User talk:Peter Damian

 Hello Peter Damian, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --mikeu talk 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Thrilled you are here. Can you convince Milton Roe to join us, too? —Moulton 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter. Nice to see you here. Please pay no attention the madmen in front of the curtains ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sisyphus Paradox
On W-R you wrote:

You are arguing (with some Wikipedian) that experts aren't fairly supported or represented on Wikipedia. The Wikipedian replies "But look at Citizendium - that had experts and it failed". You reply that Citizendium had other problems - no Google attractor, not many actual experts, Larry etc. The Wikipedian then points out a perfectly good article that an expert had sorted out, and the expert was you

So the Sisyphus Paradox is this. The very experts who are complaining about low academic standards on Wikipedia, and the problems of editing there, are the ones who are keeping the standards as high as they are.

An example. I have often complained about Neurolinguistic Programming on Wikipedia, as being junk science disproportionately represented. I mentioned this to an academic, who looked at the introduction to the main article about it and said that it was in fact pretty neutral. I realised to my horror that the introduction was written by me. How can I complain about junk science on Wikipedia when I am one of the culprits who are, often successfully, keeping it out?

There was a similar problem with the article on Existence. I have long used this as evidence of poor standards, and foolishly mentioned this to Connolley who, apart from some minor errors, has generally cleaned it up.

Poor Connolley and poor the other writers on science and academic subjects. They are going through the labours of Sisyphus. Yet they only complain after they have successfully got the boulder up the hill. If only they had waited until the gods of the Wiki had pushed it back again.

Peter Damian Sat Feb 12, 2011, 10:14AM (UTC) From the Wikipedia article on Sisyphus:

As a punishment from the gods for his trickery, Sisyphus was made to roll a huge boulder up a steep hill, but before he could reach the top of the hill, the rock would always roll back down, forcing him to begin again. The maddening nature of the punishment was reserved for Sisyphus due to his hubristic belief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus. Somehow, we must devise a way to share our expertise without sounding like we know what we're talking about. Perhaps the Peter Falk character, Columbo, had the right idea here. We need to migrate from writing authoritative articles to crafting entertaining dramas. Wikipedians do seem to have an insatiable appetite for drama.

Moulton 12:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but no song parodies please. Peter Damian 13:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How the devil can we have a Comic Opera without song parodies?!? —Moulton 13:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!
If you decide to do more than poke about, I can use my library to get books on medieval philosophy to help with anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Such an affectionate greeting for one of the Sith from over on WR... Is that your double standard showing? Dinsdale 18:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you and why are you trolling on a new name instead of having the guts to use your real name? And Peter knows how I feel about him - I worked on a few articles of his to try and save them from being deleted and I also tried to have him unbanned. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to out me? You are certainly not AGFing by calling me a troll. Please try to AGF in the future Ottava. If you are unable to AGF, then I will take these comments to the appropriate venue for review. Some people are immune to being bullied. If anyone attempts, they will find out that I am in that set. Dinsdale 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first posts show that you have intimate knowledge of WR, the WMF, and other material which reveals this is not your only account and you aren't up to any good. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I had to look up what a 'sith' was. Presumably a not very nice person. Gentlemen, please take this elsewhere. Ottava, thanks for the welcome. Peter Damian 17:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish, though the Sith remark was tongue in cheek. Dinsdale 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that WV:CIVIL and WV:AGF apply here, and also that if anyone has a problem with someone from another (non-WV) website then they should discuss those problems there. Please don't import drama here, we have enough of our own, thank you very much. Peter, feel free to create User talk:Peter Damian/Archive and move any off-topic messages there. --mikeu talk 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Experts
So true. The problem between what is and what can be as people stress the potential of the masses yet it never amounts to anything while those who have put out stuff are ignored. JWSchmidt and some others have been discussing problems related to his concern as we try to find an identity that is more academic friendly (but probably failed). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrupt Governance
Hi Peter,

On Wikipedia Review, you wrote a few minutes ago about how Wikipedia is really run:

Peter, is it also your opinion that the above corrupt processes are undermining the ethical governance of Wikiversity, as well?

Moulton 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: Peter Damian has added this summary to the above:


 * To what extent have the corrupt governance practices of Wikipedia seeped into Meta and Wikiversity? —Moulton 12:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Exasperation?
Today on W-R, you wrote:

W-R probably isn't the place for the kind of reasoned discussion you have in mind. This place may not be either. But there are some alternatives. Do you know about Michael Bauwens and the Peer-to-Peer Foundation? There is also NetKnowledge, which has both a Wiki and a BBS forum. Would you like to explore any of those? —Moulton 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)