Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Way out

Way out?
Hi! Last evening I put together some points that (I think) summarize the opinions and wishes of nearly everybody here. Sort of "golden middle road". Here they are: What do you think? --Gbaor 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity won't facilitate any breaching experiments on Wikipeadia or any other website. Although the initial project was meant in order to make less penetrable (citation from the deleted page: "...whether or not such things [experiments] are possible, and if so, how they might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects."), but the topic itself is very controversial. As an unwanted outcome, it may attract (bad fate) people who do not want to do research, but simply vandalize Wikimedia projects under the umbrella of "research".
 * Wikiversity policies will be reviewed and approved by voting from by both sides (WMF+WP and WV) that they will be appropriately stict to stop any people with harmful intentions, but allow full academic freedom (as the crucial part of the research process)
 * The review method will be set up on WV to assess any ongoing and future research projects. This review method will be approved by both sides.
 * A few interested WP admins could enter the Probationary custodianship process and eventually become WV custodians. This should serve both as a strengthened link between the two projects and hopefully prevent incidents like this in the future
 * Privatemusings and Thekohser will be unblocked, SB Johnny will be re-sysoped
 * Mr. Wales won't use his Founder rights on WV any more without previous communication with the community
 * WV will host any type of research (primary and secondary) fulfilling the criteria which will be approved by both sides as mentioned earlier
 * Research of WP will be permitted including its criticism in order to highlight a weakness of WP, which can be eliminated as a final result of the research project


 * On the first point, a stronger statement is needed that unauthorized (by the owner of the target institution) breaching experiments are unethical per se, not just that Wikiversity will not sanction them because they are merely controversial. On the action of the Founder, normal process should involve discussion, but when action is required to prevent harm, especially ot another project, then it is justified that immediate action is taken and discussion is afterwards.  I would expect this of any WMF Steward, it does not just apply to Wales.  You cannot demand that Wales gives up this power in regard to Wikiversity, your project is not above anyone else.  Undoing Wales' actions would be wheel-warring if there is no discussion with him first, the very reason SB Johnny was de-syssoped in the first place.  On the re-sysopping of SB Johnny, judging by the discussion on his talk page, this would not seem to be a problem as Wales has already offered to do this once SB Johnny has agreed to desist wheel-warring with Wales. SpinningSpark 12:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...unethical per se, not just that Wikiversity will not sanction them..." - The proposal means: drop them now and drop them in the future as well. This is in fact the WV side of the "bargain" These experiments are a valid topic, but "unethical", "controversial", "extremely evil", "for the greater good",... however you want to call them. --Gbaor 18:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to say that consuming other people's resources without permission (and a lot of resource has been consumed on Wikipedia to deal with this) is unethical and that Wikiversity will not sanction pages detailing how to go about doing this. SpinningSpark 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * about SB as I said lower: resysop.--Gbaor 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A further point is that any experiments on Wikipedia and like projects is experimenting on unpaid editors. This is especially unethical since one would be using up their time and resources which they believe they are devoting to something entirely different.  This is akin to theft. SpinningSpark 13:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal did not mention experiments at all. It says: "research on WP" which is a different category. More like a "case study". --Gbaor 14:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal opens with "Wikiversity will drop the idea of breaching experiments". How is that not mentioning experiments. SpinningSpark 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry there is a misunderstanding here I believe. I meant that we won't do any experiments of this "penetration testing" nature (first point), but we will do research of "case study" nature (last point). So the first point is basically in agreement what you want to achieve. (Note: This was a "homegrown" proposal from my side. I did not asked anybody in advance, but would be happy if you could express your views. Thanks to those who did already.)--Gbaor 18:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is misunderstanding, that is good cause for rewriting your proposal. If you agree that unauthorized breaching experiments are unethical (even when done in good faith) and similarly for any other experiment that consumes the target's resources, then there is no reason you cannot say so in the proposal.  The deleted material gave no sign whatsoever that the authors considered this activity unethical.  Quite the contrary, it gloried in past successes of this and encouraged more of the same. SpinningSpark 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated it to make it perfectly clear. The aim of the proposal was to state cold facts, rather than go into judgment whether it was ethical or not. After all the differences between our opinions led to this lengthy discussion. --Gbaor 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking a position could potential undermine a person's intention to be a neutral and objective observer. A failure to state a position does not mean an author shares the beliefs of the people that are the subject of the author's researched. I think the subject of the research in this case were the people doing unauthorized breaching experiments. Who was the subject of the research may be another area that is disagreed on. I believe people have grown tired of discussing who's interpretation is right or wrong though and it is probably time to bring this review to a close. -- dark lama  19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) That goes nowhere near far enough in my opinion. To begin with, the line still contains a lot of rationalisation for the subject - that it was done with good intentions ("...to best inform policy and practice...").  I am far from accepting that the page did have good intentions; my reading of it is just the opposite, many of the authors seemed to be delighting in damage to Wikipedia.  Secondly, saying that the reason for not supporting this activity is that it attracts bad faith participants is not strong enough.  This leaves open the door to possible future experiments that could be designed to effectively exclude bad faith participants.  My view is that all unauthorized activities that consume resources are unethical.  There is no reason a matter of ethics cannot be stated in the proposal if we agree that it is correct.  The title of this page is "Wikimedia Ethics..." after all.  Nothing less than outright banning of this activity without conditions would be acceptable to me.  I also believe the phrasing could be made wider than just breaching experiments.  Any activity that causes damage is not acceptable, since it requires resource to put right and damages the reputation of the target - particularly important for Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dark Lama. I find it hard to accept that the subject of the research was merely into people who conduct breaching experiments.  Several contributors to the page seem to be admitting to creating hoax articles.  You want to close the debate without reaching a decision?  You are opening the door to further action outside your project if you go down that road. SpinningSpark 19:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "unauthorized activities"? This is a space for exploration and with infinite possibilities how can we get authorization for everything we do?  You have made it very clear that we all have different opinions on the values of controversial activities, and that's why we need to discuss before we act.  Who is to judge whether your evaluation (or Darklama's) of the said project should be more accurate?  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean unauthorized by the authority controlling the target institution. In the case of a bank, for instance, this would be perfectly clear.  A security test authorized and initiated by the bank's board of directors is perfectly ethical, useful even.  An attempt to breach the bank's security by private individuals without the bank's knowledge is unethical, likely illegal and possibly dangerous to boot.  In the case of Wikipedia, things are a little more difficult as there is no clear central authority from which to seek permission.  However, Wikipedia's policies are quite clear: contributions which add to the content or otherwise improve the encyclopedia are always welcome and no permission is required; contributions which damage the encyclopedia are not welcome and will never be approved.  Breaching experiments without doubt fall into the latter category as they are adding untrue content to the encyclopedia which requires resource to clean up and damages the public reputation of Wikipedia.  Experiments which involve only observation and do not change anything on Wikipedia are, of course, acceptable.  An example of research that actually did add content to Wikipedia but is still acceptable was mentioned on the deleted page.  Although it was described there as a breaching experiment, it actually is not.  It is adding new content in scope, and therefore counts as improving the encyclopedia, even though it was intended as a test of the "speedy deleters". SpinningSpark 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, there is a page on Wikipedia for notifying School and University Projects. SpinningSpark 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The work had only one author. I think it is reasonably safe to say that the people that did the hoaxes were not page authors or contributors. I think the author was attempting to quote what the hoaxers had to say about their hoaxes when interviewed by the author or what the author found them saying elsewhere. I think the questions the author asked or where the author obtained the quotations used would of been nice to include for completeness and might of made the fact that the hoaxers were not involved in the development of the research on Wikiversity clearer. -- dark lama  20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The page certainly does not read like a study of hoaxers, it reads like an advertisement for them. SpinningSpark 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The page certainly does not read like a study" <-- I think the fundamental problem is the same that faced Galileo. Galileo spoke the truth of what he saw and he was condemned by authorities who saw the truth as unwelcome. Wikiversity makes use of an amazing invention: it is called the "edit" button. If there is a possible problem with a Wikiversity page then Wikiversity participants click "edit" and discuss the matter. --JWSchmidt 21:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be true. I think there wasn't enough context to understand whether the author was trying to make it read like an advert or not. I think the Wikiversity community would of seen reading like an advertisement as a reason to improve the work. Deletion on Wikiversity would have been unlikely to have been suggested unless people felt there was no chance of it improving. I assume this is usually true for Wikipedia as well since it has . -- dark lama  21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @JWSchmidt. Don't be condescending. I have 18,000 edits on Wikipedia so I know perfectly well were the edit button is.  However, if this had been on Wikipedia I would be reaching for the delete button rather than the edit button.  The page served no useful purpose.  The terms of reference it gives itself are "On this page we discuss, brainstorm, and possibly execute ethical breaching experiments - in particular whether or not such things are possible, and if so, how they might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects."  Yet all of the examples it gives of breaches are harmful hoaxes according to Wikipedia policies and nowhere on the page is there any discussion of how this is helping the WMF. SpinningSpark 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And to compare me to the witch-hunting unscientific accusers of Galileo is a vile insult. SpinningSpark 21:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that there are hoaxers on Wikipedia or covering it up as you seem to imply by the Galileo analogy. Helpful research into how to combat hoaxing is welcome.  The deleted page was not doing this, it was, rather, glorifying hoaxing.  If there is even a single sentence on that page that is of any use in actually combatting this behaviour please point it out and I will copy and paste it to Wikipedia myself. SpinningSpark 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of you keep suggesting that the possibilities for Wikiversity are "infinite". That suggestion cannot have a high value. You cannot focus your eye on the sky because it is infinitely larger than you. All you can do is look at one star, a cloud, something small. The whole sky can get mapped but you don't just assimilate the whole thing naturally because you can't even see the whole thing let alone focus on it. What is beyond this infinity? I asked the Wikipedia Reference desk recently about infinite space and time. They said that when infinity comes into the equation they have encoutered mistakes or the subject is not fully understood yet and produced a lot of scientific references to back that up. RTG 21:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not noticed anyone suggesting that possibilities are infinite in this discussion. Even if someone has said that, so what? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia has defined a specific limit count on how many article it will allow? People don't need to focus on infinity for infinity to be possible. One person can look at one part of the sky, a second person a different part of the sky, a third person yet another part of the sky, and so on until the entire sky is being looked at by someone. -- dark lama  22:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Dark lama. The question the author seems to have asked is "I'm up for running a breach or two over the next few months, if we can work out a sensible way of doing it", hardly an uninvolved interviewer documenting the opinions and methods of miscreants.  Reading the entire thread one comes away with the impression of someone actively colluding with and encouraging the hoaxers. SpinningSpark 22:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The keywords for me are "if we can work out a sensible way of doing it." To me that suggests the author was trying to encourage discussion on what people think is sensible. Assuming the author was being serious rather than joking. I don't care to speculate on what the author was thinking or what the context of the author's comments were in without understanding the whole story from the author. -- dark lama  22:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever the motivation, the author was clearly trying to organise breaches of Wikipedia which contradicts your presentation of him as someone merely observing the actions of others. This also "I think I'll copy the 'how to avoid checkuser' info over too" is way out of line.  There is no justification for promulgating this kind of material. SpinningSpark 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the author was clearly trying to organise breaches" The project clearly stated that the goal was to explore if it was possible to find an experiment that would "causes no harm in its execution". Why is an exploration of the possible existence of such an experiment "way out of line"? "clearly trying to organise breaches" <-- Please list the breaches that were being organized. --JWSchmidt 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The opening statement of the thread I linked, as I quoted above, says "I'm up for running a breach or two" so however you wriggle, the intention was to actually cause breaches, not just to discuss them. Any hoax is harmful to Wikipedia, the argument for it not doing harm seems to revolve around choosing minor topics which would not attract controversy, Privatemusings stated "I'm hoping to be far too dull to warrant attention".  At best, this is misguided.  Causing additional workload for the volunteers at Wikipedia is not acceptable behaviour, nor is damaging our reputation by inserting false articles. SpinningSpark 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we must conclude that Privatemusings did find his ethical breaching experiment: it was the Ethical Breaching Experiments project itself. His project did not harm, but it brought out in the open the censors who delete and block before knowing what they are doing, before they bother to discuss and edit. Privatemusings created a great learning project for illustrating a fundamental problem in the WMF. --JWSchmidt 05:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is doing harm. It is encouraging hoax articles on Wikipedia.  There is no other WMF project which would have tolerated this for a second.  The fundamental problem here is not the actions of Wales, but that WV has failed to take action itself against something that would not be given house room anywhere else.  If WV had been doing that there would have been no reason for Wales to take action.  After the event, there is no recognition that WV has a problem with giving space to trolls and all the discussion from WV participants seems to be centered around rolling back Wales' actions so they can be put through a due process which you do not actually seem to have.  Protection of WMF projects trumps internal processes in any case.  You should not be putting other projects at risk by undoing Wales' action simply because your toes have been trodden on by an outsider. SpinningSpark 09:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Couple things: first, I don't think it was encouraging as much as documenting, and I don't think the people who want to do these hoaxes need any encouragement. Second, this page is the due process.
 * I'd also like to point out (if I haven't before) that the "sock puppeting page" is probably more helpful for inexperienced checkusers than it would be for an inexperienced sock-puppeteer. The technical info would only be useful to someone who could figure that out themselves in a few short minutes, and the common sense stuff is just common sense. People try to spoof all the time, but the CUs know how to pick it up. IOW, if anyone followed those instructions and ran up against an experienced CU, they wouldn't stand a chance. --SB_Johnny talk 10:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been characterised several times on this page as observation rather than proactive hoaxing. This is mistaken, as I noted above more than once, Privatemusings wrote ""I'm up for running a breach or two" which is difficult to interpret as other than an intention to insert hoaxes.  Such language is rather unacademic and indicates a disruptive purpose, especially as Privatemusings must know he is communicating with trolls when he was discussing this project.  I have not seen your sockpuppeting page, but if it is anything like the one under discussion here, you should give it a very careful look. SpinningSpark 10:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there were problems with any of the pages created by Privatemusings (which I doubt), those problems could have been fixed by using the "edit" button. The only harm done in association with Ethical Breaching Experiments came about because of out-of-process page deletions, the inappropriate block of Privatemusings and a subsequent emergency termination of a custodianship that was performed when there was no emergency. --JWSchmidt 15:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have two basic problems with proposal:


 * I think Wikipedians deciding Wikiversity policy and process would set a bad precedent and is bad for the Wikiversity community as undue/undesired influence. Wikipedians can help develop and take part in any discussion concerning policy development at Wikiversity without being part of the final decision. Whether a proposal should become an official Wikiversity policy, guideline, or process should continue to be left up to the Wikiversity community. I think if any Wikipedians are to become Wikiversity custodians they need to go through the mentor process which means finding Wikipedians that custodian mentors can trust, and be trusted by the Wikiversity community when their mentoring period is up.


 * I think a more neutral, specific, and appropriate suggestion is that Wikiversity will develop policies to address best ethical practices. I think this should address unethical concerns by the broader Wikimedia community without needlessly dragging this discussion out over disagreements.


 * -- dark lama  13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not meant the Wikipedians will develop the policies, but merely that people will be notified, so they can express their opinion, similarly as we can go to WP any time and add our views on WP policies. Since mianly people from WMF "complained" about weak policies, they would have a chance to say what they want (it they want). "if any Wikipedians are to become Wikiversity custodians they need to go through the mentor process which means finding Wikipedians that custodian mentors can trust, and be trusted by the Wikiversity community when their mentoring period is up." - I meant exactly this. There are many WP admins or trusted users, so I thought some of them might be interested --Gbaor 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Addressing one minor point ... discussion properly should have involved the participation of Privatemusings. Infinite blocks do not appear conducive to discussion. It is also to be noted that JW has, in fact, been limited in his powers by some projects. Had he simply noted in his deletion that it was due to "overriding legal concerns" or the like, and posted such on an RfD, I doubt that this drama would have ensued. I wot not your background other than as stated on WP, but I trust the adage about "act in haste" is found in the British grammar schools . And SBJ should not have to admit to a sin which he clearly did not view as having occurred. "Please, Sir" should not be found on WV. Collect 13:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. SB_Johnny should not have to admit to a sin which he clearly did not view as having occurred. I also believe this to be true of Wikiversity itself. Wikiversity should not have to admit to a sin which it clearly did not view as having occurred. Wikiversity should be able to write a policy on best ethical practices without having to agree that something unethical happened. -- dark lama  13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not admitting anything. His actions wanted to facilitate discussion. Should be reinstalled. Full stop. --Gbaor 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently with a lot of what you've proposed. This is not and should never be Wikipedia, or an extension of Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedians don't like our actions doesn't mean that they should gain a chokehold on our internal affairs. I will be proposing a separate set of changes, because most of these are unacceptable and only serve to stunt the growth of this project as an independent entity. Geoff Plourde 22:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)