User talk:Darklama/JWSchmidt and policy development



Hi JWSchmidt. Following on from a recent discussion which seems related, I note that in September 2008 you added betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En to Template:Official policies. Looking at your contributions at the time, both here and on beta, I can't find any discussion in which the community decided this should be considered an official English Wikiversity policy. Could you clarify exactly what were the circumstances which prompted you to label this as an official policy? Should it still be labelled as such? Thanks. Adambro 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When Wikiversity was launched in 2006, the Foundation mandated development of research policy. During the first six months of the Wikiversity project, the on-going process of developing research policy was widely advertised to the community and related discussions were held in multiple Wikiversity community forums. Consensus for the policy was developed in the usual way, by discussion and collaborative page editing. The research policy applies to all language versions of Wikiversity. "Could you clarify exactly what were the circumstances which prompted you to label this as an official policy?" <-- The research policy became official in February 2007, as mandated by the Foundation. At a later date, I noticed that some Wikiversity community members were not aware of the research policy, so I made a link to it from the the policy template. --JWSchmidt 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your assistance with this. Adambro 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links for the Foundation mandate and the various Wikiversity community forums where the research guidelines was discussed? -- dark lama  21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two good starting points are History of Wikiversity and BetaWikiversity:Policies/En. One of the major discussions was an BetaWikiversity: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. --JWSchmidt 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Don't worry about policies and guidelines, start working on things and let the policies come in later" seems to be contrary to your claim of a Foundation mandate. Can you provide a link to where the Foundation mandate was made and what was said that you took for a Foundation mandate? Do you know if the 6 month review that the Special Projects Committee was suppose to do ever took place? I noticed the Special Projects Committee that was to oversee Wikiversity became inactive in 2007. If the SPC 6 month review took place, do you have a link to where I can read it? -- dark lama  00:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

At the moment I'm only interested in understanding your motivations and conclusions. What the Foundation staff thinks at the moment isn't part of my inquiry. Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate? 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. 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? Why did you ignore James Hare's call to work on resources and let policies come later? You say that policies were needed due to a Foundation mandate. How do you know that the proposals you put forward as policies satisfied any Foundation mandate if you unaware of any 6 month review? -- dark lama  13:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate?" <-- No. I saw: 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 developed on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negotiable 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)

You believe there was a Foundation mandate, but because you did not ask there are also no facts to back your claim of a Foundation mandate. I believe anyone can look at the email and can conclude there wasn't a Foundation mandate as well, and I believe to believe so is just as reasonable.

"When Wikiversity was launched in 2006, the Foundation mandated development of research policy."

That statement seems to suggest that you still hold the believe that the Foundation mandated development of a research policy.


 * James Hare called to let policies come later Aug 14, 2006.
 * You began making scholarly ethics policy Aug 16, 2006.
 * You began making research policy Aug 30, 2006.

Two days after his call you begin making policy, that suggests you ignored his call. -- dark lama  15:22, 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)

I'm not doubting that you did the best you could. My concern is that you made policy on your own without the community's consent or consensus. I believe some conflicts could have been avoided, if that hadn't been done. Suggesting a correlation isn't a bad faith assumption. I'd have to be assuming that you had bad intentions before I was making bad faith assumptions. Instead of answering why you ignored James Hare, you asked for evidence, and I provided the evidence that suggests you did. Now you are avoiding the question by suggesting that I'm assuming bad faith. I think a lot of people at this point would assume there must be a reason why you are avoiding the question. 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. As for me, I'll just keep asking questions. Why don't you want to answer "why did you ignore James Hare's call to let policies come later"? Do you want to avoid people understanding your motivations? Do you want people to avoid examining the reasons for turning proposals into policy? Do you want people to speculate? Do you want people to make assumptions about you? Do you care if people make assumptions? Do you care if people act on assumptions? Do you not remember your motivations? Do you not remember your reasons for turning proposals into policy? Are you unable to explain why proposals you turned into policy should be followed? -- dark lama  12:00, 9 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 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)

Sure Anthere's email and what Anthere wrote in the email are facts. However Anthere never in the email refers to their comments as a Foundation mandate which is also a fact. What you think Anthere's means in his email is an interpretation and not a fact. What you think of Anthere's email and how you interpret Anthere's email are facts about you and not facts about Anthere' email. You never asked Anthere if it was a Foundation mandate which can be an assumed fact because you responded with "No" when asked "Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate?" You don't know that Anthere's comments were a Foundation mandate is a reasonable conclusion from your answer. That the Special Projects Committee was to review Wikiversity in 6 months from its creation is also a fact that you and I seem to agree on. Another fact is you wrote that "one of the major discussion was an IRC meeting held, shortly after the deadline for completing the research policy." Wikiversity wasn't shutdown which is also a fact. I think a reasonable conclusion drawn from the fact Anthere never in the email refers to their comments as a Foundation mandate, the fact that a 6 month review of Wikiversity was to happen, your statement that discussion happened after the deadline, and the fact Wikiversity wasn't shutdown, is that there was no Foundation mandate. Please identify and explain any mistaken assumptions you think I've made.

You wrote, "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." You could of said that before when I asked why you ignored Mr Hare's email. Do you agree that Wikiversity participants have a duty to ensure that pages marked as policy accurately represent what the Wikiversity community wants? -- dark lama  21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The email from Anthere did not fall from the sky. There were months of discussions leading up to that email and following the email. 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.


 * 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)

I don't expect anyone to know what the right context is any more and this isn't about lacking trust. For me this hasn't been about who is right or wrong, but about whether what happened in the past is still good for Wikiversity today. I only asked questions about a Foundation mandate because over the last two years you appear to be suggesting that Wikiversity policies shouldn't be questioned and subjected to review because of some Foundation mandate. My questions about the Foundation mandate is only an attempt to understand your argument/reasoning. I'm interest in moving forward, but your arguments/reasoning seems to be reflecting on what happened in the past, which I think keeps Wikiversity from moving forward and I guess it seems like Wikiversity cannot move beyond that until your reflections on the past is understood by people that weren't there. Right now 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.

IRC chat logs have been published in the past when people consented like the IRC discussion that lead to using Custodian as the name for the sysop group. Using the same arguments you use today, one could say that the decisions for what is or is not mandatory were made in secret off-wiki discussions. Haven't you been a strong advocate that decisions shouldn't be made off-wiki? Did your attitude change since than, or do you not remember?

As for examples, lets use a favorite of yours. You say the block and rollback tools should only be used for obvious vandalism. Please explain why you believe the block and rollback tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism. -- dark lama  00:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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"?


 * 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)

By "what is or is not mandatory" 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. 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? 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?"

There is a game show called Jeopardy, where the answer is given and where the contestants guess the question. Your answers about rollback and blocks suggestions you were answering the questions "When should rollback be used?" and "What is the block policy?" I didn't ask those questions. I asked you to explain why rollback and blocks should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism. How is the current pages that discuss rollback and blocks important to your explanation of why rollback and block tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism? Quoting pages doesn't explain your reasons for believing rollback and block tools should continue to be only used for obvious vandalism. If you don't believe the rollback and block tools should only be used for vandalism please elaborate further. If you believe the rollback and block tools should only be used for vandalism please also elaborate further. -- dark lama  14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have described Anthere's statement, "..... guidelines should be developed, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developed 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.


 * What was "purposely decided off-wiki in secret"? I'm lost. What is "the off-wiki decision that you wrote"?


 * 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.


 * 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)

"... 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." Now you've confused me. Mandatory and mandate mean similar things. A mandate is an authoritative and official command or instruction. Mandatory means required due to an authoritative and official command or instruction. Suggesting that one is true, but not the other doesn't make sense to me. Please elaborate on what you mean.

I am referring to:

"The email from Anthere did not fall from the sky. There were months of discussions leading up to that email and following the email. 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.

...meetings held... where the need for Wikiversity research policy was discussed and chat about research guideline development"

Using your recent arguments, for months "the Foundation mandate" and the development of research guideline is what was purposely decided off-wiki in secret in the discussions/meetings that happened before and after Anthere's email.

You wrote, "I don't know why anyone would believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism." Over the past 2 years comments by you suggest that you believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism. You should be clearer about your position and what you mean in the future. -- dark lama  17:02, 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.


 * 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.


 * 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)