User talk:Koavf

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Koavf! Welcome to Wikiversity! If you decide that you need help, check out Wikiversity:Help desk, ask the support staff, or ask me on my talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Trevor MacInnis 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikiversity rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg


Hi. You removed links to Wikitravel. Why? --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikitravel links Per discussion at en.wp as well as Meta to remove links at those projects. If you want to keep links and references here at en.v, I guess that's fine. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


I see you got it before I explained. Wikiversity is disconcerting to those familiar with the encyclopedia projects, and the other content-oriented projects. While we do have a content mission, we also have a "learning by doing" mission, which is about people. Our product is not just content, it is education, and there is no education without users who are educated, and sophisticated education is always about process and people skills and the rest. I would argue that the encyclopedia projects also need to be welcoming, if the full mission is to be fulfilled, but ... they developed with a very narrow focus and absent the realization that an environment that was easily seen as hostile would damage the mission.

The 20th century saw the development of systems and skills and process for maximizing consensus, and the only reliable measure of neutrality is level of consensus. (I.e., if everyone involved agrees, 100% consensus, while what they agree upon only might possibly turn out, in the end, to be defective or invalid, there is no better measure!). So to the extent that there is exclusion, to that extent, the assessment of neutrality can be warped.

Obviously, compromises are necessary, but "compromise" requires tolerating a level of damage, and that is easily forgotten. When the importance of consensus being as broad as possible is realized, a community will find ways to keep conversation open, on some level, in some place, otherwise the community becomes locked into what I call the "tyranny of the past." There is a children's song that was part of a therapeutic response to Reactive Attachment Disorder:

There is always something you can do, do, do
When you're getting in a stew, stew, stew.

Mostly, it involves simmering down, dropping upset and reactive response, and, when calm, communicating.

While this kind of work has been done on Wikipedia, often in user space -- it's what I did, successfully mediating disputes, such that users at each other's throats became cooperative with each other -- this was mumbo-jumbo nonsense to too many on Wikipedia. For example, see [1], which included many pages of historical function, including evidence presented to ArbCom. I found it very strange that ArbCom did not care that evidence used in a case was being deleted, but ArbCom consists of too many elevated beyond their competence by popularity (as well as many other highly-experienced and thoughtful user; but the system tends to burn them out and they become less attentive.)

w:User:Abd/Dispute over thermoeconomics was particularly educational. In that mediation, a professor was revert warring with Randy from Boise, so to speak, and one or both were about to be blocked. It took very little to develop cooperation, mostly just sitting them down together with some support. Hmmm... I'm thinking of asking that these pages be transwikied to Wikiversity, precisely for historical study.

Looking for the link to that, I came across this. It shows a quick and major clue to what happened on Two three-letter users with a conflict. One was an administrator taken to ArbCom by the other, and the administrator was trout-slapped by ArbCom and then, it is obvious, revenge was exacted, by the admin and his friends. This was long-continued and, while not unnoticed, never sanctioned. Admins can be hostile, this one was more than hostile, he was highly insulting at times, using obscene language, and using tools while involved, was reprimanded, made small adjustments to his behavior, but continued pretty much unimpeded. And, as you know, this is not uncommon. He is even a likeable Guy. I consider this all the responsibility of the community. Blaming people for what comes naturally for them is not productive. Such people generally will modify behavior in a functional community.

Notice the irony. The userbox was "Esperanza returns," referring to the project designed to foster civility and welcome and cooperation. Esperanza, of course, means Hope. So the nominator was saying, "Hope will never return." Esperanza was crushed when it temporarily was inactive. Instead of improving the governance, which was easily possible, it was crushed with vehemence, see the MfD. Why?

To any serious student of human organizational structure, it's obvious.

Wikiversity is the slim thread of hope, and if it is not protected and defended, hope will break.

Thanks again. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)