text:
Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/Case 1/Archive 1

Case studies
Should we do case studies on specific management anomalies arising in connection with the initiation and development of this learning project?

I'm thinking of several now...

 * 1) The events on the English Wikipedia that surfaced enough evidence of corruption that an ethical analysis and review became necessary.
 * 2) The events on Meta-Wiki that drove WAS and myself to migrate our disrupted conversations here.
 * 3) The recent events on Commons which surfaced further evidence of systemic and endemic corruption.
 * 4) The very recent events here on Wikiversity which call into question the perplexing practices of as-yet-unknown parties in the WMF Office who are apparently exercising editorial control on educational resources referenced here.

Moulton 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Please start with studying simple cases in depth. Analysing past events from a distance is a good start.  From the perspective of wikiversity, events which are too recent and too intertwined with this learning project itself may cause strong feedback effects which make their study difficult, especially for beginners. Hillgentleman|Talk 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go back to some of the oldest stories in the literature, some dating back to the dawn of civilization itself, to analyze the ethical issues embedded in those ancient stories. Joseph Campbell did this with a wide array of cultural stories.

One of the stories that currently intrigues me is the well-known Parsifal Story (also known as the Fisher King). This story has turned up in four or five unrelated contexts in the past week or two.

Moulton 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It sounds interesting. But let us understand the basics first.  We can study its applications later. Hillgentleman|Talk 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Case studies.....
I plan on detailing some of my experiences with 'Case 3' - but wondered if anyone present might volunteer to have a very 'plain jane' synopsis of avatar ---> name connections detailed? /me looks at Moulton!? whaddya reckon? cheers, Privatemusings 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you mean cases where a prominent Wikipedian published on-wiki concordances associating my WP avatar name with other identifying information? I have cases that will curl your hair.  It's not exactly a simple short story.  Would you like to do it in audio/text interview?  When it comes to telling personal anecdotes, I tend to painfully illustrate why the Bardic Arts are my short suit.  —Moulton 06:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * heh - yeah... I'm asking if you'd mind me writing up a very short version of what I'm aware of ocurring... we can then discuss further, edit mercilessly, append with audio etc.! with your permission, I'll post some details I'm aware of.... Privatemusings 06:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * By all means. I can supply a lot of details, piecemeal, but weaving it into a coherent story that a first-time reader or listener can apprehend and comprehend requires someone of your narrative talent.  —Moulton 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use real, actual concrete cases, not imagined ones
If we are to study cases in wikimedia, please use real, actual, concrete cases; and simple ones are easier to understand for beginners. Names can be changed to protect privacy, but if you use examples that you imagined yourself, the educational (or scientific?) value would decrease. Hillgentleman|Talk 06:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * feedback on my 'Case 3' would be great.... in particular if you think it would be wise to supply all the relevant links / salient diffs (I think you can distill it to 4 or 5 to be honest, but I'm a little unsure of the norms, and best practice here...) I'm thinking that once I get my own story into shape / sensitively written up etc. I can write about some of the other situations I'm aware of... (/me also pokes Moulton for express permission to write up a paragraph? :-) ) cheers, Privatemusings 07:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * What we need is a workshop where we each craft our individual horror stories and then let the others mark it up so as to make our vignettes and memoirs as poignant and succinct as possible. We can probably use Skype to narrate the stories orally to see how they shape up.  Once I've recited a story to an interested listener a few times, I have a better idea how to write it up.  Oral story-telling activates a different part of my brain than solitary writing, and I find I can produce a better account if I can tell a story both orally and in writing.  —Moulton 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Moulton, While it is regrettable that wikipedia is disrupted by disputes, the learning resource is most useful when we try to keep to the facts and let everybody make up his own judgement.  The use of such words as "horror stories" would stir up emotions in some people, and can easily be counter-productive. --Hillgentleman|Talk 05:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In my case, it's not an exaggeration. It's an understatement.  I haven't begun to tell the story of my annus horribilis.  —Moulton 05:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I now have two new real cases, genuine ethical conundrums that have me stymied. I cannot post the actual cases, as they occurred in E-Mail (and to some extent in Skype and IRC side-channels). The only way I can post them is to adopt the same technique as Cary Bass on Foundation-l, and post them as "scenarios" that resemble the real cases, but without disclosing the identity of the principals. Is that OK with you, Hillgentleman? —Moulton 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * There's a problem in that if you use genuine cases, and name names and let the chips fall where they may, you're likely to get accused of harassment, personal attacks, privacy invasion, and other bad stuff that can be avoided by sticking to hypothetical cases without any real names. Unfortunately, in that case you may be accused of creating straw men crafted to suit whatever point you're making, and not consistent with anything in the real world.  So what do you do? Dtobias 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Yah, it's an infinite regress of meta-conundrums all the way down. Mebbe the thing to do is to write another elliptical song parody.  I'm open for suggestions of song titles to work from.  Moulton 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Moulton, As I have said, the material should be real, but names can be changed to protect privacy. The name change would make collaboration more difficult, and NPOV much harder to achieve, but it is better than nothing.  However, Moulton, these problems could have been lessened if you start with older, simpler and clearer cases.  Hillgentleman|Talk 04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It's easy enough to change the names, but insiders will instantly know who the principals are (just as they did in the case of Bastique's "scenarios" on Foundation-l). I now have a third "scenario" (also from Foundation-l) that involves someone whose name on that list means nothing to me.  When I post the case, others will no doubt recognize whose behavior I am describing.  —Moulton 04:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies
Moulton, Please start your narrative from the beginning. In particuluar, a beginner does not know what "IDCab" is. --Hillgentleman|Talk 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I used to spell it out in longhand, WikiProject on Intelligent Design. But then some participants quietly took their name off the official Project page, so I switched to WikiClique on ID, which someone else shortened to IDCab.  IDCab is an ad hoc ochlocracy that nominally corresponds to the allied editors who WP:OWN the articles branded by the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.  —Moulton 05:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia has many groups or "cabals", each with varying and overlapping memberships based on interests, points of view, and friendships. They communicate though varying means: email (example: Jayjg sent a "back me up on this Israel article" message to the Wikipedia or Foundation (I forget which) public mail list by accident instead of some other email list), Wikipedia projects (such as IDcab = Intelligent Design Wikipedia project, members mostly (all?) against it), off site coordination sites (such as the Wikia "anti-harassment" site made famous by Durova), Internet Relay Chat (made famous by Giano's efforts and Arbcom's broken promises), or other means (example: London pubs). The groups differ greatly. In my experience there are two groups that have stood out from the rest for their brazen warring. SlimVirgin and friends and IDcab. Both currently have Arbcom cases pending. Both have years of abusive behavior. Now notice the tricky part: Both also have years of wonderful constructive behavior creating great content. So what to do? There is no consensus. so the cases stay pending. and abusive and wonderful behavior by both groups continues. So Moulton claims the solution is something called "ethics". I like learning new things so I talk to him about it at his Wikipedia talk page. which gets protected from editing. so we talk about ethics at Meta. Which gets protected from edits. Someone mentions WikiVersity, it looks like the right place to take the talk. So here we are. WAS 4.250 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you could simply refer to them as "members of Wikiproject Intelligent Design"? Unless they actually refer to themselves as the "ID cabal", the term seems to be used in a derogatory sense. Better yet, maybe just have a subpage about this and/or other groups discussed, so it doesn't have to be re-explained on every page it appears on. In general, please maintain NPOV when laying out the histories. --SB_Johnny talk 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * While the name comes from that project, the members are actually those individuals that continually vote as a block and is not identical with that membership list. The name is more of a shorthand for "wikipedians who usually show up on evolution or creationist articles and talk pages to back each other up with votes, intimidation, hypocracy, blocking, uncivil comments and/or false accusations when maintaining in articles the point of view that creationism is religion and not science and evolution is a fact" (I agree with that point of view - I believe it is fully backed up by the best sources; it is their methods, not that goal that is the problem). For example, Filll has claimed that incivility should be allowed and not punished. The point is to deliberately drive away, ban/block, and claim anyone with similar opinions is a sockpuppet who then is also blocked/banned. The strategy is to make it a bannable offense to believe certain things and thus control article content. Creating content based on consensus means anyone can get their friends together and edit any article and make it say what they want it to say. These methods are being used because good people and not so good people both find the combination of anon editors and rule by consensus on divisive claims to not be working. We have a problem. The system works good enough on most articles most the time. When people try to game the system, we get this mess. For examples of the accusations above, Moulton's case, which he is trying to document here, if he is allowed to. Also see the arbcom case on FM. WAS 4.250 11:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * WAS is correct. The IDCab is not strictly synonymous with the official list of participants of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.  Some IDCab members have taken their name off the official list; others have never put their name on.  —Moulton 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I define it thus: "ID Cabal or IDCab is a name applied by advocates of Intelligent Design to advocates of the majority scientific rationalist view". The label does have a use, though, in that it instantly identifies the person as relying primarily on ad-hominem and also as pushing a fringe POV. 80.176.82.42 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Guy, the IDCab are not advocates of Intelligent Design. They are proprietors of the collection of articles on Wikipedia that encompass the controversial topic of Intelligent Design, a notion which they strongly deprecate in no uncertain terms.  The IDCab claim to be defending science against a fringe fundamentalist theology, but they do not adopt or employ the protocols of the scientific method to defend and promote science; rather they adopt and employ frankly corrupt political practices to quash the promotion of the notion of Intelligent Design (as proposed by the Discovery Institute and other advocates of that challenge to Darwinian models).  —Moulton 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Moulton, you completely misread what he said. "ID Cabal or IDCab is a name applied by advocates of Intelligent Design" NOT ""ID Cabal or IDCab is a name applied for advocates of Intelligent Design " See the difference? WAS 4.250 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * No. You and I are not advocates of ID.  Neither are the members of IDCab.  I don't actually know of any advocates of ID on Wikipedia.  I only know that IDCab tries to paint sincere scientists (who are not advocates of ID) as if they were.  Authentic scientists do not go around misrepresenting the views of other scientists and then persecuting them based on such sham portrayals.  —Moulton 23:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You just used the term; so you are saying you are instantly identified as "relying primarily on ad-hominem and also as pushing a fringe POV"? WAS 4.250 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Three new "scenarios"
I now have three new cases to post, but since they all occurred in E-Mail, I will have to post them as "scenarios" without identifying the principals. I'll sketch them here, briefly, before posting them on the Case Studies project page.

The first involved a request to remove references to my blog. In the course of exchanging messages, my correspondent became aware that I was relying on guidance of counsel, which he considered a violation of confidentiality. When I pointed out that everyone has a right to counsel, he became upset and responded in a hostile, abusive, and threatening manner. My view is that recipients of hostile, threatening, and abusive messages are under no obligation to keep them a secret, even if there had been a confidentiality agreement in place. (In this case, the correspondent had initially requested one, but I had not acceded to it. Rather I just made him a counter-offer to contact me at will.)

The second involved an E-Mail exchange regarding my "Petition for Redress of Grievance" that I had sent to ArbCom, with copies to others who have been involved in the case. The issue was whether or not I should disclose who else I had copied the message to, and how they should be identified. In the course of puzzling that out, one correspondent took a hard line, and demanded I see it his way, demanded that I declare that I had been in error and apologize to him, or he would discontinue further communication and withdraw further support of my cause. My ethical conundrum was devising best practices for responding to such a distastefully coercive maneuver.

The third involved an E-Mail exchange which I initiated with a poster on Foundation-l who had repeated false assertions regarding my status on the English Wikipedia ("blocked" vs. "banned") and "outting" someone on my blog. I wrote him to resolve his lack of clarity on those points, providing him with citations and evidence to clear up any confusion. I asked him to post an update, to dispel any further misconceptions. He pointedly declined to do so. The question to be studied is the ethics of failing to correct an erratic remark of that nature, once one is apprised that they have inadvertently repeated a falsehood.

Since all three of these took place in E-Mail, would people prefer I post a summary of what's in the E-Mail, or would they prefer I post the text, suitably redacted to conceal the identity of the author in each case? Should I ask a third party to write the summary (or perform the redactions).

Moulton 05:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you broaden the issue. (As an aside, I now understand for the first time Greg's hate of somebody.) The behavior you describe (taken more broadly) has been attributed to President Clinton and his wife among others. It appears to be behavior that is successful in gaining both power and enemies. The first step is to get a qualified person to characterize that behavior in terms that have been dealt with by professionals. You have academic contacts. Can you take these emails to such a person and come back with appropriate psychological terminology for that kind of behavior? I would like to google such terms with "management" and "ethics" and see what I can learn about ethical management as related to manipulative psychologies. WAS 4.250 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Hate is a mask for dread. The puzzle is to identify the abstract dread which the "hated" person arouses. I'm not sure if it's constructive or productive to map those singular anecdotes into psychological terms or DSM IV diagnoses. It might be better to analogize them to storybook archetypes.  —Moulton 17:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Hate and dread are different emotions and manifest themselves in motivating different behavior, which is why we use two different words. But often some specific thing will cause dread in one person and hate in another person. In particular, if someone is trying to hurt you and fleeing is the best option then fear is the correct motivating emotion while if attacking them is the option most likely to produce maximum benefit then hate is a useful motivating emotion and if thinking about it is best then dread can be a useful motivating emotion. The point of emotion is to motivate and coordinate behavior from various subsystems in the body and brain. Scientific analysis using established psychological terminology is most appropriate for accurate analysis while using storybook archetypes is most appropriate for clear communication to the masses. WAS 4.250 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * A mask (Greek hypocrites) is a false face, hiding the true face beneath. The countenance of hate masks the underlying countenance of fear. —Moulton 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I am reading Asperger syndrome which says "stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior". I had not quite believed you were "half-aspergers". I was thinking more along the lines of you acting out a strategy. I see more clearly now. WAS 4.250 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually my official DSM-IV clinical diagnosis is 309.28 Adjustment Reaction with Mixed Emotional Features. Basically it means "Gets upset when upsetting things happen."  —Moulton 17:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * People with differing DSM-IV clinical diagnosis get upset at different things and manifest that upsetment in differing ways, hence its usefulness. WAS 4.250 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Things that tend to annoy me enough to get me upset about them are intentional acts of annihilation, scapegoating and similar systemic injustice. How about you?  —Moulton 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Actions I believe are pointless annoy me. Threats to my well being upset me. Actions meant to harm me anger me. WAS 4.250 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually if something is seemingly pointless, I assume there is a hidden reason for it. Although I suppose sometimes the reason is nothing more than lulz. Actions meant to harm me perplex me. —Moulton 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * If the action actually serves someone's interests then it is not pointless. I am referring to behavior that would not occur if the person was adequately informed. For example, I believe that mismanagement of things (including nations) is mostly a matter of ignorance rather than malfeasance. I think that if the world's worst dictators had been better informed then they would have been less deadly. In short, I think most of what passes for evil would have been avoided by better understanding. WAS 4.250 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

huh
A lot of the things referred to in the narrative are unfamiliar to me and probably to many of the other Wikiversity readers as well. I made the "huh?" template (the "?" got lost somehow in the title) to add to the text after these terms and phrases. Hopefully this will help us serve as "proofreaders", to help get the narrative developed :-). --SB_Johnny talk 12:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * That's fine. We should have a Glossary of Terms section someplace in the project pages.  WAS probably can figure out where that fits in the page structure.  —Moulton 12:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, you could even have subpages for each term, reference, etc. (it's a wiki, no problem making lots of pages). Onee advantage to that is that you could shortcut the subpage linking, which is similar to how article linking works on Wikipedia:

One thing about that though: it's a lot easier to make links if you're using a "flat" structure, meaning that you only have subpages on one level (Main page/Subpage), rather than a "deep" structure (Main page/Subbage/Sub-subpage). See b:WB:LMOS for more details on how subpages work. --SB_Johnny talk 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to a subpage from a main page: /link/
 * Link to a subpage from another subpage: ../link/

Biased and confusing presentation
The presentation of case studies in this page is biased and confusing. It focuses on Moulton's problems with various editors who got him banned from Wikipedia. It does not present "cases," as much as "LOOK AT HOW MOULTON WAS WRONGED!" Please review Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies alt for how this page should be written and consider replacing this page entirelty with that one. Salmon of Doubt 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Confusion is the first step toward Enlightenment. —Moulton 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, these case studies call out individual actors as acting badly. This is always a mistake. Things are complicated in the real world, and to generalize in the way this page does is antithetical to maintaining a high level of scholarly ethics. If we must present cases, we should label what happened, not present why something happened. For instance - the main page states that the IDCab engages in "intimidation and hypocracy." This is not a statement of fact, as much as one of opinion (beyond the fact that just using the language IDCab is basically trolling for emotional response). If this page is really supposed to help "manage the English Language Encyclopedia," it cannot engage in counterproductive behavior that will distance the managers. Salmon of Doubt 21:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Would you like me to provide the forensic evidence and analytical reasoning to support the claims that you are skeptical of? —Moulton 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * If you could do so clearly and in English, that would certainly be better than just asserting conclusions. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you're right. Salmon of Doubt 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The evidence and analysis to support the allegation of hypocrisy is here.

 * In the ongoing evidentiary phase of RfAr/C68-FM-SV, DanTobias has presented evidence and analysis to support his thesis that "FeloniousMonk has promoted a toxic, divisive mindset." Dan identifies half a dozen recurring themes, including 1) tribalism and favoritism, 2) bullying, intimidation, and coercion, 3) hypocrisy and double standards, 4) character assassination, and 5) faux science.

 * Moulton 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The fate in the wisdom of the crowd
One thing I notice from reading these (this case study and the alternative(s)) is a "wisdom of the crowd" versus "scientific inquiry" at the heart. It's not really a "us" versus "them" type paradigm. It is a misconception of a what appears to be a plurality and what appears to be a singularity. On Wikipedia, anything of a scientific nature/process tends to be spotted to the singularity while the a few numbers in votes tend to be spotted to a plurality. Even though the scientific basis may have come from greater numbers, being only presented by one person one Wikipedia makes that presenter seem like a single vote among the greater crowd. There is no weight to such votes -- only numbers. The consensus process of Wikipedia tends to bend the current state of affairs to the numbers game tangent to Wikipedia, and, of course, that tangent is no where near the billions of people of the world that know the straight truth. Further, some view science as a religion rather than a perception, so there is conflict when two religions can't agree to exist even if that means to allow each other views merely to be acknowledged. Those who treat science as a perception tend to fall prey to the religionistas -- rather it be theory or theology.. they both start with the theo- root word. Does fate rest in the hands of Ontology's crowd? Dzonatas 00:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The history of science is replete with examples of new scientific theories overthrowing long-standing popular misconceptions. Perhaps the example that is best known to the lay public is the story of Galileo, who had the temerity to promote the Copernican model of the Solar System, much to the chagrin of Pope Urban, who tossed Galileo into the hoosegow for daring to contradict the teachings of the Church.  The story of Charles Darwin is a little murkier, since his opposition came from more scattered quarters than Galileo's.  The Scopes Trial is probably the best known persecution of a proponent of Darwin's Theory.  An older example, albeit less about science and more about philosophy and didactic education, is the Trial of Socrates, in which his Apologia was considerably more eloquent (but no less contrite) than Moulton's rather atrocious drafts of comparable purpose.  Incidentally, all four of us (Socrates, Galileo, Darwin, and Moulton) are redheads.  —Moulton 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia acts as a single entity. That is why crowds gain such influence. The world of science is divided worldwide among several different universities and single scientists, writing books on their own. Wikipedia can be seen as a medium for those who want easy access to knowledge. A serious search for knowledge requires a visit to the library. I don't think that the problem of populism can be resolved on Wikipedia, without decreasing the influence of Wikipedia to the common people who use it.--Daanschr 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Endless reverting
Endless reverting can go on.. well, endlessly. I think it would be more productive to discuss whatever you see as problematic and turn the project into a genuine inquiry. Having a discussion about why you disagree with the other would perhaps be a good way to go - and to reflect on your own individual biases/perspectives in the process. If the reverting continues, I will consider protecting the page. Cormaggio talk 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Cormaggio. This is a study project, and proper study calls for asking good questions of those proposing questionable views, concepts, notions, theories, beliefs, etc. See, for example, this recent NY Times article about encouraging students to ask good questions (and provide good answers). —Moulton 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * My section is mine to do with as I wish. I do not wish to engage in endless meandering about if or if not specific actions are disruptive. The goal of my case study is to evaluate what can be done ethically to stop disruptive actions. Moulton's self-serving "questions," do not assist in this aim. He is free to add his own learning resources, however he should not "completely chang[e] the meaning [of] another's contributions." I find this entire page to be generally reprehensible - it should be depersonalized - like my contributor protected page (Wikimedia Ethics/Case_Studies_alt). Salmon of Doubt 13:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Salmon of Doubt, I don't understand where you get your ideas from, how you form your beliefs, opinions, or judgments, how you examine the evidence to support your claims, or what methods of reasoning you are employing to arrive at your curious and remarkable conclusions. Color me vexed and perplexed. I am asking you to disclose how you arrive at your published claims. Moulton 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Which specific claim confuses you? Salmon of Doubt 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not the claim. You could claim the moon was made of green cheese and I would be just as perplexed about where you got such a ridiculous idea from, and upon what evidence and reasoning such a preposterous claim reposed.  The claims you make are not confusing; they are simply preposterous claims, ungrounded in evidence or reasoning.  What I am challenging you to do is to exhibit your evidence and reasoning to support your preposterous claims.  —Moulton 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Again, I'd urge a step back. How about thinking about the following questions (off the top of my head)... Are people in full control of their sections? Does each section constitute a "case study"? What is a case study meant to achieve? What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of having individual sections and depersonalised pages? How can this overall process of describing and analysing case studies help us learn something about Wikipedia - and perhaps ourselves? Cormaggio talk 13:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * How can one determine that a "case" is an actual occurrence, objectively characterized, and not a delusional flight of fancy or distorted perception? What epistemological tools of thought do we rely upon?  —Moulton 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * 1. Are people in full control of their sections?
 * The answer to this is either "yes" or "no." If "yes," Moulton should not be editing my section. If "no," then we should go back to my neutralized version of this page (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Case_Studies&oldid=309068).
 * 2. Does each section constitute a "case study"?
 * The answer to this should be "yes." It is however, currently "no." Each section is either a thought-experiment or a screed against a Wikipedia contributor.
 * 3. What is a case study meant to achieve?
 * A case study should be a specific incident meant to illuminate a problem and then show the attempted solution to that problem and the results of that attempted solution. It allows for the evaulation of problem-reactions.
 * 4. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of having individual sections and depersonalised pages?
 * A depersonalized version allows individuals to focus on the acutal problems and actions taken. A personalized version allows for the examination of actual interactions. In this case, a personalized version is actually being used a vector for vengence against contributors to the English Wikipedia.
 * 5. How can this overall process of describing and analysing case studies help us learn something about Wikipedia - and perhaps ourselves?
 * It cannot until such time as this project is no longer being used for vengence by vested contributors.
 * Hope that helps! Salmon of Doubt 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You clearly both have different perspectives on the "case" you're talking about - so it seems like the initial problem is representing the case. Might I suggest that you form cases built on diffs/transcripts (in much the same way as an en.wp arbcom case is developed), and then discuss these cases from your own perspectives? Might I also suggest that you're focusing too much at the moment on objectivity? Isn't it useful to share, discuss and unpick different perspectives? Cormaggio talk 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would be happy to see the cases built on diffs and in-context transcripts. Salmon of Doubt 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Applied Action Research
Cormaggio's Question #1. Are people in full control of their sections?

 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: The answer to this is either "yes" or "no." If "yes," Moulton should not be editing my section. If "no," then we should go back to my neutralized version of this page (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Case_Studies&oldid=309068).
 * Moulton's Response: It occurs to me that editors are often "out of control", where the locus of control could be either an external regulating umpire or personal self-control.

Cormaggio's Question #2. Does each section constitute a "case study"?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: The answer to this should be "yes." It is however, currently "no." Each section is either a thought-experiment or a screed against a Wikipedia contributor.
 * Moulton's Response: How may an impartial observer adjudge whether a purported case is an objectively presented characterization of a cited historical event, a hypothetical thought experiment, or an ill-tempered polemic screed against another editor?

Cormaggio's Question #3. What is a case study meant to achieve?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: A case study should be a specific incident meant to illuminate a problem and then show the attempted solution to that problem and the results of that attempted solution. It allows for the evaluation of problem-reactions.
 * Moulton's Response: Would it be possible to adopt the protocols of Action Research to jointly and creatively solve specific, well-identified, well-documented, and well-presented cases?

Cormaggio's Question #4. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of having individual sections and depersonalised pages?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: A depersonalized version allows individuals to focus on the actual problems and actions taken. A personalized version allows for the examination of actual interactions. In this case, a personalized version is actually being used a vector for vengeance against contributors to the English Wikipedia.
 * Moulton's Response: Could a depersonalized version be presented as an allegory? In a personalized version presented on-wiki with only keyboarded text, how do observers detect the non-verbal affective emotional states of the participants, as normally signaled in transient facial expressions, tone of voice, and gross body language?  What is Salmon of Doubt's evidence and reasoning to support his thesis that case studies "are being used as a vector for vengeance" against other editors of the English Wikipedia?

Cormaggio's Question #5. How can this overall process of describing and analysing case studies help us learn something about Wikipedia — and perhaps ourselves?
 * Salmon of Doubt's Answer: It cannot until such time as this project is no longer being used for vengeance by vested contributors.
 * Moulton's Response: Again, what is Salmon of Doubt's evidence and reasoning to support his thesis that the Ethics Project is "being used for vengeance by vested contributors", rather than as an appropriate vehicle for studying the problems arising on the English Wikipedia and devising best ethical practices for dealing with them? Also, who are the "vested contributors" whom Salmon of Doubt is accusing of being vengeful?

Moulton 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd much rather if both of you really engaged with each other, instead of seemingly trying to impress an impartial observer (ie me). How about firstly representing the case, identifying key events/edits/statements, and discussing these comments, and acknowledging your own perspectives? It seems to me like discussing specifics would be much more productive in identifying various practices in Wikipedia - and only on that basis will claims like "vested contributors" and "remarkable conclusions" be mutually understandable. Cormaggio talk 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * My perspective is simple to state. Salmon of Doubt presents preposterous claims, unsupported by evidence or reasoning.  I am challenging him to produce the evidence and exhibit the reasoning to support his preposterous claims.  —Moulton 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I just want to ask: how do you think action research could be of help in this conflict? My own suggestion (as I've said before) is that any approach should firstly attempt to represent the case (including different POVs), instead of trying to "solve" it. Cormaggio talk 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think action research will resolve this conflict. Moving this discussion to the pages dedicated to action research, will only replace the conflict. I don't think it is good to have one conflict exported to several parts of Wikiversity. The outside world who might be interested in Wikiversity in a positive way might back down, because of the lack of seriousness.

 * I suggest to keep this conflict out of the Colloquium. There have been a couple of topics on the Colloquium dedicated to this conflict and i think it will not be productive to continue giving attention to it. It is better to positively try to build up Wikiversity instead of to spend too much time to internal disputes.--Daanschr 08:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Action Research is a joint problem-solving approach, where all parties cooperate to solve their joint problems. If one party is antagonistic to the concept of cooperation, then it is unlikely that Action Research can be employed.  But in any event, the venue would not be in the pages of the Action Research Learning Project itself (unless students engaged in learning the subject elected to undertake such a case as a practicum exercise).  As far as I know, Salmon of Doubt has not declared himself a student of the subject.  And while I am hardly an authority on the subject, my role so far has been to explain the subject to those who wish to learn something about it.

 * For this reason, I expect that Salmon of Doubt and I will be obliged to employ his preferred method of engagement, which is an atrocious dramatic encounter method. I've never been warm to the approach adopted by Encounter Groups, as I'm not fond of the dramatic arts or playing uncharacteristic thespian roles. I barely function as a player in traditional role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, for the simple reason that I find it difficult to adopt a persona other than my own native temperament as a schmeggegy scientist who is hopelessly didactic and boring as sin. For me to play George to Salmon of Doubt's Martha in an obnoxious reprise of Virgina Woolf is about as far from my own comfortable skin as one can imagine. Nevertheless, if Geek Theater is the only method acceptable to my counterpart in this curious and asymmetrical learning exercise, I'll don the greasepaint and do my level best to play the role of my half of an atrociously gut-wrenching odd couple. —Gastrin Bombesin (Talk) 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I was under the impression that Salmon of Doubt had recently taken a vow to discontinue reading Moulton's writings. I am chagrinned to see that he now appears to have broken his commendable vow.  What's even more curious to this reporter is that Salmon of Doubt appears to be tampering with Moulton's lessons here.  Perhaps he doesn't care for Moulton's peculiar methods of education.  —Montana Mouse (Talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Salmon, if the rules regarding signing are broken, than you could ask someone of the organization to interphere. Edit warring is not an appropriate way of solving such an issue. Moulton, why don't you want to sign your edits on this talk page?--Daanschr 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Daanschr, to the best of my knowledge, I did sign all my edits. Did someone suggest otherwise?  As to rules about signing edits, I am not aware of any applicable or enforceable rule that has been breached here, but if one exists and is mandated by local site policy (and there is a demonstration of a breach), I have no doubt the Wikiversity Custodians will raise it to everyone's attention in the most appropriate manner.    —Moulton 14:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The above edit, which is signed by Gastrin Bombesin has been written by you, according to the history of this talk page. Is everything all right with you, Moulton? I can't imagine that someone actually likes to spend his time this way on the Internet. Is there something about Wikiversity, or certain users on Wikiversity that you don't like in such a way, to behave the way you do?--Daanschr 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, I'm just dealing with an obnoxiously vexatious litigant. No big deal.  Have you taken a minute to research the character of Gastrin Bombesin?  That's one of my alter egos whom I occasionally invoke to demonstrate the affective state of dyspepsia which arises from time to time when dealing with a particularly vexatious character.  —Moulton 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know how you expect to engage positively with such a disdainful attitude. An action research or any other type of positive action process would only work within some bounds of mutual respect (if even to disagree profoundly). I'd ask you to please stop making put-down comments — I don't understand why you do this in a purported project about ethics. Cormaggio talk 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't mind Moulton. He's just engaging in his idiosyncratic methods of education, when dealing with resistant learners.  —Montana Mouse (Talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * And how are you — Moulton — attempting to facilitate learning in this context? Cormaggio talk 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for asking, Cormaggio. See the next subsection, below.  —Moulton 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Facilitated Education Through Muppetry
Permit me to reproduce, verbatim, this thread from the discussion page for the Participants and Objectives of the Ethics Project...

Moulton 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I didn't ask for a history of (sock)-puppetry — I was asking how your general behaviour (not limited to sock-puppetry) was facilitating learning. All I can see is an escalation of drama, which is entirely unproductive, and from which you seem to absolve yourself from all responsibility. Cormaggio talk 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have committed to learn in the Ethics Project, Cormaggio, is ethics. We have committed to learn the theory and practice of ethics. Permit me to quote for you a passage from the theory portion of that study in ethics... John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance

Perhaps there is none more esteemed among modern English-speaking Ethicists than the late John Rawls. He is especially known for his notion of the Veil of Ignorance in the Philosophy of Ethics.

The Veil of Ignorance corresponds to the notion that any Universal Principle of Ethics must be the same for all players. If one were to trade places with any other player, the same Ethical Principle must still apply. Note that Einstein used the same reasoning when he worked out the Theory of Relativity. Einstein reasoned that the Laws of Nature must be the same for all observers. If two observers trade places, they should not swap out their proposed Laws of Nature for a new set, keyed to a different vantage point. Hillel expressed the same idea in the Golden Rule. His version said, "That which is abhorrent to yourself, do not visit upon your fellow Wikipedian. That is the whole of the Ethical Law. All the rest is talk-page commentary." This precept is known as "Indifference to Role Reversal" and applies equally to Einstein's thinking, Hillel's thinking, and the Twentieth Century thinking of John Rawls. Another name for this precept is The Symmetry Principle. If there is an asymmetry present, there is something lopsided in the applicable ethics. In the presence of an asymmetry or imbalance, there will arise a restoring force that will manifest as drama (or karma) to those embedded within an unfair system. Look again at the last line of the above analytical review, Cormaggio: If there is an asymmetry present, there is something lopsided in the applicable ethics. In the presence of an asymmetry or imbalance, there will arise a restoring force that will manifest as drama (or karma) to those embedded within an unfair system. Now, where you ask, is the asymmetry that is generating the dramatic restoring force?

Let me show you where the asymmetry arises...

There is your asymmetry, Cormaggio, in boldface.

Salmon of Doubt — the Ambassador to Wikiversity from the English Wikipedia's WikiClique on Intelligent Design — decloaks at the talk page of WAS 4.250 — the distinguished gentleman who initiated the Ethics Project here — and issues a terroristic kamikaze threat against Wikiversity. And WAS 4.250 thanks him for his "well-thought out comments"!

(Incidentally, I have asked WAS to resign from the Ethics Project.)

Look at the asymmetry. Salmon of Doubt comes swashbuckling into Wikiversity like some Klingon suicide bomber. And what does he care if he dies blowing the joint up with a terroristic robot? He is wearing the costume of a disposable avatar from nowhere in cyberspace. For all I know, he is connecting through an untraceable TOR node.

There's your drama, Cormaggio. There's your asymmetry and there's your drama, right out of Star Trek: The Klingons vs the Federation.

Did you flinch?

They are perplexed and struggling to find a solution.

And all Salmon of Doubt can think of is mindless violence.

But if you consult Barsoom Tork and Montana Mouse, they have a better idea...

Moulton 13:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Note: This discussion continued (after being archived) at Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies1. Cormaggio talk 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Call for win-win solution
Instead of having all the cases list on one or two pages, can we just subpage each case individually? Then, we can setup a category tag that can be placed on each page. Dynamic content lists, to replace Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies, can then show the links to all the cases. I have seen some win-lose ideology being suggested in regards to this project, and that kind of ideology is just not acceptable. Dzonatas 18:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I suggested at User talk:Salmon of Doubt that "Perhaps someone could move all specific cases to their own learning resource pages, and the "main" cases studies page will contain only generic data and links to the specific cases studies. They can also be subpages rather than sub-subpages and can also be linked to at the main project page." If you want to do that, please go right ahead. WAS 4.250 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I suggest doing that to Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies 3 which is a copy of Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies from before the edit war was re-begun on it. WAS 4.250 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I might have some time this weekend to dig into it. Dzonatas 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation of three new users on Wikiversity
The users Moulton and WAS+4.250 appeared on Wikiversity on 9 july 2008 and have since that time been mostly active on the Ethical Management Project. User Salmon of Doubt appeared on 19 August 2008 and has only been active in fighting user Moulton on the ethical management project.--Daanschr 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't overlook:

 * See also: Deletion Log for 71.242.27.212
 * See also: http://80.176.82.42/wiki/Main_Page
 * Moulton 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: http://80.176.82.42/wiki/Main_Page
 * Moulton 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: http://80.176.82.42/wiki/Main_Page
 * Moulton 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the purpose of this? Why are you doing this?--Daanschr 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * We are doing this to improve the ability of Wikimedians (ourselves included) to reason about ethics and devise best practices for solving vexing and perplexing ethical conundrums and dilemmas. —Moulton 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * All of us wish to improve the management of Wikipedia. We disagree about what constitutes optimum ethical management of the English language Wikipedia. You can see by our behavior what each of us believes to be optimal ethical behavior. Salmon believes in punishment, Moulton feels tit-for tat is educational, me? — well, judge for yourself. WAS 4.250 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Not quite Tit-For-Tat. See the Amusing Helicopter. —Moulton 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Whatever you want to call it, this feud has gotten pretty old and stale. I've certainly had my battles with several of the same editors, but enough is enough. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It's about time you showed up. Where the hell have you been?  And where are the rest of the good guys in this dusty Western?  —Moulton 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The script called for a duel, not a gang fight. WAS 4.250 01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * OK. A duel.  Atrocious song parodies at 20 Kbps.  —Moulton 01:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, not interested in a fight just for the sake of a fight. I really don't see the purpose in battling here. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Focus

 * Again, guys, Please be aware that the learning project has just begun.  It would be much more effective to focus on past, simple, concrete cases, draw some conclusions and lessons from them, before embarking on a study of current events, which would be much more difficult to study, not the least because of the feedback effect it would generate.   As I can see, the content generation has been slow, and bogged down by rather minor disputes. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. Fighting over atrocious song parodies on an obscure blog that no one reads is just petty, full stop. —Moulton 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Hillgentleman, Moulton, WAS and Salmon of Doubt are one person who is fighting a battle with himself. There isn't a conflict. This guy is playing a game with you.--Daanschr 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Highly doubtful. WAS and Moulton have very different histories and editing patterns at en.WP, and Salmon is most likely one of the anti-ID group (IDCAB in Moulton's terminology) Moulton clashed with over there.  I could throw out the user names of some of the most likely possibilities for who is behind Salmon, but it doesn't matter.  I can't say I've ever met Hillgentleman before, though. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Reconnolly86

 Hello Reconnolly86, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! -- DarkMage 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Reconnolly86


text:
User talk:Saimon2000bd~enwikiversity

Hello, the page you created was deleted:

(Deletion log); 19:46. . Erkan Yilmaz (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "IPv6 Addressing" (Copyright violation: copy + paste from: http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/4883a.aspx#138 - see: http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx#EEB)

If you want you can create the learning resource IPv6 Addressing again by adding non-coyprighted material and add also a link to the book. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Saimon2000bd, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Saimon2000bd. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Saimon2000bd~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saimon2000bd~enwikiversity


text:
User:Reconnolly86

Hi, my name's Rebecca, and this is my talkpage. Feel free to offer advice or ask questions.

title: User:Reconnolly86


text:
User:AlexJFox

You can find me on wikipedia!

title: User:AlexJFox


text:
Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies

Case Studies
Much early work on this project has been devoted to the creation of various 'Case Studies', with early feedback indicating that this may be a useful and valuable method for exploration of the issues. We have had conflict however in deciding whether to choose a tangible, detailed approach in examining specific cases, with the associated danger of 'personalization', or an anomalous approach which distills the issues at hand, but remains abstracted.

It is also important to disclose that the information relating to specific cases has been written in part (and in places, in whole) by the protagonists in the cases explored. Project participants should feel free to create new 'Case Study' pages as they see fit, though multiple derivative works may be confusing to potential learners at a certain point.

An example of problematic behaviour and response

 * To discuss this further, please go to the specific page and its companion talk page

This example is fictional, and may represent common ground

User:Foo posted a message to User:Bar's talk page stating "Hello Bar, I know that your name is George Bigginsworth, and that you live at 12 Acacia Lane, stop editing Wikipedia or I'll take this further".

User:Foo is immediately indefinitely blocked, and the edit he made is removed permanently from the database, so as to be invisible to all editors and administrators except the very few with the 'oversight' privilege.
 * Question: Is that it? Is there anything else we should do?

Illustrative cases

 * From: Illustrative Examples

Let's compare the ethical management of something the reader may not be familiar with, with something they are sure to have some knowledge of : slavery in the United States. While the two, in scale and importance, are as different as bumping a toe and dying in a car crash; such a comparison can illuminate the role of an illustrative example. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. That tells you a lot about the institution's acceptance and pervasiveness. But it does not tell you who or what is to blame nor what process is useful in fixing the problem. The same is true with ethical practices at Wikipedia. Although there are certain individuals who have been accused of being especially unethical, it does not follow that they are the problem, nor that dealing with them as individuals will fix the problem. So, because of that, this project will not dwell on individuals so much as on systematic and systemic issues. No example is to be understood as fixing of blame for problems of the system as a whole on any specific people.

Further reading
 * Wikipedia Review (A messageboard dedicated to purported ethical problems at the English language Wikipedia; unfortunately mixed in with ethical violations of its own and many banned editors)
 * w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Wikipedia's management problem notification board)
 * w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee (illustrative example of problem with current management structure)
 * w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (Wikipedia management's major problem tracking and control system)

Managing personal information
Issues of pseudo anonymity, 'outing', respect for fellow editors, and the need to maintain a collegial atmosphere free from bullying and harassment are relevant to the ethical management of Wikipedia. This section is for case studies related to these issues.

Principles Involved

 * Do no harm
 * Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering (a foundation issue)
 * "You can edit this page right now". "We must respect this principle as sacred".

Rules (Policies, Guidelines etc.)
There is a known conflict between the values of privacy and neutral point of view when there is a concealed conflict of interest or sock-puppetry.

 * Posting of personal information
 * Privacy policy (note also its evolution)
 * Conflict of interest
 * Neutral point of view
 * Sock puppetry

All pages in case studies
 category=Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies ordermethod=categoryadd

title: Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies


text:
Template:Multi-listen start

 fa:الگو:شنیدن آوا sl:Predloga:Poslušanja začetek vi:Tiêu bản:Multi-listen start zh:Template:Multi-listen start

title: Template:Multi-listen start


text:
Template:Multi-listen item

ca:Plantilla:Conjunt d'àudio

fa:الگو:مورد آوا ka:თარგი:მულტი-მოსმენა ერთეული lv:Veidne:Multi klausīšanās objekts ml:ഫലകം:Multi-listen item nl:Sjabloon:Multi-listen item hu:Sablon:Multi-listen item no:Mal:Multi-listen item sl:Predloga:Poslušanja predmet sr:Шаблон:Multi-listen item th:แม่แบบ:Multi-listen item vi:Tiêu bản:Multi-listen item uk:Шаблон:Multi-listen item zh:Template:Multi-listen item

title: Template:Multi-listen item


text:
Template:Multi-listen end

 ''Problems playing the files? See media help.''

title: Template:Multi-listen end


text:
User talk:AmyJ

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

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Emesee 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:AmyJ


text:
User talk:Carolynmc

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

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Emesee 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carolynmc


text:
Introduction to Latin/Second Declension Nouns and Adjectives

Second Declension
Like the 1st Declension, the 2nd Declension consists of 'stem + ending'. However, the 2nd Declension has different endings and a different stem. The genders of the 2nd Declension are masculine and neuter (not feminine).

Generally, the nominative singular of masculine 2nd Declension nouns ends in either -us, -er, or -ir; the neuter nominative singular ends in -um.

So let's go ahead and learn the 2nd Declension.

2nd Declension Masculine Endings
Notes: 1) for nouns ending in '-er' or '-ir', the vocative singular is the same as the nominative; 2) the stem of each noun is attained from the genitive singular form (just like in the 1st Declension):

2nd Declension Neuter Endings
Notes: 1) In all neuter nouns (not just 2nd Declension; neuter nouns in other declensions will be encountered later on in this course), the nominative and accusative have the same form in both numbers; 2) Notice that the vocative in both numbers has the same form as the nominative.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE BRITISH SYSTEM GOES LIKE THIS- NOM. ACC. GEN. DAT. ABL.

Declining Some Nouns
Now that we know the appropriate endings, we can decline any 2nd Declension noun, right?

Let's give it a try:

Hortus, horti (m.) - garden

 * Stem = hort- which we can see from the genitive singular in the dictionary entry

Now let's try this noun:

puer, pueri (m.) - boy


text: File:PM Wikiversity.ogg

title: File:PM Wikiversity.ogg


text:
User:MandaG/Tutorial and lecture 3

Social Thinking...where to begin. I guess I'll start where James started with social perception.

Social Perception Perception, in the dictionary of Manda, does not mean what is actually happening but moreover what we believe is happening and thus makes perception very unique to the individual. This perception can relate to anything but to keep my rambling to a minimum I will talk in the scope of the lecture and limit it a little. First up communication.

Communication What is important to note when looking at communication is that cues can be both verbal and non verbal. Ignorance in picking up on less obvious cues often leads to conflict. Though I am writing this quite a while after the actual lecture I had my own experience of ignorance in this area on Tuesday night which I'll share but feel free to just skip over. So I was umpiring a game of very high division and competitive softball. One of the calls I made though of course right was disputed and while I picked up on the verbal of what was being said to me loud and clear, I totally ignored the body language. This led to a very ugly situation where I thought the player was talking in jest when his body language was clearly aggressive and very serious and because I missed that cue my perception of the conflict was entirely wrong, and I'll admit it quite embarrassing. I think as a student of psychology, and just to get a little philosophical, a student of life, it is important to avoid misunderstandings in communications as much as possible to try and limit conflict and thus be aware of all aspects of communication.

Impression Formation and Management (Social impressions, stereotypes, schema's and scripts)
 * The duplex mind: To me the duplex mind is a very simplistic yet necessary idea to know about. Basically its common sense. The automatic side is things that are unconscious, fast and effortless to do and typically require very low cognitive attention. On the flip side the conscious mind takes a little more effort, is slow and deliberate and typically is a higher cognitive load. An automatic act may be the simple act of walking (for most), we don't tend to think about it or put much effort in to it. A more conscious task may be writing an essay. Unless you belong to MENSA (and perhaps even then), a lot of time and effort goes into writing the material.

 * Cognitive Miser: The cognitive miser is basically in my opinion what allows us to function as human beings. The amount of stimulation we are presented every minute of everyday is outrageously huge. If we were to pay attention to every single aspect I'm fairly certain we would all go crazy! The miser allows us to filter out things that are not immediately important and use our energy wisely focusing on things that are most salient or important. There is also evidence of the nature of laziness, when our mind is preoccupied we take more short cuts than usual, which lets be honest is quite a few, to reduce need for too much thought.[[Image:Brain animated color nevit.gif|200px|right]]

- Part of the automatic mind which stores information about a concept, it's attributes and relationship to the world. For example, my schema for a table is: Geometricly shaped, legs, used to sit around or eat (and occasionally with enough vodka to dance on). The good thing about schema's is that they allow us to understand the world and save us from too much in depth, effortful thought to process stimuli that are very similar. I can use my schema to identify a table in the refec as it matches my preconcieved idea and its not too hard. The bad thing about schemas is that they may interfere with new information that doesn't fit the previous schema. So say I had a schema that all apples were roundish, I would probably find it very hard to apply that schema if ever a square apple were found.
 * Schema's

Activating a concept in the mind: –Influences subsequent thinking –May trigger automatic processes In the lecture notes James used the example of the medical student whos thinks they and family members are suffering from serious illness. However, I don't think we have to look past our own backyard...but it might just be me though I hope not. Every lecture where we talk about some form of psychopathology, or sleep disorders, eating disorders anything I ALWAYS apply that to someone, anyone I know or have met at some point in my life. Mind you I don't think thats always a bad thing. While typing this I was watching Scrubs, for those not familiar the funniest show (next to I Love Lucy) ever written! Anyway the point is the protaganist JD had just watched a program on a rare disease and due to that priming was able to identify it in a patient the following week when everyone else was stumped.
 * Priming

When it comes to attributions we tend to make them either internally or externally. We tend to attribute our own errors to external circumstances and others short comings or errors to internal circumstances. If I'm late clearly the world is against me! All the lights were red, there was an accident that held traffic up, there were random sheep running the streets etc etc. If somebody else is late well heck they are just that kind of person who is unorganised, scatter brained and unable to plan for extenuating circumstances. This is what we call the fundamental attribution error. There are also other attribution theories outlined in the lecture but that one was the one I most identified with.
 * Attribution Theories

Attitudes and beliefs

 * JennyO has possibly the coolest link on her page (so you guys should check it out!) and its a test that measures implicit attitudes. I would try to improve on her explanations and have a cool link but I can't it beat so I suggest you check it out on Jenny's page.

 * I've always hated that saying "You are nothing if not consistent", but when it comes to attitudes and beliefs that's just how it is. We all like to think that we are a constant in what we believe and how we act, and when that is not the case we suffer from cognitive disonance.[[Image:380916.JPG|200px|left|thumb|There is probably no such thing as "safe speeding"]] When cognitive disonance occurs it means your attitude does not match your behaviour and to fix the situation, we need to either change the attitude or behaviour. A majority of the time what happens is we rationalise our actions to fit with the behaviour, for all intents and purposes I believe speeding kills. However, if I said I never speed I would toally be lying. To ease my cognitive disonance when I speed I tend to rationalise it by saying I am what I have christened "safe speeding". What safe speeding means is that while yes I am going over the legal limit I am still driving within my capacity and thus am not endangering myself or other motorists. Bad yes and I do try not to do it too often but it is an example of an everyday situation in which I'm sure its not just me rationalises an attitude that does not match the behaviour.

Social Influence and Persuasion Social Influence Questions (as per lecture notes) and my answers: How can you get others to do what you want them to do? If I knew that there would be no telling of the luxuries I would be enjoying right now! I wouldn't even be writing this as James would just give me a HD straight up, feel free to do it James. Would you obey an order that you disagreed with? I like to think not. I use to work at a popular restaraunt where the head chef ordered me to take a meat meal to a vegetarian and not tell them it wasn't vegetarian because he stuffed up an order. I disagreed with this order and refused to obey it. This led to a huge conflict and resulted in me quitting the job. However, the loss of a job I decided I no longer wanted is a relatively small consequence and I wonder if my actions would have been different if the consequence was larger, I hope not but who knows. Why do we often go along with the majority/group? FEAR OF REJECTION!

 * There are many concepts related to influence and persuasion and my favourite is conformity. I just don't get it. In some circumstances conformity just doesn't make sense! check out this you tube video: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=a71h6LZKXTc. You can see where each door goes yet the people still conform. It's just weird! The concept that scares me is the idea of depersonalisation. How in Sam Heck can you depersonalise yourself??? Yet people do it and when that happens atrocities such as the Nazi party can occur.

My favourite technique of social influence is the "Thats not all" technique. Ever watched late night television because you couldn't sleep? I swear nearly every infommercial has some sort of statement like this" AAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND that's not all ladies and gentlemen, but this product and get a set of steak knives free! Thats right FREE! And for some bizzare reason it works. My aunt bought some useless ornament I don't think she ever took out of the box just for the steak knives. I think the other techniques (see textbook and lecture notes) may however be more effective. My reason for this is because people don't always want something more if that something more is entirely useless to them. I think the most useful one and most talked about is the door in face technique. I had a discussion just the other day with a non psych friend of mine who thinking she was being very wise and original said: "Ask for a horse and you get a pony" I responded with why wouldn't you just ask for the pony straight up. Apparently if you do that you only get a dog. The point is ask bigger than what you want and you'll be more likely to get a "concession". While psych people have a name for that technique non psych people use it all the time.

title: User:MandaG/Tutorial and lecture 3


text:
User talk:Bobbie d

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your vocabulary learning project. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bobbie d


text:
Template:Translation

 {| class="wikitable" |-
 * bgcolor="#" align="center"|
 * bgcolor="#" align="center"|
 * bgcolor="#" align="center"|
 * bgcolor="#"|
 * bgcolor="#"|
 * bgcolor="#"|
 * bgcolor="#"|
 * bgcolor="#"|

title: Template:Translation


text:
Template:!)

 * }

title: Template:!)


text:
Template:Fr

ar:قالب:Fr cs:Šablona:Fr el:Πρότυπο:Fr fr:Modèle:Fr it:Template:Fr ru:Шаблон:Ref-fr

title: Template:Fr


text:
User:Gohe~enwikiversity

'My full name is GOHE TEFESETEWOLD' .

I want to know new things about our world. I want to communicate with boddybuilders. I want to ask questions about social relations.

In ethiopia there are manythings for tourists to have adventure with there frendis .Places like AXSUME Oblicse, LALIBELA, GONDER FASELADES, SOFUMER CAVE and BLUE NILE RIVER. I invite tourists to visite ETHIOPIA and explor more hiden secreates about the foundation of Human being beginig from LUCE era.

ETHIOPIA has the goal to meet in the next 20 years a good economic development that are set as Millennium development goals(MDGs). The eight goals and 21 targets include

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day. Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. 2. Achieve universal primary education Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. 3. Promote gender equality and empower women Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015. 4. Reduce child mortality Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate. 5. Improve maternal health Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio. Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health. 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS. Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases. 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources. Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (for more information see the entry on water supply). By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers. 8. Develop a global partnership for development Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory. Includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction—nationally and internationally. Address the special needs of the least developed countries. This includes tariff and quota free access for their exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction. Address the special needs of landlocked and small island developing States. Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term. In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth. In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries. In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications.

title: User:Gohe~enwikiversity


text:
User:Grandmakat

Hello! I am a mother of 3. My youngest son is a freshman in high school. My middle son still graces me with his presence and lives with us and my only daughter has blessed me with 2 perfectly beautiful and totally lovable grandsons. With playing dual roles now, I want to keep,(and instill), the love for learning. This seems like a great place to help me do that!

title: User:Grandmakat


text: File:Screenshot-Chess - Human versus GNU Chess.png


text: User:Stapler25/Technical writing Stephan Screengrab


text:
User:Cocteaufan

Welcome to my user page
I'm an academic and researcher who has used Wikipedia for many years as a valued resource. Now I want to explore its possibilities by becoming a participant.

--Cocteaufan 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User:Cocteaufan


text:
Help talk:Resources by subject

The table on this page may create a horizontal scroll for some users. Emesee 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Colour Schemes
—Suggest to delete Brown and Blue.Reason: Brown as language related is not in the same categorization as green or mauve as educational level related. So also, Blue as non-formal can have overlap with green or mauve.203.123.181.2 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Anand Tatti [comment moved from main Help Page - Begoon  -  talk  12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)]

Is the School - Tertiary distinction irrelevant?
Given the rising importance of portals and the decline of schools, departments and divisions on Wikiversity does the School (Green) - Tertiary (Mauve) distinction still matter? --Luke Isham (discuss • contribs) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 * There is no rising importance of portals. Just an elimination of divisions and departments and a reduced interest in schools. There were five schools in the top 1000 pages last month and 13 portals. This is despite the fact that there are more than 70 schools and more than 400 portals. Beyond the top 10 to 15 schools and portals, almost all other organizational distinctions are irrelevant.
 * As I believe I mentioned elsewhere, users who come to Wikiversity interested in creating organization rarely create content that draws interest from others. Users who come to Wikiversity interested in creating content aren't interested in organization. They just want to share content.
 * I encourage you to focus on content. If you want to impact your own interests or those of your students, focus on that content. If you want to impact others, take a look at Statistics and improve resources that others come to Wikiversity to learn from. Neither schools nor portals will have any real impact if they aren't part of the top 1000 pages.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Help talk:Resources by subject


text:
User:Nik We

So, here we go.

title: User:Nik We


text:
Portal talk:Physics and Astronomy/test

Maybe we should remove or comment off the categories on this page. Emesee 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Portal talk:Physics and Astronomy/test


text:
Talk:Malaria

August 2008 ''No more big stink: scent lures mosquitoes, but humans can't smell it Emesee 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Malaria


text:
User:Dark Mage/To Do

These are my current tasks on Wikiversity

title: User:Dark Mage/To Do


text:
User:Dark Mage/To Do/Task

To Do

 * Fix incorrect categories (10% done)
 * Fix new layout format on Community Portal 0.5 (20% done)

Long Term

 * Monitor user activity from the Recent Changes (normal activity)

Done

 * Improved Student union page (Major update)

<! Leave the two sections above alone including the text. -!>

title: User:Dark Mage/To Do/Task


text:
Filipino/Pronunciation

Filipino has 23 consonants and 5 vowels, and is pronounced much like Spanish:

Vowels
a - as in father

e - as in echo

i - as in eager

o - as in boy

u - as in zoo

Note: Marks on top of vowels such as the "o" in tatló indicate that that syllable is stressed, although they are rarely used in everyday writing.

Consonants
b, c, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, ñ, ng, p, q, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, z

Most of the consonants are pronounced as in English (with less aspiration on the letters b, d, g, k, p, t) or as in Spanish.

Notes:

 * The letter C, as in English, can be pronounced as a /k/ or an /s/, depending on the word.

 * Ñ is pronounced as /ny/ as in piñata.

 * The single letter Ng is pronounced as the "ng" in singer.

 * The geminate Ll is pronounced as /ly/ as in paleontology.

 * Y can either be pronounced as the regular "y" as in yellow or "ee" as in Yng (a Filipino-Chinese last name).

Back to main page.

title: Filipino/Pronunciation


text:
Filipino/Numbers

' ' 'Inta Kalien' ' '

Ilokano

Numbers
Back to main page.

title: Filipino/Numbers


text:
BCP/Apios americana

Apios americana

title: BCP/Apios americana


text:
BCP/Apios americana/Logs

2008 Logs

 * (no archived logs yet)

Recent Logs

 * Jomegat 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jomegat 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

title: BCP/Apios americana/Logs


text:
BCP/Helianthus microcephalus

Helianthus microcephalus

title: BCP/Helianthus microcephalus


text:
BCP/Helianthus divaricatus/Logs

2008 Logs

 * Jomegat 11 July 2008 (from photos)
 * Jomegat 2 August 2008 (from photos)
 * Jomegat 23 August 2008 (from photos)
 * Jomegat 00:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jomegat 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jomegat 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jomegat 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 Logs

 * Jomegat 23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jomegat 03:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Logs

 * Jomegat 02:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

title: BCP/Helianthus divaricatus/Logs


text:
User talk:Nik We

Hello, welcome around here. Thanks for your participation in the movie - tell me please if you need some more info. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I think I can help with translating titles for movie (when it will be) into russian language. --Nik We 14:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nik We


text:
BCP/Helianthus divaricatus

Helianthus divaricatus

title: BCP/Helianthus divaricatus


text:
BCP/Helianthus microcephalus/Logs

2008 Logs

 * (no archived logs yet)

Found the small woods sunflower growing in a woods within walking distance from my house. I did cut a few stalks of the flowers to enjoy inside. They have keep well inside.

Location: East of Indianapolis (Greenfield)

title: BCP/Helianthus microcephalus/Logs


text:
User talk:Historybuff/script

the strangest things come up in the search results! --JWSchmidt 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Historybuff/script


text:
User:Dzonatas/Astronomy vs Biology

Astronomy is not Biology, or is it? This question is one that appears very obvious that the two are distinct, but it is still argued to this day on Wikipedia that they are the same. To say that Astronomy is not Biology, on Wikipedia, may get you blocked, or it may not.

One example is the article about Natural Theology, which is based on biology. However, some editors have merged parts of Astrotheology to claim that Astrotheology (Astronomy, Galileo) is Natural Theology (Biology). Some have even deleted sourced citations that state there is a distinction between the two. Some editors feel Astrotheology is an ancient belief that there is a divine presence demonstrated in celestial bodies, and they feel it is a part of natural theology, which is "theology based on reason and ordinary experience, explaining the gods rationally, as part of the physical world."

The deleted sources and the block is obviously an unethical way to push a view in Astronomy and Biology. It is at least unethical to assume that the teleological argument is correct due to a user being blocked, for whatever reason.

title: User:Dzonatas/Astronomy vs Biology


text:
Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics

 * Note: This page was created with contents from Case Studies 1 (which was originally named "Case Studies")

Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics
This area includes on-wiki publications of non-article space compilations of an individual's identifying information, linking avatar names, screen names, e-mail names, Skype ID, geographical identifiers, IP identifiers, business or career identifiers, photographic identifiers, educational identifiers, real name, address, phone number, age, rap sheets and prior conflicts, etc.

Overview
Section owner: WAS 4.250

Wikipedia has many groups (which are sometimes labeled as "cliques" or "cabals", particularly by opponents), each with varying and overlapping memberships based on interests, points of view, and friendships. They communicate though varying means: email (example: Jayjg sent a "back me up on this Israel article" message to the Wikipedia public mail list by accident instead of some other private email list), Wikipedia projects (such as IDcab = Intelligent Design Wikipedia project, members mostly against Intelligent Design. More information about "IDcab" and how it relates to Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design is in the next section, below.), off site coordination sites (such as the Wikia "anti-harassment" site made famous by Durova), Internet Relay Chat (made famous by Giano's efforts and Arbcom's broken promises), or other means (example: London pubs). The groups differ greatly. There are two groups that have stood out from the rest for their brazen waring. SlimVirgin and friends (main 2008 edit war interests: Israel, animal rights) and IDcab (main 2008 edit war interests: evolution and creation "science"). Both currently (as of August 7, 2008) have Arbcom cases pending (see links in the next page section, below). Both have years of abusive behavior. Now notice the tricky part: Both also have years of wonderful constructive behavior creating great content and blocking others who are even more abusive. So what to do? There is no consensus. So the cases stay pending. And both abusive and wonderful behavior by both groups continues. So Moulton claims the solution is something called "ethics". WAS 4.250 likes learning new things so he talks to Moulton about it at Moulton's Wikipedia talk page. Which gets protected from editing. So they talk about ethics at Meta. Which gets protected from edits. Someone mentions Wikiversity, and it looks like the right place to take the talk. So here we are.

 * Suggestion: Part of the problem with Wikipedia is that its form of wiki "culture" does not support the needs of its editors, particularly editors who are involved in conflicts over article content. Wikipedia editors are told to resolve content disputes by discussions on article talk pages, but this is inadequate. Article talk pages where edit wars are common often contain statements such as, "This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc" and editors are told to go off-site for other types of discussions. One possibility is for such Wikipedia article talk pages to be linked to Wikiversity where we could have "study groups" such as Wikipedia Editing disputes related to Intelligent Design and Wikipedia Editing disputes related to Biographical articles. Wikiversity has a much broader range of content and could function as a "relief valve" to take pressure off of Wikipedia. For example, some editors have problems working within Wikipedia's rather restrictive rules for article creation. Wikiversity could have learning projects on conflict resolution and be a center for educating people about Wikipedia's NOR and NPOV while at the same time showing Wikipedia editors that there is a Wikimedia wiki where original research is welcome and learning resources are allowed that do not follow the NPOV restriction.

The players and the game
Section owner: WAS 4.250

 * See also: w:Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland and Wikimadness XVII: The Return of Byrne

While the name IDcab comes from the Intelligent Design Wikipedia project, the IDcab members are actually those individuals that continually vote as a block and is not identical with the membership list of the Intelligent Design Wikipedia project. "IDcab" is more of a shorthand for "wikipedians who usually show up on evolution or creationist articles and talk pages to back each other up with votes, intimidation, hypocracy, blocking, uncivil comments and/or false accusations when maintaining in articles the point of view that creationism is religion and not science and evolution is a fact" (that point of view is fully backed up by the best sources; it is their methods, not that goal that is the problem). For example, Filll has claimed that incivility should be allowed and not punished. The point is to deliberately drive away, ban/block, and claim anyone with similar opinions is a sockpuppet who then is also blocked/banned. The strategy is to make it a bannable offense to believe certain things and thus control article content. Creating content based on consensus means anyone can get their friends together and edit any article and make it say what they want it to say. These methods are being used because good people and not so good people both find the combination of anon editors and rule by consensus on divisive claims to not be working. Wikipedia has a problem. The system works good enough on most articles most the time. But when people try to game the system, we get this mess. Both this case and the current (August 7, 2008) C68-FM-SV arbcom case illustrate and document this.

Alternative presentation
Section owner: Salmon of Doubt

The above presentation is quite confusing. The first section discusses the movement of individuals into interest groups. The second discusses a specific interest group. The third discusses an alleged infringement on other uers privacy. I will provde an clarified, alternative view of each of the three cases below.

Interest groups
Wikipedia editors naturally gravitate into interest groups. Sometimes these interest groups can go too far - relying on unethical methods to force changes on articles without seeking consensus. There have been examples of emails that appear to have been designed to be sent to interest group participants that were instead sent to large public mailing lists that showed advocacy-editing by interest groups. Many individuals who appear to have relied on these unethical methods also do a huge amount of valuable work.

Intelligent design interest group
One interest group often referred to is a series of editors opposed to the treatment of Intelligent Design as legitimate science. It is alleged by some that these editors have gone overboard in reaction to unethical editing practices by their opponents, and instead of relying on consensus based processes to deal with other unethical editors, instead use threats and attacks to remove them. The editors who oppose the treatment of Intelligent Design as legitimate science dispute this, and state that they do not intend to use threats and attacks.

Privacy infringement
In one case, one editor involved (the "involved editor") with the above interest group sent an email to another user (the "revealing editor"), in which it appears that he revealed his real name. When this email was quoted on Wikipedia, the editor involved with the group was angered that his privacy was violated.

This same editor connected the revealing editors real name to his online handle. While there no disagreement that the involved editors real name was not connected to his handle, the revealing editor has had his real name connected to his handle, he states that he had not done so in a "tight paragraph" for reasons of a google search. (This is disputed) Two other editors who were not involved in the involved editor's complaint also revealed the revealing editors name in a "tight paragraph."