[Foundation-l] Ethics project on Wikiversity

[geni]

2008/7/13 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM, geni <geniice at 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:
> 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.

You appear to be attacking a strawman.

> 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.

So you take the view that the project is attack content?

> 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.

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.



-- 
geni