What's going on over at Wikiversity? Jimmy Wales has now been threatened with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation". Is this true? What does it mean?
Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the board". Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this all being done behind the scenes? Is it even true that this discussion is taking place?
I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=... http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics...
I gather there was posting of information which someone determined was harmful to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation and the suggestion is being made to take that stuff somewhere else, or else. From the discussion I gather that the issue is whether Wikiversity is an open educational resource or a platform for trolls banned from Wikipedia. A troll platform needs to hosted on a different site and have other financial support.
Essentially Jimmy is saying the the site needs to be adequately administered or closed. He would rather it were cleaned up and that its administrators take care of business.
Fred Bauder
What's going on over at Wikiversity? Jimmy Wales has now been threatened with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation". Is this true? What does it mean?
Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the board". Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this all being done behind the scenes? Is it even true that this discussion is taking place?
I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=... http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What's going on over at Wikiversity? Jimmy Wales has now been threatened with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation". Is this true? What does it mean?
Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the board". Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this all being done behind the scenes? Is it even true that this discussion is taking place?
I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
PM created a page explaining how to sock and sirupt. Someone deleted it. Jimmy then deleted the whole project the page it belong and blocked. Somone unblocked and reverted. jimmy fired his desysop gun, he didn't get community support, then he called board to close wikiversity as a pressure measure. quote:
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 Waleshttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the board. That's my personal reading
On 17 March 2010 14:46, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the board. That's my personal reading
Well, he doesn't get much support when he does that kind of thing on the English Wikipedia these days. He has realised that and now doesn't do them - he's even made an undertaking not to use his block button. So, if the Wikiversity community (and not just a vocal minority of it - I haven't investigated the situation, although I am aware of it due to watching Jimmy's enwiki user talk page, so I don't know which it is) wants Jimmy to stop using admin powers there, they shouldn't have any difficulty achieving that. If Jimmy wishes to discuss the matter with the WMF board he can definitely do that and, if a majority of the board agrees with him, they can take action, but Jimmy has no power to act unilaterally if a community doesn't want him to.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
If Jimmy wishes to discuss the matter with the WMF board he can definitely do that and, if a majority of the board agrees with him, they can take action, but Jimmy has no power to act unilaterally if a community doesn't want him to.
Agreed, but I was hoping that any such board discussion would be made public. I don't see any reason a discussion of shutting down Wikiversity needs to be made private and confidential, and I'd urge the members of the board to speak up and let us know what's going on.
The Wikimedia Foundaton prides itself in being one of the most open non-profit organizations around. I hope they'll extend that to discussions of shutting down a fairly major project.
For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down Wikiversity. Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of note. But only by having this discussion in public can we be sure that all the factors have been considered.
2010/3/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down Wikiversity. Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of note.
To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do: producing learning materials. Even the English Wikiversity has a set of well-developed, rich pages, e.g. Robert Elliott's filmmaking lessons:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Course:WikiU_Film_School_Course_01_-_Learning...
It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to bring about its decline.
On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/3/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down Wikiversity. Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of
note.
To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do: producing learning materials.
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. English Wikiversity's problems stem 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, but will get back to the discussion thereafter.
Cormac
On 18 March 2010 17:16, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/3/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down Wikiversity. Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of
note.
To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do: producing learning materials.
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. English Wikiversity's problems stem 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, but will get back to the discussion thereafter.
Cormac
Well we could put in place a mechanism for creating open access journals then tell those in the open source community involved in the dwm mess to use it. Heh or start the journal of [citation needed] aka stuff wikipedians know but haven't been able to find a source for.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:41 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2010 17:16, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/3/18 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down Wikiversity. Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of
note.
To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do: producing learning materials.
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. English Wikiversity's problems stem 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, but will get back to the discussion thereafter.
Cormac
Well we could put in place a mechanism for creating open access journals then tell those in the open source community involved in the dwm mess to use it. Heh or start the journal of [citation needed] aka stuff wikipedians know but haven't been able to find a source for.
-- geni
Heh... "The Journal of Citation Needed" sounds more like a potential blog than a journal, but I like it nonetheless :) Reference librarians tend to use email lists for this sort of thing -- there are several specialized and general lists for posting and answering hard questions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stumpers-L is the most famous). Maybe we need something similar :)
Re: Wikiversity -- it's worth nothing that PrivateMusings was told to please quit it as early as mid-January by at least a couple of people [see his enwp talk page], so the deletion of the Wikiversity page didn't totally come out of the blue. Also PM posted a clarification to the Signpost story that I wrote on my en.wp talk page, in which he writes that no experiment was planned but only a few were written up "in a very small way".
I suspect few of us have access to the deleted page to see for ourselves, though personally it's hard for me to imagine someone -- anyone -- coming from the English Wikipedia and choosing such a topic to write about in the first place without at least having the intent to be provocative. How much intent does it take to become a troll? More broadly, I think the global principle of "don't take your fight to other projects" (x-project or x-language) is a good one, and we should adopt and enforce it, but I don't know if that includes global blocking.
-- phoebe
I think the global principle of "don't take your fight
to other projects" (x-project or x-language) is a good one, and we should adopt and enforce it, but I don't know if that includes global blocking.
-- phoebe
That is an old MUD principle: You're welcome, but don't think this MUD is a platform to continue a fight from another MUD. We have this on Wikinfo regularly, ChildofMidnight being the latest.
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/ChildofMidnight
Fred Bauder
On 19/03/2010, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to bring about its decline.
Indeed. Note that the same sort of troll adoption nearly got en:wq taken out and shot last year.
- d.
David and Erik,
I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects.
I oppose the creation of the breaching experiment and usage of Wikiversity as a platform to break the rules of another project but that is a matter that must be handled at the local level. I am fully confident that the community of Wikiversity will be able to effectively handle this situation on their own.
It was unnecessary for Jimbo to personally intervene, rather than simply file a complaint and follow the accepted process. Just because Jimbo is the founder does not mean that he is an unquestionable authority on every single project.
Geoffrey
________________________________ From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 12:44:30 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity
On 19/03/2010, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to bring about its decline.
Indeed. Note that the same sort of troll adoption nearly got en:wq taken out and shot last year.
- d.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 03/19/2010 08:06 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects.
Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction.
A few examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
William
William Pietri wrote:
On 03/19/2010 08:06 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects.
Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction.
Very true, and that's how we are trying to think about these issues generally, not just blocking. It doesn't make sense in most situations for the board or the foundation to interfere directly, nobody wants things to work that way. At the same time, a community does need to actively decide upon and maintain certain standards and not, as some people try to do, abdicate that responsibility back to the foundation. A community that fails to have standards is not really a community, nor is it worth preserving.
To indicate the direction we're going, I'll give an illustration in a less contentious area. We recently had steward elections, and as in past cycles, the final candidates were appointed by the board. However, the board has decided to remove itself from the process going forward, and let the stewards manage the appointment process with the assistance of the Volunteer Coordinator if necessary. That's more consistent with the community taking jurisdiction over its own affairs, or becoming more self-governing if you will.
Incidentally, that offers a reminder that we do have some existing community structure to manage global project issues, whether it's blocking or something else. While I wouldn't say that the Meta wiki is coextensive with the global community, it's one of the spaces that can be used.
--Michael Snow
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction.
A few examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
That is an enlightening point. I'd like to see a cooperative way of handling such requests.
SJ
Hi,
I have created a central page for this discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Problems
Viele Grüße Jan Luca Naumann Admin on de.wikiversity
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Pedro Sanchez Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. März 2010 15:46 An: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What's going on over at Wikiversity? Jimmy Wales has now been threatened with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation". Is this true? What does it mean?
Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the board". Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this all being done behind the scenes? Is it even true that this discussion is taking place?
I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=... 23#Your_behaviour_in_Wikiversity
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics :Ethical_Breaching_Experiments#Board_discussing_closure_of_Wikiversity
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
PM created a page explaining how to sock and sirupt. Someone deleted it. Jimmy then deleted the whole project the page it belong and blocked. Somone unblocked and reverted. jimmy fired his desysop gun, he didn't get community support, then he called board to close wikiversity as a pressure measure. quote:
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 Waleshttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the board. That's my personal reading _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Here is part of the removed content:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:oUj_qTg8xaQJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wik...
The link was removed from meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikiversity%2FProblems&am...
I believe we should have the right to see deleted content in such way for the sake of transparency.
"*Transparency*
We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public."
Source: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values
Regards,
Tom
Interesting that just yesterday the Russian Wikipedia arbcom has banned the founder and the only admin of Russian Wikiversity from editing the Wikipedia namespace for systematic disruptive behavior (not related to his Wikiversity activity).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What's going on over at Wikiversity? Jimmy Wales has now been threatened with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation". Is this true? What does it mean?
I wrote up a quick story about this for this week's Signpost (not yet published), which summarizes what I found out about this as of Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-15/News_an...
It doesn't cover whatever has happened in the last few days, though. -- phoebe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org