Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments

Related links
This community review has attracted wider public comment, including:
 * Wikipedia Review (forum thread, 2010-03-13)
 * Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to close Wikiversity? (leighblackall.blogspot.com, 2010-03-14)
 * Wikiversity controversy (Wikipedia Signpost, 2010-03-15)
 * foundation-l Wikiversity (mailing list thread, 2010-03-17)
 * wikiversity-l (mailing list threads, 2010-03-19)
 * Meta:Talk:Wikiversity/Problems (meta discussion, 2010-03-20)
 * Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag (meta rfc, 2010-03-25)
 * Wikiversity: When Breaching Experiments Attack (Wikipedia Review, Blog post, 2010-04-06)
 * Commons deletions (Wikipedia Signpost, 2010-05-10)

Wikimedia Ethics
Why does the resource Wikimedia Ethics/Ethics on Wikipedia and the Internet appear as a subfield of Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments? Are there signs that the whole area has been approached with careful thinking? RTG 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "subfield", but both pages are part of the same project. You might want to ask on Talk:Wikimedia Ethics, as this really isn't an issue for this discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WMF view of WV
It is becoming clearer that there is a broader agenda here that is being pursued by the WMF in relation to WV. Jimbo Wales is drawing a line in the sand with regard to speedy deletion of material considered to be trolling as a first step - presumably there are subsequent steps in mind too? Could we please get access to full picture of the WMF board's view of WV - what it likes and what it doesn't? What does the WMF want done differently on WV? Where are the relevant minutes or information? Also note that the questions raised about the WMF relationship with WikiEducator at this stage are also not yet addressed. What's really going on here - can we please get some transparency? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only detailed discussion I have seen about what WV should be or become has been here, on this wiki (and recently on this page). There is no particular WMF view of WV - though recently I have heard a number of Wikipedians suggest that trolls are more welcome here than elsewhere.  (It's not clear to me that this is true, but some of the discussions about the deleted project are flavored by those thoughts.) I think the current concerns would be resolved by developing ways to
 * review research projects that would cause trouble for other groups or projects online, or that might hurt individuals through the course of research
 * review any WV projects that might be veiled attempts to continue an ongoing campaign of wiki politics (forum-shopping a grudge, targetting a user one has disagreed with on another project by using them as a case study for 'research', exploring failure modes of other projects)
 * focus WV's scope and mission
 * –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And to add to this, there is absolutely no connection to anything having anything at all to do with WikiEducator. There is nothing to be transparent about in this regard, because there is nothing to it.  I'm only vaguely aware of WikiEducator, to be honest, and certainly unaware of why anyone here should be hostile or worried about them.
 * My goal here does not extend beyond what I have said, and SJ sums it up well.--Jimbo Wales 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these clarifications and your inputs both Sj and Jimbo - I think we're getting a clearer picture of what the WMF wants from WV through this conversation. I think Sj's 3 action suggestions offer positive ways forward. However, I am also a bit skeptical - i.e., the "concern" could be a storm in a tea-cup. By this I mean that my impression is that inappropriate content is a rarity on WV - e.g., besides some Moulton's WV trolling/sockpuppeting contributions some time back and the current breaching experiment about how to content contributed by privatemusings are there other existing materials that you are aware of that are of particular concern? Darklama and I recently organised known research projects into - so that could be one way to take a closer look with regard to original research. Overall, though, original research overall is very rare on WV - almost all of the content is Learning resources. We could probably do with a quality system, but to be honest for WV it is still early days and to date I've largely taken the view that some content (even if low quality) is better than no content. Jtneill
 * I agree with you, the current needs seem to be breadth of material and good models for learning resources, not high quality across the board. And as far as I can tell the issue of original research that may cause harm is not an endemic problem; but it has been around for a long time and deserves swift attention.   –SJ + >

Maybe the project is now in the processing of maturing to a next stage of tightening the scope. But in my day to day life with fellow academics at a university the real battle for me is encouraging sharing and contributing of educational and research materials. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the greatest battle I encounter as well. Brion and I took part in a discussion of how to improve OER search (for all internet users), where the implication of the invitation was that Wikipedia should be part of that search; but we raised the idea of hosting and categorizing a more comprehensive collection of course materials on Wikiversity.  The attendees said that getting educators to find time to share was the difficult first step... and that licensing uncertainties and the awkwardness of simply 'uploading a directory of files' here and walking away would be the prime barrier to using Wikiversity. –SJ + > 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first 2 of the 3 points that Sj suggests (to which Jimbo seems to agree are good suggestions) aren't they in fact what I think most people here are arguing for, and what Jimbo did not?


 * review research projects that would cause trouble for other groups or projects online, or that might hurt individuals through the course of research
 * review any WV projects that might be veiled attempts to continue an ongoing campaign of wiki politics (forum-shopping a grudge, targetting a user one has disagreed with on another project by using them as a case study for 'research', exploring failure modes of other projects)


 * I don't think we can know in advance if a project is goingto come into question, but an early suggestion by Sj may be equally helpful.. that research projects must set out a review panel at the outset of the project (or very soon after describing the project). Obviously deleting a page on the basis of its description is not fair (obvious to most people here it now seems), and that instead, a questionable project ought to be challenged through discussion, and asked to form an acceptable review board before proceeding. Acceptable would in this case probably require someone from the sister project being affected... --Leighblackall 06:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Detecting and preventing hoaxes in wikis
I created a page based on idea of Jimbo. While the questions about the initial deletions and appropriateness of those projects is not solved with this particular page, it is a way to try to achieve some kind of consensus. While the "WMF side", if I can call you like this, strongly oppose the idea of the deleted pages in question, others from the "WV side" (including myself) feel that there was some kind of value in there. My personal opinion is that while the planning part was very much on the border what I can accept, the documentation of the past events is something that we can learn from. So let's see what we can do with the new page... I hope you have no problems with the title Jimbo? :) ( <- This was a joke trying to lift the heavy atmosphere from this page.) --Gbaor 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think this is a very positive step forward, and I hope will be a major milestone in rethinking editorial policy to protect Wikiversity from abuses.--Jimbo Wales 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick note from Cormaggio
Wikiversity was set up to do two things: produce learning materials, and support learning/research activities and communities. The second question was always more vaguely defined, but was always the more interesting question for me. The English Wikiversity's problems have stemmed from an uncertainty about what a legitimate learning/research activity would be, and a consequent uncertainty in Wikiversity's scope as a project. Dealing with the question of what someone is free to learn in Wikiversity is the useful course of action to take here; rather than talk of closing the project. Unfortunately, due to imminent submission of my thesis, I have no time to give this for the next two weeks, and I am only partially up to speed on what has been happening of late, but I will get back to the discussion thereafter. However, just to lend my support to proposals above about clarifying Wikiversity's scope, and its policies on original research - to which I'd also add Scholarly ethics (no relation of the originally offending pages). Was there no specific workspace created on (something like) 'legitimate learning projects' in the aftermath of the Moulton/JWS drama? Cormaggio talk 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact best solution, but in many cases, reference to some external standards can be very helpful. For example, I might suggest that a much higher level of scrutiny be given to "producing learning materials, and supporting learning/research activities and communities" when there exists no known formal or informal equivalent commonly taught at schools and universities.  This is not directly a restriction of scope in and of itself, but a useful tool for raising sensitivity.  "How to rob a bank" isn't normally taught in community colleges or universities, but "Bank security" is taught at least informally (i.e. not in a degree program but professionally taught) for example here.
 * Other sources of guidance will be the myriad of policies at universities on research involving human subjects, which will have useful and well-tested language barring projects which will disrupt people's work without their consent.
 * Finally, I think it worthwhile to note that as Wikiversity grows, it will attract its own homegrown trolls, who will create projects not just to annoy Wikipedians, but to annoy and embarrass people here.--Jimbo Wales 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'll have trolls as long as we keep in mind the basic worth and dignity of human beings. Our processes are perfectly functional, and individuals who choose to disrupt our environment are handled quickly and fairly. Geoff Plourde 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Jimmy's advocacy of a "tool for raising sensitivity". An example would be WP's development of its BLP policy in the wake of related problems - a policy which does not proclude such articles being written, but holds them to particularly intense standards. I don't think Wikiversity has "perfectly functional" processes, since I think it is still not clear what a legitimate learning/research project on Wikiversity is ("legitimate" meaning authorised by project scope and subject to validation by the community). Cormaggio talk 07:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be morelike the whole Wikiversity issue to set research and scope issues. So after something is prepared in here, it should move in some form to Wikiversity Beta for further discussion.--Juan de Vojníkov 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Juan. Ideally, the multilingual community would be involved from an early stage - i.e. now. :-) Cormaggio talk 07:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am unclear about the relation of Wikiversity Beta original research guidelines and Wikiversity original research guidelines - e.g., Beta covers ethics, but English Wikiversity doesn't: Original research - Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En. Are these separate policies with separate jurisdictions or should en.wikiversity also be following betawikiversity/en policies? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea was always to develop multilingual guidelines on research - this was actually one of the conditions of Wikiversity's original setting up. Each language can develop its own variations of course - but it is probably necessary to set some major principles in place centrally. For example, what of NPOV? What of ethics? Without having looked at these two links in detail, relying more on memory, I think Beta's policies are more advanced, since that's where most of the work took place (thanks mainly to Xenon and JWSchmidt). Cormaggio talk 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked again at Beta's research guidelines, I think they're pretty good and should mostly suffice. A few tweaks may be necessary, and a few old edits are still pending; there is also some useful discussion on talk page. The main question, I think, is around the review boad - how it would be set up and managed, or even whether it is a viable idea. So, some good work from which to build, applying recent experience. Cormaggio talk 07:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an occasional contributor
I have not seen the original (now deleted) pages. I have no idea how appropriate the research project was or was not. And I won't be able to weigh in on that now; I'd be trying to analyse something in complete reliance on the not so disinterested interpretations of others. But I can weigh in on one thing.

The problem with intervention from "on high", however well intentioned, is that it undermines the very community cohesion and self-determination that the project needs to have in order to defend itself against trolls, vandals, inappropriate research, etc.

Wikiversity is still in its infancy, in comparison with Wikipedia, and justifiably so, as it is a much newer project. When it matures, it will be amazing in ways we cannot begin to imagine now, just as the crazy success of Wikipedia today was unimaginable to its proposers back in 2001. Let's not talk any more about closures, even as a threat lurking in the background. Let's figure out how to give the community the tools it needs to get from here to that crazy success. Thanks for reading, -- Απεργός 05:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your diagnosis. The problem is not that people here are not well-intentioned, etc., but that the project is still in its infancy. I don't agree, clearly, with the prognosis. A well-timed and well-discussed intervention from "on high" can be extremely useful in assisting the best members of the community feel strong enough to stand up to trolling. This is not a democracy. Every vote need not count equally, and so if you have a bunch of banned users showing up from Wikipedia and engaging in pure sophistry to hijack the project for their own ends, you can toss them out. This is how the Wikipedia community formed and became strong - we have always said that the work (building a high quality free encyclopedia for everyone) is what defines the community, not the other way around. So at various times we were able to set policy based on that notion - the end goal - rather than endlessly hoping to appease every random person who popped by with an obnoxious purpose.--Jimbo Wales 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also an only occasional contributor (as an educator, I probably should spend more time here) - while I'm not a Wiccan, the principle of the Wiccan Rede (summed up, "do what you will if it harms none") seems the obvious corollary to recent events. If applied in a more specified fashion as a policy or rule I think it could work to weed out rubbish growing on the edges without unduly limiting or restricting those here working in good faith with what they want to do. Orderinchaos 11:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "The work defines the community, not the other way round." <-- Wait a minute.   The Wikiversity Community itself, as an active learning community, is a principal goal of the project.  This is one of the defining characteristics of Wikiversity.  Wikiversity is a particularly plural society and we don't always agree on what is "good", and we don't always try to.    We don't care if there are multiple pages on the same topic representing different point of views.  I think it is rather an over-statement and over-reaction to describe a few pages of dubious content as "hijacking the project".   In the end, Wikiversity is fundamentally different from Wikipedia and it is not clear that we should grow in the same turbulent way as the online encyclopedia that everybody can edit.  Peace.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Collect
WV has established deletion procedures (RfD). Clearly JW has the ability to establish a top-down precedent (as he did) with the concomitant drama, though he might well have been advised to simply follow the extant process, with little drama ensuing at all. SBJ clearly was of the opinion that where a process exists, it ought well be followed. I thus doubt the wisdom of punishing SBJ for doing what was clearly the process in existence at the time on WV.

The issue at the heart, moreover, is whether WV is "a textbook producer" or is a "research institution." If the former, that is fine. If the latter, then (like all research institutions) it must face the fact that some of the research is going to be unpopular with someone. I find the bit about "trolls" therefore to be a distasteful tangent entirely, and not applicable to any of the contributors I have seen here. Collect 14:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WV is for "class materials" and "research". Wikibooks is the textbook producers. The distinction between "class materials" and "textbooks" seems to be blurred for some people. I agree research will be unpopular with someone. "trolls" is a poor way to establish and understand why research is unpopular with someone. If every unpopular research was dismissed as "trolling", research would likely never get anywhere in the academic world. New research is usually unpopular to begin with. -- dark lama  15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear you misapprehended the point being made. Kindly note the tenor of the comments .  Collect 18:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on Disruptive Technology
&ldquo;Next up the panel of Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Niklas Zennström (Skype, KaZaA, Joost), and Mitchell Baker (Mozilla) ponder the subject of "disruption" in relation to breaking old business models. When asked how he felt about busting the old encyclopedia model, Jimmy Wales responded, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m a bad man&rdquo; &hellip;&rdquo; &mdash; Technorati, 27 Jan 2010.

Cited by Jon Awbrey 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's statement illustrates the fact that anything we do "disturbs the universe" (Freeman Dyson) to some degree, and it's equally trite but true to say that "life is an experiment" for all of us. Jimbo thinks he's a "bad man" in the nicest possible way, I'm guessing, and Wikipedians think that it's just tough luck for anyone who doesn't like their experiments with disruptive social-technical forms.

So firing those kinds of words back and forth does very little to settle the question of when a perturbance has crossed a line too far or when a rupture has ruptured something we'd like to preserve. Life, the experiment, is just not that simple.

Which brings us back to all the years and centuries and millennia that civilizations around and before us have devoted to saying what it means to be civil. Jon Awbrey 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Research vs. Experiments
Are research and experiments both equally viable for the university? Are they of equal value to the university? As these two words have been bandied about a bit here as (from my view) equal in importance, and the whole debate has interested me, can it be said that one thing is more important than another? Why? I can think of countless research routes but few experiments. RTG 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think research and experiments are both viable for Wikiversity and are likely of equal value to Wikiversity. Saying one is more important than the other is probably not the way to go. Experiments are important for testing the validity of hypotheses or assumptions, and for learning answers to some questions. Which is heaver apples or oranges? You could learn the answer by dropping an apple and an orange, record which falls first, and repeat the experiment several times. You could also use this same experiment to test the validity of someone's theory that apples are usually heaver than oranges. If you were to do this you would be doing both an experiment and research. Research does not always involve experimentation though.
 * I think you are misunderstanding the issue of Research vs Experiment that is debated on this page though. Did you take my apples and oranges, did you suggest that my apples and oranges be taken, or did you simply observe someone take my apples and oranges and wonder why? The Research vs Experiment bit is centered around was the work research or was the work an experiment? -- dark lama  23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of policies
I actually see a broader problem here than mere scope. Wikiversity's lack of hard rules might seem good in practice, but it leaves the door open to disasters and detracts us from important resources. We need to set a firm scope as to what's just not allowed. Some good content might get caught up in the heat of things, but the imperfect order of Wikipedia is far to be preferred to this outright mayhem. If we are to become a usable resource, we must sort things out in a more efficient manner.--Ipatrol 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity is not wikipedia. If it is your opinion that the current situation is a mayhem, please take a look at the list of participants in the discussion.   Wikiversity is set out to be a place for exploration.  And it is to attract a set of participants different from, you know, wikipedia.  Wikiversiters are here to explore and discuss knowledge, ideas and theories rather than to collect hard encyclopaedic facts.  There are certain things that are obviously not allowed - e.g. vandalism, personal attacks.   I don't know what you mean by "the imperfect order of wikipedia".  The scope of Wikiversity is outlined in the project proposal.  It defeats Wikiversity's own mission to shape it into what it is not. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "this outright mayhem" (above) <-- I agree that out-of-process page deletion and blocking of Wikiversity participants is "mayhem". We need policies that prevent the deletion of pages without community discussion. We need policies that prevent the blocking of Wikiversity editors who have never violated any Wikiversity policy. We need policies that require community discussion before blocks are imposed. We need policies that exclude from participation at Wikiversity disruptive invaders from outside the project who believe that they are above the fundamental rules of a wiki-based learning community: think, discuss, edit. --JWSchmidt 15:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your view of policies is flawed. You say "We need policies that prevent the deletion of pages without community discussion". So should we never speedy delete anything which is obviously not constructive such as attack pages? You say "We need policies that prevent the blocking of Wikiversity editors who have never violated any Wikiversity policy" but that seems to fail to recognise that no policy we can ever write can cover every eventuality. Just because there isn't a policy saying something is wrong it shouldn't mean a custodian can't block someone if what they are doing isn't in the interests of the project. Also, you say "We need policies that require community discussion before blocks are imposed". So do you wish to custodians to feel they have their hands tied waiting for others to offer their opinions before acting to stop disruption to the project? Adambro 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are exaggerating the urgency of the matter. Vandals are blocked.  No question about it.  They produce nonsense like "aq34 azdlf gadg adgggfk".   On the other hand, controversial users like Private Musings doing controversial projects are rare.  If you have already let the matter sit for a considerable amount of time, I would expect that any drastic action should happen after the community has discussed it.  Adam, you seem to have some ideas of what "isn't in the interests of the project".  Great. The problem is that many others, like I, don't.  And I don't think any wikiversiters would have the same ideas.  That's why we need to discuss before we act.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 19:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * your view of policies is flawed <-- Splitting the hairs: "should we never speedy delete anything" <-- speedy deletion is fine for obvious vandalism. "attack pages" <-- I'd like to hear what you mean by "attack pages". In the past, there was a time when the Wikiversity community had some of its pages called "attack pages" by Wikipedians. There was community discussion and the community decided if those pages should be deleted or not... as I recall, all of the pages were kept, which probably upset the Wikipedians. I suspect that "attack pages" has a special meaning for Wikipedians in the same way that "troll" does. "Just because there isn't a policy saying something is wrong it shouldn't mean a custodian can't block someone if what they are doing isn't in the interests of the project" <-- this is where Wikipedia and Wikiversity differ. Unless "what they are doing" is obvious vandalism then there should be discussion and page editing before page deletion. In most cases, any problem with a page can be fixed by editing rather than deleting. Deletion is too often a crutch for people who can't be bothered to edit. If there is a problem and it isn't obvious vandalism then there should be discussion before blocking. At the very least people should be told if they are violating a policy and are in danger of being blocked. "acting to stop disruption to the project" <-- If it is a case of obvious vandalism then I trust custodians to act without discussion. For anything else, discussion should come before blocking. I certainly do not trust Wikipedians to decide what constitutes "disruption" of Wikiversity. People who reach for the ban hammer before discussion and community consensus that a policy was violated have done vast damage to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Contorversy of these two points is going round the bush at this review:- Comments from a sister project are paramount in that which concerns them, ad finitum, no discussion thereof to be entered into. If you do not want to encourage the sister sites input, you shouldn't be contributing here because the goal is to make the sisters all happy families not ostracise them, no matter how big the chip on your shoulder is. Discussion contrary to those points are of no value to this review and is forming more basis for the comments of some than anything else. I am of the view, and have been of the view for some time, that editors who dispute by labelling a large group of people unworthy based on the actions of a few, should have their entire commentary removed until such time as they are prepared to be more specific about who they are accusing and of what so that we can be clear about the whys. I call it "Accusing persons unknown" because the editors of Wikipedia who have made opinions here are very few and yet when it is brought up that they are unreasonable it appears that the whole site, more persons unknown than known, is unworthy and that involvement with Wikipedia is to be considered an instant lowering of value. That is unfair defamation of character and it is actually illegal in most parts of the world. Stop talking so much about Wikipedia - you're not making sense with it. RTG 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Does it concern wikiversité (the french wikiversity)
Hello,

There was a message on wikiversité chat asking to read and contribute, so here I am.

Does it concern wikiversité (and others non-english wikiversity) ? Because :
 * as far as I can see, wikieducator which represents a conflict of interest for some members of the board have only an english version ;
 * as far as I know, wikiversité (can't tell for others languages) have no troll problem.

I would be very disappointed to see all wikiversity disappear. So, my question is, should our peaceful and constructive french wikiversity be scared to be dropped by the WMF board ? Should we prepare for a fork, wasting time and energy that we won't be able to put in pedagogics works ?

If yes, the centralized part of WM projects – the WMF – is maybe a problem for our community.

This message wasted the time I planned to use for a course on data base systems. :(

By the way, our community reached 1000 articles this week (with [http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Coniques,_courbes_param%C3%A9tr%C3%A9es "Coniques, courbes paramétrées", an IT/math stub)!

Don't remove the wikiversité please. Psychoslave 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bonjour! I wanted to answer this earlier, just forgot :) The idea of closure came up just briefly at the beginning, and now seems that no such thing will happen. At least this is what I understood from Jimbo's and SJ's clarification. As far as I know this problem is enWV specific, but anyone is welcomed to contribute to the discussion. ...and congratulation for the milestone (or kilometer-stone in this case)! --Gbaor 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for Wikiversidade
Salut Psychoslave! Others as well,

Like Wikiversité, we at Wikiversidade (Portuguese Wikiversity) also received a call to comment here.

I and others wasted hours reading through all this material in order to figure out whether there was a threat to us as well. I am now convinced that what was a simple matter of clarifying ethical standards within a community of very reasonable people was turned into this conundrum by lack of dialogue and not the most exemplary use of power.

I am currently teaching a live course using Wikiversidade both as a virtual platform and to produce open educational resources, and working hard to convince other teachers to do the same so that someday this becomes legitimate in the Brazilian educational and cultural system.

I'm sure everyone involved is aware that there are others working for that in every WV, and that it is pretty clear how harmful it is, specially for WVs in their early stages — usually meaning developing nations, a priority of WMF's Strategic Plan — to say things like "we're discussing closing down this project".

However, I'm happy to see you're now sorting out the issues here, and the community was able to distill the best from each contribution. So I just wanted to leave this message in solidarity with Wikiversité and call attention to the negative impact that was perceived.

Best work to us all,

--Solstag 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto! I was going to comment something similar to what Solstag said when I saw concerns of someone from Wikiversité, since I'm following the work of my friend Solstag at Wikiversidade. I don't need mention names, but I'm very disappointed with some attitudes I've seen here. I wish us luck next time. --Everton137 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, I am deeply sorry for the problems and troubles experienced by genuine educators. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward
(with apologies if I'm posting in a wrong section) - I'm very glad to be unblocked!

To repeat what I just mentioned to ottava - I think the 'complete reformulation' Jimbo has stated is the condition of my unblock is probably a good idea, and following a dust settling period (maybe a week or so?) I think I'd quite like to move some of the important discussion we've had at this review over into some sub-pages of the 'ethics' area - it really seems on-topic and relavent to me.

I've asked Ottava for his thoughts on the outcomes of this review, but perhaps we could also bend the arm of a neutral steward to try and help us figure out the next steps? I think Jimbo created a rather unfortunate mess with what I feel was rather a blundering and clumsy intervention - the sooner we can get our best feet forward the better, I reckon.....

Once again - glad to be back :-) Privatemusings 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Privatemusings let me be completely clear. Your unblock is conditional on your completely and totally abandoning this project of yours. Stay very far away from it.--Jimbo Wales 05:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, by project you mean the sockpuppetry pages, right? Geoff Plourde 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave this project in suspense. It may be appropriate in the future, but it's probably not worth it right now. Geoff Plourde 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's pragmatic advice, Geoff - but I think Jimbo is being a bully here, and I think it's wrong. Jimbo recently described one of the incidents that I'm interested in examining as 'fascinating and sad', and the en community regularly reports and discusses such matters. I came here because I think it's potentially a fantastic place to unpack all the issues, put forward ideas, talk, learn, share - you know, all of those warm fuzzies that wikiversity really should be all about. Jimbo seems to me to just be asserting that's it's not allowed, because.... well... because he says so. I think that's wrong.


 * I certainly won't edit whatsoever in this area whilst this community has the chance to think about how it feels about all this, so please don't block me again - I think I'm being rather pathetic in having to say that, but you wouldn't whack a guy in pink dress anyways, right? grumble grumble........ Privatemusings 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I commend you for being wise about this. Policy discussions about this are likely to take some time, and the reformulation of policy to make clear that disruption of other communities is not ok is going to take some time.  It will be better for you to stay out of all of that, and certainly to not engage in any boundary-pushing.--Jimbo Wales 23:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest finding another area that's significantly less likely to lead to people going on the warpath. How about looking into why dispute resolution cases fail? That would be particularly helpful, and I could give you a hand since I did some work in that direction a few years ago? Geoff Plourde 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * heh... I'm not sure I'd agree that that would be a plain sailing type of project, geoff! (by the way, I also feel that there are some important, fundamental issues worth confronting in this whole mess, though I appreciate your enthusiasm to move forward) - see Colloquium for another idea I've had about what I may be up to. cheers, Privatemusings 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have to get involved in disputes to study why they are failing would you? ~ R.T.G 09:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He might well ask a similar question of you. Ottava had matters well in hand, but it appears his efforts were elided in raising the matter to JW's attention. I support JW's rights here, but not necessarily the wisdom in how this affair was handled. Collect 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

contributors to deleted page
cross posted from meta too

I've tried to keep up with the many threads relating (broadly) to the wikiversity matter, and have kinda failed (!!) - but I have seen a few people commenting to the effect that the project was clearly trolling, and perhaps either implying, or understanding, that editors blocked or banned on other wmf projects were active at wikiversity. I don't think anyone who was blocked or banned on any wmf project edited the project - here is a list of contributors;


 * 1) User:Privatemusings
 * 2) User:JWSchmidt
 * 3) User:Crochet.david.bot
 * 4) User:SB Johnny
 * 5) User:RTG
 * 6) User:Darklama
 * 7) User:Adambro
 * 8) 80.176.82.43 (I'm not sure who this is / was?)

See here for the full log. Privatemusings 01:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)