text:
DITeLearning/Glossary

Home | Learning Theories | Instructional Design | ePortfolio | Storyboard | Wiki Analysis | Communication Tools | Resources Analysis | Group Work | Teaching Philosophy | Accessibility | Evaluation | Glossary

Introduction
In this chapter you will find the meaning of some unfamiliar words in this wiki project. You also will find some terms used in elearning environment. As the information technology is frequently applied in elearning projects, we decided to include some words in our Glossary.

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter the learner will be able to:
 * 1) Clarify the unknown terms described in this wiki project.
 * 2) Know new terms used in elearning environment.
 * 3) Understand the meaning of some terms used in information technology.

We would appreciate if you give us your contribution in this project. If you have any query, suggestion or feedback, don't hesitate to contact us sending a message to our email: wikiresourcesgroup@gmail.com

eGlossary
ARCS

Keller's theory of motivation, which includes Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction.

ASP

An Application Service Provider (ASP) is a company that offers access over the Internet to software applications that would otherwise need to be located on a client's own computer. Using ASP applications frees a company from the cost and effort of software installation and upgrades since the application resides on the ASP's servers.

Asynchronous

Asynchronous e-learning is when communication between people does not occur simultaneously. Some examples of asynchronous e-learning include taking a self-paced course, exchanging e-mail messages with a mentor, and posting messages to a discussion group. The advantages of asynchronous learning are convenience, accessibility, and the fact that it is self-paced. The disadvantages of asynchronous learning are that the student may feel isolated or be less motivated without any real-time human interaction. In addition, asynchronous e-learning does not provide immediate feedback on a student's performance, leaving adjustments to training until after an evaluation is completed. See also Synchronous.

Authoring Tool

A software application used by non-programmers that uses a metaphor (book, flow chart) to create online courses.

Behavior

An action that is an overt, observable, measurable performance.

Business Requirements

Business requirements define conditions that any acceptable solution should meet. Business requirements identify the needs of the learner, manager, and training administrator regarding what the system can do for them. See also System Requirements.

CBT

Computer-Based Training, typically delivered on CD-ROM or from a mainframe.

Chunk of Content

Instruction required to teach an objective.

Collaborative Tools

Collaborative tools allow learners to work with others via e-mail, threaded discussions, or chat. In some cases, collaboration is used on team-based projects. Collaborative tools can sometimes provide the ability to host moderated discussion groups, where students and instructors can collaborate on course related materials or assignments in an asynchronous environment. In addition, real-time synchronous chat allows learners to communicate with their peers and instructors, emulating a physical classroom setting.

Competency Management

Competency management is used to identify skills, knowledge, and performance within an organization. Such a system helps an organization spot gaps and introduce appropriate training, compensation, and recruiting programs based on current or future needs.

Content Management System

Content Management Systems (CMS) are used to store and subsequently find and retrieve large amounts of data. CMSs work by indexing text, audio clips, images, etc., within a database. In addition, CMSs often provide version control and check-in/check out capabilities. Using robust, built-in search capabilities, users can quickly find a piece of content from within a database by typing in keywords, the date the element was created, the name of the author, or other search criteria. Content management systems are often used to create information portals for organizations and can serve as the foundation for the practice of knowledge management. They can also be used to organize documents and media assets. For example, a newspaper agency may use a content management system to provide an archive of every story ever written for the paper. Likewise, they might use the CMS to provide an extensive library of photographs that are reusable for future stories.

Criterion Reference Test

Items designed to measure performance for one objective.

Discussion Forums

Not to be confused with a chat application where people exchange typed messages in real time, discussion forums allow people to communicate about various topics by posting messages and replies to messages under the heading of a particular topic. A collection of messages and replies about a topic is often referred to as a thread.

Distance Learning

Instruction provided by a human separated by place.

Entry Behavior

Specific competencies a learner must possess in order to master new content.

ERP/HRIS

Enterprise Resource Planning is an industry term for large, often multi-module software applications that manage many facets of a company's operations, including product planning, parts purchasing, maintaining inventories, interacting with suppliers, providing customer service, tracking orders, and managing resources and financials. SAP, PeopleSoft, and J.D. Edwards are some well-known ERP providers. Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) are similar to ERP applications but are aimed specifically at the management of a company's human resources.

Feedback

Information provided to learners about the correctness of their response (different from remediation).

Formative Evaluation

Evaluation designed to improve a program while the program is being developed (e.g., quality assurance).

Goal

A broad general statement of course or instruction intent (higher than an objective).

ILT

Instructor-Led Training provides instruction in a classroom or virtual classroom under the direction of an instructor or facilitator.

IMS

The Instructional Management System is a set of technical specifications defining how learning materials will be exchanged over the Internet and how organizations and individual learners will use these materials. Initiated by Educom and developed through a partnership of academic, commercial, and government organizations, the goal of these specifications is the adoption of a set of open standards for Internet-based education.

Instructional Analysis

Procedures to determine what type of skills or knowledge is required for a learner to achieve a goal.

Instructional Strategy

Plan of activities (with or without an instructor) to teach content and sequence learning experience.

Instructor Guide

A set of materials that provide direction, answers to tests, helpful hints, or any supplemental information.

ISD Model

The Instructional Systematic Design model, developed in the 1960's, provides a methodical process for the design and development of instruction.

JDBC

Java Database Connectivity is an application program interface to connect programs written in Java to the data in popular databases. Whereas programs written for Microsoft, Windows, UNIX, OS/2, and Macintosh platforms often use the Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) standard, programs written in Java use JDBC.

Job Aid

Often generated in paper or electronic format, job aids are used to relieve the learner from relying on memory to remember a skill (typically a procedure).

Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation

Many years ago, Donald Kirkpatrick created four levels of evaluation for training. Level One answers the question: Did the trainees like the training? Level Two assesses whether they understood the material and could pass a test on it. Level Three, usually involving a follow-up to the training six months down the road, examines whether the training changed the behavior of the trained. Level Four evaluation tries to determine whether the training had a bottom-line impact on the company; e.g., did trainees sell more or waste less or somehow affect the financials of the company in a positive way as a result of the training?

Knowledge Management System

A knowledge management system is an application that collects, stores, and makes information available among individuals in an organization. This system's primary purpose is to capture a company's collective knowledge and then make it simple to retrieve and reuse. A knowledge management system can help companies avoid reinventing the wheel. It can also enhance the exchange and dissemination of understanding within an enterprise and can increase the level of collaboration between employees.

LCMS

A Learning Content Management System, or LCMS, is an environment where developers can create, store, reuse, manage, and deliver learning content from a central object repository, usually a database. LCMSs generally work with content that is based on a learning object model. These systems usually have good search capabilities, allowing developers to quickly find the text or media needed to build training content. Learning content management systems often strive to achieve a separation of content – which is often tagged in XML – from presentation. This allows many LCMSs to publish to a wide range of formats, platforms, or devices such as print, Web, and even wireless information devices (WID) such as Palm and Windows CE hand-helds, all from the same source material.

LMS

A Learning Management System, or LMS, is software that automates the administration of training events. All LMSs manage the log-in and registration of users, manage course catalogs, record data from learners, and provide reports to management. There used to be a distinction between learning management systems and more powerful "integrated" learning management systems. That distinction has now disappeared. The term learning management system is now used to describe a wide range of applications that track student training and may or may not include functions such as:

* Authoring * Classroom management * Competency management * Knowledge management * Certification or compliance training * Personalization * Mentoring * Chat * Discussion boards

Learning Object

Learning objects (LO), also called reusable learning objects, are not really a set technology, but rather a philosophy for how content is created and deployed. Learning objects refer to self-contained chunks of training content that can be assembled with other learning objects to create courses and curricula, much the same way a child's Lego blocks are assembled to create all types of structures. Learning objects are designed to be used in multiple training contexts, aim to increase the flexibility of training, and make updating courses much easier to manage. Update a part of a learning object, and the change should appear in any course using that learning object. The size of a learning object differs based on the instructional designer, from as small as a single page of content to as large as is required to contain an objective, presentation material, a practice section, and an assessment.

Media

Text, graphics, audio, video, or human element used to teach.

Module

An integrated "theme" of content. Typically, one component of a course or a curriculum.

Modality

Delivery medium determined for the delivery of instruction; ranges from ILT, CBT, WBT, and distance learning to paper-based, read-ahead packages, journals, and peer modeling.

Needs Assessment

Formal process of identifying discrepancies between a learner's current performance versus an organization's desired performance for that employee. In other words, identifying whether training is the solution.

ODBC

Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) is an application program interface to access information from numerous different types of databases including Access, dBase, DB2, etc. Although Microsoft Windows was the first to provide an ODBC product, versions now exist for UNIX, OS/2, and Macintosh platforms as well.

Pre-test and Post-test

Tests that are given to learners prior to learning or after the learning experience. Pre-test judges whether learners need to take training or can "prescribe" which pieces of a course a learner must take. a post-test will provide remediation for reinforcement and sometimes reports back to management with scores.

QA

Quality assurance (QA) is a widely used term to describe the techniques, processes, and workflows used to ensure that a company's products and services meet standards for excellence.

Remediation

Provides direction to students to review specific content in a training program based on some performance criteria.

RFP

A Request For Proposal is a document produced by a company seeking goods and/or services and distributed to prospective vendors. Vendors then provide proposals based on the criteria specified within the RFP. A request for proposal forces the company seeking goods or services to identify its business and technical requirements. It also forces the vendor to state in writing to what extent they can meet the company's requirements.

SCORM

The Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) is a set of standards that, when applied to course content, produces small, reusable learning objects. A result of the Department of Defense's Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative, SCORM-compliant courseware elements can be easily merged with other compliant elements to produce a highly modular repository of training materials.

Skill Gap Analysis

A skill gap analysis compares a person's skills to the skills required for the job to which they have been, or will be, assigned. The purpose is to identify clearly the skills employees need in order to succeed in their current or planned positions and to compare employee skills against those requirements. The result is an improved understanding of exactly which skills employees need to develop further. A simple skill gap analysis consists of the list of skills required for a specific job along with a rating of the employee's level for each skill. Ratings below a certain pre-determined level identify a skill gap.

SME

A Subject Matter Expert is an expert in the domain of the course. They are a critical component in the success of task analysis and content gathering.

Summative Evaluation

Used after an instructional program to determine the worth of a program and the usefulness to the learner.

Synchronous

Synchronous, or live e-learning, means that communication occurs at the same time between individuals, and information is accessed instantly. Examples of synchronous e-learning include real-time chat and video/audio conferencing. Synchronous e-learning can provide instant feedback on a student's performance and allows the training to be adjusted immediately, if needed. The disadvantages of synchronous e-learning are that the training is not self-paced and the logistics of scheduling, time zones, and student availability need to be managed. See also Asynchronous.

System Requirements

System requirements focus on the technological conditions, including the operating system, programming language, database, hardware configuration, bandwidth, processing power, etc., required to run a software application correctly. Business requirements focus on the needs of people; system requirements focus on the needs of machines. See also Business Requirements.

Task Analysis

Process by which an instructional designer (through observation, questionnaires, focus group sessions, or one-on-one Q&A with an SME) extrapolates the steps necessary to perform a skill or to build knowledge. This identifies learning objectives and sequence of instruction.

TBT

Technology-Based Training is an all encompassing term that can include anything from online learning to CD-ROM, and uses technology for learning, usually outside the classroom.

WBT

Web-Based Training is "self-paced" training that is delivered using an Internet browser.

title: DITeLearning/Glossary


text:
Category:Innovation

Innovation is the use of new ideas, processes, goods, services, business models and practices in a more or less commercial way, based on any (new) application of science and/or technology.

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

title: Category:Innovation


text:
DITeLearning/Evaluation

Home | Learning Theories | Instructional Design | ePortfolio | Storyboard | Wiki Analysis | Communication Tools | Resources Analysis | Group Work | Teaching Philosophy | Accessibility | Evaluation | Glossary

Introduction
Attempts have been made to create a resource that is as user-friendly as possible through the use of clear navigational direction, links, colour combinations, graphics, etc. Evaluation of the resource will be carried out by our current peers on the MSc course. Access to an evaluation questionnaire will be placed on the home page of the wiki for their use. Additionally, a request for feedback from the general public through an email address is added to the homepage

Questionnaire

 * 1) Was it easy to access this learning resource?

 * 1) Was it easy to navigate?

 * If not, why?

 * 1) Did the presentation design facilitate learning?

 * If not, why?

 * 1) Was the information useful?

 * 1) Does the resource meet your expectations?

 * If not, why?

 * 1) Were there any accessibility issues for you?

 * 1) Any suggestions for improvement?

Evaluation Tool
We will use the TACCT tool to evaluate this elearning object. In a diagnostic evaluation of a elearning object, the analysis should determine what features are present and what features are missing from the design. The TACCT tool is a quick way of assessing a learning object, it is meant to provide some preliminary data to improve the design and determine the best direction to proceed; it is not intended to provide an in-depth evaluation The TACCT tool looks at the following areas of design: Technical Aesthetic Content Culture-based Target audience

title: DITeLearning/Evaluation


text:
User:Egm6341.s10.team4.anandankala/HW5-9

Given

 * {| style="width:70%" border="0" align="center"

 * Given below is the Kessler's code

 * }.
 * }.

Find

 * {| style="width:85%" border="0" align="center"

Use (p2,p3),(p4,p5)(p6,p7) to understand the Kessler's code                       $$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

Solution

 * {| style="width:85%" border="0" align="center"

The above code has been used to compute the coefficients p(2k) and the constants c(k) where k varies from 1 to n.

In the above code a function fracsum has been defined and called accordingly in order to compute c(k) and p(2k).

The various commands used in the code are gcd, lcm and round. Gcd is used to find the greatest common divisor between two numbers, lcm is used to find the least common multiple of the two numbers and round is used to round off a number to its nearest intezer.

We know that $$\displaystyle p_2(t)= -\frac {t^2}{2!} + \frac {1}{6} $$

$$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:70%" border="0" align="center"

$$\displaystyle \Rightarrow p_2(1)= -\frac {1}{2!} + \frac {1}{6}= -\frac {1}{3}$$ $$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:76%" border="0" align="center"

$$\displaystyle p_4(t)= -\frac {t^4}{24} + \frac {t^2}{12} - \frac {7}{360}$$ $$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:70%" border="0" align="center"

$$\displaystyle \Rightarrow p_4(1)= -\frac {1}{24} + \frac {1}{12} - \frac {7}{360}= \frac {1}{45}$$ $$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:70%" border="0" align="center"

$$\displaystyle c1=-1, c3=\frac{1}{6}, c5=\frac{-7}{360}. $$ $$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:85%" border="0" align="center"

In the code, the value of c1 is taken to be -1. The value of k ranges from 1 to n, the value of n being user defined. Considering the case where k=1, we get the value of c3 and p2(1).

We have $$\displaystyle f=f\cdot g\cdot (g+1)$$ and cn=-1, cd=1.

The initial values of f and g are 1,2. The final value of f is equal to 6.

The variables for the function fracsum are $$\displaystyle(-1\cdot cn)$$ and $$\displaystyle(cd\cdot f)$$, which give the new values of c after every iteration.

The array size of the input variables for the function increases by a unit size after every iteration.

The funtion inputs in the first iteration are (1,6) which are equivalent to (n,d). The function returns the output values of these as (1,6).

The cn array has now been updated to [-1 1] and the cd array to [1,6], where cn and cd are the numerator and denominator of constant c(k+2).

To compute the value of p2(1), the following steps are done in the program. f array has been changed to [f;1] and g array to [2+g(1);g]. For k=1, we get it as f=[6 1] and g= [4 2]. Now these input variables are returned to the function as $$\displaystyle(g-1)\cdot cn $$and $$\displaystyle f\cdot cd$$ where cn= [-1 1] and cd= [1 6].

In this case we get arrays with two elements each and the commands gcd and lcm are implemented independently on each of those elements. we get the values of newpn and newpd as -1 and 3, where pn and pd are the numerator and denominator of p2k(1). We get p=[pn pd]=[-1 3]

$$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:85%" border="0" align="center"

In the next iteration the value of k is increased to 2.

$$\displaystyle f=f\cdot g\cdot (g+1)$$. We get f= [120 6], cn= [-1 1] and cd= [1 6].

From the function, we get the values of newcn and newcd as -7 and 360.

For computing p4(1), f is again changed to [120 6 1] and g to [6 4 2]. The function is called again with input variables as $$\displaystyle(g-1)\cdot cn $$and $$\displaystyle f\cdot cd$$.

We get the values of newpn and newpd as 1 and 45. pn=[-1 1] and pd=[3 45].

similar cycle is continued for all the higher iterations and we get the higher p and c.

$$\displaystyle $$
 * }.
 * }.


text:
Template:Read more

[ |read more » ]

title: Template:Read more


title: File:Group1.jpg


text:
Wikiversity open letter project

Project purpose: This is a "learn by doing" project that will allow Wikiversity community members to collaboratively create OPEN LETTERS.

Open letter format
The OPEN LETTERS created by participants in this project will take this form:

Dear {as appropriate},

As members of the Wikiversity community (en.wikiversity.org) we seek your input on matters of concern to the Wikiversity community.

{description of the "matters of concern"}

{explicit requests for input and response to the letter}

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

{list of names of Wikiversity community members sending the letter}

Specific letters

 * WMF Board March 2010, about disruption of the Wikiversity project and the censoring of Wikiversity content by the Board; sent to the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

title: Wikiversity open letter project


text: Category:Wikiversity open letter project


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

Summary
Feb 28: Ottava Rima deletes Ethical Breaching Experiments Howto. Discussion begins.

March 12: Privatemusings requests feedback from the community.

March 13: Jimbo Wales deletes pages of Wikimedia Ethics and blocks privatemusings following RTG's comments on Wikipedia. SB_Johnny starts community review, and as part of the review process restores pages and unblocks privatemusings.

March 13: Jimbo Wales threatens to close Wikiversity.

March 13: RTG begins comparing breaching experiment page with breaking the law.

March 14: privatemusings comments with support for proposed changes to the work.

March 14: SB_Johnny asks people to focus on specific issues: "Is the work in scope?" and "Should Jimbo Wales have followed process?".

March 15: Kaldari asks why Wikiversity custodians did not delete on sight.

March 15: Jimbo Wales removes tools from SB_Johnny, blocks Privatemusings, and deletes pages. Concern erupts.

March 15: AFriedman notes professional journals discuss breaching experiments.

March 16: Jtneill notes that two concerns are scope and process, and asks for clarification.

March 18: Sue Gardner comments saying she believes that User:Jimbo Wales's main message is correct.

March 19: SpinningSpark begins discussion about when research is unethical.

March 20: Gbaor asks if a way out is possible and suggests a way to resolve this conflict.

March 20: User:Geoff Plourde proposes a resolution that involves unblocking privatemusings, and reinstating the tools for User:SB_Johnny. Jimbo Wales does both.

March 23: SB_Johnny requested removal of his tools, stating that Jimmy Wales's intervention made him feel "morally uncomfortable". [ read more... ]

March 25: Juan de Vojníkov requests comment on a meta-wiki proposal to remove the founder flag because of recent controversial deleting/blocking/changing user rights actions by Jimbo Wales on Wikiversity raised in this community review.


text:
User:EGM6341.s10.Team1.Kumanchik/HW5

=Problem 10: Decipher the MATLAB code by Kessler=

Statement
Review the MATLAB code written by Kessler. Comment on what each line does.

Solution
The code computes the Trapezoidal error polynomials evaluated at t=1. The polynomial equation is,
 * $$p_{2k}(t)=c_1\frac{t^{2k}}{(2k)!}+c_3\frac{t^{2k-2}}{(2k-2)!}+c_5\frac{t^{2k-4}}{(2k-4)!}+...+c_{2k-3}\frac{t^4}{4!}+c_{2k-1}\frac{t^2}{2!}+c_{2k+1}\frac{t^0}{0!}$$

When evaluated at t=1, the equation is,
 * $$p_{2k}(1)=\frac{c_1}{(2k)!}+\frac{c_3}{(2k-2)!}+\frac{c_5}{(2k-4)!}+...+\frac{c_{2k-3}}{4!}+\frac{c_{2k-1}}{2!}+\frac{c_{2k+1}}{0!}$$

The coefficients, $$c$$, are computed by solving the below equation using $$c_1=-1$$ as a starting point,
 * $$\frac{c_1}{(2k-1)!}+\frac{c_3}{(2k-3)!}+\frac{c_5}{(2k-5)!}+...+\frac{c_{2k-5}}{5!}+\frac{c_{2k-3}}{3!}+\frac{c_{2k-1}}{1!}=0$$

For illustration, the first few coefficients and polynomial equations are shown below.

Notice that the factorials in the denominators of the polynomials differ by 1 from those in the coefficients. Also, to solve for the next coefficient, the preceding coefficients only need to be summed and then moved to the other side of the equal sign, i.e $$c_7=-(\frac{c_1}{7!}+\frac{c_3}{5!}+\frac{c_5}{3!})$$.

The following code will be commented line-by-line to explain the algorithm of Kessler:

Solved by: EGM6341.s10.Team1.Kumanchik 19:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

=Problem 12: Derive the arc length of a curve using the law of cosines=

Find
The arc length of a curve in space using the Law of Cosines

Given
The law of cosines:
 * $$c^2=a^2+b^2-2abcos(\gamma) \,$$

Solution
The law of cosines can be directly applied to the triangle with sides $$r$$, $$r+dr$$, and inner angle $$d\theta$$ to determine the differential line segment AB=$$dl$$.
 * $$dl^2=r^2+(r+dr)^2-2r(r+dr)cos(d\theta)=2r^2+2rdr+dr^2-(2r^2+2rdr)cos(d\theta) \,$$

The Taylor series expansion of $$cos(x)$$ is,
 * $$cos(x)=1-\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^4}{4!}-...$$

Taking the first two terms of the expansion and applying them to the differential length equation yields,
 * $$dl^2=2r^2+2rdr+dr^2-(2r^2+2rdr)(1-\frac{d\theta^2}{2})=dr^2+r^2d\theta^2+r\cancel{drd\theta^2}^{\approx 0}$$

Since the triple differential element $$drd\theta^2$$ shrinks faster than the double elements $$dr^2$$ and $$d\theta^2$$, it is set to zero. The remainder is,
 * $$dl^2=d\theta^2(\frac{dr^2}{d\theta^2}+r^2)$$

Integrating from $$\theta_1$$ to $$\theta_2$$ yields,
 * $$l=\int_{\theta_1}^{\theta_2}d\theta\sqrt{(\frac{dr}{d\theta})^2+r^2}$$

This is identical to the expression derived from geometry.

Solved by: EGM6341.s10.Team1.Kumanchik 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User:EGM6341.s10.Team1.Kumanchik/HW5


text:
Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010

This OPEN LETTER seeks clarification about disruption of the Wikiversity project and the censoring of Wikiversity content by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and will be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.

The text of the letter was frozen at the end of March. Wikiversity participants then had a week (April 1- April 7) to sign the letter. A printed copy of the letter has been sent to the Board. Participants in this learning project should freely distribute the letter, particularly so as to be sure that each Board member is aware of the letter.

Related project: a letter with links in the text. The letter, below, will be printed on paper and sent by snail mail to the Board.

Open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, March 2010
April 7, 2010

To: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Trustees,

As members of the English language Wikiversity community we direct your attention to matters of concern to the Wikiversity community. We seek a clear response to our concerns from the Board.

Mr. Wales has claimed to have full support of the Wikimedia Foundation for his recent use of his "Founder" rights at the English language Wikiversity. Our understanding is that the Board of Trustees gave Mr. Wales his "Founder" rights so that he could continue to function as a Steward. In non-emergency situations Stewards do not make unilateral decisions; they discuss matters transparently and are supposed to follow local processes and community consensus. We believe that Mr. Wales misused his "Founder" tools to intervene in a non-emergency situation. Specifically,

 * 1) Mr. Wales deleted Wikiversity learning project pages without following the established community process for discussing page deletion decisions. We believe he should have discussed, edited, or suggested deletion of the learning resources;
 * 2) Mr. Wales has imposed unwarranted blocks against editing on honest and sincere Wikiversity participants who (unlike Mr. Wales) followed community guidelines. We believe he should have discussed blocking participants with Custodians and, more specifically, made sure he would be able to explain specific reasons for his actions rather than force his actions on the community by means of uncivil name-calling ("troll");
 * 3) Mr. Wales performed an unwarranted emergency desysop on a Wikiversity Bureaucrat when no emergency existed. We believe he should have calmly proposed to the community that the Bureaucrat's tools be removed;
 * 4) Mr. Wales bullied the community by threatening Wikiversity with closure and called thoughtful Wikiversity participants "trolls". We believe he should have participated in civil discussion of his specific concerns with the thoughtful and sincere participants of the Wikiversity community.

The Board should be aware that the Wikiversity pages deleted by Mr. Wales were known to Wikiversity Custodians and they constituted a thoughtful search for ways to help and improve WMF wiki projects. Please note that Mr. Wales only discussed his initial deletion of this Wikiversity learning resource on his user talk page at Wikipedia. Only after the actions of Mr. Wales were made a matter of discussion at a Wikiversity Community Review did he offer an explanation for his actions. Mr. Wales stated his belief that the deleted learning resource was not "genuine", was "silly and juvenile", constituted an attempt to "hijack Wikiversity" and "get back at" Wikipedia, was "pure sophistry" and all he did by deleting the learning project was "deal with trolling". However, we ask the Board to ask: why do honest and sincere Wikiversity participants not agree with this assessment of the deleted learning resource? The project's stated goal was to search for an "ethical breaching experiment" which was defined as: An experiment which causes no harm in its execution, whilst yielding results useful for the greater good, or which inspire positive change. If there were problems with this learning project then they could have been fixed by discussion and page editing.

Mr. Wales has repeatedly failed to respond to our concerns and questions at his Wikiversity user talk page, the Wikiversity Community Review of this matter and at the Wikiversity Colloquium community discussion page. His failure to address the concerns of the community prompted this letter to the Board.

We request that the Board of Trustees hold a public discussion where members of the Wikiversity community can discuss our concerns with the Board and have them addressed. We believe that the intervention into Wikiversity affairs by Mr. Wales was an unwelcome intrusion and interruption of on-going community processes. We believe that had community processes been followed by Mr. Wales then a mutually agreeable solution could have been found that would have addressed Mr. Wales concerns while maintaining community integrity and health. We request that the Trustees in particular clarify how and in what ways Mr. Wales was authorized to use "Founder" tools at Wikiversity. If he has special authorization from the Board, beyond Steward rights, that authorization needs to be public and clear. Without clarity in this matter, the relationship between the Board and the Wikiversity community cannot be one of mutual understanding, respect and trust. We believe that the Board should then hold a public vote in which the trustees all clearly state whether through its agent, Mr. Wales, the Board of Trustees will continue to exercise editorial control and make unilateral decisions at Wikiversity when no emergency exists.

Sincerely,

 * User:JWSchmidt John Schmidt
 * User:Jon Awbrey Jon Awbrey
 * The real irony here is that many of the people expressing these concerns have spent the last half decade publicly calling for Mr. Wales to exhibit decisive leadership in fixing the BLP problem on Wikipedia — instead of doing that he has chosen to strong-arm the people who are documenting the seriousness of the problem.

 * User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall
 * User:Hillgentleman from English and Beta Wikiversity
 * My deepest concern is that someone who claims to be advocating better policies for the community cannot see that he himself has time and again shown disregard for both the community and their procedures.

 * User:Erkan Yilmaz
 * User:Jtneill James Neill
 * I am particularly concerned by the lack of clarity in the role of 'founder', "Its [founder] roles in various Wikimedia projects are not yet defined", which seems to provide significant potential for incidents such as this one.

 * Countrymike Brent Simpson
 * User:Kirgintseva
 * User:Juan de Vojníkov

{add yourself to this list of names of Wikiversity community members sending the letter}

Note: this letter was drafted at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_open_letter_project/WMF_Board_March_2010

__ END OF LETTER __

Discussion
Discussion by project participants. Note: this discussion section is part of a learning project. Do not move the comments of other people from this page to the talk page. If you are not a participant in this learning project then you might want to place comments about this learning project on the talk page. However, your discussion comments are welcome on this page, even if you did not sign the Open Letter.

A good letter, but I feel it needs to show some evidence of understanding to the concerns and motivations of Jimmy Wales, however inappropriate and hurtful his actions evidently were. Showing some level of empathy will help the letter read less like an attack, and more like an invitation to negotiate. Best wishes and thank you for your hard work Leighblackall 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the concerned users that "We" represents does not know what Jimmy Wales specific concerns and motivations are. Hence a lack of transparency. -- dark lama  12:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * "show some evidence of understanding to the concerns and motivations of Jimmy Wales". Leigh: I added a new paragraph after the list (items 1-4) that quotes the stated concerns of Jimbo. --JWSchmidt 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Above it says: "The project's stated goal was to search for an "ethical breaching experiment" which was defined as: An experiment which causes no harm in its execution, whilst yielding results useful for the greater good, or which inspire positive change."

I'd disagree however with that description. To quote directly from the page, it said "On this page we discuss, brainstorm, and possibly execute ethical breaching experiments - in particular whether or not such things are possible, and if so, how they might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects." Privatemusings had defined an "ethical breaching experiment" as "An experiment which causes no harm in its execution, whilst yielding results useful for the greater good, or which inspire positive change, but which uses methods which may violate the letter or spirit of the guildeline 'Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point'". I therefore don't think the letter accurately describes this. It doesn't make it clear that Privatemusings described the page as a place to "discuss, brainstorm, and possibly execute ethical breaching experiments", nor that Privatemusings definition of an "ethical breaching experiment" acknowledged that the execution of such experiments had the potential to involve violating guidelines. Adambro 15:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best for all if the page was undeleted so objective observers can see the page and discuss it. The page is a harmless learning project that was deleted out of process. <-- This is the key point that the letter should concisely convey to the Board. There is nothing wrong with a thoughtful discussion and search for actions that might breach the spirit of a rule in order to bring positive change. --JWSchmidt 16:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition Privatemusings provided acknowledged the potential to violate one specific guideline "Do not use Wikipedia to make a point". His desire to explore ways in which to bring about positive change would of followed the spirit of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. That page is a policy unlike the guideline he was wanting to explore the possibility of ignoring. -- dark lama  16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm simply making an observation here. Those interested in writing this letter can feel free to do as they wish, it is simply my impression at the moment that the description of the project leaves out some important aspects. Specifically, that the project goal was broader than just searching for an appropriate "ethical breaching experiment", it was to possibly including executing them, and that the definition given acknowledged the potential to violate guidelines. Darklama can verify that the quotes I've given are accurate and I suspect a copy of the project probably exists elsewhere anyway so undeletion isn't necessary or appropriate. Rather than ignore these points in this letter, I think it would be better to explain why they aren't a concern as Darklama has attempted here. Adambro 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro: concerns such as yours are not directly relevant to the purpose of this letter. Dealing with concerns such as yours are why Wikiversity has an "edit" button, the button which should be used rather than "delete" and "block". The deleted project existed as a place to discuss the matters that you have expressed concern about. The "ethical breaching experiments" project pages should be undeleted so that discussion of your concerns can take place in the correct place: in the context of the original learning project. Anyone supporting the out-of-process deletion of the "ethical breaching experiments" learning resource is disrupting the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 19:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think including an explanation of the concerned users POV on why the learning project was educational/useful could be useful for the Trustees to understand. The explanation I gave above, if it fits with the concerned users POV, could be used to explain to the Trustees why the inclusion of the learning project is important and is of concern for the concerned users. -- dark lama  19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point, but feel free to edit the letter. --JWSchmidt 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I've presented here aren't really my concerns, they are simply the facts about what the page said. I think to neglect to mention these facts would provide an incomplete picture of the project. It would invite suggestions that the reason for doing so is because those facts are perhaps damaging to the argument that this project didn't have the potential of disrupting other WMF projects, a significant part of the justification for deleting it. There is a clear choice for those writing this letter. Either ignore the aspects of a page which present a greater challenge to the argument that the action was inappropriate, or face up to these facts and try to provide reassurance that they aren't a concern as Darklama has attempted above. Adambro 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everyone at the Foundation who will read this letter knows that Wikipedia culture has a very strong "nip this in the bud" approach to management. I hope they know that Wikiversity has a culture where the approach is more "let's nurture this bud and see what develops". Another way of describing the difference is that Wikiversity participants are willing to assume good faith with respect to people who are thoughtfully developing a Wikiversity learning resource. I believe the letter makes clear that any problems with the content of the "ethical breach project" could have been addressed by editing and discussion...the usual wiki way. This was a project that existed harmlessly at Wikiversity for more than two months; there was no emergency that required Jimbo's intervention. Even if Jimbo mistakenly viewed the project as an emergency, he should have started thinking along other lines as soon as SBJ initiated the community review of Jimbo's actions. Instead, he deleted the pages a second time and threatened the very existence of Wikiversity in order to try to enforce his disputed view of the situation. We need to hear from the Board if Jimbo is more than a Steward and able to get away with this kind of behavior. That is the purpose of this letter...to get clarification from the Board. If the Board wants to impose Wikipedia's culture on Wikiversity then they are free to do so, we just need a clear public statement of their intentions. "this project didn't have the potential of disrupting other WMF projects" <-- this is not anyone's argument. I can imagine worst-case scenarios in which the project could have led to something "damaging", but if Wikiversity speedy deletion criteria are to be, "If I assume bad faith about this page then I can imagine a danger to Wikipedia and so I will delete it without discussion," then there are many people who will no longer participate at Wikiversity. If you can think of a way to edit the letter so as to make the point you want to make, go ahead and start a new version on a subpage. --JWSchmidt 00:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to change the date on the letter. --128.95.5.212 20:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Petition to shut down Wikiversity
I think this open letter is a perfect example of what is wrong with Wikiversity. Where most Wikimedia projets serve some useful purpose (as an encyclopedia, dictionary, free media repository, quote collection, etc), Wikiversity serves none. It is simply a haven for trolls banned from other projects, who migrate here to continue whatever behavior got them banned originally. I think it's long past time to shut the entire project down. I have created a petition to the Board of Trustees. Anyone who agrees with me that Wikiversity should be shut down should sign the petition. Raul654 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this message is a perfect example of what is wrong with wikipedians jumping into wikiversity, not understanding what is going on and passing judgements. A simple search would reveal such pages as mission and Approved_Wikiversity_project_proposal, and Main Page.  A simple question on the colloquium would lead you to school and university projects and brick and mortar collaboration.  While you may or may not agree with what are done on these projects, it is folly to speak with such volume without even being aware of them. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Until I saw this, I thought the idea of shutting down Wikiversity was too extreme, but now I am convinced. This particular asylum seems to have been taken over by the inmates. Kaldari 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish. I'm struck by what appears to be an assumption that the "asylum being taken over by the inmates" is a bad thing. The "asylum" is obviously Wikiversity, and "the inmates" the community of those who edit it. But this would apply to Wikipeda as well. If the WMF (or Jimbo as their rep) decides that a wiki community cannot be trusted, orderly shutdown or clear management would then be reasonable, the former giving the community the opportunity to fork effectively and do what they please under their own decision-making process and responsibility. Sudden deletion would do serious damage to the whole WikiMedia community. "The inmates" are not prisoners, held against their will, but voluntary participants who do expect fair treatment, whether it is legally binding or not. The attitude betrays an assumption that the "inmates" do not run the other projects. So, who or what does? --Abd 19:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Another familiar name. "Seems to have been"?  You had better have some more specific charges  based on something more concrete or else it is just smearing.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already made my charges and I stand by them (in the RFC regarding the breaching experiments). I don't need to repeat them all here. Kaldari 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 * There wasn't an RFC regarding the breaching experiment. There was an RFC against Jimbo Wales' messing up Wikiversity affairs.  As to the so-called "breaching experiments", the most hideous crime ever perpetrated was a proposal to manipulate an admin or steward to close down a project, and that was the work of long term Wikipedian user:RTG.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The real irony here is that some of the people signing this letter are banned from other Wikimedia projects due to years of disruptive trolling and have yet to contribute a word of legitimate content to this project. 15:13, 5 April 2010 Kaldari

 * BTW, e.g. who?--Juan de Vojníkov 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon Awbrey, for starters. Raul654 17:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And? It is one person, not some people.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't shut http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Quizzes down! It's likely going to be used by multiple Google Summer of Code projects. 99.25.114.26 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity is not going to be shut down. (where would we be without Category:Quizzes, Random, and Educational Media Awareness Campaigns‽‽)  But the concerns about the lack of clear purpose and educational direction are important, and deserve to be swiftly addressed.  Rather than engaging in the flame wars at the extreme edge of this conversation, please help expand on what it is about the best parts of Wikiversity that you like -- why are these GSoC projects using Category:Quizzes?  what comparable resources did you consider using? -- and, for those dismayed by aspects of the project, identify specific areas of WV that are unfocused or unhelpful.  –SJ + > 07:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Refocus
A good bit of the discussion above has actually morphed into content rather than policy discussion (i.e., a discussion of whether these experiments are or can be ethical), so if the content is kept, it might be better to rename the page as Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments and flesh out both sides of the debate incorporating some of what has been said here. There's no reason not to continue along those lines, but eventually the review itself should (at least I hope) bring us to a clarification of the two policy issues, namely, (1) whether or not the discussion of these breaches within our scope, and (2) whether or not Jimmy should use sysop tools here without going through the regular processes (such as posting on WV:RCA, WV:RFD, or indeed WV:CR. --SB_Johnny talk 12:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1: it is within scope
 * 2: he (and also others) should use WV:RCA, WV:RFD, WV:CR, ...
 * As was mentioned in chat: a mentor could help improve understanding of the ideas of WV. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I guess I should weigh in too: (1) yes, it is within scope, as both the issues it deals with and the experiments themselves have relevance for the study of Wikipedia and its history, and (2) I think it's pretty clear that Jimmy is not at all familiar with Wikiversity policies and procedures, so he should not be using sysop-level tools here (I hope he's becoming more familiar through this process, of course). I think he's somehow restricted from using the tools on Wikipedia as well, but perhaps he can clarify that situation himself. --SB_Johnny talk 13:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment Is research about Wikipedia and the other WMF projects within scope? Sure. Is planning to violate guidelines, policies and other standard expectations of behaviour on our sister projects acceptable? Definitely not. I can't accept that this project was intended to simply be about discussing breaching experiments, it was about getting involved in the execution of these experiemnts as I suggested at 16:24, 13 March 2010. So, if the question is if this project acceptable my answer would be certainly not. Can it be made acceptable, by removing elements about planning experiments, then the answer is possibly, and I and others have made attempts to do this. On the second point, about Jimbo, it is preferable that he would engage with the community through the usual processes but we can't demand he do so. For as long as Wikiversity is a project of the WMF and Jimbo is a key figure in that organisation we have to be prepared for him to get involved. We have to remember that the "community" is simply the users who are active at a particular moment. That group of individuals might not be able to agree on something which is actually in the interests of the project and sometimes it will be necessary for the WMF to intervene to push things back on the course they want WV to take. The WMF board are also obviously not just concerned with WV, they have to look after the interests of the other projects. As WMF project, we have to accept the reality of having to walk their line. Those who find that a constraint to the type of research they want to do can create their own wiki free of any interference from anyone. Adambro 14:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think that can pretty much sum up why this is even an issue. Some people think the project does or is intended to encourage breaching experiments on Wikimedia projects. Some people think the project is only researching/documenting breaching experiments that have already happened so people's motives can be understood without the intention of getting involved or doing breaching experiment. What the project's intentions are seems to be the subject of disagreement. I think everyone can agree that Wikiversity is not to be used as an excuse to do breaching experiments on Wikimedia projects. -- dark lama  15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the solution is pretty clear, work to clarify the project's focus. Even if it may seem to some like the project is being refocused, the outcome should still be the same. -- dark lama  15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Focusing the definition of WV scope, and improving policies for reviewing projects on the fringe of acceptable scope, would be a fine improvement. –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the focus of the "Ethical Breaching Experiments" work, not Wikiversity. -- dark lama  01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that the Adambro comment was well written and I agree with it. I have no real involvement with Wikiversity but I feel it is naturally integral with the other projects. I think Adam was suggesting that users who have gone before and will come after those small few contributing to this page are important and should be considered. I have suggested above in another section that a valid topic which may cover what some editors ere are pushing for would be "How can information become or be used in ways that are harmful?" or to that effect. It would cover your whole topic here, and without the careless suggestion that disregard for ethics amounts to a field trip, could prove to be a point of reference for studying ethics. Studying crime and punishment with special workshops in commiting crime, that's just silly. Focus yourself on the end and use the means to make it real, solid and tight, not to produce yourself as some sort of exhibit. The encyclopaedia is the collection of exhibits. It is not impossible for a haphazard experiment to produce something surprising but experiments without defined goals or educated predictions are playful messing not serious education. That is what you are amounting here. RTG 17:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"improving policies for reviewing projects on the fringe of acceptable scope, would be a fine improvement" (from above) <-- I believe that the Wikiversity community has a sound research policy in place. The problems are created by people who refuse to follow existing policy. Wikiversity's review process for research is community-led, taking the following steps: The Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments page should be reviewed and discussed by the Wikiversity community so that community members can decide if the page was actually outside of the scope of Wikiversity research projects. From the deleted page: "ethical breaching  experiment: An experiment which causes no harm in its execution". The purpose of the deleted research project was to explore how ethical breaching experiments "might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects". It is not clear to me how this research into ethical breaching experiments fails to fall within the scope of Wikiversity research. The matter should be handled according to the usual wiki process: think, discuss, edit. --JWSchmidt 16:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) People add research to Wikiversity - they are encouraged to flag it appropriately as "research".
 * 2) If not done already, research is flagged with a template placed at the top of the page.
 * 3) If anyone reviewing (i.e. simply reading) the page finds something within the research to be questionable on methodological, ethical, epistemological grounds, they can add an appropriate template - or modify the existing one.
 * 4) The page(s) in question can be flagged for deletion - or a request for comments can be made


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Sue Gardner

Statement of Support
I'm commenting here because Jimmy mentioned my name, and I got a few e-mails asking whether I'm supporting him. So I want to publicly say yes, I do.

There's a lot of talk on this page about whether Jimmy has the authority on Wikiversity to do what he did – the deleting and desysopping. With respect, I think that's a red herring. I support Jimmy because I think his main message is correct – and I am becoming a bit worried it may be starting to get lost in this authority conversation.

What Jimmy is saying is that he believes destructive trolling is happening on Wikiversity, and that the community here needs to figure out how to better protect itself and its work. He says that it's important for a community to be able to clearly define its mission, rather than to have a fully laissez-faire attitude. I completely agree with that – if you can't define what you're doing in a way that excludes destructive nonsense, you have a serious problem.

This is the second time that I'm aware of, in which Wikiversity has been hijacked by nonsense and unable to protect itself. That is bad, and Jimmy saying so is, IMO, the right thing to do.

Jimmy's track record speaks for itself, and I trust his judgment on these issues. If I thought he was wrong I would say so, but I don't: I think he's absolutely correct. Sue Gardner 05:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your input! "Red herring" or not, with respect, we are just not used to this kind of behavior here. Infinite blocks and desysoping a Custodian is not a good way of discussion, IMHO. On the other side I am pretty sure that despite his methods Mr. Wales acted in a good fate to protect integrity of WikiMedia projects (including WV itself). As the first step of a productive discussion we could look at No shrines for vandals, Deletion policy and Original research. Some changes were already made by AFriedman. I mean especially people from WMF, since according to their opinion the policies are not strong enough. Now is the time for some productive discussion and adjustments. Regards,  --Gbaor 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikiversity was supposed to be a place that respected academic discourse, academic freedom, and academic values. But now we hear the word "troll" being flung about like never before.  I respectfully suggest that this form of argument — really more a scheme for argument blocking than anything else — has no place here.  Jon Awbrey 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I respect and understand Jimmy's desire to protect Wikiversity. I respect anyone with a desire to protect Wikiversity. Everyone has different expectations of what is necessary to protect Wikiversity. I believe a clear and open dialog is the best way to understand each others expectations.
 * I understand that Jimmy believes that destructive trolling is happening on Wikiversity and that the community needs to figure out how to better protect itself and its work. Wikiversity deals with vandalism all the time, without Jimmy stepping in. As a member of the Wikiversity community I believe Wikiversity does not have a problem dealing with its problems. I believe some people in the community feel as though Wikiversity needs to better protect itself and its work from Jimmy. I believe this due to the specific works that Jimmy is concerned with. Wikipedia defines troll as someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response. I hope Jimmy and others from the board can understand that the Wikiversity community doesn't see how this particular work is inflammatory and how the the primary intent is to provoke other users into an emotional response.
 * Also are topics that have the potential to inflame and provoke emotional responses outside of Wikiversity's scope now? Does this mean a topic like "Why the holocaust never happened" is outside Wikiversity's scope now? What about cases where the Wikiversity community doesn't agree that a topic is inflammatory or intended to provoke emotional responses? What if community consensus is that projects that could inflame or provoke emotional responses are within project scope? I think the concern here is that Jimmy or someone else from the board may decided to ignore community consensus. This is a concern for both individuals as well as Universities that may be planning to contribute to Wikiversity.
 * With respect, I believe that most people are concerned that Jimmy is the one hijacking Wikiversity by ignoring Wikiversity process, and that has caused Jimmy to have a poor track record among Wikiversity participants. I believe in addition to wanting some answers about this particular work people want to know will community consensus be respected and can any decision by the Wikiversity community undo any actions by Jimmy? I believe the impression from the community is that the answer is if the community attempts to come to a consensus that does not favor Jimmy's decision Wikiversity will be closed, and that this will happen regardless of how strongly the Wikiversity community may disagree or for what reasons it disagrees. -- dark lama  14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that it is being subverted by some as a place to get back at Wikipedia for not giving them what they want. Several very banned Wikipedia users appear to be active on this project promoting exactly the stuff that got them banned from Wikipedia. In some cases we've seen this used as a way of trying to get the same material into Wikipedia as cited content, sometimes we've seen Wikiversity links spammed on WP. If the Wikiversity community decides that it really is trying to become the research arm of Wikipedia Review then I can see why Jimbo would pull the plug. That would be a shame, there's a lot of good content here. I do think that excessive self-reference back to WP should be avoided. JzG 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is why people want to use Wikiversity really at all relevant or an issue that Wikiversity should be concerned with? Wikiversity has generally had the attitude that people get a fresh start here. I think this is pretty typical for most projects. Should it be at all surprising that some things are moved here because they are out of scope for Wikipedia? Should Wikiversity reject works for the reason that Wikipedia has rejected it? Books, dictionaries, research are all outside Wikipedia's scope and sometimes people get blocked for not being able to accept this. Why would other projects even consider blocking someone right away when a book is moved to Wikibooks, a dictionary entry is moved to Wiktionary, or original research is moved to Wikiversity? Projects have different rules and scopes. I think there are a lot of banned people from English Wikipedia that have gone on to be considered respected members of other Wikimedia projects.
 * If you have seen people trying to justify other projects as a reason to do something against Wikipedia's rules, surely Wikipedia is the place where policy needs to change? How about "What is allowed and within the scope of other projects, shall not be used as an excuse or to justify inclusion here" for a Wikipedia policy? Doesn't Wikipedia already consider wiki's unreliable sources and thus not to be used for citing content? If you think excessive self-references back to WP are inappropriate how about making that Wikipedia policy? I hope you can understand that probably the best way to deal with problems people feel steam from Wikiversity is to make rules on Wikipedia that would prevent them from being allowed on Wikipedia. I would encourage Wikipedia to remove Wikiversity citations they feel are inappropriate and block users that have come there from here to cause problems. Projects block users all the time that come from Wikipedia to do harm. Should all the other Wikimedia projects goto Wikipedia expecting Wikipedia to change its policies to project their interests? I doubt Wikipedia would respect or accept change in policy from people who normally don't contribute to Wikipedia. -- dark lama  15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 'why people want to use Wikiversity' is quite relevant. If people want to use Wikiversity for its intended purpose, genuine collaborative learning and building learning resources, then they can and should be welcomed.  But we have to be quite clear here: some people have also tried to use Wikipedia in the way that JzG has identified - a place to "get back at" Wikipedia.  That's not ok.
 * Of course there can and should be content at Wikiversity that doesn't belong at Wikipedia. The two projects are different.  But it doesn't follow that any and all content belongs at Wikiversity, that it should be a free-for-all, a haven for cranks, a haven for trolling.  Just to cite one example, a banned user from Wikipedia coming here to write a nasty "case study" of users he doesn't like at Wikipedia is not ok.  Setting up a manual and workshop on how to hoax Wikipedia is not ok.  What else?  Explanations of how to bomb government buildings are not ok.  Explanations of how to rob banks are not ok.
 * I can't write the precise policy - that's going to take a lot of serious collaborative effort, but that collaborative effort has to proceed from a basis that this is not to be a wide-open free speech forum any more than Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects are. There are ethical boundaries.
 * And, to answer your question about cross-project cooperation, I can assure you that you're mistaken. If you have a user who is banned here, and that user come to Wikipedia to try to get back at you by (for example) editing the Wikiversity entry in Wikipedia into a hatchet job, or engaging in 'griefing' on a user page, or whatever - I can assure you that the Wikipedia community, which is quite experienced at dealing with these things, would block them post haste.
 * Finally I am not unreasonable. I am going to firmly insist on some standards - not contrary to the consensus of the community but in support of genuine community.  You care about this project - you don't want it to become known as a haven for cranks and trolls.  You won't want it to be hijacked by people who - trust me - will waste as many hours of your time in pointless argumentation about nonsense as you are willing to give them.  What you want to do is set up policies (some progress has already been made in this discussion) that ensure that Wikiversity realizes it's genuine humanitarian potential without being a place that causes harm to others.  It isn't that complicated, really.--Jimbo Wales 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I can see how my question might of been misunderstood. One person cannot truly know another person's motives. Do you agree? Surely the Wikiversity community should focus on judging the work as objectively as possible? People may initially come to Wikiversity because they were angered by something. I think the Wikiversity community can help people like that find a constructive way to contribute. Wikiversity is about learning and I think its fair to say the community prefers to give people a chance to find a constructive and educational outlet for there frustration. Wikiversity is here to teach and help people learn. This may mean collaboratively helping people learn how to turn frustration into a constructive dialog or teaching experience.
 * These may seem like dumb questions: What is wrong with Wikiversity being a free-for-all for all kinds of resources? What is wrong with Wikiversity accepting the principles of free speech? These question are not intended to suggest that Wikiversity should be a place for cranks or trolls, or that Wikiversity should be freely used as a web forum. There is this idea within Wikiversity that with a little hard work and some guidance from the community even cranks and trolls can find a constructive way to benefit learning at Wikiversity. Should the Wikiversity community not be allowed to waste its time on this if it so chooses? -- dark lama  18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is very often possible to understand someone's motives quite well.
 * I don't think your question is dumb, but I do think it has an answer. Go and take a look at Encyclopedia Dramatica if you want to see how horrible things can be if you don't set ethical standards of behavior.  And think about the impact on serious learners if they show up to find the site dominated by cranks and trolls making up completely weird and useless things, and apparently serious contributors dealing with them all the time.  I think that's a pretty sad outcome.  I think we would all rather people come away from Wikiversity after each visit saying "Wow, that's an amazing place, there's such high quality stuff there.  I was having such a hard time in my statistics class until I read Exploratory factor analysis/Data analysis tutorial/PASW at Wikiversity."  This in contrast to saying "Wow, I really trusted that site but then I found out that they have such a wide-open policy of never getting rid of crackpots that their so-called physics articles were completely full of bizarre theories that no one has ever heard of and that don't really make sense."
 * Quality matters, and quality is something to be proud of.--Jimbo Wales 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * As I understand it Encyclopedia Dramatica is a humor website. Not sure how a comparison with that would work. Wikiversity does intend to have some ethical and quality standards which are still works-in-progress. I think the intent is to balance having serious standards which must be followed with a supportive and relaxed atmosphere that seeks to help people and projects move in the right direction. If the community feels that people or projects are unwilling to move in the right direction than it may be time to block and delete. Do you agree that the Wikiversity community should decide when that time has come?
 * Completely understanding crank theories can be hard to do without some cranks. People may even come to understand why their theories are crank theories. Being supportive may allow visitors to come away from Wikiversity saying "Wow, so thats why people believe it is ethical to rob banks, I never understand that before."
 * Of course quality matters and is something to be proud of. You'll see no disagreement on that from me. However quality isn't something that develops overnight. Do you disapprove of attempts to help cranks turn their crank theories into quality educational works that meet some form of standard? -- dark lama  19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * In answer to your first question, I will say that in general, of course, the community should decide when the time has come to block and delete - in accordance with policies that are sensible and mature, and I believe we are heading in that direction in this discussion. My role here is to let you know two things: first, you don't have to put up with banned trolls hijacking your project, and second, across certain lines I'm not going to allow people to use Wikiversity for disruption of other projects.
 * In answer to the second question, I think it will depend on the context. I very much believe, as is well known, in a project with both serious standards and a relaxed atmosphere.  There are many errors or odd ideas that can be tolerated for a time if they are causing no harm and a discussion is moving forward productively to bring the work around to a more suitable state.  But at the point where something is actively tweaking people or causing harm, or seems likely to embarrass the project, a more vigorous approach should be used.  Over time precedent will emerge, consensus will form, and - of course - arguments will continue forever about the boundary cases.--Jimbo Wales 10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe the Wikiversity community does not put up with genuine trolls or attempts to hijack Wikiversity. Can you understand the Wikiversity community's perspective on privatemusings and his research project? I think the Wikiversity community doesn't consider privsatemusings' research project an attempt to disrupt other projects. I think the Wikiversity community doesn't even consider this work to be a boundary case. I know I certainly do not, those are the farthest thoughts from my mind. When I looked at privatemusings work I came away thinking "Wow, so privatemusings is trying to understand why people feel compelled to disrupt projects". After reading privatemusings' research project did you come away thinking "Wow, privatemusings is either trying to disrupt projects or encourage others to do so"? If so what about it gave you that impression? I really think privatemusings has something of educational worth to contribute to that topic.
 * I think this is all just an unfortunate misunderstanding. I think the Wikiversity community needs a lot of time to mature and understand on its own what the best practices are. I think on our own the privatemusings research project would of matured, whether a little or a lot is hard to say. I think what works for bigger projects doesn't really work for smaller projects. I think Wikiversity simply isn't ready for the approaches that the bigger projects take. I think these points have been brought up already. Do you agree with these points? -- dark lama  14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Unethical Research

Unethical research
Research is unethical, amongst other criteria, if it harms, or has the potential to harm, the subjects of that research. Breaching experiments on Wikipedia are unethical if it is disruptive to the thousands of editors working there. Many commentators above seem to have failed to grasp this simple principle, or at least have given the "freedom" of Wikiversity editors priority over this. As a regular contributor to Wikipedia I am furious that this project has allowed planning of these kind of attacks on your pages. You do not have our permission to carry out breaching experiments on Wikipedia and doing so harms the reputation of Wikipedia and all the people who have put so much effort into creating it. I dare say I could break your windows if I tried hard enough, they are probably not sufficiently secure - but it would still be wrong to bring the fragility of your windows to your attention in this way. It is completely incorrect that openly discussing how to carry out such attacks improves security. Far from it, one act of vandalism is inevitably followed by more once the trail has been blazed. In my view, Jimmy Wales would be entirely correct to have Wikiversity closed down if it fails come out against this behaviour. SpinningSpark 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Dear friend! 1. If you are "furious" than maybe calm down and write a non-furious comment afterward. 2. The trail has been blazed already. See yourself. And from the deleted page it seems that there are some other fake BLPs sitting on the site right now. 3. Have you read/seen the pages in question? --Gbaor 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Spinningspark appears perfectly calm to me. Gbaor, on the other hand, seems to be dictating what Spinningspark can and cannot justifiably feel. Righteous anger has a place. If someone wrongs me, I am justifiably angry. I see no evidence that Spinningspark is in any way allowing his/her very justifiable anger to affect him/her unduly; if someone burglarizes and vandalizes my home, I may well be angry - and there is absolutely no reason to be condescending and order someone to put their outrage aside. Outrage is indicated and called for when injury is willfully done. To suggest otherwise is to advise being a willing victim. You might want to back off and drop the condescending tone of superiority. The "pages in question" have zero, I repeat zero, bearing on the issue - just as which houses were burglarized, whether low rent trailers or mansions, would not have any bearing on whether the burglary was wrong. KillerChihuahua 18:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apology for the "the condescending tone of superiority" to Spinningspark and anyone else who might get offended by it. Your words making sense. It seems they are choosing wise people for WP admins after all (edit: just realized that this might be interpreted other way that I meant it. So just to say, I meant it as a compliment.). I could say I just wanted to be friendly. Well it is true. On the other hand this was not the first "rush in" for this page. Although I must admit this one was more polite... This is how I handle the things... To the point: "the pages in question" are the topics what we are discussing here + some other minor issues, such as if the reaction of mr. Wales (the blocks and desysop) were appropriate reaction. The latter part was called "red herring" above, so the pages and the topic/content remains. --Gbaor 18:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What people seem not to understand is that people here think that injury was not willfully done nor was it supported by Wikiversity. Wikiversity is not responsible for the actions of others. This is like accusing Wikipedia of willfully helping someone to kill another person because they read the Gun article. -- dark lama  18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How can anyone think that a deliberately fake article with accusations of Nazism, adultery and murder cannot be intentional injury? Of course it is, and detailed instructions on how to do it again is equally bad. SpinningSpark 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is hardly what I am saying. I am saying that Wikiversity is not responsible for people creating deliberately fake articles. Block the people responsible, delete the fake articles, and be done with it. -- dark lama  19:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The Mike Handel article remains deleted which is what the link you provided seems to be discussing. If you know of any other such pages on Wikipedia, please provide me with links so that they can also be deleted and the perpetrators blocked.  I don't know what pages you are referring to: I have read the deleted Mike Handel article on Wikipedia, the articles in Wikipedia Signpost, the On Wikipedia page you linked to and nearly all of this page.  I do not know how much you think I need to read before I am allowed to give an informed opinion on Wikiversity (please give links) but I do know that on Wikipedia I only need to know the article was entirely fake before coming to the decision to delete the article and having everyone involved with it chucked off the project. SpinningSpark 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are (as far as I know) 2 mirrors of the deleted content. An early version (link blocked by the spam filter) and an another. All the info we have. There might be more info in the history, but since the pages are deleted, I just don't know. Link from a blog comment with the first few words of the page: here, full page here --Gbaor 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly clear to me that the page went way beyond an academic discussion of breaching experiments into a "how to" description encouraging others to follow. Especially inappropriate is the list of proud boastings of successes in getting fake articles onto Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 18:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)