Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Closure

Board discussing closure of Wikiversity
I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER. I think that my actions here are strongly supportive of the genuine community who want to do that, making it clear to them that they have very strong support for making it happen. Some may feel that Wikiversity should be a place for silly and juvenile experimentation. If people want to discuss such things, there is an entire Internet open to them - they should not hijack Wikiversity for these purposes.--Jimbo Wales 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify this point: Jimbo raised the issue above and the idea of closing the Project with the Board after initially deleting those two pages and blocking privatemusings. The topic was briefly discussed, around the time that this thread was started.  There was no support from the Board for the idea of closing the project, and I am strongly against it.
 * The concerns about Wikiversity projects that cause harm to other projects are real, and bear discussion. A stronger version of the "do no harm" and "no shrines" guidelines would exclude them. –SJ + >


 * This has been discussed and reviewed endlessly over the past year or two (since the original project was started). Wikipedia is a notable topic for research and study, and there is a fairly broad consensus that Wikiversity is a good place to do it. The board members are of course welcome to participate in this discussion: our community is open to all and all opinions are valued. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SBJ. Discussion is currently taking place here, not in private.  As you say, these discussions have been common for years.  But the 'Wikipedia Ethics' discussions have been particularly troublesome, producing more distress than enlightenment.  While a talented troll could create a perfectly valid research project that would cause many people distress, is that really what Wikiversity stands for?  [as it is, neither of the projects that caused so much frustration actually produced focused research, but what if they had?] –SJ + > 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think it's surprising that people who want to research these sorts of things have concerns about the topic (or even personal grudges), since that's probably what motivated them to do the work. I think it's far more constructive to construct a study of it than various other reactions I've seen over the years :-). The problem we had in 2008 wasn't so much the content (though some of that was a problem too), but that the original writers were either unable or unwilling to work with commentators that arrived later with a different viewpoint. The latter group also fed into the problem by using alternate usernames and conducting themselves quite badly too.
 * However, Privatemusings didn't do that, and in fact was one of those who tried (with little success) to get the parties to talk to each other in 2008. I don't think he was going to behave that way either if critics had shown up, which is why I think the block was a seriously flawed action.--SB_Johnny talk 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity has plenty of research projects. People were already discussing that the pages you deleted should just document how its done, why its done, how it can be resolved, rather than encouraging people to go out and do it. People can goto a university or school and learn about system security and how people hack into computers in order to prevent it. This should be no different if done appropriately, which Privatemusing is open to doing. One user who even admitted to you that he knows nothing about this project took it upon himself to call on you because he wasn't interested in Wikiversity process. If anything I think that user should be blocked for disrupting Wikiversity. Your discussions of closing this project will likely only encourage more people to leave and perhaps drive people to do research projects elsewhere. I think finding an appropriate way to research known problems is not juvenile of us. I think RTG's actions were juvenile. Are you aware that RTG made some inappropriate and rather juvenile changes to the pages you deleted before he or she wrote you ? -- dark lama  15:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That actually reminds me of a segment I heard on NPR on Thursday about "hacking contests" held by Russian software engineers at some university in Siberia. They are more or less endorsed by the university to help train people to build more secure systems (since if you don't know how to hack, you won't know how to defend). I'm not sure how to look up the story though. --SB_Johnny talk 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear. I don't think anyone is endorsing that Wikimedia servers be used for the purposes of training people how to hack. -- dark lama  15:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wasn't saying that. It's just that there's no harm in documenting what's been done and how, since it's already happened. --SB_Johnny talk 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the closure of Wikiversity by the Foundation. Plainly the Foundation cannot countenance any attempt by any of its projects to damage other of its projects and so damage the purpose of the Foundation itself. Jon 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe Wikiversity needs a policy along the lines of Wikipedia's "no legal threats", but wide enough to encompass similar threatening comments. On second thought perhaps it's best to let people make their threats. Observing them do so can be very educational. 87.254.92.101 15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am alarmed to see that the Board is discussing the closure of Wikiversity! Is Wayne Mackintosh still on that Board? Is Eric Moller still working on Wikieducator projects? This is not to say anything about their professionalism or actual interests in such a discussion, but it is to point out a potential conflict of interest on position alone if the Board is discussing such a thing! At the very least, I hope to see the record of such a discussion, because the mere mention of such a thing has severely dented my confidence in Wikiversity and the Foundation with it. A colleague and I are preparing to start training staff at The University of Canberra on how to participate in Wikiversity and sister projects. Just last week, we were discussing a considerable investment of time and IP around Nutrition and Health topics. Needless to say - seeing this remark from Jim will have to to be taken into account before we commit to such work. It is very disappointing :( Leighblackall 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Leigh, it's good to see you here :) I was a bit alarmed myself to see the issue raised... but the Board is not looking to close Wikiversity (see my note above, and Jimbo's comments below).  Wayne is on our advisory board, not the board of trustees, and to my knowledge has not weighed in on the subject.  Erik is no more active on Wikieducator than you as far as I know.  I don't believe Wikieducator has been part of this discussion at all, save for your concern here.  Sj 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sam, thanks for these reassurances. They go some way to addressing my concerns. I'm catching up on the discussion here, and yet to wade through the additions below. I wanted to share with people the link out to my blog post on this issue, and the subsequent discussion taking place there as well (thanks for your comments there too Sam). Sorry to fork the discussion in this way, but I didn't want to add my long post to this these threads. Regards --Leighblackall 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wales: being a big fan of OER in general and WV in particular, I have to say that the information about the "closure" hit me very hard. In fact I was writing a longer comment, but deleted it afterward to focus more on the crucial question: Sincerely, --Gbaor 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse - see below in "My similar deletion" for my primary role in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who proposed the closure of Wikiversity? Name(s) please... Who propose such a thing, should stand behind it as a person.
 * Do you want have WV closed?
 * I raised it as a possibility. I stand behind it.  I do not want to see Wikiversity closed - very far from it.  What I want to see is Wikiversity's community feeling brave enough and strong enough to simply ban trolls on sight, and ask them to take their silly projects somewhere else - they can start their own "breaching experiments" site if they want.  This project could be one of the most important and most exciting projects in the entire universe of education - and I think it can and will become that.  But not unless the Foundation and the community take the potential seriously.  If we can't take it seriously, and if we can't support this community towards positive goals, we should shut it or spin it off and let someone serious do it.--Jimbo Wales 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty! What I don't really understand, why you proposed the closure if you don't want to have it closed? At this point I also feel that I have to react to some of your comments:
 * "...Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER." - I don't think that WV should be restricted to anything. What I value above all in this site is its openness. The content of pages you deleted were questionable, but as for me, this is not a reason to delete and ban without discussion. If one just removes the planning part and keep the "documentary" part from past events, it would be much better and even interesting. Besides we are not a conventional OER, we are WV - the sister project of WP - an unconventional encyclopedia. The difference between us is the openness and several thousands of active contributors.
 * "...the community take the potential seriously." - I want to assure you that everybody here takes the potential seriously. I would like to invite you to take a "WP vacation" and stay with us a little bit more, so you can see that the community here is about.
 * "...let someone serious do it." - What do you meant by this? Any candidates already? Anyone with interest in building the site is most welcomed, but frankly the meaning of your last sentence for me is: Stick to the rules or you (WV) will be replaced. --Gbaor 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions - I didn't propose closing Wikiversity, I merely raised it as a possibility. If it turns into something we can't all be proud of, then I think we can all agree that it should be closed.
 * Second, be careful about valuing 'openness' above quality and the achievement of serious goals. Take a look at how badly trolls can upset and ruin a culture.  I absolutely support openness - in a framework of quality and thoughtfulness.
 * And finally "stick to the rules or you will be replaced" is not my meaning. "Create some thoughtful rules, get rid of the trolling, and you can achieve something great" is my meaning.--Jimbo Wales 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification! --Gbaor 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What thoughtful rules do you think Wikiversity could use to get rid of the trolls? I think some insight into specific problems that you think the Wikiversity community needs to address would be helpful. I think part if the reason you have had to come back to this project and step in again is because the community has not been able to understand and learn from the experiences in a useful way. -- dark lama  18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This discussion relates to this info from Jimbo Wales.

Sigh. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The more deletion without community discussion the more we foster the motivation to sockpuppet harmfully undetected. How to do this info and discussion of course goes on elsewhere.
 * The board discussion about closing Wikiversity (a different review topic?) - would it perhaps also be related to those in the Wikieducator camp?


 * Regarding the "board discussion about closing Wikiversity" - could you point to that discussion JT? The relations and plans there have always troubled me, and if I'm about to invest energy encouraging my Institution to work on WV, I'd like to be sure those troubles aren't going to come back and bite me again. Leighblackall 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a heading and note with link above. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am confident that Wikiversity will adopt firm policies in line with other WMF projects against trolling. The key is that this needs to be a serious, responsible, professional project, and not a haven for "breaching experiments" and attacks on Wikipedians.  Stick to serious work, and all will be fine.  It's really up to the community here to get things under control so that serious work can happen.--Jimbo Wales 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, could you or someone point to a log of the things that the Foundation consider in need of control? Sorry if this request repeats discussion history elsewhere). I was not aware that WV was seen as a haven for trolls, breaching experiments (what are they?), and attacks on Wikipedians. I admit I don't have the overview that other custodians of WV would - (I'm trying hard not to get drawn into these things so I can focus on content generation and user recruitment across Pedia, Books, Versity and News), but my experience with WV to date has been excellent by comparison say to Wikieducator. Leighblackall 05:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Breaching experiments are experiments involving breaches of social norms. While they can be instructive, they pretty much by definition cause discomfort and potentially animosity in those involved (especially those unwittingly involved), so there are inherent ethical issues in carrying them out. 87.254.92.101 09:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Leigh Blackall has blogged some further thoughts on this: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to close Wikiversity? - -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also quite disturbed by the mention of project closure. Why is the wikiversity community left out of the loop on these discussions?  We seem to only find out about issues that are of concern to wmf through rumour and off-hand comments.  There are many here who have been working hard to build an online learning community, and to form partnerships that are mutually beneficial.  Along with Leighblackall, I'm also concerned about the time I've invested in trying to promote wv within my institution.  --mikeu talk 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There weren't any discussions until the day this thread was started. So the community here was engaged as soon as the idea was proposed anywhere.  A public forum is the right place to have such a discussion, and I will keep my comments on the matter public.  I count myself among the people who have worked to build and support Wikiversity, though I was mainly involved in the founding discussions, and assure you that work that has gone into WV will not be wasted. Sj 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)