text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Way out

Way out?
Hi! Last evening I put together some points that (I think) summarize the opinions and wishes of nearly everybody here. Sort of "golden middle road". Here they are: What do you think? --Gbaor 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity won't facilitate any breaching experiments on Wikipeadia or any other website. Although the initial project was meant in order to make less penetrable (citation from the deleted page: "...whether or not such things [experiments] are possible, and if so, how they might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects."), but the topic itself is very controversial. As an unwanted outcome, it may attract (bad fate) people who do not want to do research, but simply vandalize Wikimedia projects under the umbrella of "research".
 * Wikiversity policies will be reviewed and approved by voting from by both sides (WMF+WP and WV) that they will be appropriately stict to stop any people with harmful intentions, but allow full academic freedom (as the crucial part of the research process)
 * The review method will be set up on WV to assess any ongoing and future research projects. This review method will be approved by both sides.
 * A few interested WP admins could enter the Probationary custodianship process and eventually become WV custodians. This should serve both as a strengthened link between the two projects and hopefully prevent incidents like this in the future
 * Privatemusings and Thekohser will be unblocked, SB Johnny will be re-sysoped
 * Mr. Wales won't use his Founder rights on WV any more without previous communication with the community
 * WV will host any type of research (primary and secondary) fulfilling the criteria which will be approved by both sides as mentioned earlier
 * Research of WP will be permitted including its criticism in order to highlight a weakness of WP, which can be eliminated as a final result of the research project

 * On the first point, a stronger statement is needed that unauthorized (by the owner of the target institution) breaching experiments are unethical per se, not just that Wikiversity will not sanction them because they are merely controversial. On the action of the Founder, normal process should involve discussion, but when action is required to prevent harm, especially ot another project, then it is justified that immediate action is taken and discussion is afterwards.  I would expect this of any WMF Steward, it does not just apply to Wales.  You cannot demand that Wales gives up this power in regard to Wikiversity, your project is not above anyone else.  Undoing Wales' actions would be wheel-warring if there is no discussion with him first, the very reason SB Johnny was de-syssoped in the first place.  On the re-sysopping of SB Johnny, judging by the discussion on his talk page, this would not seem to be a problem as Wales has already offered to do this once SB Johnny has agreed to desist wheel-warring with Wales. SpinningSpark 12:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...unethical per se, not just that Wikiversity will not sanction them..." - The proposal means: drop them now and drop them in the future as well. This is in fact the WV side of the "bargain" These experiments are a valid topic, but "unethical", "controversial", "extremely evil", "for the greater good",... however you want to call them. --Gbaor 18:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to say that consuming other people's resources without permission (and a lot of resource has been consumed on Wikipedia to deal with this) is unethical and that Wikiversity will not sanction pages detailing how to go about doing this. SpinningSpark 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * about SB as I said lower: resysop.--Gbaor 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * A further point is that any experiments on Wikipedia and like projects is experimenting on unpaid editors. This is especially unethical since one would be using up their time and resources which they believe they are devoting to something entirely different.  This is akin to theft. SpinningSpark 13:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal did not mention experiments at all. It says: "research on WP" which is a different category. More like a "case study". --Gbaor 14:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal opens with "Wikiversity will drop the idea of breaching experiments". How is that not mentioning experiments. SpinningSpark 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry there is a misunderstanding here I believe. I meant that we won't do any experiments of this "penetration testing" nature (first point), but we will do research of "case study" nature (last point). So the first point is basically in agreement what you want to achieve. (Note: This was a "homegrown" proposal from my side. I did not asked anybody in advance, but would be happy if you could express your views. Thanks to those who did already.)--Gbaor 18:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is misunderstanding, that is good cause for rewriting your proposal. If you agree that unauthorized breaching experiments are unethical (even when done in good faith) and similarly for any other experiment that consumes the target's resources, then there is no reason you cannot say so in the proposal.  The deleted material gave no sign whatsoever that the authors considered this activity unethical.  Quite the contrary, it gloried in past successes of this and encouraged more of the same. SpinningSpark 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated it to make it perfectly clear. The aim of the proposal was to state cold facts, rather than go into judgment whether it was ethical or not. After all the differences between our opinions led to this lengthy discussion. --Gbaor 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking a position could potential undermine a person's intention to be a neutral and objective observer. A failure to state a position does not mean an author shares the beliefs of the people that are the subject of the author's researched. I think the subject of the research in this case were the people doing unauthorized breaching experiments. Who was the subject of the research may be another area that is disagreed on. I believe people have grown tired of discussing who's interpretation is right or wrong though and it is probably time to bring this review to a close. -- dark lama  19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * (ec) That goes nowhere near far enough in my opinion. To begin with, the line still contains a lot of rationalisation for the subject - that it was done with good intentions ("...to best inform policy and practice...").  I am far from accepting that the page did have good intentions; my reading of it is just the opposite, many of the authors seemed to be delighting in damage to Wikipedia.  Secondly, saying that the reason for not supporting this activity is that it attracts bad faith participants is not strong enough.  This leaves open the door to possible future experiments that could be designed to effectively exclude bad faith participants.  My view is that all unauthorized activities that consume resources are unethical.  There is no reason a matter of ethics cannot be stated in the proposal if we agree that it is correct.  The title of this page is "Wikimedia Ethics..." after all.  Nothing less than outright banning of this activity without conditions would be acceptable to me.  I also believe the phrasing could be made wider than just breaching experiments.  Any activity that causes damage is not acceptable, since it requires resource to put right and damages the reputation of the target - particularly important for Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dark Lama. I find it hard to accept that the subject of the research was merely into people who conduct breaching experiments.  Several contributors to the page seem to be admitting to creating hoax articles.  You want to close the debate without reaching a decision?  You are opening the door to further action outside your project if you go down that road. SpinningSpark 19:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * What do you mean by "unauthorized activities"? This is a space for exploration and with infinite possibilities how can we get authorization for everything we do?  You have made it very clear that we all have different opinions on the values of controversial activities, and that's why we need to discuss before we act.  Who is to judge whether your evaluation (or Darklama's) of the said project should be more accurate?  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean unauthorized by the authority controlling the target institution. In the case of a bank, for instance, this would be perfectly clear.  A security test authorized and initiated by the bank's board of directors is perfectly ethical, useful even.  An attempt to breach the bank's security by private individuals without the bank's knowledge is unethical, likely illegal and possibly dangerous to boot.  In the case of Wikipedia, things are a little more difficult as there is no clear central authority from which to seek permission.  However, Wikipedia's policies are quite clear: contributions which add to the content or otherwise improve the encyclopedia are always welcome and no permission is required; contributions which damage the encyclopedia are not welcome and will never be approved.  Breaching experiments without doubt fall into the latter category as they are adding untrue content to the encyclopedia which requires resource to clean up and damages the public reputation of Wikipedia.  Experiments which involve only observation and do not change anything on Wikipedia are, of course, acceptable.  An example of research that actually did add content to Wikipedia but is still acceptable was mentioned on the deleted page.  Although it was described there as a breaching experiment, it actually is not.  It is adding new content in scope, and therefore counts as improving the encyclopedia, even though it was intended as a test of the "speedy deleters". SpinningSpark 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, there is a page on Wikipedia for notifying School and University Projects. SpinningSpark 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The work had only one author. I think it is reasonably safe to say that the people that did the hoaxes were not page authors or contributors. I think the author was attempting to quote what the hoaxers had to say about their hoaxes when interviewed by the author or what the author found them saying elsewhere. I think the questions the author asked or where the author obtained the quotations used would of been nice to include for completeness and might of made the fact that the hoaxers were not involved in the development of the research on Wikiversity clearer. -- dark lama  20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The page certainly does not read like a study of hoaxers, it reads like an advertisement for them. SpinningSpark 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The page certainly does not read like a study" <-- I think the fundamental problem is the same that faced Galileo. Galileo spoke the truth of what he saw and he was condemned by authorities who saw the truth as unwelcome. Wikiversity makes use of an amazing invention: it is called the "edit" button. If there is a possible problem with a Wikiversity page then Wikiversity participants click "edit" and discuss the matter. --JWSchmidt 21:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be true. I think there wasn't enough context to understand whether the author was trying to make it read like an advert or not. I think the Wikiversity community would of seen reading like an advertisement as a reason to improve the work. Deletion on Wikiversity would have been unlikely to have been suggested unless people felt there was no chance of it improving. I assume this is usually true for Wikipedia as well since it has . -- dark lama  21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @JWSchmidt. Don't be condescending. I have 18,000 edits on Wikipedia so I know perfectly well were the edit button is.  However, if this had been on Wikipedia I would be reaching for the delete button rather than the edit button.  The page served no useful purpose.  The terms of reference it gives itself are "On this page we discuss, brainstorm, and possibly execute ethical breaching experiments - in particular whether or not such things are possible, and if so, how they might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects."  Yet all of the examples it gives of breaches are harmful hoaxes according to Wikipedia policies and nowhere on the page is there any discussion of how this is helping the WMF. SpinningSpark 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And to compare me to the witch-hunting unscientific accusers of Galileo is a vile insult. SpinningSpark 21:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that there are hoaxers on Wikipedia or covering it up as you seem to imply by the Galileo analogy. Helpful research into how to combat hoaxing is welcome.  The deleted page was not doing this, it was, rather, glorifying hoaxing.  If there is even a single sentence on that page that is of any use in actually combatting this behaviour please point it out and I will copy and paste it to Wikipedia myself. SpinningSpark 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Some of you keep suggesting that the possibilities for Wikiversity are "infinite". That suggestion cannot have a high value. You cannot focus your eye on the sky because it is infinitely larger than you. All you can do is look at one star, a cloud, something small. The whole sky can get mapped but you don't just assimilate the whole thing naturally because you can't even see the whole thing let alone focus on it. What is beyond this infinity? I asked the Wikipedia Reference desk recently about infinite space and time. They said that when infinity comes into the equation they have encoutered mistakes or the subject is not fully understood yet and produced a lot of scientific references to back that up. RTG 21:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have not noticed anyone suggesting that possibilities are infinite in this discussion. Even if someone has said that, so what? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia has defined a specific limit count on how many article it will allow? People don't need to focus on infinity for infinity to be possible. One person can look at one part of the sky, a second person a different part of the sky, a third person yet another part of the sky, and so on until the entire sky is being looked at by someone. -- dark lama  22:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * @ Dark lama. The question the author seems to have asked is "I'm up for running a breach or two over the next few months, if we can work out a sensible way of doing it", hardly an uninvolved interviewer documenting the opinions and methods of miscreants.  Reading the entire thread one comes away with the impression of someone actively colluding with and encouraging the hoaxers. SpinningSpark 22:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The keywords for me are "if we can work out a sensible way of doing it." To me that suggests the author was trying to encourage discussion on what people think is sensible. Assuming the author was being serious rather than joking. I don't care to speculate on what the author was thinking or what the context of the author's comments were in without understanding the whole story from the author. -- dark lama  22:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Whatever the motivation, the author was clearly trying to organise breaches of Wikipedia which contradicts your presentation of him as someone merely observing the actions of others. This also "I think I'll copy the 'how to avoid checkuser' info over too" is way out of line.  There is no justification for promulgating this kind of material. SpinningSpark 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the author was clearly trying to organise breaches" The project clearly stated that the goal was to explore if it was possible to find an experiment that would "causes no harm in its execution". Why is an exploration of the possible existence of such an experiment "way out of line"? "clearly trying to organise breaches" <-- Please list the breaches that were being organized. --JWSchmidt 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The opening statement of the thread I linked, as I quoted above, says "I'm up for running a breach or two" so however you wriggle, the intention was to actually cause breaches, not just to discuss them. Any hoax is harmful to Wikipedia, the argument for it not doing harm seems to revolve around choosing minor topics which would not attract controversy, Privatemusings stated "I'm hoping to be far too dull to warrant attention".  At best, this is misguided.  Causing additional workload for the volunteers at Wikipedia is not acceptable behaviour, nor is damaging our reputation by inserting false articles. SpinningSpark 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we must conclude that Privatemusings did find his ethical breaching experiment: it was the Ethical Breaching Experiments project itself. His project did not harm, but it brought out in the open the censors who delete and block before knowing what they are doing, before they bother to discuss and edit. Privatemusings created a great learning project for illustrating a fundamental problem in the WMF. --JWSchmidt 05:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is doing harm. It is encouraging hoax articles on Wikipedia.  There is no other WMF project which would have tolerated this for a second.  The fundamental problem here is not the actions of Wales, but that WV has failed to take action itself against something that would not be given house room anywhere else.  If WV had been doing that there would have been no reason for Wales to take action.  After the event, there is no recognition that WV has a problem with giving space to trolls and all the discussion from WV participants seems to be centered around rolling back Wales' actions so they can be put through a due process which you do not actually seem to have.  Protection of WMF projects trumps internal processes in any case.  You should not be putting other projects at risk by undoing Wales' action simply because your toes have been trodden on by an outsider. SpinningSpark 09:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Couple things: first, I don't think it was encouraging as much as documenting, and I don't think the people who want to do these hoaxes need any encouragement. Second, this page is the due process.
 * I'd also like to point out (if I haven't before) that the "sock puppeting page" is probably more helpful for inexperienced checkusers than it would be for an inexperienced sock-puppeteer. The technical info would only be useful to someone who could figure that out themselves in a few short minutes, and the common sense stuff is just common sense. People try to spoof all the time, but the CUs know how to pick it up. IOW, if anyone followed those instructions and ran up against an experienced CU, they wouldn't stand a chance. --SB_Johnny talk 10:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been characterised several times on this page as observation rather than proactive hoaxing. This is mistaken, as I noted above more than once, Privatemusings wrote ""I'm up for running a breach or two" which is difficult to interpret as other than an intention to insert hoaxes.  Such language is rather unacademic and indicates a disruptive purpose, especially as Privatemusings must know he is communicating with trolls when he was discussing this project.  I have not seen your sockpuppeting page, but if it is anything like the one under discussion here, you should give it a very careful look. SpinningSpark 10:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there were problems with any of the pages created by Privatemusings (which I doubt), those problems could have been fixed by using the "edit" button. The only harm done in association with Ethical Breaching Experiments came about because of out-of-process page deletions, the inappropriate block of Privatemusings and a subsequent emergency termination of a custodianship that was performed when there was no emergency. --JWSchmidt 15:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have two basic problems with proposal:

 * I think Wikipedians deciding Wikiversity policy and process would set a bad precedent and is bad for the Wikiversity community as undue/undesired influence. Wikipedians can help develop and take part in any discussion concerning policy development at Wikiversity without being part of the final decision. Whether a proposal should become an official Wikiversity policy, guideline, or process should continue to be left up to the Wikiversity community. I think if any Wikipedians are to become Wikiversity custodians they need to go through the mentor process which means finding Wikipedians that custodian mentors can trust, and be trusted by the Wikiversity community when their mentoring period is up.

 * I think a more neutral, specific, and appropriate suggestion is that Wikiversity will develop policies to address best ethical practices. I think this should address unethical concerns by the broader Wikimedia community without needlessly dragging this discussion out over disagreements.

 * -- dark lama  13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not meant the Wikipedians will develop the policies, but merely that people will be notified, so they can express their opinion, similarly as we can go to WP any time and add our views on WP policies. Since mianly people from WMF "complained" about weak policies, they would have a chance to say what they want (it they want). "if any Wikipedians are to become Wikiversity custodians they need to go through the mentor process which means finding Wikipedians that custodian mentors can trust, and be trusted by the Wikiversity community when their mentoring period is up." - I meant exactly this. There are many WP admins or trusted users, so I thought some of them might be interested --Gbaor 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Addressing one minor point ... discussion properly should have involved the participation of Privatemusings. Infinite blocks do not appear conducive to discussion. It is also to be noted that JW has, in fact, been limited in his powers by some projects. Had he simply noted in his deletion that it was due to "overriding legal concerns" or the like, and posted such on an RfD, I doubt that this drama would have ensued. I wot not your background other than as stated on WP, but I trust the adage about "act in haste" is found in the British grammar schools . And SBJ should not have to admit to a sin which he clearly did not view as having occurred. "Please, Sir" should not be found on WV. Collect 13:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed. SB_Johnny should not have to admit to a sin which he clearly did not view as having occurred. I also believe this to be true of Wikiversity itself. Wikiversity should not have to admit to a sin which it clearly did not view as having occurred. Wikiversity should be able to write a policy on best ethical practices without having to agree that something unethical happened. -- dark lama  13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not admitting anything. His actions wanted to facilitate discussion. Should be reinstalled. Full stop. --Gbaor 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently with a lot of what you've proposed. This is not and should never be Wikipedia, or an extension of Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedians don't like our actions doesn't mean that they should gain a chokehold on our internal affairs. I will be proposing a separate set of changes, because most of these are unacceptable and only serve to stunt the growth of this project as an independent entity. Geoff Plourde 22:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Resolution

Resolution Proposal
The following points should resolve the situation here while preserving project autonomy. Geoff Plourde 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Right. Unlike wikipedia, wikiversity is as much about building the community as building the contents. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. -- dark lama  04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thats the point of the RfC. Lack of informed consent makes an experiment unethical Geoff Plourde 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The existing Wikiversity methods are fine (see Wikiversity'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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

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

 * 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)

(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." We ought to beware of any "eats, shoots, and leaves" interpretations. Collect 22:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Research Policy Review
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)

Concerns to be addressed

 * Informed consent Geoff Plourde 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Private musings
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)

Granted.--Jimbo Wales 10:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By whom? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I unblocked him.--Jimbo Wales 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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

 * omg Mike R 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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? -- dark lama  12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


title: File:Arclength2.jpg