, in boldface.

Salmon of Doubt — the Ambassador to Wikiversity from the English Wikipedia's WikiClique on Intelligent Design — decloaks at the talk page of WAS 4.250 — the distinguished gentleman who initiated the Ethics Project here — and issues a terroristic kamikaze threat against Wikiversity. And WAS 4.250 thanks him for his "well-thought out comments"!

(Incidentally, I have asked WAS to resign from the Ethics Project.)

Look at the asymmetry. Salmon of Doubt comes swashbuckling into Wikiversity like some Klingon suicide bomber. And what does he care if he dies blowing the joint up with a terroristic robot? He is wearing the costume of a disposable avatar from nowhere in cyberspace. For all I know, he is connecting through an untraceable TOR node.

There's your drama, Cormaggio. There's your asymmetry and there's your drama, right out of Star Trek: The Klingons vs the Federation.

Did you flinch?

They are perplexed and struggling to find a solution.

And all Salmon of Doubt can think of is mindless violence.

But if you consult Barsoom Tork and Montana Mouse, they have a better idea...

Moulton 13:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, you have ignored my question — which was centred solely on your behaviour, and how your actions attempt to facilitate learning. Cormaggio talk 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the encyclopedia article on Cognition, Affect, and Learning (and especially the section on the role of the Bardic Arts in didactic education). —Moulton 11:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand the value of drama and stories in the educational process - but I find it very difficult to discern exactly what you mean in addressing my question. I also wonder: are you deliberately trying to create drama? (When I say "drama", I am referring to your conflict here - not to the use of sock-puppets.) Have you ever wondered about the potential negative emotional effects of creating drama - of calling someone "obnoxious", "ridiculous", etc.? Do you not feel any responsibility for any negative consequences of your behaviour? (Of course, these questions are also relevant to - and directed towards - Salmon of Doubt.) Cormaggio talk 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cases subpaged and categorized
If you look at Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies you'll see that I went ahead and created subpages where it seemed obviously separate cases. i put the category tag on them so that the pages will come up in the dynamic list. That could allow people to start cases under there user pages and tag them before they get moved to a subpage under this project. Being that there are cases directed at the same situation, I hope we can further take the "Case Studies1" and "Case Studies2" content and update the subpages as seen fit. It wasn't constructive to have all the cases on one page given the activity we have seen. That can be easily solved by the subpages and categorization. It also isn't constructive to have alternate versions about the same situation. That will probably take more time to solve to find how to make common ground between the different versions. Dzonatas 17:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for what you have done so far. But I disagree with "It also isn't constructive to have alternate versions about the same situation." In fact, it is necessary; otherwise we will have a never ending edit war. WAS 4.250 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I was clear enough when I wrote that. I should have stressed more about the need to find common ground. Dzonatas 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Content that is merely a copy of other content should be removed as redundant, and finding common ground is important. But multiple points of view are valid. Just as are multiple pictures of a person from different angles (literally different points from which to view). WAS 4.250 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Different viewpoints is fine (i.e. the elephant and blind men). I meant we had alternate versions of the same viewpoint (or so said the same). If it is the same viewpoint, then the facts can be collected together. Wikiversity supports forks; the facts may or may not be the found the same, and that reflects on being constructive or not on how its collected or spread about. I put a strikethru on it for now, so it doesn't get further mistaken. Dzonatas 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. WAS 4.250 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On Picard
With all of the discussion about Picard's alledged unhappiness with her biography, why hasen't she sent a request from her MIT email account to OTRS? Everyone is aware that if Picard complained that she dosen't support ID, she just signed the petition because it was deceptively worded, the problematic section would just disapear from her biography, never to return? Instead, she send Moulton out to conduct an Ethics inquiry and makes edits from a series of IP addresses? Dosen't pass the smell test. Picard isn't that stupid. Salmon of Doubt 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)