User talk:Hillgentleman

From Wikiversity

Add New Comments:

Note:We are experimenting with Threaded discussions here. Please leave your message with the "reply" or "comment" links. It is more interesting than to edit this page directly. : )

/20070519 | /20080903 |Threads Purge

Add New Comments:

[edit] Deletionism

From The deletionist Guide to Learning: when your students try to write and they make a mess, tell them they have produced garbage and throw their work in the trash. Then tell them, "I meant 'garbage' in a good way."

deletionism can "make a smaller part of wikiversity more orderly" <-- Yes, "make things orderly" is part of what we do, but it has to be balanced against other things. Learning, exploration, discovery, discussions, research and education are often messy processes. If an editor, acting in good faith, makes a contribution to Wikiversity then we should first try to build upon that contribution, not show that our first reaction is an attempt to destroy that contribution. --JWSchmidt 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a straw man.

• Thanks, guys. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd clarify. The Jade Knight 07:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In my practice as an educator, if a student submits a problematic piece of work (no matter how appalling), I ask them to substantiate their remarks with evidence and reasoning. This is the Maieutic Method, introduced into the education culture by none other than Socrates, himself. If the student has no concept of evidence-based reasoning, then the Maieutic Method further engages the student in step-by-step construction of the evidence-driven reasoning process. —Moulton 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: blocking John

It's really just to give us some time to breathe and start discussing. John tends to dominate discussions because he has time and zeal, and we really need to have some discussions to get the project back on track. I'll lift the block when I feel he's ready to talk, but he needs some time.

I'm completely aware of how ugly this whole thing is, but it really is the right thing to do. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hillgentleman, you're right to be concerned. I do endorse those actions and comments - as I have been working closely with the other bureaucrats on these matters for the last week or so. But I can assure you that none of us feel that this is an ideal situation. It must be very confusing for people who are not following IRC 24/7, and who have not been following all the activity documented in John's review. As SB_Johnny says above, John's block is a temporary measure to allow the wider community to have input on issues arising from the past month or so. And this will be happening on-wiki - we have simply been too swamped to be able to do this in anything like an ideal, wiki-like manner. Cormaggio ^talk 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{PAGESIZE:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|R}}

Wicked . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tx to your help, I got it working : Social psychology (psychology)/Participants#Profile list. My next challenge: adding in the sizes of each user's subpages. Of course I could add them manually. Do you know of a better way? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask your students to do it themselves and give them extra credits. Hillgentleman|Talk 10:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tx for this & esp. the subpages link suggestion for the {{SPP/Participant}} - it works nicely. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curriculum Vitaes

In this thread, you write of the importance of posting one's Curriculum Vitae, as a means of disclosing one's credentials and bona fides. I agree with the importance of providing an accurate CV. As you know, I am also concerned with the unseemly practice of adversarial editors (i.e. those representing other schools of thought) tampering with or otherwise redacting an authentic scholar's CV. To my mind, it is corrosive of an academic culture when a participant who arrives at Wikiversity with no recognizable identity as a bona fide scholar and no published CV undertakes to tamper with, redact, or otherwise deface the CV of a bona fide scholar affiliated with bona fide institutions of higher learning. It is further infuriating when the custodians of WV, who frankly should know better, disrupt the process of sober scholarly review by binding and gagging authentic scholars from well-known institutions of higher learning while willfully ignoring the authentic questions placed before them. —Moulton 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem, however, that some wikiversitians/wikimedians may consider Moulton a "rogue" scholar. The importance of a link to a personal blog in a CV is, in at least the minds of some concerned people, less than the risk of privacy violation. (You claimed that there is nothing in your blog that violates the foundation privacy principles; some claimed that there is. I am not yet sure what the truth is. Hopefully the truth will out. ) Hillgentleman|Talk 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If they have such a thesis, Hillgentleman, let them present their views in a fair review, supported by evidence, analysis, and reasoning.

As to my credentials as a scholar, I graduated in 1968 from the University of Nebraska with High Distinction, earning a BS in Electrical Engineering, where I ranked #1 in a class of 400 students in the School of Engineering. In 1969, I earned an MSEE from Stanford University. In 1975, I earned a Ph.D. in Systems Theory from Stanford University. I was a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories.

For the past 20 years I have been a volunteer science educator at the Boston Museum of Science. For the past nine years, I have been a Visiting Scientist in the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab. I was awarded the Best Theory Paper at the 2001 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Are those the characteristics of a "rogue" scholar?

Moreover, there are no privacy violations on Moulton Lava, full stop. The burden of proof is on the those who make such absurd allegations. You asked me that question on August 12th, and I forthrightly responded to it, demonstrating conclusively that there was no such privacy violation as alleged by Jimbo Wales, who was mindlessly repeating what others had whispered to him.

JWSchmidt has likened the behavior of those making such absurd claims to a "red scare" reminiscent of the McCarthy era. I ask you, Hillgentlemen, have these Wikimedians no decency? At long last, have they no integrity or decency?

Moulton 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] huh?

huh?Emesee 02:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo licensing

Hi Hillgentleman - yes, it's always worth contacting the author of a photo to see if they can set it free. :-) Some links that might be helpful to you would be on permissions: w:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission (sample emails for this kind of thing), and w:Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. Links about licencing include: commons:Commons:Licensing and commons:Commons:First steps/License selection - though I'm still not sure they're as user-friendly as they should be (given that copyright can be so confusing). I'd say you should recommend a dual-licence (maybe GFDL & CC-BY-SA) for ease of reuse. If you think the links above (or others you find) are too complicated, you can explain the absolute basics in your email - without scaring him off, obviously! One last thing to bear in mind is not to point at too many WMF projects - maybe Commons would be the best project to link to (including help pages), since that's probably where our images should be. Ok, hope that helps - thanks for taking the time to do this. Cormaggio ^talk 09:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] noindex

Can I ask if you have a specific reason for using the magic word directly rather than in an easily accountable way? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can. It is my talk page and I organise it the way I like. But if you really want to know, I don't like redundant templates, and then noindex means noindex, and a "whatlinkshere" is still an index. Thanks for asking. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether you see an issue with this "index" (or indeed Special:Search/noindex) then? While I agree that your userspace is yours to do with as you will (within community norms), I would still like to understand your rationale, since I've never encountered anyone who expressed anything other than full support for using the magic word in an accountable way. The magic word is to stop search engines from indexing certain sensitive pages, and (I think) should be used in a conservative and open way. Using a template increases transparency while maintaining identical functionality. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A user talk page is not a learning resource and it serves no educational purpose for google to index it. I have said enough. I have never encountered anyone who insisted so much on using a template on my talk page. Have a good day. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity: scope (versus?) organisation

"he has been trying to make wikiversity more accessable and useful to more people" <-- "more people"? More than what? In my view, Wikiversity is still embryonic, with 99.9999% of its form, content and participants yet to be seen. Seven years after its start, Wikipedia is still struggling to understand and reduce barriers to participation. I have spent years thinking about where wiki content comes from and the barriers that keep people from editing wiki websites. In my view, it is people like McCormack who are the main barrier to wider participation in wikis in general and at Wikiversity in particular. The history of Wikipedia is the main source of information for analysis of barriers to wiki participation. It is useful to compare participation and the rate of community growth at Wikipedia and its forks. For example, compare the growth of Wikipedia to the growth of Citizendium. Citizendium is somewhere in the middle between the Nupedia model of online encyclopedia production and the Wikipedia model. Nupedia was highly restrictive in terms of who could create content and how content was created. Wikipedia has the very open "everyone can edit" approach. Citizendium makes use of wiki technology but puts many restrictions on the content creation process. Citizendium has a very limited scope compared to Wikipedia and it will never do what Wikipedia can do. Yes, Citizendium will also do some things that Wikipedia cannot do, but if our concern is the involvement of "more people" then it is clear that Wikipedia will always have much higher rates of participation and content creation than a restrictive project such as Citizendium. McCormack wants Wikiversity to be a restrictive wiki built on a Citizendium-like model. He imagines that a few educators should control the creation of content at Wikiversity in the same way that Larry Sanger selects experts who control content creation at Citizendium. The problem for McCormack is that Wikiversity is a Wikimedia sister project that has the "everyone can edit" approach. McCormack worked very hard to subvert the "everyone can edit" approach and he has tried to install his approach of an "a few educators are in control" model. Of course, I challenged him and told him that I would not allow him to subvert the Wikiversity "everyone can edit" approach and he called me a troll and said he would never talk to me again. He ignored me and continued his personal mission to turn Wikiversity into a restrictive wiki that does not welcome self-identified students. When I continued to prevent him from subverting Wikiversity he put together a pile of false and distorted charges against me. Those false and distorted charges have been used to "justify" blocking, banning and de-sysoping me. I've put much thought into the questions of how to grow Wikiversity and how to get "more people" to edit at Wikiversity. My view is that Wikiversity should welcome everyone who wants to use wiki technology and we should be a center of learning about wiki and how to participate in wiki communities and we should do what we can do to help all new visitors explore their learning goals at Wikiversity. This kind of "open door policy" is what the Foundation had in mind when it approved the Wikiversity project. McCormack has never been content to work within this "big tent" strategy of the approved Wikiversity project proposal and the policies that have been developed at Wikiversity. He feels free to ignore civility and call me a troll and publish false charges against me. He feels free to ignore the deletion policy. He feels free to conspire with other custodians off wiki to get me banned, blocked and de-sysoped. Beyond his blatant violations of policy and his attempt to subvert the Wikiversity mission, I have no objection to McCormack working to facilitate the participation of educators at Wikiversity, but he has also worked very hard to prevent new visitors who self-identify as students from feeling welcomed to participate at Wikiversity....that is what I object to. In my view, as long as we keep the doors of Wikiversity wide open then the accessibility and usefulness of Wikiversity will be maximized. Yes, there is a role to be played by restrictive wikis and there are other wikis such as WikiEducator. If McCormack wants to create a restrictive wiki he should go somewhere where a restrictive model of wiki participation has been adopted, he should not try to subvert the Wikiversity mission and turn Wikiversity into a restrictive wiki where only educators are in control. I've written extensively about McCormack's attempts to destroy Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and how I worked to block his attempt to destroy the system we had for inviting students to participate at Wikiversity as editors. For more details, see User:JWSchmidt/Blog/19 October 2008 and the pages that are linked to from that page. "topic:" and "school:" namespaces <-- I would have welcomed McCormack's input on the problems associated with these namespaces if he had been willing to discuss the importance of content development projects at Wikiversity. As far as I can tell, McCormack objects to the idea that non-educators are free to create and participate in Wikiversity content development projects.....as he has said, if we open the door to participation then "silliness might occur". My views are totally different. I'm not afraid to let students have fun. Letting students have fun is exactly how Wikiversity will grow. Preventing students from having fun and exploring their personal learning goals will stifle Wikiversity. "how McCormack's contributions adversely affect free participation in Wikiversity" <-- A very large number of new visitors and potential participants at Wikiversity are self-identified students. It is vital to Wikiversity that we welcome self-identified students on the Main Page and that we have an efficient system designed to invite them to edit and help them participate constructively at Wikiversity. McCormack has systematically worked to disrupt the system by which Wikiversity welcomes self-identified students and invites them to participate at Wikiversity by editing and exploring their learning goals. So far I have had some luck in prevented McCormack from accomplishing some of his efforts that adversely affect free participation in Wikiversity. Many of his damaging changes to Wikiversity still stand and should be repaired. It is not clear that all the damage he has done to Wikiversity will ever be repaired. An active process of driving away long-term Wikiversity participants continues and new outsiders with no interest in the Wikiversity mission are being recruited to be custodians. "McCormack's contribution is positive" <-- Maybe some day he will delete or subvert a page that you think is of central importance to Wikiversity, call you "troll", publish a long list of false charges against you and have you blocked and de-sysoped....if so, you might attain a new perspective. Short of that, try reading what McCormack has written on wiki about his vision for restricting participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you, Hillgentleman (and disagree with JWSchmidt, but what else is new?) The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John, Let us look at the whether "McCormack wants Wikiversity to be a restrictive wiki built on a Citizendium-like model. He imagines that a few educators should control the creation of content at Wikiversity in the same way that Larry Sanger selects experts who control content creation at Citizendium." Is it true? Can you show what you mean by examples? As far as I can tell, McCormack objects to the idea that non-educators are free to create and participate in Wikiversity content development projects.....as he has said, if we open the door to participation then "silliness might occur". <-- did you take that out of context? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closure for Mike.lifeguard

Hi Hillgentleman. The policy actually asks that a b'crat close the discussion after five days (see forth step here). The questions being asked of Mike are generally about things that happened well before his probationary period, so if there were issues they should have been brought up during that period so that he could have time to work things out with whomever expressed the concerns. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It says after five days but it doesn't say "and not longer". Bureaucrats are not bound by this policy to terminate the discussion right now. As the discussion is still "hot", bureaucrats should use their good judgements not to stop the discussion prematurely. After all, we all want to be sure that Mike.lifeguard is really going to be a good custodian. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but the 'crats may close them if they see the conversation is pretty much done and has a conclusive sentiment :-). There was a discussion on #wikiversity-en this morning between Jtniell, myself, cormaggio, and mikeu, and it seemed good to close. I'm rather under the impression that JWSchmidt will not support under any circumstances, and that there's pretty much nothing Mike could say to change his mind. It's fine to oppose, but not always fine to hold things up. You can ask for a review (darklama or erkan probably have the irc log if you want them), but you shouldn't revert... I'm un-reverting now, but feel free to continue the conversation with Mike if you're curious about something. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)