Response testing/WMF Projects

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-scales.svg Perspective: NPOV.
Its authors are committed to maintaining a high level of scholarly ethics.

This resource is being developed very slowly, over a period of months and years.

Mantra for these pages; "There's no rush, lets take things nice and slowly, and discuss all the way :-)"

Response testing of the behavior of wikimedia projects has been undertaken by various WikiMedia Foundation volunteers, and by some external individuals and agencies. The testing actions have ranged from hostile, negative, silly, or otherwise unhelpful actions, to arguably more careful, interesting, and useful actions. This project aims to discuss such actions productively in order to learn more about WMF dynamics, and support the evolution of open wikis in a healthy fashion. We aim to follow the highest ethical standards - let us know how we're doing at any time :-)

This resource is not intended to assess blame or propose solutions to problems, but to document and explore what has actually occurred with response testing in the past. A separate resource may explore theoretical or practical solutions. This project is not about what we might want the wikis to be, but about what they are and have been.

Caution must be exercised here about criticism of individual actions and responses. The intent of this project is not to expose or blame individuals, but to examine and review collective response, which will normally show a range of individual responses. Wikis are generally maintained by individuals, and individuals can make mistakes; wikis, properly, will be structured to encourage the correction of errors, not to punish error or humiliate those who err. In reviewing the history of an incident that tested response, we will be particularly careful to avoid judging the participants personally.

Please also consider reviewing, or joining, the Wiki research mailing list.

Participation[edit]

please do sign up :-)

  1. Privatemusings 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. Abd 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Active discussion areas[edit]

Proposals without objection in the Proposals section provided may be moved into this 'active' area of discussion following a sensible period (currently suggested as being 7 days). Topics in this section represent the active areas of learning / discussion etc. Each topic will have a 'sub page/s' for discussion and analysis to occur. These will be linked below. If you wish to halt discussion for an active topic, please request this on the Talk page for the active area, providing justification.

The Mike Handel affair[edit]

See /MikeHandel for further discussion

opening process
Proposal - Mike Handel - a fictional BLP on en wiki==

Initially, I'd just like a workspace to neutrally write up what went on here, and allow a wiki environment for editors to contribute, ask questions, engage etc. I'll get setup in a week or so if that's cool :-) Privatemusings 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support
  1. Privatemusings 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a good idea

please raise concerns below

Please explain...

please ask questions below

I've copied this above now that substantially more than 7 days have passed. Privatemusings 06:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes on the English Wikipedia[edit]

See /hoaxes for further discussion

opening process
Proposal - Neutral write up of some material detailed here

The linked thread is over at Wikipedia Review, and details various silly, and not-so-silly 'hoax' articles which have been inserted into wikipedia. I think a netural write up, with a small(ish) analysis of any changes / evolutions which might effect the likelihood of such articles in the future. I'd also hope for a little bit of 'meta' space to think about broader implications both of the 'hoax' articles, and of the process of learning from them.

Support
  1. Privatemusings 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a good idea

please raise concerns below

Please explain...

please ask questions below

I've copied this above now that substantially more than 7 days have passed. Privatemusings 06:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_Criteria_for_speedy_deletion[edit]

See /Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion

opening process

This was an interesting project run on the english wikipedia - we'll take a look at;

  • strengths
  • weaknesses
  • outcomes

Privatemusings 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support
  1. Privatemusings 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. excellent example, reveals benefits and dangers. Handle with care. --Abd 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There being no objection within 7 days, the project page is opened at Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects/Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion --Abd 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

If you'd like to raise a matter for consideration, please do so below, to give editors, the wider 'wikiversity' community, and any other stakeholders the chance to respond before potentially sensitive actions are discussed further.

Initially, let's start with a minimum 7 day period as a proposal, to allow pros cons, pitfalls and possible caveats to be examined / raised before analysis or discussion commences substantially. Following this period, we can see if there's consensus to move a topic up to the 'green light' area above, create a sub page, and kick off in earnest.

The August 2010 'Spam' research / attacks[edit]

see w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-16/Spam_attacks for a brief write up. here are some further links (on the user talk page of the editor involved). A brief write up and discussion / analysis would be interesting.

Support[edit]

  1. Privatemusings 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Parking spot for possible future proposals[edit]

  • The (negligible) effect of facebook 'let's vandalise wikipedia' groups
  • Concepts and principles of effective response testing - an academic examination

Not 'response testing' per se, but partially related interesting past happenings[edit]

  • w:Maurice_Jarre - where fake 'last words' were republished internationally. We could take a look at;
  • how wikipedia policies and editing practices were followed in this case
  • whether or not this was a damaging episode in any way, and if so, for whom Privatemusings 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)