User talk:Schlafly

 Hello Schlafly, 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 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Roger,

I'm glad you found your way here.

Wikiversity is a collaborative learning community that occasionally pushes the boundaries of academic subjects that make some people nervous. I came here in the summer of 2008, after spending a year battling IDCab at Wikipedia. With the help of User:JWSchmidt and User:SB Johnny, a few of us launched a project on Wikimedia Ethics. We exposed a lot of corruption, most of which User:JWSchmidt has documented here and on his external blog. At the behest of one of the corrupt admins in IDCab, Jimbo came to Wikiversity and threatened to shut it down. In the process, Jimbo declared the study of Wikimedia Ethics to be "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects. There has been an uneasy relationship between Wikiversity and Wikipedia ever since. Moulton 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My brother switched to a new wiki encyclopedia, Conservapedia I do not think that the FeloniousMonk crowd can be reasoned with. They might even just ban me for talking to you. Schlafly 03:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They are one of the nastiest bunch of bullies on the site. When ArbCom smacked FM down, it looked like their days were numbered.  But power just passed down the line to his deputies, who continued the same atrocious practices he had taught them.  You are right that they cannot be reasoned with.  Nor can they be educated.  At FM's behest, Jimbo site-banned me over satirical parodies of them that I had crafted on my personal blog.  —Moulton 04:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am staying out of this. First, I am not a creationist or ID advocate, so I have no special interest in the matter. Second, whenever I edit an evolution page, they retaliate by putting nasty things into my mom's WP page. It is not worth it. I see now they have just locked my WP user page for a week. Schlafly 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are a nasty bunch. They act as if they are playing an MMPORG like Mafia Wars on Facebook.  They are corrupt to the core.  But that gives us a chance to study how corruption works in WikiCulture.  It's a fascinating study.  —Moulton 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A Classic
Here is a classic from WAS 4.250 ...

Moulton 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Content Issues
Hi Roger,

Regarding the issue of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in the content of Wikipedia articles, you wrote:

Yes, I am expressly promoting the objectives of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. Those objectives of mine have been prominently posted on my user page since the beginning of my epic sojourn here.

Fundamentally, what it's all about is the practice of PoV-pushing, which in the real world is called spin, PR, or propaganda. Joshua Zelinsky has allied himself with IDCab, a notoriously corrupt gang of thugs who, for reasons unbeknownst to me, insist on publishing their haphazard and astonishingly erratic theories of mind regarding the belief systems of total strangers whom they have never met and never conversed with.

Notice, by the way, that JZ and Rd232 took exception to your theory of mind regarding Rd232's motivation. My view is that much of the drama in WikiCulture arises from misreading the beliefs, desires, intentions, and motivations of others, and then acting as if one's haphazard and unconfirmed theories of mind about rival editors is the ground truth.

That kind of churlish hubris is a classic recipe for Greek tragedy. Moulton 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Moulton, I agree with you that faulty theory of mind causes much misunderstanding. I have made the same point on my own personal blog many times. However, I was careful not to make any assumptions about Rd232's motivations. I was merely taking exception to JoshuaZ's statement that "Edits removed here were removed by an admin I've never even talked to before." I made the comment that those edits appeared to be in response to comments by JoshuaZ on BLPN and ANI. After some discussion, Rd232 claimed that he made those edits in response to JoshuaZ's comments on BLPN, but before he read JoshuaZ's request on ANI. I accepted his explanation, and take it as a confirmation of my original point. Rd232 was not acting independently, but on a communication from JoshuaZ against you. I know nothing about his motivations beyond that.
 * I did say that JoshuaZ was on the warpath against Moulton, but I did not present any assumptions for why he was. I let him give his own explanation. I have argued with JoshuaZ on WP before, so I do know more about him, but I forget the details. Schlafly 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath against me and anyone else who dares to question the authority of the allied editors of IDCab &mdash; or their remnants since the departures of Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk / Odd nature / Centaur of attention), Bob Stevens (Filll), ConfuciusOrnis, and perhaps a few others.


 * Here is what I wrote previously on that:




 * Moulton 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The subpage "/David Berlinski" has been deleted and suppressed at the request of person due to its containing personal information 2012111110003352 — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)