User talk:JWSchmidt/First half 2010 discussions

Note: this is an archive of old discussions. Please do not edit this page. Continue these discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt. There are other archives at User talk:JWSchmidt/Discussion archive.

Near Death Experience
Can you comment on The Near Death Experience as Possible Evidence for any Afterlife? Can you put me in touch with others who can comment here? Proxima Centauri 16:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

APPRECIATING YOUR BEAUTIFUL CREATION.
Just to express the appreciation of your beautiful setting. I am venturing into web designing for the first time. Email:- sunnykanb@gmail.com.Mobile no: 234 7030403305.

User:Trout of Doubt
I hope this diff is OK with you, but if not please let me know. It follows on from this discussion: User talk:Adambro. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

one thing at a time
please. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on "the problem"
copied from Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects, permanent link.


 * "why people on Wikipedia felt attacked" <-- in 2008 a few Wikipedians did not want it revealed how they conspired to violate Wikipedia policy. In 2010 RTG and others interpreted "ethical breaching project" to mean that it was a project designed to breach ethics. I'm not interested in dismissing anything...I'm interested in continued study of people who called a study of Wikipedia policy violations an "attack" and those who mistakenly viewed as an "attack" Privatemusings' attempt to help Wikipedia. "set an initial tone that was conducive to good faith collaborative work." <-- The learning projects that you mentioned did not set the "initial tone". Both of those project were created as a response to the actions of others...in one case a violation of Wikipedia BLP policy and in the other case it was a response to those who prefer to delete Wikiversity content rather than improve it. Both projects were open to collaboration and I certainly felt that in both cases I was able to participate in collaborative editing that was educational. These projects might no suit your learning style, but I think that is your limitation and not a sound basis for questioning the good faith efforts behind those two learning projects. The correct way to question and improve a learning project is to click "edit" and discuss your concerns with other editors. "without provoking acrimony" <-- I think we have to face facts. Some sysops become acrimonious when their actions are questioned. Some sysops don't like it when their bad blocks are questioned. Some sysops think they have the right to treat non-vandalism edits as if they were vandalism and they become acrimonious when their actions are questioned. Some sysops think they have the right to conspire off wiki to impose emergency desysop procedures when no emergency exists. Those are serious problems that I try to protect Wikiversity from. My defense of Wikiversity is not the problem, the problem is abusive sysops. --JWSchmidt 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, JWSchmidt, the problem is not abusive sysops but the lack of effective dispute resolution process that does not involve massive disruption, and that thus cannot handle sysop error. However, that's not the purpose of this resource, to resolve "the problem," but just to develop some information through study. I fear that this project is being used, to some degree, as a coat-rack for long-term dissatisfaction, which I well understand, but this is not the place to address that. The work done here, if anyone is actually going to do it instead of arguing moot or irrelevant points, may help address it, in the end, but I value knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and any strong agenda that we maintain here may easily contaminate our results and make them less valuable. Please help, and, if you have the inclination to at least watch and help keep us on track, sign up for the project. Perhaps part of the value of this project could be in developing procedures that help us to step back and step away from the blaming habits that we can so easily fall into. --Abd 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "the lack of effective dispute resolution process" <-- I don't agree. The first part of the "dispute resolution process" is clicking the "edit" button and talking to people. Abusive sysops reach first for the "rollback", "delete" and "block" buttons and conspire in secret to impose emergency desysops when no emergency exists. Until Wikiversity is protected from abusive sysops it will be impossible for this community to function as it should. --JWSchmidt 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(end of copied material)

Yes, JW, that is the first part of the process, but it is not the entire process. There is a lost performative in the passive voice you use about Wikiversity protection. Who or what is to protect Wikiversity from (allegedly) abusive sysops or other disruptive users? How? You have it backwards, in fact. I don't blame you, your view is common. "The problem is those guys." And the implied solution is to get rid of them. But, JW, that is exactly how those guys think! I am, of course, most familiar with Wikipedia, which has gone much further down a blind alley, and which is a great demonstration of how blaming and banning doesn't work in the end. What works is known, and the social technology exists, and it would be foolish for Wikiversity to not take advantage of what is known about real dispute resolution process. As it exists on Wikipedia, it has been misunderstood. The purpose of DR is to resolve disputes, which means that they cease to exist, and not because one side has buried the other, but because consensus was found. Often, when I raise this, the red herring of absolute consensus is raised. It is technically enough if a majority of a community supports a decision, provided that it has been widely considered. Short of that, which is the norm, it is routine to require supermajority, and absolute consensus is desirable, not an absolute requirement.

If real DR process is set up, the majority of disputes will be resolved, I predict it. Some won't be, and there needs to be, then, a fallback, if we assume that some decision must be made. There are classic solutions that work. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. There are innovative tweaks that might be effective that would cost nothing to implement, but we first need to


 * Agree on the value of consensus as a goal.
 * Establish small-scale facilitation of consensus process. This means that if two editors are in conflict and cannot resolve it themselves, they are guided by an experienced editor who have the necessary knowledge and skills. This process should be readily available and easily accessible, and should be required before process involving more editors begins. This means setting up policy pages covering dispute resolution, and setting up a category of editors skilled at this who are willing to take the time.
 * Dispute resolution must be separated from decision process. Decisions may need to be made, sometimes immediately. Typically, any community has officers who are empowered to make ad-hoc decisions, under their own discretion, as needed. These officers do not make law, and they do not convict, i.e., assess blame, and, especially, they do not punish. The wiki adhocracy generally assigns decisions in case of conflict to a "closer" of a discussion, presumably neutral. It's quite efficient, but also it breaks down if it does not connect to a larger structure that can with relative efficiency correct the errors of closers (and administrators).
 * Develop large-scale consensus process, covering the entire community, that is more efficient than the mass discussions that afflict even Wikiversity with its relatively small user base. It would not be difficult, not in itself. It becomes difficult because many have become attached to the mass process, which is easier to manipulate for some, and which is simply knee-jerk familiar to others, those who were seriously frustrated having already left.
 * Develop high-level decision process. Wikipedia has ArbComm, and, as a result, Jimbo has agreed to not overrule ArbComm decisions, and he's respected that even when he clearly disagreed. There are better ways to do it than ArbComm, which was, after all, developed by Jimbo. Wikiversity could pioneer this, but that's beyond the scope of our immediate discussion.

As to your last response, you seem to have overlooked something. You describe "abusive sysops" who act and conspire, as making it impossible for the "community to function as it should." There is nothing that can prevent the community from functioning, fully and effectively, if it decides it wants to do so. The existence of abusive sysops can only affect the community if it only connects on-wiki, and that the community restricts itself to this is the core of the problem, and unless a wiki has been set up to rigorously function in certain ways -- and it has never been done to my knowledge -- there will always be participation bias, typically and especially "founder bias," of all things. Imagine a University where people never talk to each other outside of class, where organizing a strike or massively supported petition, if it were needed, for example, could not be done because it would be repressed. "Disruption not allowed. The University is not a social club." w:WP:Esperanza was crushed. Ever wonder why?

This set of sysops you call abusive have their own vision of the value and purpose of the project, and they act together to that end. Obviously, you disagree with them, and specifically with the actions of one (or more). So you have a dispute. How can this dispute be resolved so that consensus is found? Often, when situations get as bad as they have on WP and to a lesser extent here, those who have not fled yet still believe that "the other side" is intransigent and that consensus is impossible. And, of course, the other side thinks the same. This is nothing that a skilled facilitator would not know how to approach.

If there is good DR process, the truly intransigent will become visible, I guarantee it, and these are the ones that the community (or management, if it's different from the community) will deal with, through protective action. I hope I've made my position more clear. --Abd 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Toast either way. With or without jam? Coffee or tea?
Eh? Even though you've been here since 2005, if you are right, you'll be toast. If you are wrong, you'll be toast. Basically, if anyone is paying attention, you'll be toast. It's looking like that's what you want. True? With or without jam? Coffee or tea? --Abd 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron
Just came across this - thought it might be of interest. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete
I Deleted Browse --Qyesq 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Qyesq

Synthetic cells
Any interest in making a 5-10 min audi podcast on this reasearch ?

Sfan00 IMG 11:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea was a general podcast, that could be listened to by other Wikimedians, (although bear in mind they might not be bio sciences graduates). Wikinews has recently started to make Audio Wikinews again, and I felt that a complex topic like the synthetic cells idea needed a longer specialist report.

As well as covering the actual research, a podcast would need to consider the previous research and present a balanced view on some of the ethical issues..

Way back I came up with a name for a Science Podcast called 'Sunosi' on a different wiki.. I've got no objections to someone using that name to do a podcats on a science related theme.

The objective here though is an interesting (hopefully topical) documentary, as opposed to an 'audio-abstract' or lecture talk..

The other hope is that by getting one podcast it will get some interest for other people making them :)

In terms of practical production, I'd considered using this as a Theme for Sunosi - http://incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/index.html?keywords=Eyes+Gone+Wrong

Sfan00 IMG 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Virus research
Given your bio-sciences background - I thought this might be of interest:

http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2010/05/breakthrough-cure-for-ebola.html

Sfan00 IMG 15:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello
JWSchmidt wrote:
 * I read some of your blog and was provoked to ask how you think we can actually achieve a reasonably good fundamental understanding of the universe and our place in it. Our brains are available tools for generating beliefs about the nature of reality, but I'm a skeptic about the prospects for any naked brain study of the world leading to beliefs that are well-founded. I say "naked brain" in the same way I would discuss "naked eye astronomy": we gain greater understanding of astronomy by inventing and using new tools (like telescopes) rather than relying only on naked eye observations. Thinking and philosophizing and reaching fundamental conclusions on the basis of "naked brain" observations seems as unlikely to reveal the true nature of the universe as trying to understand the nature of galaxies by looking up at the stars with our naked eyes. Are there any good reasons to believe that pre-scientific philosophical traditions (which rely on "naked brain" observations) can provide us with a coherent and meaningful narrative about the universe, our place in it and how we can have a degree of certainty about the validity of our beliefs? --JWSchmidt 02:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a look at your textbook on consciousness, that was you wasn't it in collaboration with someone else on wikibooks? (just by memory). JWSchmidt, I don't think we can come to "a reasonably good understanding of the universe and our place in it". My weblog is just an active meditation on different spiritual traditions and an attempt to grasp the different themes of nonduality that are collapsed into one by different textual traditions. I like the story-telling aspect of spirituality, myth and folklore. I hold that certainty is a possibility about precious little in the human condition. I have a love for the sciences but they are just human constructions. I hold that beliefs are less important than the value of their function which is to give a sense of purpose.B9hummingbirdhoverin'æ•ω•ॐ 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt, I really believe in open discourse and open access of information and learning resources to all peoples. I noticed this for the first time just before: Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010. I have been banned from editing Wikipedia and I truly hold that my ban is unjust and unfounded but you can't avail against a bullying mob and there is no current forum of redress and impartial investigation on Wikipedia. I am somewhat heartbroken that I perceive that these projects are being shanghaied by cohorts of politically active non-editors. By non-editors I mean Wikipedians who frequent administration noticeboards and make assertions as to the quality of the contributions of other editors when they provide no citations and rarely qualitatively improve articles. B9hummingbirdhoverin'æ•ω•ॐ 06:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * B9HB, Wikiversity is a freer and more open environment than Wikipedia, and it is only occasionally afflicted by Wikipedians coming here and importing disputes that really belong on Wikipedia, if anywhere. Difficulties here arise when students and teachers here start to set up resources to cover wikis or Wikipedia, so, politically, we need to be careful about that. If a class on "mob rule" is started in a university, when there are mobs marching around outside carrying pitchforks and screaming, it can attract the mob to the campus. There are practical limits to academic freedom, and timing. I understand your heartbreak, but the Wikipedia problem is really a complex governance problem, and Wikipedia was allowed to become "too large to change," except through very slow and inefficient processes, without good governance being set up. Almost everyone with deep knowledge of the subject agrees, and probably Jimbo does as well. Feel free to develop educational resources here, and, sometimes, work here may end up back at Wikipedia, if it meets the stricter Wikipedia "encyclopedic" standards. Quality will out, trust that. Give it time. Wikipedia bans can be undone, and good work on other Wikimedia projects can be a powerful argument for relaxing bans. This is not a comment at all on the justice of your ban, but unjust or at least unnecessary bans are common on Wikipedia, for structural reasons. Don't take it personally, though there may be some personal lessons in it for you! --Abd 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Eukaryotic gene example

 * History imported and merged. By the way, he satisfied GFDL requirements by linking in the edit summary, so an import and merge was not technically needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw that you put in your edit summary: "(endangered resource at Wikipedia, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic_gene_example)" This covers the GFDL requirement when not importing. Many people forget to do this, even those who are well established users. You, however, preserved the copyright information, so keep up the good work. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory material on your talk page and special archives.
JWS, I'm going to ask you to please remove material belaboring past problems instead of moving ahead, where the material may be considered uncivil. Putting old "silly nonsense" in your ordinary archive without such a label is what I'd expect of a normal, collaborative editor, and especially of a sysop, which you were and might again be. It should be possible to easily review old discussions, and the only thing better than a single archive or set of archives (generally by date) for that is organized material, but organized by real topic, not by uncivil judgment.

While you may delete material from your Talk page, I would not recommend it for any editor who might be expected to hold themselves to higher standards than the norm, and I'm hoping that your temporary loss of sysop tools is just that, temporary. Please conduct yourself as if you were a sysop, and you might be quite likely to get the tools back quickly.

Moving material to pages with abusive titles is not acceptable, and I considered moving the pages myself, but decided it was better to allow you to handle it rather than having it imposed on you without your cooperation.

I'd urge you to reframe the unfortunate history, both as to March of this year and prior events. There was a conflict. We won, so to speak, if you look at the overall effect and results, but the damage from the conflict will persist for a time, and hasty reconstruction could lead to later collapse. We need to proceed and try to avoid a repetition of what caused problems before, without compromising our mission. There are many ways to approach this, but it will take patience and careful work. Hasty action could simply cause what happened before to repeat. Just not with the same faces.

Because we won, it is incumbent upon us to take the stance of winners, generous and considerate of those who held different positions, and not the stance of bitter losers, or those who would retaliate or blame.

Please return to civil cooperation with the whole community, which ultimately includes editors at other WikiMedia projects. We need not allow small groups of editors to damage our academic freedom, but we also need keep away from gratuitous and ill-considered offense. Please be a part of the solution. If not, well, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Thanks for all your past service building Wikiversity, it's very much appreciated, and even thanks for standing up for academic freedom, that was important too. But there comes a day to stop fighting the Revolution and start building the new and inclusive society. --Abd 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, Abd, many people here believe that a user talk page is something that is theirs and they have the right to use as they wish. Except for rewriting what people say (thus attributing false statements to them), a person complaining, being upset, etc, is giving a lot of leniency if done on their own user talk page. You don't have to look, no one does. JWS already knows the above and knows the appearances (good or bad) that it gives. JWS, for instance, has said a lot of negative stuff about me but I would think it inappropriate to use it against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is generally true for ordinary users, however, custodians are held to higher standards. If JWS wishes to remain an ordinary editor, fine. Or maybe not fine. It depends on other factors. I'll tell you that, on Wikipedia, a user archive named the way he named the archive here would quite likely see MfD, and would likely succeed or the page would be moved to a less abusive name. I've seen user sub pages from admins which were grossly inappropriate, but that's another problem, a political one. That JWS has the right to maintain certain material doesn't make it wise nor does it mean it's useful for the community. I do agree with maintaining wide latitude for editors on their user pages, in general. The advice above is really more about suggestions for moving forward than anything else. --Abd 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)