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

Scope
Two issues are becoming clearer for me:
 * 1) Scope: Whether or not the deleted material was within the project's scope. I think I need guidance from those who think it is out of scope - can you offer a generic guideline which can be used in similar cases? What line did this material cross? Can you point to relevant WMF and/or WV policy - or failing that, propose changes to policy?
 * 2) Process: Some believe that the material was of such a nature that it should be deleted on sight; others that the material was of such a nature that it warranted community discussion and action by consensus. Again, I would appreciate guidance about what is the relevant general principle here? When to act alone vs. when to consult community? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good questions. I think the Wikiversity community in general could use some guidance on this. If the Wikiversity community doesn't understand where the line is being drawn people will likely cross that line again and the Wikiversity community will likely do nothing about it again, or worse people may overreact and delete works that haven't crossed the line. I think the deleted material was within Wikiversity's scope myself. I have some questions myself with regards to scope:


 * Is social research out of scope?
 * Is social sampling out of scope?
 * Are any of these social research methods out of scope?
 * Are experiments out of scope?
 * Are observations out of scope?
 * Is ethics as a topic out of scope?
 * Is ethics as a research topic out of scope?
 * Are non-notable topics out of scope?
 * Are non-notable people, places, and things out of scope?
 * Is research on non-notable people, places, and things out of scope?
 * Is Wikipedia as a topic out of scope?
 * Is Wikipedia as a research topic out of scope?
 * Is investigating Wikipedia out of scope?
 * -- dark lama  11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the deleted material was within the scope as currently defined, which is part of the problem. Jimbo and others feel that it was clearly trolling and supportive of trolling, even though it was written in the form of a research project.  Effective trolling  manages to frustrate others while abiding by the letter of existing policy.
 * To your specific questions, I think that social research involving experimenting on groups of people, online or otherwise, or any research that would normally require review at a public institution, should not be considered until a Review Board has been set up. –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those things, per se, are necessarily out of scope. But trolling is out of scope. I do not have a magical answer for you, but I think the best way to approach this kind of question is to understand that there are no magical answers. There is no mathematical formula for the identification of trolling. But a workshop on how to disrupt Wikipedia - including a page called "planning" is just not even close. What is necessary, I think, is a policy against trolling and a willingness to say "we are going to make judgment calls and we are going to be strict about it". One of the factors, though by no means dispositive and by no means the only factor, will be to look at who is doing the writing and what their purpose is. If you have banned and sanctioned users from Wikipedia writing allegedly purely academic research on how to disrupt Wikipedia, you can bet that they are just doing what they always do - disrupting our communities to make a point.--Jimbo Wales 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glade to hear you write that none of those things are out of scope. That is a bit of a relief for me. Wikiversity has No shrines for vandals. I am afraid that even with a policy specifically about trolling that this would still have happened. I believe people did make a strict judgment call and concluded the work was not about how to disrupt Wikipedia. With that in mind should Wikiversity process be to delete works that is in the judgment of people from Wikipedia and other projects disruptive? How to deal with the differences in how people judge works? Finally, what would be required for this specific work to be undeleted and privatemusings unblocked? Is there any way that can happen? -- dark lama  16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ethical breaching experiments" is not even remotely close to a valid topic. Perhaps our views on what amounts to a "strict judgment call" may be very far apart at the moment, but we can work to close the gap.

"Improving Wikipedia quality" is a valid topic. "How to prevent 'experiments' including hoaxes and 'breaching'" is a valid topic. The point here is that there is a way to look at real issues in a positive, constructive way - and a way to simply be a troll. There is no way to get those topics deleted, and Privatemusings can contact me privately to discuss conditions for his reinstatement.--Jimbo Wales 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that our views on what the "Ethical breaching experiment" topic meant is entirely different. I think that may explain why our views on what amounts to a "strict judgment call" may appear to be very far apart at the moment. Do you consider "What motivates people to experiment with breaching and including hoaxes" or "Why do people include hoaxes and breach projects" valid topics? I believe both those topics were apart of what the work was trying to examine/explore. I believe because the work was attempting to explore several questions a more general topic name was picked. -- dark lama  17:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of those could be, in theory, valid topics.--Jimbo Wales 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am still confused. I don't understand what/where the problem is. Should Breaching experiments be deleted? What makes Breaching experiments a more acceptable topic than "Ethical breaching experiments"? I think the Wikiversity page was in my judgment trying to look at real issues in a positive and constructive way. Some people that add hoaxes or test the integrity of a system seem to believe that what they are doing is ethical. What name would you give to a topic intended to study, question, and/or understand this perspective? Would you not include "ethical" or "ethics" in the name of the topic? Is there more involved than just the choice made on what to call this topic? How was the Wikiversity page not looking at real issues? How was the Wikiversity page not constructive? How would you have covered the topic constructively? If you were researching this, what would you do differently? Would you have avoided studying, questioning, and/or understanding the perspectives of people who have added hoaxes or tested the integrity of a system? Would you have avoided interviewing people who had done these things in the past? Would you have avoided documenting what the interviewed people had to say? Would you have avoided trying to understand how people were able to succeed for a time? -- dark  lama  13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this analogy may be helpful. A topic at Wikiversity called "How to successfully and ethically rob a bank" would be bad.  A topic at Wikiversity called "Bank security and robbery prevention" would be ok.  I would say that it would be valid to have a page on "Detecting and preventing hoaxes in wikis," the primary focus of which would be to look at how such things can be stopped.  There is no more sensible argument in favor of an "ethical breaching experiment" than there is for an "ethical bank robbery" - that is to say, outside the realm of sophomoric debate.  Any project can be looked at holistically - taking into account the history of who created and contributed to it, how it was written, and why.--Jimbo Wales 14:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "ethical bank robbery" may be a good analogy. Can you see how that name may be used as a general topic name, rather than a specific topic name? Can you see how "ethical bank robbery" in the general sense can be a reference to how bank robbers may perceive there own actions and not how the author of the work perceives the bank robber's actions? Can you see how that name may be used because the author is attempting to study bank robbery from the point of view of a bank robber without actually supporting bank robbery? Is there something unethical about trying to understand a topic from someone else's point of view? I can see how trying to understand a bank robber's perspectives could be misunderstood in some contexts by others. Can you?
 * I think the problem here is how the work was written was still being developed because the wiki model exposes work-in-progress. I think unless someone does all there planning off project work-in-progress will be exposed and what people think is going on can be misunderstood. Wikiversity tries to encourage people to do there research planning on wiki so that people can contribute to the planning process, and so that all parts of the research process is as transparent as possible. This means if you were trying to do research that involves putting yourself in someone else's shoes that at first look it could look like you share the same values as the people whose shoes your trying to wear. If people happen not to like those values this could get you into trouble if the community is not willing to take the time to understand what the intent of the research is about. Does this mean some smart trolls with bad intentions may get through the cracks, sure. I'm not sure what the Wikiversity community can really do about that without assuming bad faith which is currently against Wikiversity policy. How a work is written can change, but it shouldn't need to be perfect from the start because people aren't perfect. People may also not have a lot of time on their hands to immediate address concerns. -- dark lama  15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC) -- dark  lama  15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see myself making similar research mistakes in trying to understand someone else's perspectives. Under the current circumstances I would probably not even consider using Wikiversity in fear of being blocked myself. I know I would prefer that people worked with me, provided constructive help in what my mistakes were and where I went wrong, and have people help to correct any misconceptions, rather than be blocked or have the work deleted. I guess this is part of why I am so strongly able to give the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure what mistakes exactly privatemusing made or where he went wrong here, to be able to offer advice to other people on how to avoid similar situations in the future. That is part of why I wanted to know what you would have done differently. -- dark lama  15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)