Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Sue Gardner

Statement of Support
I'm commenting here because Jimmy mentioned my name, and I got a few e-mails asking whether I'm supporting him. So I want to publicly say yes, I do.

There's a lot of talk on this page about whether Jimmy has the authority on Wikiversity to do what he did – the deleting and desysopping. With respect, I think that's a red herring. I support Jimmy because I think his main message is correct – and I am becoming a bit worried it may be starting to get lost in this authority conversation.

What Jimmy is saying is that he believes destructive trolling is happening on Wikiversity, and that the community here needs to figure out how to better protect itself and its work. He says that it's important for a community to be able to clearly define its mission, rather than to have a fully laissez-faire attitude. I completely agree with that – if you can't define what you're doing in a way that excludes destructive nonsense, you have a serious problem.

This is the second time that I'm aware of, in which Wikiversity has been hijacked by nonsense and unable to protect itself. That is bad, and Jimmy saying so is, IMO, the right thing to do.

Jimmy's track record speaks for itself, and I trust his judgment on these issues. If I thought he was wrong I would say so, but I don't: I think he's absolutely correct. Sue Gardner 05:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input! "Red herring" or not, with respect, we are just not used to this kind of behavior here. Infinite blocks and desysoping a Custodian is not a good way of discussion, IMHO. On the other side I am pretty sure that despite his methods Mr. Wales acted in a good fate to protect integrity of WikiMedia projects (including WV itself). As the first step of a productive discussion we could look at No shrines for vandals, Deletion policy and Original research. Some changes were already made by AFriedman. I mean especially people from WMF, since according to their opinion the policies are not strong enough. Now is the time for some productive discussion and adjustments. Regards,  --Gbaor 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity was supposed to be a place that respected academic discourse, academic freedom, and academic values. But now we hear the word "troll" being flung about like never before.  I respectfully suggest that this form of argument &mdash; really more a scheme for argument blocking than anything else &mdash; has no place here.  Jon Awbrey 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I respect and understand Jimmy's desire to protect Wikiversity. I respect anyone with a desire to protect Wikiversity. Everyone has different expectations of what is necessary to protect Wikiversity. I believe a clear and open dialog is the best way to understand each others expectations.
 * I understand that Jimmy believes that destructive trolling is happening on Wikiversity and that the community needs to figure out how to better protect itself and its work. Wikiversity deals with vandalism all the time, without Jimmy stepping in. As a member of the Wikiversity community I believe Wikiversity does not have a problem dealing with its problems. I believe some people in the community feel as though Wikiversity needs to better protect itself and its work from Jimmy. I believe this due to the specific works that Jimmy is concerned with. Wikipedia defines troll as someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response. I hope Jimmy and others from the board can understand that the Wikiversity community doesn't see how this particular work is inflammatory and how the the primary intent is to provoke other users into an emotional response.
 * Also are topics that have the potential to inflame and provoke emotional responses outside of Wikiversity's scope now? Does this mean a topic like "Why the holocaust never happened" is outside Wikiversity's scope now? What about cases where the Wikiversity community doesn't agree that a topic is inflammatory or intended to provoke emotional responses? What if community consensus is that projects that could inflame or provoke emotional responses are within project scope? I think the concern here is that Jimmy or someone else from the board may decided to ignore community consensus. This is a concern for both individuals as well as Universities that may be planning to contribute to Wikiversity.
 * With respect, I believe that most people are concerned that Jimmy is the one hijacking Wikiversity by ignoring Wikiversity process, and that has caused Jimmy to have a poor track record among Wikiversity participants. I believe in addition to wanting some answers about this particular work people want to know will community consensus be respected and can any decision by the Wikiversity community undo any actions by Jimmy? I believe the impression from the community is that the answer is if the community attempts to come to a consensus that does not favor Jimmy's decision Wikiversity will be closed, and that this will happen regardless of how strongly the Wikiversity community may disagree or for what reasons it disagrees. -- dark lama  14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that it is being subverted by some as a place to get back at Wikipedia for not giving them what they want. Several very banned Wikipedia users appear to be active on this project promoting exactly the stuff that got them banned from Wikipedia. In some cases we've seen this used as a way of trying to get the same material into Wikipedia as cited content, sometimes we've seen Wikiversity links spammed on WP. If the Wikiversity community decides that it really is trying to become the research arm of Wikipedia Review then I can see why Jimbo would pull the plug. That would be a shame, there's a lot of good content here. I do think that excessive self-reference back to WP should be avoided. JzG 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is why people want to use Wikiversity really at all relevant or an issue that Wikiversity should be concerned with? Wikiversity has generally had the attitude that people get a fresh start here. I think this is pretty typical for most projects. Should it be at all surprising that some things are moved here because they are out of scope for Wikipedia? Should Wikiversity reject works for the reason that Wikipedia has rejected it? Books, dictionaries, research are all outside Wikipedia's scope and sometimes people get blocked for not being able to accept this. Why would other projects even consider blocking someone right away when a book is moved to Wikibooks, a dictionary entry is moved to Wiktionary, or original research is moved to Wikiversity? Projects have different rules and scopes. I think there are a lot of banned people from English Wikipedia that have gone on to be considered respected members of other Wikimedia projects.
 * If you have seen people trying to justify other projects as a reason to do something against Wikipedia's rules, surely Wikipedia is the place where policy needs to change? How about "What is allowed and within the scope of other projects, shall not be used as an excuse or to justify inclusion here" for a Wikipedia policy? Doesn't Wikipedia already consider wiki's unreliable sources and thus not to be used for citing content? If you think excessive self-references back to WP are inappropriate how about making that Wikipedia policy? I hope you can understand that probably the best way to deal with problems people feel steam from Wikiversity is to make rules on Wikipedia that would prevent them from being allowed on Wikipedia. I would encourage Wikipedia to remove Wikiversity citations they feel are inappropriate and block users that have come there from here to cause problems. Projects block users all the time that come from Wikipedia to do harm. Should all the other Wikimedia projects goto Wikipedia expecting Wikipedia to change its policies to project their interests? I doubt Wikipedia would respect or accept change in policy from people who normally don't contribute to Wikipedia. -- dark lama  15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 'why people want to use Wikiversity' is quite relevant. If people want to use Wikiversity for its intended purpose, genuine collaborative learning and building learning resources, then they can and should be welcomed.  But we have to be quite clear here: some people have also tried to use Wikipedia in the way that JzG has identified - a place to "get back at" Wikipedia.  That's not ok.
 * Of course there can and should be content at Wikiversity that doesn't belong at Wikipedia. The two projects are different.  But it doesn't follow that any and all content belongs at Wikiversity, that it should be a free-for-all, a haven for cranks, a haven for trolling.  Just to cite one example, a banned user from Wikipedia coming here to write a nasty "case study" of users he doesn't like at Wikipedia is not ok.  Setting up a manual and workshop on how to hoax Wikipedia is not ok.  What else?  Explanations of how to bomb government buildings are not ok.  Explanations of how to rob banks are not ok.
 * I can't write the precise policy - that's going to take a lot of serious collaborative effort, but that collaborative effort has to proceed from a basis that this is not to be a wide-open free speech forum any more than Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects are. There are ethical boundaries.
 * And, to answer your question about cross-project cooperation, I can assure you that you're mistaken. If you have a user who is banned here, and that user come to Wikipedia to try to get back at you by (for example) editing the Wikiversity entry in Wikipedia into a hatchet job, or engaging in 'griefing' on a user page, or whatever - I can assure you that the Wikipedia community, which is quite experienced at dealing with these things, would block them post haste.
 * Finally I am not unreasonable. I am going to firmly insist on some standards - not contrary to the consensus of the community but in support of genuine community.  You care about this project - you don't want it to become known as a haven for cranks and trolls.  You won't want it to be hijacked by people who - trust me - will waste as many hours of your time in pointless argumentation about nonsense as you are willing to give them.  What you want to do is set up policies (some progress has already been made in this discussion) that ensure that Wikiversity realizes it's genuine humanitarian potential without being a place that causes harm to others.  It isn't that complicated, really.--Jimbo Wales 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I can see how my question might of been misunderstood. One person cannot truly know another person's motives. Do you agree? Surely the Wikiversity community should focus on judging the work as objectively as possible? People may initially come to Wikiversity because they were angered by something. I think the Wikiversity community can help people like that find a constructive way to contribute. Wikiversity is about learning and I think its fair to say the community prefers to give people a chance to find a constructive and educational outlet for there frustration. Wikiversity is here to teach and help people learn. This may mean collaboratively helping people learn how to turn frustration into a constructive dialog or teaching experience.
 * These may seem like dumb questions: What is wrong with Wikiversity being a free-for-all for all kinds of resources? What is wrong with Wikiversity accepting the principles of free speech? These question are not intended to suggest that Wikiversity should be a place for cranks or trolls, or that Wikiversity should be freely used as a web forum. There is this idea within Wikiversity that with a little hard work and some guidance from the community even cranks and trolls can find a constructive way to benefit learning at Wikiversity. Should the Wikiversity community not be allowed to waste its time on this if it so chooses? -- dark lama  18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is very often possible to understand someone's motives quite well.
 * I don't think your question is dumb, but I do think it has an answer. Go and take a look at Encyclopedia Dramatica if you want to see how horrible things can be if you don't set ethical standards of behavior.  And think about the impact on serious learners if they show up to find the site dominated by cranks and trolls making up completely weird and useless things, and apparently serious contributors dealing with them all the time.  I think that's a pretty sad outcome.  I think we would all rather people come away from Wikiversity after each visit saying "Wow, that's an amazing place, there's such high quality stuff there.  I was having such a hard time in my statistics class until I read Exploratory factor analysis/Data analysis tutorial/PASW at Wikiversity."  This in contrast to saying "Wow, I really trusted that site but then I found out that they have such a wide-open policy of never getting rid of crackpots that their so-called physics articles were completely full of bizarre theories that no one has ever heard of and that don't really make sense."
 * Quality matters, and quality is something to be proud of.--Jimbo Wales 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it Encyclopedia Dramatica is a humor website. Not sure how a comparison with that would work. Wikiversity does intend to have some ethical and quality standards which are still works-in-progress. I think the intent is to balance having serious standards which must be followed with a supportive and relaxed atmosphere that seeks to help people and projects move in the right direction. If the community feels that people or projects are unwilling to move in the right direction than it may be time to block and delete. Do you agree that the Wikiversity community should decide when that time has come?
 * Completely understanding crank theories can be hard to do without some cranks. People may even come to understand why their theories are crank theories. Being supportive may allow visitors to come away from Wikiversity saying "Wow, so thats why people believe it is ethical to rob banks, I never understand that before."
 * Of course quality matters and is something to be proud of. You'll see no disagreement on that from me. However quality isn't something that develops overnight. Do you disapprove of attempts to help cranks turn their crank theories into quality educational works that meet some form of standard? -- dark lama  19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question, I will say that in general, of course, the community should decide when the time has come to block and delete - in accordance with policies that are sensible and mature, and I believe we are heading in that direction in this discussion. My role here is to let you know two things: first, you don't have to put up with banned trolls hijacking your project, and second, across certain lines I'm not going to allow people to use Wikiversity for disruption of other projects.
 * In answer to the second question, I think it will depend on the context. I very much believe, as is well known, in a project with both serious standards and a relaxed atmosphere.  There are many errors or odd ideas that can be tolerated for a time if they are causing no harm and a discussion is moving forward productively to bring the work around to a more suitable state.  But at the point where something is actively tweaking people or causing harm, or seems likely to embarrass the project, a more vigorous approach should be used.  Over time precedent will emerge, consensus will form, and - of course - arguments will continue forever about the boundary cases.--Jimbo Wales 10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the Wikiversity community does not put up with genuine trolls or attempts to hijack Wikiversity. Can you understand the Wikiversity community's perspective on privatemusings and his research project? I think the Wikiversity community doesn't consider privsatemusings' research project an attempt to disrupt other projects. I think the Wikiversity community doesn't even consider this work to be a boundary case. I know I certainly do not, those are the farthest thoughts from my mind. When I looked at privatemusings work I came away thinking "Wow, so privatemusings is trying to understand why people feel compelled to disrupt projects". After reading privatemusings' research project did you come away thinking "Wow, privatemusings is either trying to disrupt projects or encourage others to do so"? If so what about it gave you that impression? I really think privatemusings has something of educational worth to contribute to that topic.
 * I think this is all just an unfortunate misunderstanding. I think the Wikiversity community needs a lot of time to mature and understand on its own what the best practices are. I think on our own the privatemusings research project would of matured, whether a little or a lot is hard to say. I think what works for bigger projects doesn't really work for smaller projects. I think Wikiversity simply isn't ready for the approaches that the bigger projects take. I think these points have been brought up already. Do you agree with these points? -- dark lama  14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)