User Moulton has started a Wikiversity project on ethical management of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wi kipedia
With some of the initial discussion on the talk page suggesting things like editors taking tests, ArbCom being replaced with paid professionals, I have some concern that those involved with this are "forum shopping" for a place where they can influence the running of Wikipedia.
This came to my attention when - as an apparent afterthought - Wikinews was included in this. I have asked for that to be changed and that those involved restrict themselves to projects they are familiar with.
I believe this should be given input from a wider community of editors, hence raising it here.
Brian McNeil
2008/7/13 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
User Moulton has started a Wikiversity project on ethical management of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wi kipedia
With some of the initial discussion on the talk page suggesting things like editors taking tests, ArbCom being replaced with paid professionals, I have some concern that those involved with this are "forum shopping" for a place where they can influence the running of Wikipedia.
This came to my attention when - as an apparent afterthought - Wikinews was included in this. I have asked for that to be changed and that those involved restrict themselves to projects they are familiar with.
I believe this should be given input from a wider community of editors, hence raising it here.
Wikiversity is not the place to try to change or influence another Wikimedia project. From what you describe, the Wikiversity project seems to be opposed to some of the basic premises of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikiversity is being used because these ideas wouldn't gain any currency on Wikipedia or Meta Wikimedia?
2008/7/13 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Perhaps Wikiversity is being used because these ideas wouldn't gain any currency on Wikipedia or Meta Wikimedia?
WAS and Moulton appear to be skipping from project to project to do this. First English Wikipedia, then Meta-Wiki. Now Wikiversity.
Wikiversity is not the place to try to change or influence another Wikimedia project. From what you describe, the Wikiversity project seems to be opposed to some of the basic premises of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikiversity is being used because these ideas wouldn't gain any currency on Wikipedia or Meta Wikimedia?
Um, duh. Most of the editors participating are banned on en.
That said, if they come up with some good ideas, I will be delighted. Particularly relating to BLPs, where I feel we have completely lost sight of the principles of guilt and desert. At the moment on en you can be the biggest spamming dick ever, and no one can say anything bad about you even at AfD. Which is annoying.
Also, guys, can you apply your brains to our dispute resolution system? It works fine when both participants are honest and reasonably competent: it works awfully when one is trolling and gaming the system. We also have no good way to decide definitively "This is mainstream academic consensus: apply WP:FRINGE and other policies in the light of this".
Fix all that, and I'll be happy. I might even participate.
Best,
CM
_________________________________________________________________ The John Lewis Clearance - save up to 50% with FREE delivery http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719806/direct/01/
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Wikiversity is not the place to try to change or influence another Wikimedia project. From what you describe, the Wikiversity project seems to be opposed to some of the basic premises of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikiversity is being used because these ideas wouldn't gain any currency on Wikipedia or Meta Wikimedia?
Or, maybe Wikiversity is being used because this is precisely the type of community-based research and collaboration work that they specialize in. Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia, and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta. I suggest that people who aren't familiar with Wikiversity should take this as an opportunity to head over there and see what that project is all about. Because, until you understand Wikiversity, you can't possibly understand projects like this one.
--Andrew Whitworth
Fair point. Until this thread I never grokked wikiversity. I just read the "what we are" page, though, and it looks pretty interesting, actually. And the right place for this ethics project.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:03:01 -0400 From: wknight8111@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ethics project on Wikiversity
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Wikiversity is not the place to try to change or influence another Wikimedia project. From what you describe, the Wikiversity project seems to be opposed to some of the basic premises of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikiversity is being used because these ideas wouldn't gain any currency on Wikipedia or Meta Wikimedia?
Or, maybe Wikiversity is being used because this is precisely the type of community-based research and collaboration work that they specialize in. Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia, and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta. I suggest that people who aren't familiar with Wikiversity should take this as an opportunity to head over there and see what that project is all about. Because, until you understand Wikiversity, you can't possibly understand projects like this one.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ The John Lewis Clearance - save up to 50% with FREE delivery http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719806/direct/01/
2008/7/13 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
Or, maybe Wikiversity is being used because this is precisely the type of community-based research and collaboration work that they specialize in.
Oh dear.
Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia,
No one suggested it should be.
and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta.
Again no one suggested that. However it should not allow itself to be used as an attack vector against wikipedia. Well not unless you would consider it legit for the English wikipedia to be used as an attack vector against Wikiversity..
I suggest that people who aren't familiar with Wikiversity should take this as an opportunity to head over there and see what that project is all about. Because, until you understand Wikiversity, you can't possibly understand projects like this one.
--Andrew Whitworth
I understand attempts to cause disruption when I see them. But no matter. You can't at least complain that you were not warned. As a project it might well have some value but the people you have involved and the direction taken so far suggests it won't be.
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:30:31 +0100 From: geniice@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ethics project on Wikiversity
2008/7/13 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
Or, maybe Wikiversity is being used because this is precisely the type of community-based research and collaboration work that they specialize in.
Oh dear.
Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia,
No one suggested it should be.
and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta.
Again no one suggested that. However it should not allow itself to be used as an attack vector against wikipedia. Well not unless you would consider it legit for the English wikipedia to be used as an attack vector against Wikiversity.
Um, sorry. In the material posted so far, where's the attack?
CM
_________________________________________________________________ Play and win great prizes with Live Search and Kung Fu Panda http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719966/direct/01/
2008/7/13 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:30:31 +0100 From: geniice@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ethics project on Wikiversity
2008/7/13 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
Or, maybe Wikiversity is being used because this is precisely the type of community-based research and collaboration work that they specialize in.
Oh dear.
Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia,
No one suggested it should be.
and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta.
Again no one suggested that. However it should not allow itself to be used as an attack vector against wikipedia. Well not unless you would consider it legit for the English wikipedia to be used as an attack vector against Wikiversity.
Um, sorry. In the material posted so far, where's the attack?
CM
"The way things stand now, on the English Wikipedia, is that more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People." —Moulton 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)"
Given the number of minimalist sporting bios seems unlikely.
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia,
No one suggested it should be.
and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta.
Again no one suggested that. However it should not allow itself to be used as an attack vector against wikipedia.
So, nobody is suggesting that WV be censored for the benefit of WP, but it should definitely not be allowed to be an attack vector against it? Isn't that exactly the same thing? You're saying precisely that WV content should be censored for the benefit of WP!
Well not unless you would consider it legit for the English wikipedia to be used as an attack vector against Wikiversity.
Your misconceptions and errors here are numerous: 1) This is not an "attack vector". People are allowed to be critical and analytic of Wikipedia without being defamed as a mere "attack vector". The actions and methods of Wikipedia are not unquestionable gospel truth, and people are allowed to discuss it's flaws openly and suggest alternatives and improvements. Also, when doing this, they don't need permission from anybody at WP. 2) It would be severely against the content policies of WP to host attack content like this. Of course, I don't discount the fact that lots of things have been included in wikipedia over the years that aren't strictly allowed under the letter of current content policies. It is not, however, against policy for people to host this kind of content on WV. 3) If you can find problems or errors at WV that parallel those at WP, or compare in magnitude to those at WP, go for it. I submit that there are no such problems at WV, and in fact WP can learn a lot from that scrappy little project.
I understand attempts to cause disruption when I see them.
AND ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS MUST BE SQUASHED! Right?
You can't at least complain that you were not warned.
And who is doing the warning, and what have I or anybody at Wikiversity to fear? I'm not even an active member at Wikiversity, and I don't need to be to know that they are different and separate and independent from Wikipedia.
As a project it might well have some value but the people you have involved and the direction taken so far suggests it won't be.
If there is value in this exercise, the participants at Wikiversity will make that determination. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikiversity, but your forecast about the value of this project doesn't seem to be in line with normal Wikiversity attitudes. Maybe, before throwing around warnings and dire predictions, you could actually go to Wikiversity and see what the fuss is all about.
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/7/13 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of Wikipedia,
No one suggested it should be.
and their users aren't bound by the content or discussion policies at Wikipedia or Meta.
Again no one suggested that. However it should not allow itself to be used as an attack vector against wikipedia.
So, nobody is suggesting that WV be censored for the benefit of WP, but it should definitely not be allowed to be an attack vector against it? Isn't that exactly the same thing? You're saying precisely that WV content should be censored for the benefit of WP!
Nope. For the benefit of the foundation maybe. Enlightened self interest on the part of wikiversity perhaps. En.wikipedia is big enough and old enough to look after itself.
Well not unless you would consider it legit for the English wikipedia to be used as an attack vector against Wikiversity.
Your misconceptions and errors here are numerous:
- This is not an "attack vector". People are allowed to be critical
and analytic of Wikipedia without being defamed as a mere "attack vector". The actions and methods of Wikipedia are not unquestionable gospel truth, and people are allowed to discuss it's flaws openly and suggest alternatives and improvements. Also, when doing this, they don't need permission from anybody at WP.
You appear to be attacking a strawman.
- It would be severely against the content policies of WP to host
attack content like this. Of course, I don't discount the fact that lots of things have been included in wikipedia over the years that aren't strictly allowed under the letter of current content policies. It is not, however, against policy for people to host this kind of content on WV.
So you take the view that the project is attack content?
- If you can find problems or errors at WV that parallel those at WP,
or compare in magnitude to those at WP, go for it. I submit that there are no such problems at WV, and in fact WP can learn a lot from that scrappy little project.
No such problems? Are you looking to import them then? Small projects rarely have the same issues as large projects. What works on small projects tends not to work on larger projects.
I understand attempts to cause disruption when I see them.
AND ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS MUST BE SQUASHED! Right?
Most projects exist with a goal other than disruption and well by definition disruption will not support that goal.
You can't at least complain that you were not warned.
And who is doing the warning, and what have I or anybody at Wikiversity to fear? I'm not even an active member at Wikiversity, and I don't need to be to know that they are different and separate and independent from Wikipedia.
In the short term importing en drama is probably your biggest worry. Long term it depends what actions the Wikiversity community takes.
As a project it might well have some value but the people you have involved and the direction taken so far suggests it won't be.
If there is value in this exercise, the participants at Wikiversity will make that determination. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikiversity, but your forecast about the value of this project doesn't seem to be in line with normal Wikiversity attitudes. Maybe, before throwing around warnings and dire predictions, you could actually go to Wikiversity and see what the fuss is all about.
--Andrew Whitworth
I've gone I've seen. Comparing this to a typical Wikiversity project isn't a very useful approach since it isn't a typical project.
2008/7/13 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
Again no one suggested that. However it should not allow itself to be used as an attack vector against wikipedia.
So, nobody is suggesting that WV be censored for the benefit of WP, but it should definitely not be allowed to be an attack vector against it? Isn't that exactly the same thing? You're saying precisely that WV content should be censored for the benefit of WP!
As far as I can tell, no-one intends to say that. What several people *are* saying, some subtly and some not, is... well, this project is not likely to go anywhere useful; it appears to be a group of people disgruntled with one project wandering off to find somewhere they can write about how disgruntled they are and tell everyone You're Doing It Wrong.
All in all, that seems a fair thing to warn the WV community about. Whether they choose to do anything, how they choose to handle these people, is up to them; but there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone saying - look out for this, it might be messy.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org