User:Darklama/History and observations

Ethics
Summery based on current observations thus far:


 * JWSchmidt has said that false claims can be retracted from Wikiversity.
 * JWSchmidt has said that legal protections can be exercised when false claims are published.
 * JWSchmidt has said that Researchers have an ethical obligation to not make unsupported claims.
 * JWSchmidt has said that challenge and clarification [of claims] are a normal part of the research process.
 * JWSchmidt claims to gladly respond when asked to support his "observations".
 * JWSchmidt has said that a normal part of human discourage [is] for an author to provide evidence that is thought to be needed.
 * JWSchmidt has said that other people can always ask for more evidence.

"Do you mean that you don't feel obligated to provide evidence for your observations, until you are asked to do so?" <-- No. I mean that it is a normal part of human discourse for an author to provide the evidence that is thought to be needed. Other people can always ask for more evidence. --JWSchmidt 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that my summary is correct?
 * Do you expect other people to provide more evidence than what they think is needed?
 * -- dark lama  14:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

policy
"Do you have links for the Foundation mandate and the various forums and Wikiversity projects where the research guidelines was discussed?" <-- Two good starting points are History of Wikiversity and this page about development of research policy. One of the major discussions was an IRC meeting about research, held shortly after the deadline for completing the research policy. In many cases, people who were interested in research were directed to the ongoing development of the research policy from community forums like the Colloquium by way of the research portal and related pages about research. The sitenotice and the mailing list were also used to involve the community in the process of developing research policy. What does being listed or not at "Wikiversity:Probationary custodians" have to do with anything? <-- You could ask the same thing about "Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship". Both "Wikiversity:Probationary custodians" and "Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship" are linked to from Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"seems to be contrary to your claim" <-- You can ask James to explain his email, but I don't see how his email is relevant. Not many people were interested in research and even fewer were interested in doing the work of creating research policy, particularly people with no research experience. "Can you provide a link to where the Foundation mandate was made and what was said that you took for a Foundation mandate?" <-- I already provided a links to the "mandate"; see above in this section. "..... guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules." If you want more information, I suggest that you contact Foundation staff. "Do you know if the 6 month review that the Special Projects Committee was suppose to do ever took place?" <-- That would be a good question for someone on the Foundation staff. --JWSchmidt 07:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate?" <-- No. I saw: [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/022427.html During these 6 months, guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules], which was a clear mandate from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. "Anthere and other members of the Special Projects Committee suggested in the same email discussion that NPOV should be a fundamental part of research at Wikiversity." <-- Darklama, please quote what the members of the Special Projects Committee wrote about NPOV. "What conclusions lead you to believe that the Foundation mandated a collaborative research policy, but that NPOV was not part of the Foundation mandate for collaborative research?" <-- Darklama, do you have evidence that I held such a belief? "Why did you ignore James Hare's call to work on resources and let policies come later?" <-- What evidence do you have that I ignored his "call"? "How do you know that the proposals you put forward as policies satisfied any Foundation mandate if you unaware of any 6 month review?" <-- Darklama, do you have evidence that I knew that? I simply did the best I could to do what the Board asked be done. --JWSchmidt 14:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I", "I", "I", etc. I does not equal "community". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "there are also no facts to back your claim" <-- This email is a "fact" and this statement: During these 6 months, guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules, was a clear mandate from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. "I believe to believe so is just as reasonable" <-- Darklama, I suggest that you contact Florence Nibart-Devouard and ask her if she agrees with you. "that suggests you ignored his call" <-- Only if you make a bad faith assumption. --JWSchmidt 21:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"you made policy on your own without the community's consent or consensus" <-- Darklama, please provide your favorite example of where I made policy on my own without the community's consent or consensus and then we can discuss that example. "some conflicts could have been avoided" <-- Darklama, please indicate your favorite example of such a conflict so that we can discuss it. "I provided the evidence that suggests you did." <-- It is very easy to be mistaken about one's assumptions. As a scientist I have extensive training in the identification of mistaken assumptions about what evidence can tell us. "I think a lot of people would assume the reason is due to either a guilty conscience, or because you have something to bad to hide." <-- Those are bad faith assumptions. If you wanted to assume good faith you might ask, "Are you avoiding the question?" I'm not avoiding any question. You have been asking about my reaction to a post that was made in a discussion forum almost four years ago. I have no memory of having seen that discussion forum post in 2006. I asked you for evidence that I had ignored that 2006 discussion forum post with the hope that you might direct my attention to something I wrote in 2006 about that discussion forum post. I've looked back at the Wikiversity edit history and #wikiversity-en chat logs and I suspect that I had no idea who Mr. Hare was and I simply paid more attention to Cormaggio's repeated calls for developing research guidelines. Why don't you want to answer "why did you ignore James Hare's call to let policies come later"? <-- Darklama, you have no basis for assuming that I don't want to answer that question. "Do you want to avoid people understanding your motivations?" <-- Darklama, if you are curious about my motivations then try asking a question like, "What are your motivations?" "Do you want people to avoid examining the reasons for turning proposals into policy?" <-- No. "Do you want people to speculate?" <-- Speculate about what? "Do you want people to make assumptions about you?" <-- Making assumptions about people is a normal part of human interactions. I don't wast time wanting it. "Do you care if people make assumptions?" <-- Making assumptions about people is a normal part of human interactions. I accept it as a fact that people make assumptions and I don't devote mental effort to caring about it, any more than I care that grass is green. "Do you care if people act on assumptions?" <-- I sometimes have to deal with the consequences from when people act on unwarranted assumptions. "Do you not remember your motivations?" <-- For many trivial matters, like a discussion forum post from someone I did not know four years ago, a discussion forum post that I might have read and almost instantly forgotten, for such a thing I am not likely to remember any specific motivation related to it. "Do you not remember your reasons for turning proposals into policy?" <-- What policy? "Are you unable to explain why proposals you turned into policy should be followed?" <-- No. --JWSchmidt 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "You don't know that Anthere's comments were a Foundation mandate is a reasonable conclusion from your answer." <-- The email from Anthere did not fall from the sky. There were months of discussions leading up to that email and following the email. "Please identify and explain any mistaken assumptions you think I've made." <-- The main mistake you are making is assuming that you can understand the meaning of Anthere's email without knowing the historical context of that email. If you don't trust me to correctly frame the context of the email for you then you can ask other people. I've already suggested that you contact Mr. Hare, Florence Nibart-Devouard and another obvious source of information is User:Cormaggio who worked with Florence on the Special Projects Committee. This is a perfect example of where public IRC chat logs would be useful. I have chat logs of meetings held in #wikimedia-spcomm where the need for Wikiversity research policy was discussed and chat about research guideline development from #wikiversity-en. Misguided belief that such chat is "private correspondence" cripples the ability of the Wikiversity community to be informed. "You could of said that before when I asked why you ignored Mr Hare's email." <-- I only today had the time to search for and read those old chat logs. During the first week of Wikiversity there was daily IRC chat about research as well as development of wiki pages about research. There were also many other on-going concerns that had to be dealt with and nobody could give adequate time and thought and on-wiki discussion to everything. People did the best that they could do under difficult conditions, often sacrificing their real-world commitments in order to devote time to getting Wikiversity established. "Do you agree that Wikiversity participants have a duty to ensure that pages marked as policy accurately represent what the Wikiversity community wants?" <-- Darklama, I am very skeptical about the idea that anyone can ever "ensure that pages marked as policy accurately represent what the Wikiversity community wants". Most Wikiversity community members never read policies. Policies are mainly guidance for a few people who would otherwise disrupt Wikiversity if policies did not exist. Policies are mainly tools for helping keep people on track towards the Wikiversity Mission. The important thing is that a policy supports the Wikiversity Mission and helps prevent misguided people from disrupting the Wikiversity community. Wikiversity participants have a duty to make sure that policies keep people on track towards the Wikiversity Mission. --JWSchmidt 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"you appear to be suggesting that Wikiversity policies shouldn't be questioned" <-- Policies exist as wiki pages with an edit button and a talk page. It would be absurd for anyone to suggest that policies should not be questioned. "you seem to be suggesting that only someone with historical knowledge of the context in which things happened is able to make an informed decision on whether policies like the research policy is still good for Wikiversity today" <-- Darklama, I can't imagine how it would seem to anyone that I suggested that. "one could say that the decisions for what is or is not mandatory were made in secret off-wiki discussions" <-- Darklama, what are you referring to as being "what is or is not mandatory"? "Haven't you been a strong advocate that decisions shouldn't be made off-wiki?" <-- Many decisions are made off-wiki. Wiki participants make most of their decisions about wiki participation off-wiki. Problems with off-wiki decisions can arise when decisions are purposefully made off-wiki because the people making the decisions know that what they want to do will disrupt a wiki community and would be contested were those decisions made by way of on-wiki community discussion. Such disruptive off-wiki decisions are what I object to. "Did your attitude change since than, or do you not remember?" <-- What does "since than" mean? "Please explain why you believe the block and rollback tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism" <-- The rollback tool was created as a tool for dealing with vandalism. If you want to revert something other than obvious vandalism then a reason should be provided. In the case of blocks, Wikiversity policy authorizes blocks in only a few situations, particularly: "Most frequently, blocking occurs in response to obvious and repeated vandalism." There are a few other uses for the block tool that are prescribed in policy, but for anything other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings and discussion and consensus before the block. --JWSchmidt 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "I am referring to the Foundation mandate that you wrote was discussed off-wiki and you wrote is needed to understand the context of Anthere's email" <-- Darklama, I have described Anthere's statement, "..... guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules", as constituting instructions and a mandate. I would not say that research guidelines were mandatory. I do believe that in order to support research projects at Wikiversity it is useful to have research guidelines. "One could say the off-wiki discussion of the Foundation mandate was purposely decided off-wiki in secret because people knew what they wanted to do would disrupt the natural development of the Wikiversity wiki and would be contested had that discussion been made by way of on-wiki community discussion. So why didn't you object to such a off-wiki decision?" <-- Darklama, what was "purposely decided off-wiki in secret"? What I mean is "Did your attitude about decisions being made off-wiki change since the off-wiki decision that you wrote took place and that you wrote provides the context for the Foundation mandate?" <-- Darklama, I'm lost. What is "the off-wiki decision that you wrote"? "I asked you to explain why rollback and blocks should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism." <-- Darklama, I wrote, "If you want to revert something other than obvious vandalism then a reason should be provided." If you use rollback on something that is not obvious vandalism, then people are easily confused about the reason for the reversion. To avoid such confusion, rollback should only be used for its intended purpose, reverting obvious vandalism. Darklama, I never suggested that the block tool only be used to deal with obvious vandalism. Wikiversity policy explains how the block tool should be used. As I said before (above on this page), Wikiversity policy authorizes blocks in only a few situations, particularly: "Most frequently, blocking occurs in response to obvious and repeated vandalism." There are a few other uses for the block tool that are prescribed in policy, but for anything other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings and discussion and consensus before the block. The Wikiversity community long ago established consensus for imposing blocks on vandals without the need for discussion. "How is the current pages that discuss rollback and blocks important" <-- Darklama, please specify which pages you are referring to. "Quoting pages doesn't explain your reasons for believing rollback and block tools should continue to be only used for obvious vandalism." <-- I believe that the rollback tool should only be used on obvious vandalism because that was the intended purpose of the tool and when the rollback tool is used on other edits it creates confusion about why edits have been reverted. It is best to avoid that confusion and provide an edit summary that explains a reversion if the reverted edit is not obvious vandalism. In the case of using the block tool, I don't know why anyone would believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism. --JWSchmidt 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, Wikiversity participants were given a mandate (given an authoritative and official command or instruction) by the Board to develop research guidelines. "Mandatory means required" I don't view the development of research guidelines as mandatory or required. You can be instructed to do something without being required to do it. Had there been no effort to develop research guidelines, Wikiversity might have been restricted from having research projects. "what was purposely decided off-wiki in secret" <-- You should ask people who served on the Special Projects Committee how they did their work. I believe that they held public meetings. As I recall, the times for those meeting were not good for me, but sometimes I did go the the committee's IRC chat channel and log the meetings. I doubt if any decisions made by the Special Projects Committee were made in secret. I imagine that the Special Projects Committee evaluated the Wikiversity project proposal, voted to recommend that the Wikiversity project be started, issued resolution 2006-39A (calling for the development of guidelines for research), Anthere then reported to the Board on the committee's resolution, the Board then authorized Anthere to send an email to foundation-l email discussion forum as formal notification that the Board had accepted the committee's recommendations and wanted development of guidelines for research. You would have to ask Anthere if the Board's decision to launch Wikiversity was made in secret or if it was made at a public meeting of the Board. "Over the past 2 years comments by you suggest that you believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism." <-- I don't recall there ever being a very good reason for imposing a block of a Wikiversity community member. If there is some other way to deal with a problem, then a block should not be imposed. Many vandals have been blocked, so I tend to emphasize the use of blocks for vandals. I accept the existence of Wikiversity policy which prescribes blocks for a few other purposes in addition to vandalism. Even in the case of the block of User:Centaur of attention, I argued against imposing a block, preferring to let him have his say. I don't think blocks should be used to end a discussion or a debate. For blocks other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings, discussion and community consensus for the block before a block is imposed. --JWSchmidt 00:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Did you ask anyone at the time that the "Foundation mandate" was announced or during the discussions on the research guideline that happened before and after Anthere's email, whether Wikiversity might be restricted from having research projects if no effort was made to develop a research guideline right away?" <-- Darklama, what do you mean by "right away"? a public meeting is still "secret" because the meeting wasn't held on-wiki <-- I would not call a public meeting, such as those held by the Special Projects Committee, "secret". Nor would I call this meeting secret. Darklama, is there some other type of public meeting that you think was "secret"? "Please explain why you believe that community consensus should be required before imposing a block for reasons other than obvious vandalism." <-- Wikiversity policy says, "A Wikiversity custodian is an experienced and trusted user who can protect, delete and restore pages as well as block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community consensus." I believe that policy means that a block can be imposed if a Wikiversity policy prescribes blocking in response to a certain action and the Wikiversity community decides by consensus that a block should be imposed. Many examples from other wiki websites and from the past two years of Wikiversity show that individual sysops cannot be trusted to make wise decisions about when to use the block tool. In order to protect the Wikiversity community from the disruptive actions of rogue sysops it should be the Wikiversity community that decides on blocks. "I think requiring Custodians to discuss before blocking would prevent Custodians from preventing Wikiversity from being disrupted." <-- Darklama, please provide a specific example of a block, imposed for something other than vandalism, that prevented Wikiversity from being disrupted. "Please explain why you believe proposing a policy to obtain community consensus for additional reasons to block is unacceptable to you." <-- Can you indicate a specific example? In general, I believe that the existing policy is best because the Wikiversity community needs to be protected from sysops who vastly damage Wikiversity through their misuse the block tool. As you know, since a few rogue sysops ignore existing policy, I favor strengthening the protections against misuse of the block tool by making the consensus version of the proposed blocking policy an official Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)