Open Educational Resources (OER):Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments

Related links edit

This community review has attracted wider public comment, including:

• Wikipedia Review (forum thread, 2010-03-13)
• Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to close Wikiversity? (leighblackall.blogspot.com, 2010-03-14)
• Open Educational Resources (OER) controversy (Wikipedia Signpost, 2010-03-15)
• foundation-l Open Educational Resources (OER) (mailing list thread, 2010-03-17)
• wikiversity-l (mailing list threads, 2010-03-19)
• Meta:Talk:Wikiversity/Problems (meta discussion, 2010-03-20)
• Meta:Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag (meta rfc, 2010-03-25)
• Open Educational Resources (OER): When Breaching Experiments Attack (Wikipedia Review, Blog post, 2010-04-06)
• Commons deletions (Wikipedia Signpost, 2010-05-10)

Summary edit

Wikimedia Ethics edit

Why does the resource Wikimedia Ethics/Ethics on Wikipedia and the Internet appear as a subfield of Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments? Are there signs that the whole area has been approached with careful thinking? RTG 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "subfield", but both pages are part of the same project. You might want to ask on Talk:Wikimedia Ethics, as this really isn't an issue for this discussion. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMF view of WV edit

It is becoming clearer that there is a broader agenda here that is being pursued by the WMF in relation to WV. Jimbo Wales is drawing a line in the sand with regard to speedy deletion of material considered to be trolling as a first step - presumably there are subsequent steps in mind too? Could we please get access to full picture of the WMF board's view of WV - what it likes and what it doesn't? What does the WMF want done differently on WV? Where are the relevant minutes or information? Also note that the questions raised about the WMF relationship with WikiEducator at this stage are also not yet addressed. What's really going on here - can we please get some transparency? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only detailed discussion I have seen about what WV should be or become has been here, on this wiki (and recently on this page). There is no particular WMF view of WV - though recently I have heard a number of Wikipedians suggest that trolls are more welcome here than elsewhere. (It's not clear to me that this is true, but some of the discussions about the deleted project are flavored by those thoughts.) I think the current concerns would be resolved by developing ways to

1. review research projects that would cause trouble for other groups or projects online, or that might hurt individuals through the course of research
2. review any WV projects that might be veiled attempts to continue an ongoing campaign of wiki politics (forum-shopping a grudge, targetting a user one has disagreed with on another project by using them as a case study for 'research', exploring failure modes of other projects)
3. focus WV's scope and mission

–SJ+> 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to this, there is absolutely no connection to anything having anything at all to do with WikiEducator. There is nothing to be transparent about in this regard, because there is nothing to it. I'm only vaguely aware of WikiEducator, to be honest, and certainly unaware of why anyone here should be hostile or worried about them.

My goal here does not extend beyond what I have said, and SJ sums it up well.--Jimbo Wales 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these clarifications and your inputs both Sj and Jimbo - I think we're getting a clearer picture of what the WMF wants from WV through this conversation. I think Sj's 3 action suggestions offer positive ways forward. However, I am also a bit skeptical - i.e., the "concern" could be a storm in a tea-cup. By this I mean that my impression is that inappropriate content is a rarity on WV - e.g., besides some Moulton's WV trolling/sockpuppeting contributions some time back and the current breaching experiment about how to content contributed by privatemusings are there other existing materials that you are aware of that are of particular concern? Darklama and I recently organised known research projects into - so that could be one way to take a closer look with regard to original research. Overall, though, original research overall is very rare on WV - almost all of the content is Learning resources. We could probably do with a quality system, but to be honest for WV it is still early days and to date I've largely taken the view that some content (even if low quality) is better than no content. Jtneill

I agree with you, the current needs seem to be breadth of material and good models for learning resources, not high quality across the board. And as far as I can tell the issue of original research that may cause harm is not an endemic problem; but it has been around for a long time and deserves swift attention. –SJ+>

Maybe the project is now in the processing of maturing to a next stage of tightening the scope. But in my day to day life with fellow academics at a university the real battle for me is encouraging sharing and contributing of educational and research materials. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the greatest battle I encounter as well. Brion and I took part in a discussion of how to improve OER search (for all internet users), where the implication of the invitation was that Wikipedia should be part of that search; but we raised the idea of hosting and categorizing a more comprehensive collection of course materials on Wikiversity. The attendees said that getting educators to find time to share was the difficult first step... and that licensing uncertainties and the awkwardness of simply 'uploading a directory of files' here and walking away would be the prime barrier to using Wikiversity. –SJ+> 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first 2 of the 3 points that Sj suggests (to which Jimbo seems to agree are good suggestions) aren't they in fact what I think most people here are arguing for, and what Jimbo did not?

1. review research projects that would cause trouble for other groups or projects online, or that might hurt individuals through the course of research
2. review any WV projects that might be veiled attempts to continue an ongoing campaign of wiki politics (forum-shopping a grudge, targetting a user one has disagreed with on another project by using them as a case study for 'research', exploring failure modes of other projects)

I don't think we can know in advance if a project is goingto come into question, but an early suggestion by Sj may be equally helpful.. that research projects must set out a review panel at the outset of the project (or very soon after describing the project). Obviously deleting a page on the basis of its description is not fair (obvious to most people here it now seems), and that instead, a questionable project ought to be challenged through discussion, and asked to form an acceptable review board before proceeding. Acceptable would in this case probably require someone from the sister project being affected... --Leighblackall 06:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detecting and preventing hoaxes in wikis edit

I created a page based on idea of Jimbo. While the questions about the initial deletions and appropriateness of those projects is not solved with this particular page, it is a way to try to achieve some kind of consensus. While the "WMF side", if I can call you like this, strongly oppose the idea of the deleted pages in question, others from the "WV side" (including myself) feel that there was some kind of value in there. My personal opinion is that while the planning part was very much on the border what I can accept, the documentation of the past events is something that we can learn from. So let's see what we can do with the new page... I hope you have no problems with the title Jimbo? :) ( <- This was a joke trying to lift the heavy atmosphere from this page.) --Gbaor 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think this is a very positive step forward, and I hope will be a major milestone in rethinking editorial policy to protect Wikiversity from abuses.--Jimbo Wales 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note from Cormaggio edit

Open Educational Resources (OER) was set up to do two things: produce learning materials, and support learning/research activities and communities. The second question was always more vaguely defined, but was always the more interesting question for me. The English Wikiversity's problems have stemmed from an uncertainty about what a legitimate learning/research activity would be, and a consequent uncertainty in Wikiversity's scope as a project. Dealing with the question of what someone is free to learn in Wikiversity is the useful course of action to take here; rather than talk of closing the project. Unfortunately, due to imminent submission of my thesis, I have no time to give this for the next two weeks, and I am only partially up to speed on what has been happening of late, but I will get back to the discussion thereafter. However, just to lend my support to proposals above about clarifying Wikiversity's scope, and its policies on original research - to which I'd also add Open Educational Resources (OER):Scholarly ethics (no relation of the originally offending pages). Was there no specific workspace created on (something like) 'legitimate learning projects' in the aftermath of the Moulton/JWS drama? Cormaggio ^talk 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact best solution, but in many cases, reference to some external standards can be very helpful. For example, I might suggest that a much higher level of scrutiny be given to "producing learning materials, and supporting learning/research activities and communities" when there exists no known formal or informal equivalent commonly taught at schools and universities. This is not directly a restriction of scope in and of itself, but a useful tool for raising sensitivity. "How to rob a bank" isn't normally taught in community colleges or universities, but "Bank security" is taught at least informally (i.e. not in a degree program but professionally taught) for example here.

Other sources of guidance will be the myriad of policies at universities on research involving human subjects, which will have useful and well-tested language barring projects which will disrupt people's work without their consent.

Finally, I think it worthwhile to note that as Wikiversity grows, it will attract its own homegrown trolls, who will create projects not just to annoy Wikipedians, but to annoy and embarrass people here.--Jimbo Wales 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll have trolls as long as we keep in mind the basic worth and dignity of human beings. Our processes are perfectly functional, and individuals who choose to disrupt our environment are handled quickly and fairly. Geoff Plourde 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like Jimmy's advocacy of a "tool for raising sensitivity". An example would be WP's development of its BLP policy in the wake of related problems - a policy which does not proclude such articles being written, but holds them to particularly intense standards. I don't think Wikiversity has "perfectly functional" processes, since I think it is still not clear what a legitimate learning/research project on Wikiversity is ("legitimate" meaning authorised by project scope and subject to validation by the community). Cormaggio ^talk 07:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be morelike the whole Wikiversity issue to set research and scope issues. So after something is prepared in here, it should move in some form to Wikiversity Beta for further discussion.--Juan de Vojníkov 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Juan. Ideally, the multilingual community would be involved from an early stage - i.e. now. :-) Cormaggio ^talk 07:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear about the relation of Wikiversity Beta original research guidelines and Wikiversity original research guidelines - e.g., Beta covers ethics, but English Wikiversity doesn't: Open Educational Resources (OER):Original research - Open Educational Resources (OER):Research guidelines/En. Are these separate policies with separate jurisdictions or should en.wikiversity also be following betawikiversity/en policies? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was always to develop multilingual guidelines on research - this was actually one of the conditions of Wikiversity's original setting up. Each language can develop its own variations of course - but it is probably necessary to set some major principles in place centrally. For example, what of NPOV? What of ethics? Without having looked at these two links in detail, relying more on memory, I think Beta's policies are more advanced, since that's where most of the work took place (thanks mainly to Xenon and JWSchmidt). Cormaggio ^talk 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again at Beta's research guidelines, I think they're pretty good and should mostly suffice. A few tweaks may be necessary, and a few old edits are still pending; there is also some useful discussion on talk page. The main question, I think, is around the review boad - how it would be set up and managed, or even whether it is a viable idea. So, some good work from which to build, applying recent experience. Cormaggio ^talk 07:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an occasional contributor edit

I have not seen the original (now deleted) pages. I have no idea how appropriate the research project was or was not. And I won't be able to weigh in on that now; I'd be trying to analyse something in complete reliance on the not so disinterested interpretations of others. But I can weigh in on one thing.

The problem with intervention from "on high", however well intentioned, is that it undermines the very community cohesion and self-determination that the project needs to have in order to defend itself against trolls, vandals, inappropriate research, etc.

Open Educational Resources (OER) is still in its infancy, in comparison with Wikipedia, and justifiably so, as it is a much newer project. When it matures, it will be amazing in ways we cannot begin to imagine now, just as the crazy success of Wikipedia today was unimaginable to its proposers back in 2001. Let's not talk any more about closures, even as a threat lurking in the background. Let's figure out how to give the community the tools it needs to get from here to that crazy success. Thanks for reading, -- Απεργός 05:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with your diagnosis. The problem is not that people here are not well-intentioned, etc., but that the project is still in its infancy. I don't agree, clearly, with the prognosis. A well-timed and well-discussed intervention from "on high" can be extremely useful in assisting the best members of the community feel strong enough to stand up to trolling. This is not a democracy. Every vote need not count equally, and so if you have a bunch of banned users showing up from Wikipedia and engaging in pure sophistry to hijack the project for their own ends, you can toss them out. This is how the Wikipedia community formed and became strong - we have always said that the work (building a high quality free encyclopedia for everyone) is what defines the community, not the other way around. So at various times we were able to set policy based on that notion - the end goal - rather than endlessly hoping to appease every random person who popped by with an obnoxious purpose.--Jimbo Wales 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also an only occasional contributor (as an educator, I probably should spend more time here) - while I'm not a Wiccan, the principle of the Wiccan Rede (summed up, "do what you will if it harms none") seems the obvious corollary to recent events. If applied in a more specified fashion as a policy or rule I think it could work to weed out rubbish growing on the edges without unduly limiting or restricting those here working in good faith with what they want to do. Orderinchaos 11:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The work defines the community, not the other way round." <-- Wait a minute. The Wikiversity Community itself, as an active learning community, is a principal goal of the project. This is one of the defining characteristics of Wikiversity. Wikiversity is a particularly plural society and we don't always agree on what is "good", and we don't always try to. We don't care if there are multiple pages on the same topic representing different point of views. I think it is rather an over-statement and over-reaction to describe a few pages of dubious content as "hijacking the project". In the end, Wikiversity is fundamentally different from Wikipedia and it is not clear that we should grow in the same turbulent way as the online encyclopedia that everybody can edit. Peace. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Collect edit

WV has established deletion procedures (RfD). Clearly JW has the ability to establish a top-down precedent (as he did) with the concomitant drama, though he might well have been advised to simply follow the extant process, with little drama ensuing at all. SBJ clearly was of the opinion that where a process exists, it ought well be followed. I thus doubt the wisdom of punishing SBJ for doing what was clearly the process in existence at the time on WV.

The issue at the heart, moreover, is whether WV is "a textbook producer" or is a "research institution." If the former, that is fine. If the latter, then (like all research institutions) it must face the fact that some of the research is going to be unpopular with someone. I find the bit about "trolls" therefore to be a distasteful tangent entirely, and not applicable to any of the contributors I have seen here. Collect 14:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WV is for "class materials" and "research". Wikibooks is the textbook producers. The distinction between "class materials" and "textbooks" seems to be blurred for some people. I agree research will be unpopular with someone. "trolls" is a poor way to establish and understand why research is unpopular with someone. If every unpopular research was dismissed as "trolling", research would likely never get anywhere in the academic world. New research is usually unpopular to begin with. -- darklama  15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you misapprehended the point being made. Kindly note the tenor of the comments <g>. Collect 18:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales on Disruptive Technology edit

“Next up the panel of Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Niklas Zennström (Skype, KaZaA, Joost), and Mitchell Baker (Mozilla) ponder the subject of "disruption" in relation to breaking old business models. When asked how he felt about busting the old encyclopedia model, Jimmy Wales responded, “I’m a bad man” …” — Technorati, 27 Jan 2010.

Cited by Jon Awbrey 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's statement illustrates the fact that anything we do "disturbs the universe" (Freeman Dyson) to some degree, and it's equally trite but true to say that "life is an experiment" for all of us. Jimbo thinks he's a "bad man" in the nicest possible way, I'm guessing, and Wikipedians think that it's just tough luck for anyone who doesn't like their experiments with disruptive social-technical forms.

So firing those kinds of words back and forth does very little to settle the question of when a perturbance has crossed a line too far or when a rupture has ruptured something we'd like to preserve. Life, the experiment, is just not that simple.

Which brings us back to all the years and centuries and millennia that civilizations around and before us have devoted to saying what it means to be civil. Jon Awbrey 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research vs. Experiments edit

Are research and experiments both equally viable for the university? Are they of equal value to the university? As these two words have been bandied about a bit here as (from my view) equal in importance, and the whole debate has interested me, can it be said that one thing is more important than another? Why? I can think of countless research routes but few experiments. RTG 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think research and experiments are both viable for Wikiversity and are likely of equal value to Wikiversity. Saying one is more important than the other is probably not the way to go. Experiments are important for testing the validity of hypotheses or assumptions, and for learning answers to some questions. Which is heaver apples or oranges? You could learn the answer by dropping an apple and an orange, record which falls first, and repeat the experiment several times. You could also use this same experiment to test the validity of someone's theory that apples are usually heaver than oranges. If you were to do this you would be doing both an experiment and research. Research does not always involve experimentation though.

I think you are misunderstanding the issue of Research vs Experiment that is debated on this page though. Did you take my apples and oranges, did you suggest that my apples and oranges be taken, or did you simply observe someone take my apples and oranges and wonder why? The Research vs Experiment bit is centered around was the work research or was the work an experiment? -- darklama  23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of policies edit

I actually see a broader problem here than mere scope. Wikiversity's lack of hard rules might seem good in practice, but it leaves the door open to disasters and detracts us from important resources. We need to set a firm scope as to what's just not allowed. Some good content might get caught up in the heat of things, but the imperfect order of Wikipedia is far to be preferred to this outright mayhem. If we are to become a usable resource, we must sort things out in a more efficient manner.--Ipatrol 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Educational Resources (OER) is not wikipedia. If it is your opinion that the current situation is a mayhem, please take a look at the list of participants in the discussion. Wikiversity is set out to be a place for exploration. And it is to attract a set of participants different from, you know, wikipedia. Wikiversiters are here to explore and discuss knowledge, ideas and theories rather than to collect hard encyclopaedic facts. There are certain things that are obviously not allowed - e.g. vandalism, personal attacks. I don't know what you mean by "the imperfect order of wikipedia". The scope of Wikiversity is outlined in the project proposal. It defeats Wikiversity's own mission to shape it into what it is not. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this outright mayhem" (above) <-- I agree that out-of-process page deletion and blocking of Wikiversity participants is "mayhem". We need policies that prevent the deletion of pages without community discussion. We need policies that prevent the blocking of Wikiversity editors who have never violated any Wikiversity policy. We need policies that require community discussion before blocks are imposed. We need policies that exclude from participation at Wikiversity disruptive invaders from outside the project who believe that they are above the fundamental rules of a wiki-based learning community: think, discuss, edit. --JWSchmidt 15:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your view of policies is flawed. You say "We need policies that prevent the deletion of pages without community discussion". So should we never speedy delete anything which is obviously not constructive such as attack pages? You say "We need policies that prevent the blocking of Wikiversity editors who have never violated any Wikiversity policy" but that seems to fail to recognise that no policy we can ever write can cover every eventuality. Just because there isn't a policy saying something is wrong it shouldn't mean a custodian can't block someone if what they are doing isn't in the interests of the project. Also, you say "We need policies that require community discussion before blocks are imposed". So do you wish to custodians to feel they have their hands tied waiting for others to offer their opinions before acting to stop disruption to the project? Adambro 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are exaggerating the urgency of the matter. Vandals are blocked. No question about it. They produce nonsense like "aq34 azdlf gadg adgggfk". On the other hand, controversial users like Private Musings doing controversial projects are rare. If you have already let the matter sit for a considerable amount of time, I would expect that any drastic action should happen after the community has discussed it. Adam, you seem to have some ideas of what "isn't in the interests of the project". Great. The problem is that many others, like I, don't. And I don't think any wikiversiters would have the same ideas. That's why we need to discuss before we act. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 19:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your view of policies is flawed <-- Splitting the hairs: "should we never speedy delete anything" <-- speedy deletion is fine for obvious vandalism. "attack pages" <-- I'd like to hear what you mean by "attack pages". In the past, there was a time when the Wikiversity community had some of its pages called "attack pages" by Wikipedians. There was community discussion and the community decided if those pages should be deleted or not... as I recall, all of the pages were kept, which probably upset the Wikipedians. I suspect that "attack pages" has a special meaning for Wikipedians in the same way that "troll" does. "Just because there isn't a policy saying something is wrong it shouldn't mean a custodian can't block someone if what they are doing isn't in the interests of the project" <-- this is where Wikipedia and Wikiversity differ. Unless "what they are doing" is obvious vandalism then there should be discussion and page editing before page deletion. In most cases, any problem with a page can be fixed by editing rather than deleting. Deletion is too often a crutch for people who can't be bothered to edit. If there is a problem and it isn't obvious vandalism then there should be discussion before blocking. At the very least people should be told if they are violating a policy and are in danger of being blocked. "acting to stop disruption to the project" <-- If it is a case of obvious vandalism then I trust custodians to act without discussion. For anything else, discussion should come before blocking. I certainly do not trust Wikipedians to decide what constitutes "disruption" of Wikiversity. People who reach for the ban hammer before discussion and community consensus that a policy was violated have done vast damage to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contorversy of these two points is going round the bush at this review:- Comments from a sister project are paramount in that which concerns them, ad finitum, no discussion thereof to be entered into. If you do not want to encourage the sister sites input, you shouldn't be contributing here because the goal is to make the sisters all happy families not ostracise them, no matter how big the chip on your shoulder is. Discussion contrary to those points are of no value to this review and is forming more basis for the comments of some than anything else. I am of the view, and have been of the view for some time, that editors who dispute by labelling a large group of people unworthy based on the actions of a few, should have their entire commentary removed until such time as they are prepared to be more specific about who they are accusing and of what so that we can be clear about the whys. I call it "Accusing persons unknown" because the editors of Wikipedia who have made opinions here are very few and yet when it is brought up that they are unreasonable it appears that the whole site, more persons unknown than known, is unworthy and that involvement with Wikipedia is to be considered an instant lowering of value. That is unfair defamation of character and it is actually illegal in most parts of the world. Stop talking so much about Wikipedia - you're not making sense with it. RTG 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it concern wikiversité (the french wikiversity) edit

Hello,

There was a message on wikiversité chat asking to read and contribute, so here I am.

Does it concern wikiversité (and others non-english wikiversity) ?Because :

• as far as I can see, wikieducator which represents a conflict of interest for some members of the board have only an english version ;
• as far as I know, wikiversité (can't tell for others languages) have no troll problem.

I would be very disappointed to see all wikiversity disappear. So, my question is, should our peaceful and constructive french wikiversity be scared to be dropped by the WMF board ? Should we prepare for a fork, wasting time and energy that we won't be able to put in pedagogics works ?

If yes, the centralized part of WM projects – the WMF – is maybe a problem for our community.

This message wasted the time I planned to use for a course on data base systems. :(

By the way, our community reached 1000 articles this week (with [https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/edu/fr/Coniques,_courbes_param%C3%A9tr%C3%A9es "Coniques, courbes paramétrées", an IT/math stub)!

Don't remove the wikiversité please.Psychoslave 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour! I wanted to answer this earlier, just forgot :) The idea of closure came up just briefly at the beginning, and now seems that no such thing will happen. At least this is what I understood from Jimbo's and SJ's clarification. As far as I know this problem is enWV specific, but anyone is welcomed to contribute to the discussion. ...and congratulation for the milestone (or kilometer-stone in this case)! --Gbaor 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Wikiversidade edit

Salut Psychoslave! Others as well,

Like Wikiversité, we at Wikiversidade (Portuguese Wikiversity) also received a call to comment here.

I and others wasted hours reading through all this material in order to figure out whether there was a threat to us as well. I am now convinced that what was a simple matter of clarifying ethical standards within a community of very reasonable people was turned into this conundrum by lack of dialogue and not the most exemplary use of power.

I am currently teaching a live course using Wikiversidade both as a virtual platform and to produce open educational resources, and working hard to convince other teachers to do the same so that someday this becomes legitimate in the Brazilian educational and cultural system.

I'm sure everyone involved is aware that there are others working for that in every WV, and that it is pretty clear how harmful it is, specially for WVs in their early stages — usually meaning developing nations, a priority of WMF's Strategic Plan — to say things like "we're discussing closing down this project".

However, I'm happy to see you're now sorting out the issues here, and the community was able to distill the best from each contribution. So I just wanted to leave this message in solidarity with Wikiversité and call attention to the negative impact that was perceived.

Best work to us all,

--Solstag 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! I was going to comment something similar to what Solstag said when I saw concerns of someone from Wikiversité, since I'm following the work of my friend Solstag at Wikiversidade. I don't need mention names, but I'm very disappointed with some attitudes I've seen here. I wish us luck next time. --Everton137 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, I am deeply sorry for the problems and troubles experienced by genuine educators. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Proposal edit

The following points should resolve the situation here while preserving project autonomy.

• Open Educational Resources (OER) will develop policies to address best ethical practices.
• A review method will be developed to assess research projects and ensure that they adhere to rules, policy, and ethical guidelines.
• Privatemusings and Thekohser will be unblocked. Should Jimbo seek to have them reblocked, he may initiate a community discussion and seek a ban per WV policy.
• SB Johnny will be re-sysopped Jimbo has resysopped Johnny today, so this is a moot point. Geoff Plourde 00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A discussion on Jimbo's authority shall be held to determine how much power Jimbo should have. If it is the will of the community, Jimbo will be desysopped or voluntarily abdicate authority over this project and agree to use existing process.
• WV will host any type of research (primary and secondary) that doesn't violate policy.
• Research on Wikipedia will be permitted as it has merit and can provide the Wikipedian community with feedback on effectiveness. In cases where research could negatively impact Wikipedia, researchers will be required to utilize the WP RfC process and consult with WP officials in the specific areas being studied. RfCs may be required as part of the review mechanism when studying other projects.

Geoff Plourde 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I don't see too much difference in the core issues between our proposals. So I am essentially fine with it. --Gbaor 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement to start an RfC before launching a new project is a great idea and should weed out any harmful project in the future. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult for the researcher to foresee the damage that could be inflicted and consulting the target project first will certainly guard against this.

It is for you to decide the action, if any, against any of the parties involved in this incident, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that the action of SB Johnny was entirely in good faith. I do not, however, have the same certainty with regard to the motivations of Privatemusings whose actions in this are highly dubious. I do not think you should wait for Wales to initiate a community discussion, or anyone else outside WV. You should start one yourself now if you truly think that you should run your own internal affairs.

SpinningSpark 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about the motivations of Private Musings. My statement about Jimbo initiating the conversation is prompted by his decisions to block the users. It is designed to indicate that the unblock is not determinative of their suitability as editors here, but rather a recognition of the need to use existing process. Any user could initiate the discussion. Geoff Plourde 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Jimbo can speak for himself, but my understanding is that his justification for taking unilateral action is that WV had not initiated action internally itself. My point was that Jimbo, like myself, is standing outside WV seeing something disagreeable coming out of it. WV should police itself, not rely on outsiders to initiate an internal process, which we outsiders really don't want to get involved with. SpinningSpark 02:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WV is not WP and not everyone here edits or understands WP. If someone doesn't complain, we may not know that there is a problem. We do police ourselves when we are aware what's going on. Geoff Plourde 02:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that does not apply in this case, you have now been made more than aware that the actions of this editor are a problem to Wikipedia. Where are the police actions? SpinningSpark 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I would love to initiate the police actions simply to put this behind us, but the present situation makes that impossible. We would need to hold a community discussion to block/ban Privatemusings, which PM is entitled to participate in and refute the allegations against him. Since Jimbo has decided that PM remains blocked, end of discussion, we can't hold a fair hearing. Once Jimbo agrees to unblock Private musings, we would be able to initiate necessary proceedings. Geoff Plourde 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 18:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the fact of Privatemusings block should stop any proceedings, at least from a technical point of view. This happens all the time on Wikipedia at ANI. I certainly have no wish to tread on anyones toes and am not saying you should do it like WP, but just so you understand how it works. When an ANI thread is opened, any named parties in the complaint are notified on their talk page. A blocked editor can read the ANI thread but not contribute to it. On WP (and I assume it is the same on WV) blocked editors are still permitted to write on their own talk page, primarily for the purpose of appealing the block. It is possible for the blocked editor to write a response to the ANI thread on their talk page, and if they do so, it is the usual practice for an administrator to copy it over to the ANI discussion. SpinningSpark 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being clear about accusations against people and allowing them to defend themselves against the accusations is a fundamental principle of justice. I know that justice is not relevant to Wikipedia, but I expect it at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Unlike wikipedia, wikiversity is as much about building the community as building the contents. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia believes in building the community, it is a founding principle. "Allowing people to defend themselves against accusations is a fundamental principle of justice", the suggestion I made was a way in which PM could be allowed to defend himself, you may well not want to take up my suggestion, up to you, but please do not insinuate that I am not interested in justice, you have no grounds for such an accusation. Why is there such an anti-Wikipedia undertone to this discussion? I find it baffling. SpinningSpark 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think suggesting that someone start a RFC before doing an experiment on Wikipedia is fine, but as a policy any requirement should be more general like requiring people get informed consent before doing anything that involves contact or interaction with a person, group, or organization. -- darklama  04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thats the point of the RfC. Lack of informed consent makes an experiment unethical Geoff Plourde 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The existing Wikiversity methods are fine (see Open Educational Resources (OER)'s review process for research). The only problem is that outsiders do not follow the Wikiversity rules. If you have a problem with a Wikiversity page then you click "edit" and fix/discuss the problem. Wikiversity does not need more censorship by people from outside the project who do not read/understand the Wikiversity pages they delete, outsiders who do not talk to- or understand the Wikiversity participants that they block. If everyone will just use the "edit" button then all will be fine. The Ethical Breaching Experiments project was not 9/11 and the Wikiversity community is not helped by outsiders shouting "the sky is falling" and pushing on us the wiki equivalent of the Patriot Act. --JWSchmidt 15:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I like most of this. My authority here does not derive from the community and isn't something I'm interested in exercising in the future in any case. I recommend that this portion of things simply be removed - in that it is an argument and discussion that we simply don't need to have, and which will make it much more difficult on all sides if a situation arises in the distant future. Don't make policy which isn't needed. If you find me in your hair in 3 months time, then by all means, do something about it at that time.
• I am in discussions with Privatemusings by email, discussions which may result in him being unblocked soon enough.--Jimbo Wales 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Privatemusings is going to recreate the pages in question, so can you please unblock him? Geoff Plourde 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wales, you got me confused. Are you saying in the same breath that you are not going to "exercise" your authority in the future but then you may be back in 3 months? Anyway, you cannot have it both ways. If you want to influnece wikiversity editorial policies beyond the legal responsibility with the wikimedia foundation as a host of the project, please remain here as a community member and contribute as an editor. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let me explain. Some may have a concern that it would be my intention to come here and rule on policy on a regular basis, and attempt to establish myself as a dictator of this project. I am saying: don't worry about that, and if I do that, I think you'll be quite sensible to go to extreme measures to stop me from doing it. I intend that we will continue our productive discussion about boundaries of trolling, and ways of creating standards that we can all be proud of for Wikiversity.

I heard from a French Wikiversity contributor by email that their policies would have led to the immediate deletion of this nonsense from the start. I don't know exactly what their policy is, but it would be interesting to see if we can learn something from them.--Jimbo Wales 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I take your reply to mean if we do what you consider appropriate then you wouldn't need to be back. If we do something you don't like then you will come back like you did. My concern then is whether you will seek to communicate with the community before you pull out your tools. And, ironically, Wales, if you do stick around more and discuss your views on the policies with us, we may consider your views seriously as a respected community member. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your authority doesn't derive from the community, from where does it derive? You are a board member, that gives you a vote in board meetings, it doesn't give you authority to act unilaterally. --Tango 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting question, deeply philosophical. If you figure it out, I'd be interested to know. :) In this particular case, I have the support of the Foundation to assist in the formulation of new policies and to enforce - in the short term - as I have done. Beyond that, I see no reason for us to speculate or test - as I've no intention of doing anything radical or unusual (and indeed, other than finishing up with this episode and helping facilitate a healthy dialog about why the toleration of trolling is bad, and how to productively end it, I have no intention of doing anything at all). In general, I am a strong advocate of "interpretive restraint" - it may be fun to decide grand questions, but it's seldom all that useful, and it can set up situations in which unforeseen needs arise. For example, if we decided that "Jimbo has absolute authority in Wikiversity" (an absurd position which I do not support) then we'd run the risk of me doing something completely bonkers and being bound by a principle that makes no sense. If we decided that "never again" can Jimbo overturn anything here, we run the risk of this small community being overwhelmed with votes from general spillover from Wikipedia. The middle ground is better, where we all agree that gentleness, deliberation, and common sense are among the overarching principles, and we refrain from holding referenda on questions that have no immediate import.--Jimbo Wales 17:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authority must derive from someone (or ones) with the power to enforce it. In our case, I can see two groups with significant power on Wikimedia projects. There is the Wikimedia Foundation (since they have the off switch) and the community (since either mass revolt or mass desertion would destroy the projects). So, your authority must come from one or the other. As you say, in this specific instance you do have some delegated authority from the Foundation, but that isn't the case in general. Trying to act authoritatively without the backing of somebody with actual power runs the risk of someone calling your bluff, and that would be messy. I agree with the general principle of not being overly prescriptive with our policies, but I think that if anyone ignores rules and it turns out the community doesn't back them, then they need to take a step back and let the community decide what to do. We should be prescriptive about any exceptions to that general rule (basically, Office Actions should be the only exception, and they should be done for legal reasons only). I wonder if you realise that the actions you took have had the opposite of your intended effect. You have drawn attention away from the very real problem that you wanted to solve (for the record, I agree that the pages in question should be deleted) and towards yourself. This would almost certainly have gone better had you explained your concerns and tried to persuade the local community to your view (since your view makes a lot of sense and the local community are generally an intelligent group, I expect you would have succeeded). Your last sentence is very strange - what you did was neither gentle nor deliberation. It was the exact opposite... --Tango 18:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the pages in question should be deleted" <-- I've seen no evidence to support this claim. Given the amount of time that has past since the pages were deleted, I think it is safe to conclude that there will never be any such evidence provided. I am at the point of believing that there is no such evidence and that is the reason why there was never any discussion of the deletion before the deletions took place. Such out-of-process deletions are disruptive to the Wikiversity community. Lightening bolts from god that smite Wikiversity participants are a sickening horror for this learning community to endure. Why is it so difficult for some people to find the "edit" button? Oh, right, they don't have to. They're special. Editing and discussing is for the little people. That is the lesson to be learned from Privatemusings' little learning project. With such a first time success for this experiment, we must anticipate a bright future for a long series of ethical breaching experiments. --JWSchmidt 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there could be evidence either way. It is a matter of opinion. --Tango 20:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is very clear evidence in this thread at Wikipedia Review that Privatemusings had the intention of using this project to insert hoax articles into Wikipedia. This is damaging to Wikipedia and is grounds for speedy deletion on all other WMF projects that I contribute to. @JWSchmidt, speaking as a Wikipedia editor, I do not want to come over to you project and edit your pages. I do not necessarily understand your project and ground rules and you most likely would not appreciate outsiders messing with your pages. It is perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to expect Wikiversity to put a stop to activities that damage our project. The fact that outside intervention was necessary is borne out by this discussion in which, for the most part, WV editors continue to defend the deleted material with no recognition of how damaging this is to our project. SpinningSpark 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Privatemusings had the intention" <-- What Privatemusings wrote on the discussion forum: "there's no fundamental problem with any sort of breaching experiment, as long as it's ethical (so probably involves things like doing no harm etc" The deleted Wikiversity project page specified: "Ethical Breaching Experiment: An experiment which causes no harm in its execution". The deleted Wikiversity project was an exploration of the idea that a harmless experiment could be found. By definition, the project was aiming to not harm Wikipedia. So how does deleting the project "put a stop to activities that damage our project"? --JWSchmidt 18:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has written that the project intends to do no harm, but that does not mean that the project will do no harm. Whether or not Privatemusings intended harm, the fact is he will cause harm to Wikipedia with hoax articles. Some of the discussion seems to be relying on the article subject being fictitious (so there is no possibility of harm to a real person) but this is completely ignoring the harm done to the reputation of Wikipedia. For instance, in reply to Gomi's suggestion to "Create articles on non-existent people and companies. This will be difficult, but if carefully checked to be non-existent, the harm done here is minimal" john Limey responds "This one is the most interesting and the least likely to be deemed unethical". Privatemusings then copies over Limey's example of "I have two lovely fake biographies on Wikipedia that have been there over 6 months" to the WV page as an example of a breaching experiment without any other comment. Nowhere does PM say that he thinks this example is unethical, and given his stated aim of adding hoax content, I can only presume that he does believe that this is ethical. At any rate, he has provided no criticism of Limey. SpinningSpark 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWSchmidt, :- Experiments in breaching ethics, so long as they don't breach any ethics... haven't you directly given that double negative several times now? Someone has now three or four times at least. I can answer your other question... if you can cure one ail, does it depend on your curing them all or is the opposite true, i.e. no you certainly wont cure them all if you wont even cure one first. Is this the land of politics and standpoints or guidance and learning? Apparantly the rate of damage to Wikipedia would have been very minimal with the existance of this project. What then is the rate of damage to Wikiversity without it, or is that lesser important? What is a good projection, some good examples, of areas affected by the exclusion of this project? Where exactly is the education going to be notably stunted except in the area of hoaxing a free-to-edit website? ~ R.T.G 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) "Breaching experiments" is a "term of art." If they are done within ethical confines they are "Ethical 'Breaching experiments'" and not "'Ethical Breaching' experiments." [1] We ought to beware of any "eats, shoots, and leaves" interpretations. Collect 22:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology is not always maintained for its suitability. ~ R.T.G 08:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research Policy Review edit

Currently the policy governing research is the Research guidelines on beta Wikiversity. This policy was implemented per Board instructions several years ago and should be sufficient in coverage. Darklama is working on addressing questions researchers may have about doing research on Wikiversity and ways in which research process can be implemented. Please post things below that you would like to see addressed. Geoff Plourde 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns to be addressed edit

• Informed consent Geoff Plourde 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be Careful What You Wish For. The whole Wikipedia environment is by design a Cultural Experiment, and there is every good reason that teachers who send their students into the Wikipedia Field should get their local human subjects committees to sign-off on the field experience, which would require each student — or student's guardian in the case of minors — to sign informed consent waivers. Jon Awbrey 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private musings edit

Jimbo's block of Privatemusings has made it difficult for the community to review his conduct and consider whether action is merited. I think we have all taken notice of the contentious nature of the research Privatemusings was engaged in. He seems to be a reasonable chap, and I strongly doubt that after the severity of the response he will restart the project. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but rather preventative. We don't need to prevent Privatemusings from restarting the project, so please unblock him. If he tries this again, its sufficiently documented enough that the community could take appropriate actions in the future. Geoff Plourde 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted.--Jimbo Wales 10:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked him.--Jimbo Wales 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser and so-called “Cross-Wiki Issues” edit

As I said when this came up on his talk page:

In my opinion, "cross-wiki issues" is simply a nonsense codeword. Mike Lifeguard used the same language in 2008 to threaten me with blacklisting simply because my user page had a few links on it. The blocking agent should be asked to explain and justify his charge, not require the defendant — Spanish Inquisition style — to make a list of all the things he might have done wrong. Thekohser should be reinstated immediately, with no conditions. Jon Awbrey 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

JonAwbrey 15:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've separated Thekohser's block from PM because they don't appear related. I understand your history with this user, but think that it is best that his actions be left to the community. He is currently an productive member of several other projects, and his skills and employment experience would allow him to be productive here as well. We have already been provided with an outline of what he intends to work on, and we don't have experts in those areas. As with Privatemusings, the community is now aware of his history and record, and would be able to take appropriate action if necessary in the future. Geoff Plourde 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never. As far as I am concerned, this user is globally banned.--Jimbo Wales 10:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

omg Mike R 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, thank you for unblocking Privatemusings and reflagging Sb Johnny. These actions show me that we can work together to make Wikiversity a better place. The idea of "global bans" isn't exactly a pleasant thought for me, because I do think that environment has a major impact on behavior and that individuals may perform better in different situations. I can see that discussing this user will only serve to distract from more important matters, so I'll step away for the time being. I think that the block should be reviewed in the future, and wonder about whether or not a rehabilitation program could be developed for Mr. Kohs. Again, thanks! Geoff Plourde 01:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as you see (below) Privatemusings is itching to get "back in the game". Is he here to create learning materials generally, or here to push an agenda? I urge you all to be very firm about what you are here for - if it is to troll Wikipedia, this is not going to fly at all. If it is to create learning materials, then you have my unreserved support to the very end. Block the trolls and move forward, is my recommendation.--Jimbo Wales 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial potential overlapping between creating learning materials and pushing agendas. You may think of, for example, much of the work in the field of political science. While we are not telepathic we cannot divine on another wikiversiter's intention, we can only look at the work that is done. The policies that we currently follow are outlined in the research guidelines. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikivertsity community could continue to argue about whether privatemusings agenda here is one thing or another. Anyone that is motivated enough to contribute to and participate in any wikimedia project has some kind of agenda in doing so. I think most people have a narrow agenda related to what it is they know and/or what it is they would like to know. I cannot say that I am surprised that privatemusings still wants to learn more about Wikipedia if that is what he wanted to learn about to begin with. I gather that sometimes the Wikipedia community bans people from contributing to and discussing certain topics on Wikipedia, are you topic banning privatemusings from learning more about the Wikipedia project here? -- darklama  12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser's account is now globally locked per this log. However, the SUL account status utility shows that his accounts on Commons, enwikisource, and usability are unattached and unblocked, so the lock may not apply to them.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward edit

(with apologies if I'm posting in a wrong section) - I'm very glad to be unblocked!

To repeat what I just mentioned to ottava - I think the 'complete reformulation' Jimbo has stated is the condition of my unblock is probably a good idea, and following a dust settling period (maybe a week or so?) I think I'd quite like to move some of the important discussion we've had at this review over into some sub-pages of the 'ethics' area - it really seems on-topic and relavent to me.

I've asked Ottava for his thoughts on the outcomes of this review, but perhaps we could also bend the arm of a neutral steward to try and help us figure out the next steps? I think Jimbo created a rather unfortunate mess with what I feel was rather a blundering and clumsy intervention - the sooner we can get our best feet forward the better, I reckon.....

Once again - glad to be back :-) Privatemusings 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings let me be completely clear. Your unblock is conditional on your completely and totally abandoning this project of yours. Stay very far away from it.--Jimbo Wales 05:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, by project you mean the sockpuppetry pages, right? Geoff Plourde 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to leave this project in suspense. It may be appropriate in the future, but it's probably not worth it right now. Geoff Plourde 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pragmatic advice, Geoff - but I think Jimbo is being a bully here, and I think it's wrong. Jimbo recently described one of the incidents that I'm interested in examining as 'fascinating and sad', and the en community regularly reports and discusses such matters. I came here because I think it's potentially a fantastic place to unpack all the issues, put forward ideas, talk, learn, share - you know, all of those warm fuzzies that wikiversity really should be all about. Jimbo seems to me to just be asserting that's it's not allowed, because.... well... because he says so. I think that's wrong.

I certainly won't edit whatsoever in this area whilst this community has the chance to think about how it feels about all this, so please don't block me again - I think I'm being rather pathetic in having to say that, but you wouldn't whack a guy in pink dress anyways, right? grumble grumble........ Privatemusings 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for being wise about this. Policy discussions about this are likely to take some time, and the reformulation of policy to make clear that disruption of other communities is not ok is going to take some time. It will be better for you to stay out of all of that, and certainly to not engage in any boundary-pushing.--Jimbo Wales 23:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest finding another area that's significantly less likely to lead to people going on the warpath. How about looking into why dispute resolution cases fail? That would be particularly helpful, and I could give you a hand since I did some work in that direction a few years ago? Geoff Plourde 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heh... I'm not sure I'd agree that that would be a plain sailing type of project, geoff! (by the way, I also feel that there are some important, fundamental issues worth confronting in this whole mess, though I appreciate your enthusiasm to move forward) - see Open Educational Resources (OER):Colloquium#requests_for_learning.3F for another idea I've had about what I may be up to. cheers, Privatemusings 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have to get involved in disputes to study why they are failing would you? ~ R.T.G 09:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He might well ask a similar question of you. Ottava had matters well in hand, but it appears his efforts were elided in raising the matter to JW's attention. I support JW's rights here, but not necessarily the wisdom in how this affair was handled. Collect 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contributors to deleted page edit

cross posted from meta too

I've tried to keep up with the many threads relating (broadly) to the wikiversity matter, and have kinda failed (!!) - but I have seen a few people commenting to the effect that the project was clearly trolling, and perhaps either implying, or understanding, that editors blocked or banned on other wmf projects were active at wikiversity. I don't think anyone who was blocked or banned on any wmf project edited the project - here is a list of contributors;

1. User:Privatemusings
2. User:JWSchmidt
3. User:Crochet.david.bot
4. User:SB Johnny
5. User:RTG
6. User:Darklama
7. User:Adambro
8. 80.176.82.43 (I'm not sure who this is / was?)

See here for the full log. Privatemusings 01:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]