Wikiversity:Colloquium/JonAwbrey Thread

JA: What are we going to do about the illiterati among us who do not know the meanings of simple English words? For instance, "consensus", just for a timely starter. What is the duty of the English Wikiversity in this regard? Any ideas? JonAwbrey 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure has this something to do with this: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist ? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JA: That is a timely example, but the problem is widespread and serious. Moreover, I fear that the Wikipedia Movement is partly responsible for the prevailing mis-education with respect to the meanings of many critical concepts that eventually-educated people need to function as good citizens and effective scholars in the more civilized and intellectually demanding quarters of modern society, or post*modern society if you prefer. So I believe it is incumbent on those who would any brand of 'versity make to address this ever more pressing problem in generic and practical terms. JonAwbrey 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to interject, but could we raise the level of civility here? AdvThanksance. Salmon of Doubt 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JA: Interjections are permitted, but now we have two words whose meanings are currently in doubt, and I know the list is capable of almost indefinite extension, but let's not byte off more than we can chew in one or two or three sittings. JonAwbrey 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way. Do not accuse people who disagree with you about things of not knowning the meaning of simple English words. It is rude and incivil. Thank you for your compliance. Salmon of Doubt 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Any ideas?" As usual, my first impulse is to start some Wikiversity learning projects that will allow us to explore these matters. How many learning projects would we need to start in order to fully explore all of these topics? In addition to those projects, we will need another project that will be dedicated to exploration of the reality of censorship originating at Meta and directed at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JA: Laß uns rechnen : the count so far:

Censorship

 * The suppression of speech by an empowered individual. Salmon of Doubt 20:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility

 * Behavior that is conducive to positive social interactions. Salmon of Doubt 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

 * An agreement by all or substantially all of the good faith parties in interest to take or not take a proposed action. Salmon of Doubt 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

 * Honest. Salmon of Doubt 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Truth
No one has used that word so far. Salmon of Doubt 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JA: I think we will find that its meaning is implicated in the meaning of the word honest. Or maybe they implicate each other to some degree. We'll see. May be. JonAwbrey 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re*Mediate Topics
NB. The (*) above is a Kleene star. JonAwbrey 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Autonomy

 * What does the ArchiveBot have against Autonomy? JonAwbrey 02:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Independence

 * What does the ArchiveBot have against Independence? JonAwbrey 02:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty

 * What does Jon Awbrey have against the ArchiveBot? (No really, I'm curious to know where the ArchiveBot came into all this.)  The Jade Knight 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

JA: If you peruse recent history of this page, you will see that ArchiveBot has twice deleted the Autonomy and Independence subsections. At first I thought it might be because they were empty of sub-text(?), but then I thought it might be the lack of signatures beneath. But then why did it leave the Sovereignty subsection? Is the ArchiveBot evil? &mdash; or merely subtle? JonAwbrey 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ability, Behaviour, Calling, Contribution, Duty, Habit, Limitation, Tiresomeness
I don't think Wikiversity has any particular "duty" when it comes to your behavior on other projects. Nor is Wikiversity the complaints department of the wikimedian community. And you may find your ability to contribute here rather limited if you make a habit of starting sarcastically titled discussions (e.g., "Remedial English Education Programme (REEP)") on our main community discussion page. --SB_Johnny talk 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Second that! Please start a project in the main namespace instead of using Colloquium for all this stuff. Its getting tiresome. Countrymike 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - this is appalling. JonAwbrey, if you want to make a specific critique of a given practice (including use of specific language), please do so up front, and in an appropriate manner. These kinds of sarcastic "learning resources" are completely toxic. Cormaggio talk 12:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Jade Knight 12:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I am shocked by the fact that User:Mike.lifeguard has decided that he has the right to delete learning resources from Wikiversity, without discussion. I invited him to come to this page and explain his actions. He ignored my request (gee, can anyone name two other Wikiversity participants who refuse to discuss their outrageous behavior? Can anyone guess what my response will be?) User:Mike.lifeguard has claimed that a few people can get together at the Meta-wiki and decide what to delete from Wikiversity. This kind of censorship of our learning resources should be met with more speech. I support full discussion of this matter on this page for as long as it takes to make sure that User:Mike.lifeguard understands the full implications of his actions. "These kinds of sarcastic learning resources are completely toxic." <-- Personally, I think Cormaggio's attempts to limit community discussion of the behavior of User:Mike.lifeguard is "toxic". Given the nature of the provocation provided by User:Mike.lifeguard, the response by User:Jon Awbrey has been wholly appropriate. As always, any Wikiversity participant who is not interested in a particular Colloquium thread can ignore it. I don't understand why any Wikiversity participant would want to ignore an attempt to limit free speech or respond to such an attempt by further efforts to limit free speech....in this case, speech that is in essence a protest against restrictions on free speech....but then, I have lived for 50 years in a country where free speech is protected by law, so I have an obvious bias. --JWSchmidt 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with your comments about Mike.lifeguard's edit's without discussion. I disagree with your labeling of Cormaggio's comment.  I do agree that this may be an appropriate place to discuss it.  However, I do agree with Cormaggio that the manner in which this was posted here was (as I would put it), "less than ideal".  The Jade Knight 12:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course, it is the heart and soul of Wikiversity, as a project devoted to learning, to tell a new participant that since their editing is "less than ideal" they should stop subjecting us to their garbage. --JWSchmidt 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I want a pony. (I feel intellectually challenged.)  The Jade Knight 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "intellectually challenged" <-- gee, I'm bored today, let me see, I'll make fun of the struggle for free speech....and where is that book I wanted to burn the other day? Maybe destroying some Wikiversity learning resources will bring a warm and scholarly feeling to my heart..... "straw man" <-- I have an endless number of ways to say "I want a pony"....this is how I show my willingness to engage in open and scholarly discussions. --JWSchmidt 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell us when you're done intellectually challenging me with straw men. The Jade Knight 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please don't edit my text on talk pages. You can do that with your own.  The Jade Knight 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what you view as "straw men". "don't edit my text on talk pages" <-- You edited my talk page post, I just returned the favor. And since you want to start a culture of making requests of other talk page participants, please add edit summaries to your edits. --JWSchmidt 14:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find a pretty decent explanation of what a straw man is here. And I didn't edit your text; I simply had originally misplaced that image, and replaced it in front of my edit, where it should have been.  Finally, I am simply asking that you not assign to me that which is not mine.  If you want to say something, say it yourself, and don't put it in my mouth.  The Jade Knight 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not asking for your definition of "straw men". I'd like you to explain in detail what "straw men" you see at Wikiversity. "don't put it in my mouth" <-- yet you feel free to claim that "straw men" are in my mouth. Please explain why you can do it but I can't. --JWSchmidt 15:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cormaggio pointed out one, your discussion of "garbage" is another and your comments about "intellectually challenged" and "I want a pony" are also both straw men. But if you would have looked at the explanation of what a straw man is, this would have been obvious, IMO.  The Jade Knight 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * John, I wasn't aware of the context of Jon's contribution here - I was referring to the sarcastic tone of his contribution, not the actions of Mike.lifeguard (which I agree were overly heavy-handed). The sarcastic tone is what I was labelling as "toxic" - and echoes recent activity that you know I am disturbed by. It is a complete strawman to insinuate that I was acting to limit discussion and free speech. What I do want to limit is the toxic, sarcastic, aggressive culture that we're seeing more and more of these days - and which you are very much contributing to, I'm very saddened to say. Cormaggio talk 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making clear that distinction. "aggressive culture" <-- I think we need to have a careful discussion of what the correct response is for scholars when they see a pagan walk into their cathedral of learning. I grew up in an academic culture where the scholars defended the cathedral against desecration. At the same time, I welcome pagans who are not committing acts of desecration and I stand ready to collaborate with them in an exchange of experiences. This is a wiki. Wikiversity has a well-defined and WMF-approved mission. I think we must use that mission as a guide for helping us define what constitutes desecration. When I see editors at Wikiversity who I feel are working against the Wikiversity mission then I step forward to remind them what Wikiversity is. Most people read about the mission and then either adapt their behavior to the Mission or they walk away and join a different community that is more suited to their interests. A few editors sneer at the Wikiversity Mission and then the fun begins. In your view, my defense of the cathedral is too aggressive. Fine. I'd like to hear your suggestions for how to less aggressively defend Wikiversity....as long as your plan does not involve some version of "let the pagans burn down the cathedral". --JWSchmidt 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, who are the pagans, JWSchmidt? Are they anything like barbarians?  The Jade Knight 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the analogy I was using, above, a pagan is anyone from outside of a cultural tradition that holds a cathedral to have a sacred aspect which can be desecrated. The analogy is to new Wikiversity participants who arrive here and have never heard about the mission of this wiki. The other day I mentioned barbarians in the context of invaders who would attack a city such as Durrës during the period of history when the Roman Empire was falling apart. --JWSchmidt 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So desu ne… The Jade Knight 08:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As you'll all be aware, I don't consider myself part of this community, nor am I considered as such by the community as a whole (correct me if I'm wrong).

I believe my recent edits here seem heavy-handed due to a lack of communication. While there has been an extensive and wide-ranging discussion at meta about Jon's userpages across many wikis (which is why the topic is being discussed there), it has suffered from a lack of participation from dissenting voices. While the overwhelming consensus (including those users currently involved at Meta, but many elsewhere as well) is currently that the self-promotion is a problem, I have consistently tried to avoid blacklisting the domains because they do have legitimate uses. Such uses should be in the content namespaces, and incorporated in such a way so as to avoid any self-promotional effects. How that should be done is not something I feel comfortable dealing with, as I'm not part of this community. I'd urge anyone concerned about censorship in this case (which is not only incorrect but also highly insulting) to explore such reasonable alternatives to self-promotion and blacklisting (two opposite and undesirable ends of a spectrum) rather than levelling rather unhelpful accusations against fellow Wikimedians - please try to find a useful middle-ground. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Duality of Observation and Participation
JA: I'll leave it to Moulton to tell you a tale or zing you a zong about the formal duality between observation and participation in systems theory, but as a newcomer I think I will shift to the observer foot for a while. I have in the past spent months and months working on articles for the English Wikipedia, only to see it all get "terminated with x-treme prejudice", as they say in the spy novels. Younguns, of coarse, have no sympathy with that, but time grows more precious for us Olduns with every passing day, so I'm not going to invest a lot of time here if all my piety and wit gets fingered for x-ecution &mdash; maybe not 2day, maybe not 2morrow, but soon, and you know the reset. Just by way of redundancy &mdash; "Redundancy Is The Essence Of Information", as you may know or may not know &mdash; and just in case the Immortal Akashic Record (IAR) of our discussions suddenly disapparates, I may start a simulcast over at the Deathly Hollows, but only if it looks worth the candle, if only I get the time. JonAwbrey 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one that I'm aware of actually supports deleting learning content that individuals are actively working on at Wikiversity, except, perhaps, a few individuals which would like to remove particularly controversial content here, but they're in a minority. You just upset a few users with the tone of your addition here, not, I don't think, with the idea behind it.  Of course, others are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.  The Jade Knight 14:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think Jon Awbrey zings off-key, wait 'til you get an earful of my atrocious Mu-Sick-All Offalings. —Moulton 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sealed and Delivered, His Scrivener, JonAwbrey 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition By Example
Exercise for the Reader &mdash;


 * 1) Reading Part. This Post at The Wikipedia Review is my current report on the recent activities of Mike Lifeguard and other Meta-Moguls that led me to believe that maybe, just maybe, what we've got here is a failure to communicate.
 * 2) Thinking Part. How do the various elements of conduct detailed in the indicated case history illustrate the critical concepts listed above?

But hey, it's Saturday! &mdash; Answers not due till Monday morning (UTC), so enjoy your weekend! JonAwbrey 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)