Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2023

Provide conscientious Wikiversity editors with a .edu email address

Sign

Faculty and students at many brick and mortar educational institutions receive email addresses ending in .edu. These email address often allow the user to access and receive discounts for a variety of education related services. It will be helpful for conscientious Wikiversity editors to obtain an email address such as username@wikiversity.edu so we can also benefit from recognized association with this learning institution. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't. .edu domain names are only available to accredited educational institutions, which Wikiversity is not and cannot become. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

True, but there's no reason why there can't be a supporting institution for Wikiversity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is. At https://net.educause.edu/eligibility.htm:

“ Intentionally deploying a .edu domain name for an institution or organization other than the registrant entity would constitute a violation of domain policy and may lead to the termination of the domain name registration. ”

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but [university].edu can make "wiki.[user]@[university].edu". We don't need a domain name, we need email addresses (per this proposal). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support This would be a nice addition to Wikiversity. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Who gets to decide which users are sufficiently 'conscientious'? AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Not you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh come now, don't be so sour. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

More "just asking questions" and then getting triggered. *eye roll emoji —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trigger_warning —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is full of patronizing, pesudointellectual tripe and only seems to get away with it by frequently insisting that it's not. I refuse to visit it, but feel free to make whatever point you're trying to make using your own words, preferably in the appropriate thread or topic, which is not this one. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And if you're still concerned about Wikidebates, then requiring people to sign their arguments (and preferably be registered) would cut down on the inappropriate questions. I'm no more happy about questions like "do slaves feel pain when whipped?" than you are, but that doesn't justify general censorship. The truly crude questions are essentially just spam that can be removed normally anyway. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Depression

Is depression actually a mental state 41.113.244.214 (discuss) 09:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The answer to this question depends on the way you look at it. According to some sources, depression is a disorder called major depressive disorder. [1][2] Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Custodianship

Does anybody here think I should run for probationary custodianship? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You've only been here two weeks. Why don't you work on a few resources first? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Probationary custodians says that the probationary custodianship system is inactive, so there is no need to run for it. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, you might have just saved me from a failed RfC. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 17:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll pay it forward. What is your opinion on the widespread, furtive suppression of discourse by means that exploit the public's sense of civility, trust, benevolence and other such social niceties while debasing its intellectual tradition? Comment below! AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Contributor, I would advise to contribute to Wikiversity without any solid "goal" of becoming a custodian. I am not saying that you are, but asking about custodianship with only 40 edits & 2 weeks of editing Wikiversity to your name isn't very convincing. You are very much welcomed to heed AP295's advice and contribute to a lot of resources that need attention. Since you say that you are an instructor of bowling, maybe contribute to the Bowling Fundamentals page. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)]

To add to Atcovi's comments, wikiversity is a bit different from wikipedia in that users should generally consult the author(s) of a resource before editing it, if they aren't already involved in its authorship. There's a greater sense of proprietorship and many resources are the work of a single editor. On the other hand, anyone can make a resource. If you think you can do it better, you don't need to contend with a stubborn editor to publish your own work, though I will offer my comments to an author if I feel they're valuable or helpful. I rather like this model, at least in principle, though improvements could be made so that material is easier for a user to find or browse. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind advice. I hope my time at Wikiversity is long and prosperous! Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 23:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps the step should be revised (especially on an official policy page) if the probationary custodian system is historical. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: More specific guidelines for criticism and critical reviews/discourse

Conversation

An academic organization is debased and untrue to its mission if participants must either agree with one another or hold their tongue for fear of reprisal, dismissal, or banishment to some remote island. In my experience Wikiversity is more tolerant than most online communities, yet nonetheless one is on very thin ice indeed if they endeavor, for example, to write a critical review of some resource. It would hardly be a well-adjusted ordering of priorities to put civility (much less egoism, less still feigned egoism) and assent above edification and genuine discourse, yet I sense that this has become the de-facto culture of so many online communities, probably in many instances due to broad, vague site policy and the capricious or selective enforcement thereof. For this reason it is important to have clear guidelines for critical discourse. A user must be allowed to express criticism, write a critical review, or generally express disagreement in direct and straightforward language without needing superhuman levels of patience or having to undermine their own message with word-mincing and cajolery or being obliged to adopt a clinical, deadpan style. Such guidelines must make clear that criticism and critical work in general is both a valid and valuable form of contribution and to receive the same assumption of good intent as any other sort of contribution. The guidelines should not use needless and open-ended qualifications like constructive or sensitive, and perhaps include a statement to the effect that critique of a resource, regardless of how critical or contradictory, does not in itself constitute incivility nor is it to be considered as an aggravating factor or behavioral issue if the user is being sanctioned for some other transgression. By and large, I'm sure most users are well-intended and not inclined to be unduly critical of others. Personally I don't like being a critic, nor do I like being criticized, yet I see critical discourse as no less a valid form contribution than any other sort, and a necessary part of any intellectual process. In spite of this, The UCoC states "Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner." Qualified phrases like constructive criticism effectively grant carte blanche authority for a moderator to issue a summary judgement about the worth of a resource and its author, and I see no reason why criticism in particular should be subject to a double standard, much less one with such high potential for abuse or a chilling effect. Of course we all know what "sensitive" means, but the phrase "sensitive criticism" is only slightly less oxymoronic than a phrase like "jumbo shrimp". Surely a bruised ego is not sufficient reason for a prohibition on critical discourse, least of all in the context of education and research, and it seems individual projects are allowed some flexibility: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Conflict_with_local_policies. The word "sensitive" hardly amounts to anything other than a euphemism for ego-sparing, and I doubt that any effective, honest, concise and non-trivial critique spares the ego of the user whose work it's directed at, but I'm certain that any user with good intentions ultimately appreciates a critical review and does not begrudge a bruised ego. Well-intended contributors are necessarily at least as concerned with making an effective article or resource as they are with saving face and the policy of sensitive criticism does them no favors. It is the author who decides whether or not to use the criticism they receive in a constructive manner. It is not the responsibility of the critic to cajole or patronize the author, nor whether or not their comments are used constructively. If a critic is honest and makes an effort to give a concise review and they aren't barbaric about it, then they've done all they can to improve the resource, short of making their own resource on the same topic. The only people who materially benefit from "sensitive criticism" are those who aren't acting in good faith, who in my experiences elsewhere will often feign indignation and make a bid for the observer's empathy at this loss of face, and employ other manipulative melodramatics while doing everything possible not to address such feedback or criticism. The observer who really does assume good faith is likely to empathize because criticism is always a slight blow to one's ego. It's a reproach to common decency when empathy, humanity, civility and trust are exploited in such a way. Yet this is the twilight zone we end up in when saving face and allowing others to do the same is glorified and considered imperative to civility, as opposed to something that encourages complacence, superficiality and other such social and intellectual regressions. Criticism is not equivalent to harassment, nor vandalism, nor spam, nor incivility. They are different in intent and in substance, and so I see no reason why we can't make reasonably clear distinctions in concrete policy that is difficult to abuse. The UCoC has a fairly extensive anti-harassment policy and requires that users behave in a civil manner. All contributions are expected to meet at least some minimum standard of quality and decency and it's rarely a serious problem to determine if an article is spam or at least of some potential, and I see no reason this would not suffice for critical work as it does for everything else. This is a question of values. Should we place ego and saving face above liberty? Perhaps the greatest asset of western culture itself is that liberty and knowledge are valued over saving-face, and that being wrong is not a permanent black mark upon one's reputation and credibility, but something transient and inherent to growth. [Note 1] If I seem to labor the point, it's because I feel a widespread trend in the opposite direction. At the very least, feigned indignation has become a normalized response to criticism, which is regressive in and of itself because people are less accountable to reality or objectivity, but more strongly obliged to hold their tongue anytime someone might take offense, or pretend to take offense. It must be corrected before our culture ends up an inferior, bastardized simulacrum of what it was and by all rights should still be. So borrowing an eloquent concluding remark from Hitchens, "let that be my opening bid, and let me accept counteroffers, enlargements, etc." AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Miscellaneous Notes: I suppose one could also take this as a critique of the UCoC2, but such far-reaching and consequential policy is protected from criticism by sheer pomp, mostly in the form of various bureaucratic contrivances, steering committees, board meetings, etc. whereby such problems are explained away as unavoidable artifacts of such a large system or structure, at least to a point. This is interesting in itself, but perhaps I'll have better luck (or at least receive a few token comments) if I start here. Who knows though, perhaps they'd agree entirely. Experience suggests that those with the authority to ignore criticism typically will, however. Even the most absurd fiction on tap from Hollywood would scarcely place more strain on one's capacity to suspend disbelief than the suggestion that policies of sensitive criticism are written and implemented in good faith, in the interest of civility, and with their creators simply failing to consider the chilling effect and potential for selective enforcement. I think I've stated the case fairly well though, and even if this goes nowhere it still stands as a pretty decent prima facie argument. If there is to be a policy of AGF, which appeals to our sense of humanity and cooperation and requests our trust, then it should not be made exploitable by the very next sentence of policy, but that's exactly how it's written: Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits; your contributions should improve the quality of the project or work. Provide and receive feedback kindly and in good faith. Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner. It all sounds well and good but ultimately means that we have no objective standard except, but an instead a conflation of criticism and incivility that encourages people to take criticism personally. Clearly a critique of one's work must not be considered a critique of the author, and while a work reflects the effort of its author, they (and moderators) are obliged to accept criticism of their work rather than treating it as an attack upon their virility. While this might not stop abuse, it will make it more difficult for abusers to maintain a bogus air of defending the humanity and good faith of others while actually exploiting such traits, along with the work of so many editors whose contributions are valuable. AP295 (discuss • contribs) Excuse all the edits, I simply want to make my point concise. It is a challenge to make a dispassionate appeal, but I am trying. If anyone cares and I'm sure they don't, I have a few other suggestions that might be worth considering. For example, on other projects indefinite blocks seem to be handed out liberally and for relatively minor transgressions. For a new or casual contributor who isn't going to move to another Wikimedia project and go through the appeal process, this essentially amounts to a lifetime ban. Permanent exile does not seem a commensurate response to a new user who makes a false move or offends the wrong person, nor is it in agreement with inclusiveness as a general principle. Limiting all blocks to a maximum length of six months or a year, except for specific, serious offenses is something that I think would increase participation in several Wikimedia projects and encourage genuine intellectual diversity (remarkably uncommon in academia, despite so much lip service and marketing to the contrary). Wikiversity seems a uniquely suited venue for intellectual growth. Today even brick-and-mortar academia (which I believe is irreplaceable and in need of major reform itself) is not always a venue that facilitates intellectual growth. It is commercialized, and dissent is often looked upon with no less contempt than anywhere else. I hope that Wikiversity is able to capitalize on its position as a non-profit organization in which intellectual honesty is not a potential liability to one's career as a scholar, which too often undermines scholarship itself. Thank you for reading, and thanks in advance for your comments. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [Note 1] This perspective, which I feel is not only healthy but a cornerstone of good culture itself, seems fundamentally incompatible with the increasingly accepted idea that one must constantly guard what they propose, discuss, or state lest they be fired, expelled, not admitted, banned or otherwise denied participation in their own society either immediately or at some indefinite point in the future for some objectively minor indiscretion. One is made to feel that they must save face, and this in turn encourages the idea that it's the height of incivility to be critical. This is really an intolerable condition and probably self-perpetuating under policy of soft-censorship like sensitive criticism, no doubt the only sort such a debauched cultural standard would hold up against. AP295 (discuss • contribs) I have to admit that I'm a little lost here. Can you give a specific example of the behavior and/or policy on this wiki which you'd like to see changed? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) I'll make it as simple as possible, though I'm quite certain you understand exactly what I mean. Wikiversity should include in its guidelines a few statements to the following effect: Criticism is a necessary component of any intellectual pursuit and authors who offer criticism will receive the same benefit of the doubt that AGF affords to all users. In contributing, one acknowledges that their contribution is subject to scrutiny by other users. Criticism of one's work is not to be taken as a personal attack regardless of how contradictory it might be. Critique is best written in plain, natural language and it is undermined when it must be qualified with flattery or other ego-sparing language, or shoehorned into an unnatural, clinical, deadpan style. Essentially, this is a provision to prevent the abuse of UCoC part 2, in particular the sentence "Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner.", which singles out criticism as something that is subject to additional qualification and encourages people to view criticism of an author's work as criticism of the author themselves, obviously the wrong approach. I had already said all of this in the above. You'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit short with you, as it's rather frustrating to spend hours precisely articulating one's point only to have another user act like you've not even written it down in English. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 05:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Given your history on other Wikimedia projects, I have to admit that I'm more than a little bit concerned by your implied suggestion that we ignore the UCoC on matters of civility. But I'll give you one more chance. In one sentence, without any further sniping at me in edit summaries, what specific change are you proposing be made to Wikiversity policy? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) With great patience; the changes I'd like are suggested in bold, and I'd likewise appreciate if you'd not attempt to get a rise out of me by acting as though I'm speaking nonsense. My suggestions are not in contravention of UCoC, per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Conflict_with_local_policies which I've also explained above. If you believe the sentences in bold are unreasonable or against policy, then please address why. They appear prima facie quite reasonable, and within the apparent prerogative of Wikiversity to implement per UCoC itself. AP295 (discuss • contribs) And I'd also like to emphasize that this is not per se a change in policy but a simple, three-sentence interpretation of existing policy which is otherwise both vague and which individual projects have explicit authority to clarify or adjust if need be. Do you have another idea of how this policy should be made clearer or more concrete? I'll ignore the ad hominem about "my history", which I feel supports rather than undermines my point, though I hardly feel this provision could be made any clearer or better justified than I've already made it. Ball's in your court, as it were. Supposing that UCoC was written in good faith and worded vaguely only for the sake of not constraining every project to the same set of rules, it follows that a project generally must offer specific clarification rather than leave it open to abuse. AP295 (discuss • contribs) Also, if you'd do me the courtesy of humoring a personal question, what is your own opinion of the sentences in bold? Even if by some odd technicality they can't be added, would you agree with them in principle? I also respectfully pose this question to anyone else who might object on a technicality. I ask this because it would strike me as very strange for one to reject them on principle alone, but if there exists at least this degree of consensus it should be possible to make something work and there'd be no reason not to get this RfC back on track for the sake of all concerned. I'd do at least this much for anyone who had a serious concern and made an effort to address it. It would be utterly baffling if such a proposal were unanimously rejected without further consideration or discussion by people who agree with the principle of the matter, regardless of what they think of the user who's making the pitch. Anyone going on the assumption of good faith would be completely floored, and likely frustrated in no minor degree. So before anything else I must ask, are the suggestions in bold not based in common morality and liberty? I'm really doing my best here... AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Another thought I've had in the meantime is that, with a few small tweaks, the three bolded sentences might be a good, concise general guideline for any venue that wants to encourage discourse, as well as a litmus test to compare existing policy and practice against. So often I feel that many websites, not necessarily just wikimedia projects, pay a lot of lip service to the principle of expression and diversity of thought but de facto hold critical discourse to a far different and usually far more restrictive standard than assenting opinions. I may write a small essay expanding upon this but wanted to mention it here, just for the sake of full disclosure. I hope I'll receive more comments, Omphalographer caught me in a bad mood, but I promise not to bite. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I am failing to see an actual problem so far, try as I might. Critical reviews of published materials in Wikiversity, e.g. on talk pages of these materials, are not frowned upon, are they? Criticism of users/editors and their conduct is a more sensitive issue, but for critical thinking and critical debate, one does not need to steer the attention to persons and their behavior, right? The policy at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct says that "Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner", and unless this is twisted against reasonable criticism of material, which it hypothetically might but does not need to, I do not see an actual problem. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) But to be clear, you agree in principle with what I've put in bold above? Naturally I am speaking of criticism toward contributions and other ideas, not personal criticism, and I've explicitly said this already. If so, then it would be harmless to add a few sentences to this effect. Even if UCoC's vagueness is not actively abused in an overt manner on wikiversity at present, it may well have a chilling effect on discourse and while this would be less conspicuous, it would be no less unfortunate. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I agree with what you wrote in boldface; upon reviewing it, I failed to find anything wrong with it; but that said, if someone points out specific problems, I may reconsider. However, I do not see a need to turn it into a codified policy. On the other hand, one may argue that it is better to preemptively codify things before problems develop. To which my response would be, Omphalographer pointed out below to the WikiJournal project being about criticism in the sense of raising issues/defects to be discussed, corrected, rejected, or deferred, and therefore, the actual need really seems not to be there. OTOH, part of me thinks I have no need to oppose this boldface wording should it come to a vote and become a formal policy of Wikiversity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you. I am not trying to insist that this be made site policy, but I do insist on having an objective and clear set of rules to follow, regardless of what they are. If they end up being something in the vein of what I wrote, fine. If criticism must always start with an apology, a please or a thank you, then I can do that too. If it is to be banned outright, then fine. What cannot be acceptable is to have policy that is subjective or vaguely contradictory like "sensitive criticism". It always hurts when one's work is criticized, but it is valuable feedback nonetheless and I'd take an honest review any day of the week over a patronizing one. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) About "objective and clear set of rules to follow": tough luck on a wiki. Having such rules is ideal, unless perhaps when they become too detailed and complicated, but I do not feel you or I have the right to "insist" on obtaining such rules. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Sure we do. They may not oblige, but it is a perfectly reasonable request to make and better still if one suggests a possible solution. Wikimedia as a whole is hugely influential, and it seems likely people interpret it as some form of public consensus or some such open and democratic process. It is entirely reasonable to expect accountability, impartiality and objective policy, otherwise taglines like "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" amount to rank flattery. What about that boyscout that landed here after being thrown out? I only had a brief look, and some of their edits are not visible to me so correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't seem like he did anything that would require more than a week's time out, much less an indefinite block. It's like taking one look at a child and saying "what could such a small and uneducated person ever accomplish?" Site policy and the manner in which it is enforced is practically designed to exclude anyone who exhibits a normal range of human behavior. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC) For that matter, the entire WikiJournal project - which contains a number of highly active editors who are certainly aware of the UCoC - revolves around providing critical reviews of submitted articles and rejecting them or sending them back for revisions if necessary. If they had seen a problem with this portion of the UCoC, surely they would have mentioned it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I'm not speaking about anything so formal as a journal review. Just simple discourse that anyone can become involved with. Again I ask, do you agree in principle with what I've put in bold? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) And aside from everything else, this is a request for clarification. The word "sensitive" is not an objective criterion, a user does not know if they've satisfied this requirement until after the fact. We can suppose it has been left vague in order not to constrain each project to the same set of rules, but in this case the project is responsible for providing clarification so that users have a clear and stationary set of goalposts, as it were. We are already required to behave decently, so what additional meaning does this qualifier have? Something like "respect gender pronouns" is a concrete, positive obligation. If someone states what they prefer to be called, it is trivial to comply with this policy. It is trivial to avoid using racial slurs. On the other hand, sensitive reads like a positive obligation, but ultimately users have no control over how other users react to feedback. This is bad, or at least very vague policy and I hardly feel I'm being unreasonable when I ask for clarification and suggest one such clarification that might be used. If you disagree with my proposed guidelines, then please furnish a compliant, objective interpretation for I and other users to follow. AP295 (discuss • contribs) You seem to focus on "sensitive" in "Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner". In my long-term experience with software engineering reviews in two large international companies, one German, one American, the review process was fairly formally specified but there was nothing about "sensitive". There is an art about writing issue descriptions, but it was not formally specified, and as a result, some engineers wrote comments/issues/defects that were hard to understand, lacked specificity, etc., but I do not remember a comment ever being rejected for being "insensitive". I imagine the word "criticism" in the UCoC policy may be intended to cover criticism of persons, and there, the requirement to be "sensitive" is probably a good idea and I myself will do well to keep that requirement in mind but also point out to others that they are not free to override UCoC even if they have local consensus to act badly. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC) That said, I think the requirement of "civil" or the like would be much better than "sensitive", but now that UCoC has this language, the Wikiversity project cannot do anything about it locally, I figure. Against the UCoC I would raise the complaint that it states its requirements in imperative rather than in "shall" or "should", which I for one find in poor taste. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Wikiversity has the explicit authority to interpret or clarify the UCoC, per the UCoC itself, and this is what I am requesting here. The UCoC already requires civility, why does criticism in particular need any additional qualification? I don't want to speculate on intent, but it seems to imply that criticism in its natural form is itself an instance of incivility and must be "adjusted" in some nonspecific way shape or form. Whatever the case, I do not understand how to follow this policy. I am a user who is asking for official clarification. If it's not forthcoming, then so be it, but I feel I've done my due diligence. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I guess that if you focus on the criticized content in your comment statement and avoid commenting on the person, you should usually be fine. And when not, perhaps some will be willing to explain in specific instances what is wrong. To get some idea, it is unnecessary to state that "sentence S contains a stupid mistake": it does not matter whether the mistake is stupid but rather what the mistake is, and the comment fails to identify the mistake or the problem. I think that with a bit of luck, we will be able to work it out case by case, on this small project. I for one try to be very clear and specific when raising issues, including issues with issue statements. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Indeed, and I've been saying more or less the same thing. Since we both agree there's an important distinction between work and author, and we both presume that civility in this context amounts to focusing on the work and not the author, and finally that this is all arguably implied by the rest of the UCoC, then one must read UCoC's additional qualification about criticism as sensitive with respect to the work itself, since the presumed subject of critique is the work. Clearly nonsensical. More likely, I think that line in the UCoC will have the effect of conflating work and author. It's interesting to consider that the UCoC is worded in such a way that suggests an author should necessarily take criticism of their work personally but to expect that in doing so, they will not be offended if policy is adhered to. By conflating work and author, it makes people self-conscious and gives them an expectation of being able to save face, as opposed to drawing a firm distinction as both you and I have. If anything needs to be said about critique, it's precisely to make this difference clear rather than muddy it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Also interesting is the blurb about gender pronouns immediately below. It's as though the policy says, keep dissenting opinions to yourself while implying transgenderism is somehow party to these vague restrictions on critical prose, as a sort of scapegoat. I have little doubt there are many people in the world whose reputation and status are not justified but instead grossly contradicted by their actions. It is these people who have the most to lose from criticism and freedom of expression as a social custom, and so they try to make others like themselves. If everyone is standing on a house of cards, then nobody is in a position to withstand the consequences of liberty and freedom of expression. It is a thoroughly toxic cultural trend. That they take cover behind people who are already in a rather sorry state and disguise their stultifying propaganda as an appeal to one's human side and desire for justice makes it even more egregious. Even worse still, so many of them enjoy celebrity status. And when they finally are exposed for the scuzz that they are, e.g. probable clients of child-traffickers/pimps like Epstein, rapists, warmongers, and patrons of all other manner of obscenity and decadence, people hardly even know what to do with this information. The deeply-impressed, utterly surreal, Pavlovian habit of erring on the side of saving face and letting others do the same takes over in spite of all decency and good sense. Nothing would make me more ecstatic than to see every last corrupt muckety-muck hit the ground at terminal velocity, and I think that having a very close look at policy like this is the way to start. Honestly I hate this culture of posturing and face-saving. I'm not at all suited for it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I wonder if someone will be along shortly to demonstrate the proper and socially acceptable response to such commentary. Ten bucks on "dazed incomprehension", but who knows. I hold out hope that people will surprise me with something human. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thinking I might not have been concise enough, I wrote this essay as a refinement of my earlier suggestions, though it's still a work in progress. Expand the collapsed box above to see my original request and the responses, which did not seem to bear out any definite conclusion. For some time I've felt that many popular 'user-driven' websites have developed an odd and unhealthy culture of assent. This is essentially my bid for a few policy changes or perhaps clarifications that I think will mitigate this trend. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.

On behalf of the Committee Support team,

~ Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Keegan! Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.

Best,

Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Enable Extension:Translate

Hi! The Wikidebate project is slowly growing and I think a big next step would be to start translating the debates to new languages. Years ago I tried creating v:es:Wikidebate but it never really caught on. I think it would be much more effective to use the mw:Extension:Translate. However, it'd need to be enabled on Wikiversity first, and thus it would be available for the entire site. Perhaps I should note that no single-language Wikimedia project (that I know of) has this extension enabled. AFAIK, it's only enabled on multi-language projects such as Commons, MediaWiki.org or Meta. However, this may not be a problem if there's consensus to enable it. Thoughts? Objections? Support? Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

First and foremost: The English Wikiversity is an English language project. It is not a multilingual project. If you want to experiment with the Translate extension, it's available on https://beta.wikiversity.org/.

Second: There's a lot of overhead inherent in maintaining a set of translated texts. It's difficult enough on Commons, where there's a sizable multilingual community present and the texts being translated are fairly stable (like policy documents and message templates). For a smaller project like Wikidebate it's going to be effectively impossible.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think we should host non-English material on en.wv. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The workforce inside English Wikiversity should be used to expand English content rather than something else. The same thing can be said to other type of projects, and I think that is why there is no single-language Wikimedia project having the extension enabled. For non-English creations, you can use other versions of Wikiversity or Beta as advised at above. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Per Omphalographer’s comment. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this does not seem appropriate for the en.wikiversity. This also seems like it would be unnecessary clutter considering the lack of interest in translating these Wikidebates. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)