User talk:Privatemusings

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

a natural aversion to red links leads me to somewhat redundantly welcome discussion here.........

Welcome to Wikiversity[edit source]

Welcome[edit source]

Hello Privatemusings, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 23:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brave and Foolish[edit source]

There is a classical Jungian archetype and story about being brave and foolish. The story is variously known as Parsifal, Fisher King, or Grail Quest. Parsifal (aka Gawain) is the witless fool whose simple act of compassion heals the wound of Amfortas, the Fisher King. In Jungian Analysis, the Amfortas Wound is the persistent wound that seemingly never heals, because it can only be healed by a gracious act of compassion that rarely occurs (except in remarkable stories like The Fisher King). In terms of our model of ethics, perfect compassion corresponds to Carol Gilligan's Ethics of Care, which the ancients called Thummim. —Moulton 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio introduction[edit source]

Would you like to participate at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio or Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio/Transcripts? --JWSchmidt 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restructuring[edit source]

Thank you for cleaning up the mess caused by the edit warring. I hope we can put the edit war in the past, but I doubt it. But let's hope for the best. WAS 4.250 00:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! - glad you liked it :-) - it'll all come out in the wash in the end....! Privatemusings 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to tag the baby, so as to distinguish it from the bathwather. —Moulton 11:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

evolution[edit source]

Thanks for your comments on my user talk page. I was amused that you seemed to be walking on egg shells while you were on your way to whisper in my ear. The intent of the message at the top of my talk page is to encourage people to talk to me even when they want to tell me something that might make me unhappy. Anyhow, I think I understand everything you said and I think it cuts right to an important matter. I agree that it is understandable that intelligent design-advocates can cause problems on Wikipedia and that can lead to "a response" from Wikipedians who oppose the goals of the intelligent design movement. It is a fundamental human problem that when we "come under attack" we get upset and often start fighting back. However, the rules of Wikipedia basically say, "stay calm, stay polite, listen to well-intentioned complaints from other people even if you think the complaints are misguided". During conflicts that exist at the boundary between religion and science there is a problem in how language serves our needs. Scientists and non-scientists do not share a common set of definitions for terms such as "evolution". Important words mean different things to scientists and to non-scientists. This means that scientists and non-scientists are constantly talking past eachother and not understanding eachother. So, Wikipedians who are editing at the boundary between science and religion need to be aware of this, they need to be mature and recognize the problem, and they need to make a special effort to understand what they hear and they need to do their "work" at Wikipedia with constant attention to the goal of making sure that all points of view are heard and fairly presented by Wikipedia. One of the key problems in communication relates to what you said here: "It's my belief that the vast (vast) majority of scientific opinion supports evolution, which in my lay understanding I'm treating synonymously with 'darwinian natural selection'." I agree that for most people, the term "evolution" (when used in its biological context) is treated synonymously with 'darwinian natural selection'. However, I'll ask you to take the time to open your favorite dictionary and read the definition of "evolution". Many dictionaries do not mention "natural selection" at all when giving the meaning of "evolution" (example, my dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language from 1978, see also this). Please note that the Wikipedia article on Evolution correctly makes a distinction between the terms "evolution" and "natural selection". The distinction is that natural selection is a mechanism or process that can play an important role in the way many types of evolutionary change take place. Further, scientists who study evolution know that natural selection is not the only process that is important for the evolution of life. So for a scientist to say,

1) "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

in no way contradicts or conflicts with

2) "the vast (vast) majority of scientific opinion supports evolution".

Do you see the distinction? Many scientists study other mechanisms of evolution besides natural selection. Darwinian natural selection only deals with how a biological species can transform into a new species. Many people who study the complexity of life study molecular evolution and the transition of molecules to the living state, a transition that involved the evolution of molecular complexity before there ever was a "species" that could be subjected to Darwinian natural selection. Anyhow, the bottom line is that some Wikipedian's jumped to the conclusion that anyone who agrees with statement #1 (above) is a friend of the discovery institute and their methods and their goals. That's false and I think it is really crazy that some Wikipedia editors still believe it after having been told repeatedly why they are mistaken. Such failure to listen to people who tell you why you are wrong and why what you posted on Wikipedia is wrong is absolutely against Wikipedia policy. I feel that for Wikipedians to attack people who are trying to correct Wikipedia's errors and for abusive administrators to participate in well-orchestrated efforts to ban editors who are trying to correct Wikipedia's errors is sickening. Its not right and Wikipedia has a problem with this. I hope that the "ethics in Wikipedia" project here in Wikiversity can help lead to changes at Wikipedia that will prevent this problem from continuing. Would you be willing to ask me the "3 questions" some time or should I just do a recording by myself the way you did? --JWSchmidt 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I agree 100%. WAS 4.250 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the response, JW :-) - I'd love to ask you the questions - but equally feel free to 'go solo' for the sake of timeliness if you want to... best, Privatemusings 04:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)I'm sure we'll continue the above in terms of the ethics project, and possibly the broader issue in the future too![reply]

PodCast with NewYorkBrad (Thursday, Sept 4)[edit source]

Please sign me up to participate in Thursday's SkypeCast with NewYorkBrad. —Moulton 13:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've had to drop out of this 'cos I'm a bit busy this week... that could mean that it might be delayed? - I'll try and catch up with you about this soon(ish) :-) Privatemusings 02:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please use your good offices to ensure that I am not locked out of this session when it occurs. I would be grateful if you would discuss with NewYorkBrad the issue, that Filll and Durova had previously locked out Greg Kohs, and Filll had previously sought to lock me out of the roundtable with Brian Bergstein. —Moulton 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page on the ethics project[edit source]

Hi, privatemusings. Thanks for showing me the link. I think in general that everyone who was involved with the ethics project is going to need to review their material and think about where it is appropriate to post it, what kind of page title is appropriate, and whether any content is inappropriate. I'm sure that there is both good and bad all over the place. I think one user has made a good start by moving "his" pages into his user namespace. A good way forward might be for all the contributors to move "their" pages into their user namespaces quite quickly, pending a slower general discussion of restructuring, renaming and perhaps suspending the project. Please feel welcome to drop by on my talk page if you need any guidance on this. --McCormack 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection[edit source]

Hi Privatemusings - yes, I'd really appreciate having that discussion. Of course I acknowledge that mistakes have been made, and that I had a role in those - or even made them directly! I also think the ethics project could be relaunched - but only within some very specific guidelines about the ethics of "learning" about another person's online contributions. I have faith that the remaining participants will be able to work on these guidelines, and make the ethics project into a stimulating resource - I've always loved the idea, just not some of the practice. Cormaggio talk 10:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coolio :-) - maybe if you get a mo. you could take a quick look at my ethics sandbox, where I thought I'd sort of pull together a few of my ideas. Feel free to edit, discuss, whatever on those pages - I'm just sort of in a holding pattern collecting a few thoughts while other stuff settles down a bit. After this post I'm going to head over there and try and write some guidelines for myself - your thoughts and feedback will be most welcome.. thanks! Privatemusings 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Ethics[edit source]

"trying to help a Wikiversity 'Wikimedia Ethics' project make some sense eventually" <-- I would like to get clear in my own thinking to what extent all the various participants in the ethics project think of it as a research project. Jimbo suggested some specific ideas for how Wikiversity might modify its policy on research in light of the hornets nest that research for the ethics project stirred up. My thoughts are still in orbit around the issue of needed changes for the research policy. I like to think of Wikiversity as a playground where I can have fun learning about things that interest me. For a nerd like me, research is one of the most fun things to play with. I would like to find a way to keep doing research projects here at Wikiversity that does not include the traditional part of the process in which the researchers are attacked by an angry mob who would prefer that sleeping dogs be left un-researched. I've long recognized the need for Wikiversity participants to practice self-censorship....this is not something that I am happy about.....it is just the reality we live with. It has always been and will always be the case that a tension exists between people who want to use new technology in new ways and people who want to live in the past where they do not have to deal with the changes caused by new technology. I'm one of the trouble-makers who wants to explore just what can be accomplished with wiki technology. I am constantly creating a tension between the "thrust" of opening up new spaces for the exploration of the potential of wiki technology and the resulting "parry" from people who say, "we are not ready for that". Sorry about the sword fighting analogy, it is just the first thing that came to mind. I have always envisioned Wikiversity as a gentle place where we can explore the boundary of the possible and be guided to consensus by discussion, not fighting. I suppose there is is a blurry boundary between discussion and fighting that we are also exploring. I was trained in the ways of a culture where the discussions are open, direct and designed to cut to the truth as quickly as possible. It is a learning experience for me to explore the extent to which I can play around with open and direct research without getting myself, and all of Wikiversity, in trouble. Okay, that is a brain dump about me and where I am with respect to the ethics project...I hope it qualifies as useful "feedback" for you. As for "advice", I've never been much good at giving advice....in the context of wiki editing I seem to usually end up saying something like: have fun doing what most interests you. I really value you as a Wikiversity participant so I hope our play times/topics intersect in the future and we can continue to share wonderful collaborations. --JWSchmidt 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the future of Wikimedia ethics project[edit source]

Feel free to add, but please do not delete without first getting consensus. Thanks. WAS 4.250 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMA[edit source]

Thanks for the heads up; I've joined the mailing list - one step at a time! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Artist needed?[edit source]

Hi,

Someone's been busy in connection with WikiCampusRadio..

Would you be willing to help in getting content recorded?

More details if interested? 212.225.116.192 16:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit source]

I can turn my back on possible iffy things that are minor, but I definitely cannot turn my back on that. Please understand that it crossed the line. Okay? Moulton was banned for using WV to run around other media. What you put is something that cannot be hosted here. It is for your good, my good, and all of Wikiversity's good that you don't re-post it. I will not delete the rest of your information or allusions, but no guides nor any in-depth details. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... well I'm having trouble swallowing the implications that such material is banned from here. Would you mind writing something neutral up for the colloquium so we can have a bit of a chat about this one? I'm developing that project at an absolute snail's pace, and have no urgent problem with your actions (ie. I think you're mistaken that material 'cannot be hosted here' - or at least that material ;-) - but I don't really care if it's deleted for a while, while we chat about it) - my wiki time is stretched at the mo - and I'll probably respond at the colloquium, or kick off a netural thread myself after a day or two... hope you're good anywhooo.... Privatemusings 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a guide for how to sock when it was deleted from other wikis wouldn't make a lot of people happy. We already had problems with allowing Wikiversity encouraging negative interactions with Wikipedia, which socks can definitely do. You can -discuss- such actions, but please no guides on what can be seen as violating rules. Wikiversity cannot be a place which promotes violations of other Wikis rules. Regardless, I am sure plenty of people have an idea on -how- to do the socking without you having to tell them how, so you can find that the need for such a guide is moot, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a guide on hacking/cracking would be considered useful to people wanting to learn about security. I'm not sure how lessons on socks would be any different. Lessons could be useful for understanding the weaknesses in the wiki model. I don't think we should be deleting things just because they might/could upset people on other wikis. What next, do we delete lessons that suggest the Holocaust never happened because that might encourage a negative reaction? I think its not always possible to avoid controversy in education and what is taught. That said seems like some kind of balance should be possible, but I doubt its a compromise that everyone can be happy with. People use socks for good reasons just as well as for bad reasons. I think a balanced lesson probably should cover both the good and bad, the reasons why wikis don't like people to use socks, what usually happens if a person is caught using a sock for reasons not liked, along with ways people detect socks and ways people avoid detection. I think ways people avoid detection could be useful for wiki administrators because you can't always rely on tools to figure out whose a sock and whose not. In programming, sharing information would probably be considered security through transparency, while hiding information would probably be considered security through obscurity. I may be wrong, but I don't think Privatemusings is anything like Moulton. I also think Moulton was banned for entirely different reasons. -- darklama  04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did a colloquium discussion kick off? (I don't think so, but I've missed things before!) - I can see OR's point that hosting such stuff might be moot - but to my mind that just makes it less of a deal (and it's not a very big deal to begin with!) - so on balance, I'd still like to use the material in my project. I'll sniff round a bit more to look for the discussion, and drop one in myself later on (in the week, most likely) - obviously feel free (anyone really!) to write something neutral up, and we'll move forward. best, Privatemusings 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no colloquium discussion on this yet. I saw the deletion soon after it happened which sparked my curiosity a bit. I thought I would watch, wait, and see how the discussion would develop and what would happen out of curiosity. Thats the only reason I'm aware of this discussion. -- darklama  00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< bit busy today and tomorrow - but will probably follow this up on fri :-) Privatemusings 02:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

posted to colloquium Privatemusings 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note[edit source]

Mornin' all - there's clearly quite a lot to catch up on here, regarding the deletion of the ethical breaching experiment page, and my block from wv by jimbo - I see SB has undeleted the page and discussion has begun - I'm a bit busy today, but look forward to joining as soon as poss. - and if anyone's watching this, they might like to know that although I appear to have been unblocked - I think I'm still caught by an 'Autoblock', fwiw.... hope we can be thoughtful and calm and pursue discussion on all this :-) cheers, Privatemusings 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that... I forgot to check for autoblocks. You should be fine now. Your input would of course be greatly appreciated on the review page. --SB_Johnny talk 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chat[edit source]

I hope to see you on IRC sometime. --JWSchmidt 18:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's monday morning now, and I have a wee bit of time - I'm a bit befuddled about where to start with all this, but will install chatzilla, and hop onto IRC to see if that helps any :-) Privatemusings 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit source]

This is to notify you that you have been reblocked. Please see this discussion for more information. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well that's a shame. I'd like to be unblocked, and find this action clumsy and uneccessary - I'm not even sure of the policy (site, or foundation) which suggests this is acceptable.
Main thing, I hope, is for all to be calm and chilled - Ottava, would you mind writing something netural up for the community review indicating that I would like to be unblocked, that I am happy to committ to following all foundation, and site, policies, and that I would like to be a part of the important, ongoing related discussions. cheers, Privatemusings 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is up to us at the moment. Nevertheless, abiding by policies isn't necessarily going to be good enough for Jimbo or others. The reality, and part of what has caused some of the problem here, is that we perhaps don't have appropriate policies to deal with delicate situations. It is of some concern that you don't seem to recognise that problem and want to see a policy of some kind which supports what Jimbo has done as if a policy will exist for every situation. I hope, if some good can come out of this incident, that we can improve our policies, guidelines, and processes to avoid such situations happening again, but we can never anticipate every possible situation.
I don't think you can ask or expect anyone here to consider unblocking you at this time, particularly in light of what happened to the last custodian that decided to do so. It is only my opinion but I feel it is better for Wikiversity to tread very carefully when it comes to researching other WMF projects or avoid doing so altogether if that isn't possible. Both your breaching experiments project, and the Court of WMF style analysis of conflicts on other WMF projects that we've seen previous under the "Wikimedia Ethics" banner go too far for Wikiversity in my view.
One of the most fundamental problems with trying to research anything WMF related is that Wikiversity cannot detach itself from that community. It will always be a difficult area to research on Wikiversity. Better for us to focus on developing learning resources that have a much wider public appeal and alongside that develop the polices, guidelines, and procedures, that will allow us to host more challenging research projects in the future. Let's not try to run before we can walk. Adambro 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Adam - and despite wanting to be unblocked, I understand that it's not really reasonable (or sensible!) in the light of Jimbo's clumsy agressiveness, for a custodian to unblock me at the mo.
I understand your concern that I don't understand the problem - I want to reassure you that I absolutely can see the paramount need for care and caution in working in an area like 'ethics' or 'the ethics of breeching experiments' - I've mentioned elsewhere previously that I support the direction the project was taking (removing planning etc. and moving towards writing up others' previous actions (ie. the Mike Handel thing) - I guess I was just trying to keep it simple, but I should be clear that I absolutely support the spirit of all the policies as well as the letter, and what I really want to do is to learn, and enjoy sharing learning with anyone else who's interested.
This whole broo ha ha has actually created enough material for an ethics project to discuss and write up for quite a while - I remain hopeful that it'll all come out in the wash in due course - thanks once again for your response, and I hope to work more with you in sunnier times before too long... best, Privatemusings 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite that it might be true to say that this "whole broo ha ha has actually created enough material for an ethics project to discuss and write up for quite a while", I trust you understand that would be inappropriate. Can you reassure me that my understanding is correct? Apologies for asking you to clarify this comment but you'll appreciate it often isn't clear in what tone comments are made. Adambro 15:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material I intended to refer to is the stuff linked to by User:AFriedman (who used his mascot / alternative account), and the stuff posted by Jon Awbrey, and RTG here - I hadn't really read the First Monday journal before, and found it interesting and a bit inspiring - it's the sort of standard I feel I would aim to reach here - that's what I mean by 'discuss and write up' (the discuss bit is a shorthand way of saying I can hopeful bend someone's ear to help me learn more and dig deeper into the substance of said links - the write up is what I would hope could be 'first monday' standard in due course).
I don't think you'd categorise that as inappropriate - but perhaps you felt I was meaning something else - as you say, tone (and often even basic meaning in my case!) can be difficult in text only comm.s - thanks for asking for the clarification - something I'm always happy to give. Hope you're good, Privatemusings 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more thoughts on the current situation[edit source]

I noticed Jimbo say this 'Privatemusings can contact me privately to discuss conditions for his reinstatement.' - and I also noticed Jimbo mention that he's discussing closing wikiversity with the board, that he has the support of Sue Gardner, and that he has the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation - I would like to ask for some more detail - perhaps the nature of the board discussions, perhaps some detail on what exactly has been said to Sue (and why she is unable to speak for herself?) and what exactly Jimbo means by the support of the foundation - there are some very strong implications in those statments, and I'm afraid I feel that Jimbo is simply upping the ante to squish discussion, rather than representing the issues in a calm and clear manner - if other stakeholders in the foundation (board members, staff, respected wmf volunteers) feel the same way as Jimbo, then further discussion will no doubt be useful. The few I have spoken to thus far have asked to review the material before forming a view - something Jimbo may or may not agree with.

I feel a bit grumpy about how I've been treated here (though I'm no big deal, and I think the way SB has been treated is shocking and inexusable) - and I'd really vastly prefer communication with me to be out in the open - to that end, I've just sent Jimmy this;

Hi Jimmy,

I'd like to be unblocked on Wikiversity.

I'd prefer to discuss unblocking on the wikiversity pages - I think it would be good for that community as well as easier and more transparent for us if we did so. I have some availability for IRC too if you'd prefer, or a Skype conversation.

I'll reiterate that I feel you've seriously misunderstood and misrepresented many aspects of 'the ethics of breeching experiments' - and you also have an unhelathy predeliction for using 'troll' to shut down discussions in my view. Whether or not you close your own mind, mentioning troll, claiming a false authority and behaving in a bullying fashion is not the way forward - I hope to have some calm discussion about moving forward as soon as possible.

best,

Peter, PM.

I hope we can move forward very soon. Privatemusings 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit source]

I put one of the template things here, really just to underline my request to be unblocked - Adam replied;

Disregarding my own reservations for the moment, Jimbo has explained that Privatemusings should contact him regarding this, at least initially, so it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone else to consider unblocking until such discussions have taken place. Privatemusings has accepted that "it's not really reasonable (or sensible!) ... for a custodian to unblock me at the mo" and so it probably isn't wise to have a request for the block to be reviewed sitting here ready to catch someone out. Jimbo can discuss this with you here if he likes of course but I don't think he needs an {{unblock}} template to do so. Adambro 08:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Adam - you're right that it's not really a big deal to have such a template for my request to be clear (and I don't think it's the case that Jimbo has been waiting for one to appear!) - I won't replace it for a week or two, by which point I hope you may be willing to discuss the reservations you have (maybe this will happen at a review anyways? I don't know) - either ways, I hope you might agree that a fortnight or so is a reasonable timescale to allow Jimbo the kind of sole authority he claims as his own in this case? (I have no problem with that on a pragmatic level, despite the sincere belief that jimbo using his flags in this way sets a terrible precedent, is clumsy, aggressive, and generally not-so-great, nor permissible within foundation, or site, policy and practice really)
Hope you're good, and if you'd be interested in my response to any of the stuff that's gone on, please do let me know - it would be good to talk. cheers, Privatemusings 09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

follow up[edit source]

I received a further email from Jimbo, in which he mentioned that he needs a pledge from me to avoid the topic of the project completely, or be willing to reformulate it. He also asserted that I have a long track record of being 'socially tone deaf', unnecessarily confrontational, and he said that he feels that it will not be possible for me to work on this project without annoying people. I have replied;

Hi Jimmy,

I remain happy to reformulate the project - I think this was happening organically to be honest - I feel that I've learnt quite a lot from the various links and materials people have produced in discussion at the community review - and maybe you'll even stick around and engage? You may or may not know, but encouraging more communication over voice is one of my pet wiki things, I think I'll see if I can work in that area on this project for the next little while - maybe you'll be up for a chat at some point?

I don't think it's accurate or necessary to describe my approach as unnecessarily confrontational, nor do I think it's appropriate for you to assert that I am unable to work without annoying people (although the irony is somewhat delicious ;-)

Please unblock me on wikiversity.

best,

Peter, PM.

Privatemusings 06:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping us updated on progress, privatemusings. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no worries - it's useful for me too :-) best, Privatemusings 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If justice is blind what does that say about being socially tone deaf? What does socially tone deaf mean anyways? Sounds to me like if someone is socially tone deaf they would have trouble with being unintentionally confrontational which might annoy some people. I am unaware of any Wikiversity participants being annoyed with you. I guess some Wikimedia people are though. I guess to me based on the reading of justice is blind that someone socially tone deaf would favor objective considerations over emotional considerations. If that is what it means to be socially tone deaf, I guess I am socially tone deaf as well. -- darklama  01:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thread following[edit source]

conversation on this matter is spreading out in such a way that makes it a bit hard to follow - here's what I've found (and please feel free to add / edit this);

probably more I've missed - please do update! (links work at timestamp, may archive in due course - sorry!) Privatemusings 01:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

after the weekend[edit source]

well I was rather hopeful that I'd have heard something over the weekend - or indeed in the last 5 days - sadly I haven't heard anything from Jimbo in the last 5 days, since sending him the message above.

I would like to be unblocked on wikiversity as soon as possible. Privatemusings 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that, Jt - the discussions we're in are reflected above, and I do hope they either continue, or I'm unblocked soonish :-) Privatemusings 00:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

headless[edit source]

I was afraid you'd return from Devil's Island minus your head. --JWSchmidt 03:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010 --JWSchmidt 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Undeletion requests --JWSchmidt 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well I probably would have lost my head if it wasn't screwed on :-) - Meanwhile I think the colour of that dress is particularly fetching, and I'm quite enjoying it! - Thanks for those links etc. - I certainly have plenty to say, and will no doubt engage in due course. I'd hope the key to moving forward is to find the common ground amongst wv participants, and (without being too cheesy or anything) 'come together' as we move on.... good to be back! Privatemusings 01:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete reformation[edit source]

I note your suggestions that Jimbo has asked that the project is completely reformed or abandoned. However, I also note the block log comment that the unblock is "Conditional on not restarting the breaching experiment project in any form" and he's said just a few hours ago that "Your unblock is conditional on your completely and totally abandoning this project of yours. Stay very far away from it." That would seem to contradict his earlier suggestions to completely reform the project and so could you ask Jimbo to make a comment as to what he would envisage a completely reformed project would look like. Until we've got some clarification about that I'd ask that you don't recreate or ask anyone to restore anything relating to this. Thanks. Adambro 08:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's no rush, and I've already indicated that I'll not be restoring or working in this area while matters calm down (happy to reiterate that again though) - As you've no doubt read many of the threads though, I wonder if I could ask you one favour - many of the folk commenting seem to be under the impression that at least some of the contributors to the now deleted page/s are blocked or banned from one or more wmf projects (or were at the time of editing) - I'm not sure at all that this is the case - would you mind clarifying this? I'd appreciate a list of contributors to Wikimedia_Ethics/Ethical_Breaching_Experiments. Privatemusings 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the log of contributors is here - I bumped into Ottava who provided me with it (thanks!) Privatemusings 01:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have signed on to the new resource page, Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects, but please do not move any specific project to accepted status, and I highly recommend that you take a relatively passive role with this project, as you have indicated you will. I have added an NPOV tag to the resource page, and hope to contain project activity, with the support of the community here, to the collection and organized presentation of evidence on the topic, through the observation of what has been done, not through organizing or encouraging response testing itself. If we are careful, there should be no legitimate opposition, and what illegitimate opposition is possible will not be able to hide under what is arguably legitimate. We should assume that all prior opposition has been legitimate, in essence, until and unless there is some consensus otherwise. Thanks for taking the initiative, however. The topic is very important, too important to be neglected. I am new to Wikiversity, and may stick my foot in my mouth as to local customs. All advice and comment is welcome on my Talk page and will be carefully considered, please consider yourself free to comment there or by email to me privately. Thanks. --Abd 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a few days seems an age in wiki time once more - I'm back playing catch up - but I'll get there! :-) - I'm not sure that I'd categorise my intentions as being 'relatively passive' - I'm really here for calm active learning, and I'm not sure you and I sing completely from the same hymn sheet - which is cool, because I'm sure there's harmony to be had somehow! I've half caught up on many threads around the place, and may have some time today to reply in a few places, or make some notes somewhere :-) cheers, Privatemusings 23:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you get when you can see things from two positions at the same time? --Abd 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answering myself, some might say, "Dizzy," but the functional answer is "Depth perception." --Abd 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for help with Open academia in practice[edit source]

Several UC staff were thankful today for your assistance with finding free images on their topic areas - User:A George appreciated the links to specific commons pages for drug images and User:Fannyl was amazed with the import of the cardboard chair image from flickr. This really opened their eyes about the sprit and possibility of collaboration, so thankyou. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's a pleasure :-) - it's nice to help out... best, Privatemusings 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that[edit source]

This was rude. I won't ask again.--Jimbo Wales 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I highly recommend that you recuse yourself whenever you think someone is uncivil to you personally, or even if it can appear that your response is personal. Please set a good example for others, there are too many admins on en.wiki who will block someone for being rude to them, as they perceive it, and this has --properly -- led to a loss of the bit, when they didn't back up and recognize the error and the matter became disruptive enough to get to ArbComm. I commend you for your restraint here.
I agree that the comment was uncalled-for, it was taunting, and I seriously hope that Privatemusings will get it that he needs to stop this, or I fear that Wikiversity will lose this participant. Please leave enforcement of civility policy to others when you are involved, unless there is an emergency, and a fact tag is far short of an emergency, whereas even removing it might possibly create more disruption, if you are the one who does it. I saw that tag and somehow misread the diffs and thought that you had put it in, which didn't make sense, but lots of things don't make sense. Had I realized that Privatemusings had put it in, I'd have reverted it myself.
Privatemusings, please sit on your hands and think carefully before acting in any way, here, that could further inflame the situation. The long-term effect of this affair may be good, but please give it time, don't keep fanning the flames, okay? Do you have a problem with Jimbo that you want to resolve? I'm confident that this would be possible, but you'd have to want to actually resolve it (as would Jimbo), not to stretch out the trading of potshots. --Abd 17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heh - well okey dokey! - I'd hoped it was clear that I was trying to make / reiterate a substantive point in good humour, and I'm happy to apologise for the hurt / discourtesy if it was unable to be taken in such a spirit - that's a shame..... [User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
ps. to respond to abd's question about whether or not I have a problem with Jimbo - I think the answer is 'not really' - I mean I think Jimbo was clumsy and a bit of a boob in the way he bungled in his handling of wikiversity, and I'd like to encourage him to consider simple, open and honest answers and discussion to the various confusions he created - to that end, I'm happy to try and talk things through, but I'm not really sure that he's all that interested? Either ways, he's a lovely chap, and I hope he doesn't feel too upset by what he felt was me being rude. Privatemusings 23:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, no problem, then, no problem. If Jimbo has a problem, I'll ask him the same question, but I think you are right, he's not that interested. He did have a point to make here and he made it. Now we'll see what happens when the echoes die down. --Abd 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects/Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion[edit source]

No objection having been registered within a week, I have opened up a resource page for this specific study, and have suggested some guidelines on the attached Talk page, which I hope you will review. You are being notified because you supported this project (not to mention starting it!). Do you think I should notify all those who commented on the Talk page? Other than from myself, I didn't see specific comment there on this specific project, just advice, mostly for you, about the Whole Idea. I'm hoping that the guidelines will alleviate at least some of the fears about a project like this, and I very much doubt that there will be any negative consequences if we follow the guidelines and are responsive to objections as described. "Responsive" means that we don't barge ahead without consensus, such as steam-rollering a single editor because there are two of us, and because we don't want our "freedom" interfered with. --Abd 01:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coolio :-) - I have a few things to follow up around and about, but will get to it eventually! - did I mention my preference for a glacial pace? :-) Privatemusings 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did take your own sweet time, but you got a Round Tuit. We should have a Round Tuit award here, sounds nicer than barnstars to me, no sharp points. I'll get right on it, Ma'am! When I get one, that is. Might take a while. --Abd 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well more accurately I signaled my intention to consider pursuing a round tuit - in my experience they can roll pretty fast, and fairly often I'll fail to get a round tuit - as indeed has been the case here for the last week+ - got distracted by talking about sex on commons ;-) - off for the weekend now, but have a round tuit trap all planned for next week sometime :-) Privatemusings 09:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principles[edit source]

I had asked here a serious question about your assessment of the principles of the English Wikipedia's WP:POINT policy. It's been more than a month, and I wonder if you have avoided it or just didn't see it. 71.198.176.22 06:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the follow up - I had in fact seen it, but events / distractions clearly overtook me. Are you ok if we discuss it here? (a page which helpfully emails me when it's changed :-).
I think the 'wp:point' principle is sound in many contexts - for me it's largely a corollary of 'assume good faith' - again a very important principle for collaborative efforts. I do think though, that both of these things tend to work much better on a smaller level like article writing, or wiki-project co-ordination. At this level, obviously if you wanted to raise the concern about inaccurate sources being used, it would be unhelpful and a bad idea to do that by using a poor source, then pointing at it - it's far better to say 'so how can we make sure our sources are really good?'.
On a project scale though, both assume good faith and 'wp:point' become less useful, and sometimes active problems for appropriate critical examination of issues that come up. 'Assume good faith' tends to become meaningless, because of course it's perfectly possible (indeed, human nature) for people of good faith to disagree, and the nitty gritty of policy development in the area of biographies, for example, simply isn't related to the 'faith' of the editors involved - more the dynamics of the project, and objectively observable realities. 'wp:point' likewise becomes unhelpful if used as a rationale for the prevention of things like response testing, quality control etc. which are generally considered to provide useful (even vital) data and information about how we could improve things.
Does that help as an overview? cheers, Privatemusings 07:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the distinction between smaller and project scale applications of the principles you are trying to draw. Are you saying that people of good faith will disagree less about article content than policy development? Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? Even if it were true, wouldn't a larger amount of potential disagreement suggest that less disruption, not more, is appropriate?
Furthermore, do you believe that testing and quality control require disruption, in any sense? That is not at all clear to me, and my opinion in general is that responsible endeavors do not involve disruption. It seems you disagree, so again I ask, what evidence do you have in support of your opinion? I do see the need for civil disobedience of unjust policy, to set an example for others in some cases, but the sorts of disruption you contemplated in your EthicsSandbox occur in the wild. For example, why bother introducing inaccuracies when people do it all the time? Isn't it harder to measure the quality control implications of an intentionally introduced inaccuracy, because you have to wait for someone to address it, than it is to measure inaccuracies which have already been addressed in a page's history?
On the other hand, I can see the rationale for introducing a limited number well-sourced but poorly-formatted new articles, because if they are deleted then there is no way to examine them after the fact. But why would Wikiversity be a better venue than Meta for that? 71.198.176.22 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your patience in this chat, 71 - I've been both distracted, and busy (again!) - I'll get to this before too long though - a quick response which may help you see where I'm coming from though is that I (broadly) support quality control measures such as 'mystery shopper' (where they ask where something is in a shop, despite not really wanting it - they're being paid by the shop's owners) - or more seriously, security testing by an agency investigating, for example, airport baggage handling - I see these things as roughly analogous to response testing / breaching experiments on wikis - obviously it could be done really well or really badly, but even if done well some might assert that it's disruptive - I would even concede that, though I'd also say that it's at least conceptually possible for it to be worth it (ie. benefits outweigh the disruption) - more anon.... Privatemusings 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< my apologies for letting this slide once more - are you (IP person) still around? still interested in chatting? cheers, Privatemusings 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 71.198.176.22 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
coolio - this being my talk page, I've also made the decision to pop Abd's comment out of this section, and into its own - really because I think this is one of those rare instances where a two way chat (or chats) might be more fruitful than a round table - happy to get feedback on that too.
So you were asking me about principles, and about the application of the 'wp:point' policy. Perhaps we can re-start these discussions with a mini-statement. I do not believe that 'wp:point', either as a rule, or the principles behind it, will apply in every single situation. I believe the benefit of gathering tangible concrete data in something like a breaching experiment has the potential, if properly constructed and executed, of being both in violation of that rule, and beneficial to the project. I'd go further, in fact, and say that if any rule gets in the way of something improving the project, then it should be discarded (or ignored ;-) - I'm happy to answer specific questions if you think that might now help us move forward a little :-) (thanks once again for your patience too) best, Privatemusings 05:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
extended LONG comment by Abd 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several different issues are getting mixed together here. There are breaching experiments and the study of breaching experiments. There is some cross-over if the study of breaching experiments is used to develop more effective breaching experiments, but that could cut both ways, toward designing BEs that are more beneficial and less harmful, or the reverse, designing BEs are are more difficult to detect and more likely to cause enduring damage.
Compounding all this is an attitude of knee-jerk rejection of any "experimentation" with the project, and, as well, of any examination of one WMF project by or on another.
You have mentioned a fundamental contradiction in how Wikipedia practice has developed. Rule Number One was Ignore all rules. To see if that was still stated, I just looked. The "Rule number one" language, which has existed in various forms, has been taken out. See the current version, which is headed: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. In January 2008, that read, The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and always has been. Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. The change occurred with this diff. There was a discussion on the attached Talk page, now archived at [2]. I saw no discussion of what was actually quite important, the de-emphasis of this as "the first rule to consider."
Ignore All Rules was a crucial component of the adhocratic structure that made Wikipedia possible without strong central control. In the absence of this "rule," it would be necessary to have either detailed rules with some structure for interpreting and enforcing them, or a strong central authority to resolve disputes, which, without policy guidelines, would be arbitrary and possibly unpredictable, as well as possibly being highly inefficent. Policies and guidelines naturally developed, but they were always understood, by the founding community and the early users, within the context of Rule Number One, and the community was generally tolerant of established editors who broke rules in favor of improving the project. Gradually, though, rigid interpretations of guidelines and policies followed, and one exception after another was carved out, without ever being explicit that editors were being punished for following the most basic policy (or waste their time acting to follow guidelines that don't match actual practice). I saw an example recently where a notability guideline, quite sensible as a general rule, was insisted upon as the exclusive policy to be followed, and I had, and was discussing, a case where something like 15 AfDs, on exactly the same issue, closed 14:1 as keep, even when discussion was reopened to make sure it was consensus. The guideline was being supported by those who watch guidelines as more important than editorial consensus, and that's where it was left when I lost interest due to other disruption. I was only asking that the guideline be amended to show a clear exception, and not to make that exception some kind of new rule, I was only seeking to provide better guidance as to what to expect from AfD. In the absence of that, deletionist editors will continue to nominate articles in this class for deletion, believing that they are enforcing policy, and if editors not specialized in the field don't notice it, the article might be deleted, and then later, when it's noticed, it might be restored. Or not. Completely unpredictable, so there is no consistency across articles that are fundamentally identical as to notability and sources.
Guidelines, properly, exist to allow editors to anticipate what the community is likely to decide, not to control behavior as such. If one is acting contrary to a guideline, one should act with caution and without arrogance! But it should never be prohibited, that tosses IAR in the trash.
And then we come to blocking and banning, a huge can of worms. Regardless, there are editors who have been blocked and banned for following Rule Number One. Now, to some extent that could be necessary, if the editor is unable to understand the welfare of the project. Perhaps most such blocks are in this category, but, even there, I find that AGF has failed and adequate support for guiding the editor was not provided. As an example of an alternative to be followed in a case of "understanding deficiency," I proposed for one editor who had "overdiscussed" issues and who was being banned, that the editor be required to obtain a mentor and to abstain from editing anything outside his/her user space until then, voluntary compliance in lieu of a block and ban. This would clearly not allow ongoing disruption unless other editors tried to disrupt this editor's userspace activity (or that activity became so damaging that it was a problem on its own, yet the overwhelming response was to ban the editor. For what? It was not clear, in fact, and a long-term, productive editor was banned, without recourse or any possibility of voluntary cooperation. In fact, several reputable editors volunteered to mentor. All for nothing.
And that later became my own situation. I'm not banned, though I'm currently under a one-week block, I've noticed. I was blocked because what was clearly to me required by Rule Number One was interpreted as a ban violation, under interpretations that completely fail to consider possible exceptions to ban policy. I could have and would have done what I did even if completely banned with vigorous enforcement; what I did was to respond to a discussion of me on an RfAr talk page, with an organized and thorough history of the affair being referenced. And with the edit I wrote "will self-revert per ban," because the edit was a technical ban violation. And then I reverted it within one minute, with edit summary, "rv per ban."
Naturally, one of the editors who had been behind my original restrictions complained at Arbitration Enforcement, even though this editor was uninvolved, as far as I'd seen, in the case in question. He asserted ban violation, but not of the correct ban (there are two). My goal has long been minimum disruption, I've stopped even responding to accusations. I haven't put up an unblock template when short-blocked. Why bother an admin if I'm hardly editing?
The complaint was routinely turned into a block by a neutral administrator (I have no grounds to suspect this administrator's neutrality.) Since this was considered arbitration enforcement, a requirement not to reverse the decision was stated, yet there was no actual examination of the nature of the violation, no consideration of what had previously been supported by an arbitrator as avoiding ban violation (self-reversion, just like self-reversion avoids 3RR violation, can avoid charges of incivility, etc.) No edit was or is likely to be prevented by the block. My edit respected the ban, explicitly, leaving nothing to be fixed if nobody wanted to bring it back in (it's unknown to me if anyone other than the complaining editor, and the reviewing admin even noticed it, and I solicited no such actions, not anywhere. This, in fact, is my first public mention of the incident.)
And if completely blocked and banned, I would do exactly the same thing: edit, probably as IP, and revert "per ban of Abd." (And, if still allowed to edit my Talk page, I'd acknowledge the edit there to prove it was me." So the block is purely punitive, because it cannot be preventative. The action would be the opposite of ban evasion. It simply would do what banning policy would generally require or permit: reversion of the edit by any editor, with it coming back only if another editor was willing to take responsibility for it. That guideline, by the way, was one of the areas where my influence was felt; attempts were made to assert that content from banned editors must be completely excluded, no matter what. Again, an exception carved out from IAR.
None of this, here, is an attempt to "get justice" re Wikipedia. I was never, there, concerned about my own right to edit the project, but only about community process and policy being adequate to meet the basic project goal of neutrality. And it isn't adequate. And many others understand this, and many of them have been banned, some are still admins and arbitrators. I'm interested in what would possibly fix the defective structure, and it is defective, that's obvious and, indeed, there might even be consensus on that general concept, just differences about the implications and what to do about it. Wikistudies, here, should start with documenting what actually happens, following clear ethical guidelines here about how to proceed with this, that are developed through experience in starting and managing such research and documentation projects. As I wrote at the Newbie treatment resource, we should proceed gingerly. If there is objection, we'd come to a screeching halt until the objection is addressed and resolved. That is actually normal deliberative process, one does not barge ahead in the presence of objection. The actual study cannot be prevented, in any case, because it can take place off-wiki in many places visible to Wikipedia editors, even seen by many more than will see it on Wikiversity.
It's like the comment I made above, for which I was blocked. I could have made this comment in many different places where, in fact, it would have been much more visible, I think it wasn't even noticed by my friends. I could have been far more disruptive in a way that would have left me, still, technically untouchable. Instead I was direct and targeted and acted with design for minimal disruption, and the only disruption, the AE report, was initiated by an editor who was not at all considering the welfare of the project, only how to maximally exclude my commentary. If some admin had noticed the edit, thought it disruptive, and blocked me for it, that would have been a different matter. There was nothing, however, for me to "stop." I made one edit and announcemed my intention not to debate it, but did say that if there were errors, they could be pointed out to me. No errors were pointed out.
And it's just one story among hundreds or thousands of them, accumulating over years, fouling Wikipedia's nest. Wikipedia is losing admins, and I've noticed a major degradation of response to situations requiring admin attention. It's an abusive system, and it burns out all involved, including and especially the admins. We can do better and we can start here, collaboratively and cooperatively, building genuine consensus. --Abd 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's comment from above[edit source]

It will be better to examine the kinds of "disruption" that were alleged to result from the response testing in the Newbie project that is a current topic here, see Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects/Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion. The ideal response test there was not "bad edits," but rather good but incomplete or unpolished edits, the kind that started Wikipedia. The goal was to see how newcomers were treated if they failed to properly source, or didn't use standard form for sourcing, or the like. Were the newcomers treated as valuable contributors, or were their contributions summarily deleted without research? This testing was considered to be a POINT violation by some, but, in fact, there was no disruption; that is, the contributions were designed to be positive, simply incomplete. The response testing project resulted in new articles meeting guidelines. The only time that was wasted was that of those who didn't take much time, who popped a speedy tag on an article, say, that wasn't qualified for speedy -- or that shouldn't have qualified, it could be argued. Indeed, I've created articles that were just stubs. Was this a point violation? Hardly!

It apparently embarrassed some whose treatment of newcomers was, indeed, embarrassing. However, I note that an admin who speedy deleted an article thanked the creator, when the test was revealed, for showing him that he was being hasty. That was a proper response, and I hope and assume it was sincere.
I do suggest we identify the allegations of POINT violation during that sequence of events, we can do that neutrally. --Abd 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future work: Why are active administrators leaving?[edit source]

For future work, why not focus on tallying the reasons that administrators leave? Lately I fear part of the reasons have become self-perpetuating, i.e., "there aren't enough administrators, which makes is more difficult to be an administrator, so administrators are leaving." That sort of thing could get in to a tailspin, so it would be very helpful to at least have a measurement of how much is feedback. W.D.Ikon 05:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. The response testing study was, I believe, started off on the wrong foot, under Ethics, which implied, immediately, a kind of judgment and even condemnation. That's way premature, in my view. Rather, we should have what might be called Wiki studies which would research what actually happens with Wikipedia and other wikis, without mixing it with concepts of what should happen. A study was started at one point on Wikipedia to look at why editors were "retiring" or disappearing, and that included administrators. The editor who started it was banned. It's tempting to suggest cause and effect there, but it wasn't that simple. Perhaps the fact is that someone particularly interested in how the wiki isn't working may easily become disruptive in some way or other, or may have been inclined that way initially, or became that way as a result of perceived abuse. As to admins leaving, there is a natural attrition, but it appears to be accelerating, with long-time editors and administrators leaving with a sense of frustration rather than simply moving on. Any study that we do of this should attempt to begin with overall views and statistics, and then neutrally analyze the data and flesh it out with individual histories. My own sense is that problems with wiki structure cause editors in general to burn out, and as they burn out, some become impatient and abusive, or tendencies in this direction become exaggerated. But it is difficult to discuss this without creating the appearance of a personal attack; and when an incident is discussed by someone who was involved, it becomes, indeed, difficult to avoid implications of wrongdoing. So we should be especially careful in discussing any sequence of events where we were personally involved, or have some possible agenda with respect to one who was involved, and much of the problems here in working on the "ethical" issues have been associated with such personal connections.
I do have an idea of how to address this. We can interview people who were involved. The interview and write-up should be done by someone who was not involved. Anyone involved would be treated as someone who has a conflict of interest, they are invited to, within civility guidelines, comment in Talk, but should not edit a resource page with respect to anything where they were specifically involved. --Abd 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would interviewing and write-ups be any more neutral or easier than an anonymous survey initially of, say 30-50 formerly active administrators, allowing them to write their reasons in free form followed by categorization to produce a check-boxes-with-"other"-blank survey of another 100-300 formerly active administrators? I am told that Google Apps Spreadsheet Forms are the easiest way to do that sort of thing these days. You would want to make sure that you sent the survey link by email to formerly active admins so you only got actual formerly active admins and not people disgruntled by admins. 71.198.176.22 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in this approach, but don't think it tweaks my interest sufficiently for me to lead it - I'd like to read it though :-) cheers, Privatemusings 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. However, as to the energy for it, ditto. In many respects, as to Wikipedia, I'm a "formerly active" editor. The place tends to sap one's energy, long-term, my experience, and that seems to happen on all "sides," leaving behind some exceptions. The exceptions aren't necessarily the best editors and administrators, and so the place becomes even more of a drain. Or does it? I have only my experience and that of a possibly biased sample. --Abd 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [3]. 71.198.176.22 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks interesting - I'm sure you've also read this which explains much to me :-) Privatemusings 05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiLifeCycle description is accurate for wikis that don't learn how to develop extended integration, that builds a wide user based while only having a subset of active editors. The WLC process applies to ad hoc organizations of any kind, and functions to together with the w:Iron law of oligarchy which tends to divide and weaken communities, on the one hand, while making them more efficient and stronger on the other. The interplay between those two effects can cause major ups and downs in success. There are theoretical solutions that have never been applied to large-scale projects, though they represent combinations of techniques known to work individually. Easily, experimentation could be done on Wikipedia, but a thoroughly harmless attempt at w:WP:PRX was immediately shot down and rejected, even though what it suggested could be -- and was -- done without "permission," and the proposer was blocked for an offense of questionable blockworthiness, a long-time contributor with a clean block record.... long story, for sure. --Abd 00:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whisper it quietly....[edit source]

I think I'll have a wee bit of time to pop back and pick up some of the stuff which still interests me..... certainly before September :-) Privatemusings 09:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a tad ... interesting ... here. This time we cannot blame anyone outside those who are directly participating. i.e., ourselves. But, persistence of vision. It must be their fault. You know, them. I think we are going to have some local Stuff to analyze. Etheticists, ethicize yourselves. Cool, eh? --Abd 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heh... it'll all come out in the wash eventually.... I plan on picking up the 'response testing' project a bit soon(ish) - time permitting :-) Privatemusings 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill[edit source]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your comments, I don't think it is appropriate to start blanking such pages. Ideally people would just move on and find more constructive things to be doing. Adambro 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Privatemusings, the thing doesn't call for any "punishments". It just organizes three problems and asking for Jtneill to take some time to sit back, relax, and the rest. And it is hard for someone to ask others to be generous when that someone happened to post up a socking "how to". :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm thinking about starting an educational "how to live like privatemusings". Here is a sneak preview.

  • 8 AM - wake up, throw some shrimp on the barbie.
  • 8:30 AM - hop with kangaroos and toss around boomerang
  • 9 AM - fend off dingo attacks on baby
  • 10 AM - find two friends, dress up as women, and cross the outback
  • 11 AM - drink from cans of beer that are larger than a 40 galloon oil drum
  • 12:30 PM - fend off koala attacks
  • 3 PM - be cheeky on WMF related sites
  • 4 PM - noife? now thees es ah noife.
  • 5 PM - pass out

- :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like serious fun to me. PM, can I join the party? --Abd 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's open slather :-) (although not terribly accurate - some of the timings are over 20 minutes out........ and strangely enough we drink smaller glasses of beer down here - a pint gets warm before you finish it, you see.....) Privatemusings 01:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)for forms sake, I must once again point out that I am in fact a pom, but lucky enough to be living in god's country :-)[reply]

Helping out with Motivation and emotion[edit source]

Thanks for asking. Feel free to jump in. I'm hoping the enrolled students will be the primary authors of the textbook chapters, but I'm also hoping that they'll get a bit of a hand with getting going, linking to related resources, and wikification of their efforts etc. So please feel welcome. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coolio :-) - I've done so. Privatemusings 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Privatemusings&oldid=1873975"