[Foundation-l] Ethics project on Wikiversity
wknight8111 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 14:46:45 UTC 2008
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Wikiversity isn't censored for the benefit of
> 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.
More information about the foundation-l