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

Board discussing closure of Wikiversity
I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER. I think that my actions here are strongly supportive of the genuine community who want to do that, making it clear to them that they have very strong support for making it happen. Some may feel that Wikiversity should be a place for silly and juvenile experimentation. If people want to discuss such things, there is an entire Internet open to them - they should not hijack Wikiversity for these purposes.--Jimbo Wales 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify this point: Jimbo raised the issue above and the idea of closing the Project with the Board after initially deleting those two pages and blocking privatemusings. The topic was briefly discussed, around the time that this thread was started.  There was no support from the Board for the idea of closing the project, and I am strongly against it.
 * The concerns about Wikiversity projects that cause harm to other projects are real, and bear discussion. A stronger version of the "do no harm" and "no shrines" guidelines would exclude them. –SJ + >

 * This has been discussed and reviewed endlessly over the past year or two (since the original project was started). Wikipedia is a notable topic for research and study, and there is a fairly broad consensus that Wikiversity is a good place to do it. The board members are of course welcome to participate in this discussion: our community is open to all and all opinions are valued. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you, SBJ. Discussion is currently taking place here, not in private.  As you say, these discussions have been common for years.  But the 'Wikipedia Ethics' discussions have been particularly troublesome, producing more distress than enlightenment.  While a talented troll could create a perfectly valid research project that would cause many people distress, is that really what Wikiversity stands for?  [as it is, neither of the projects that caused so much frustration actually produced focused research, but what if they had?] –SJ + > 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't think it's surprising that people who want to research these sorts of things have concerns about the topic (or even personal grudges), since that's probably what motivated them to do the work. I think it's far more constructive to construct a study of it than various other reactions I've seen over the years :-). The problem we had in 2008 wasn't so much the content (though some of that was a problem too), but that the original writers were either unable or unwilling to work with commentators that arrived later with a different viewpoint. The latter group also fed into the problem by using alternate usernames and conducting themselves quite badly too.
 * However, Privatemusings didn't do that, and in fact was one of those who tried (with little success) to get the parties to talk to each other in 2008. I don't think he was going to behave that way either if critics had shown up, which is why I think the block was a seriously flawed action.--SB_Johnny talk 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikiversity has plenty of research projects. People were already discussing that the pages you deleted should just document how its done, why its done, how it can be resolved, rather than encouraging people to go out and do it. People can goto a university or school and learn about system security and how people hack into computers in order to prevent it. This should be no different if done appropriately, which Privatemusing is open to doing. One user who even admitted to you that he knows nothing about this project took it upon himself to call on you because he wasn't interested in Wikiversity process. If anything I think that user should be blocked for disrupting Wikiversity. Your discussions of closing this project will likely only encourage more people to leave and perhaps drive people to do research projects elsewhere. I think finding an appropriate way to research known problems is not juvenile of us. I think RTG's actions were juvenile. Are you aware that RTG made some inappropriate and rather juvenile changes to the pages you deleted before he or she wrote you ? -- dark lama  15:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * That actually reminds me of a segment I heard on NPR on Thursday about "hacking contests" held by Russian software engineers at some university in Siberia. They are more or less endorsed by the university to help train people to build more secure systems (since if you don't know how to hack, you won't know how to defend). I'm not sure how to look up the story though. --SB_Johnny talk 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Just to be clear. I don't think anyone is endorsing that Wikimedia servers be used for the purposes of training people how to hack. -- dark lama  15:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, I wasn't saying that. It's just that there's no harm in documenting what's been done and how, since it's already happened. --SB_Johnny talk 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I support the closure of Wikiversity by the Foundation. Plainly the Foundation cannot countenance any attempt by any of its projects to damage other of its projects and so damage the purpose of the Foundation itself. Jon 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Maybe Wikiversity needs a policy along the lines of Wikipedia's "no legal threats", but wide enough to encompass similar threatening comments. On second thought perhaps it's best to let people make their threats. Observing them do so can be very educational. 87.254.92.101 15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am alarmed to see that the Board is discussing the closure of Wikiversity! Is Wayne Mackintosh still on that Board? Is Eric Moller still working on Wikieducator projects? This is not to say anything about their professionalism or actual interests in such a discussion, but it is to point out a potential conflict of interest on position alone if the Board is discussing such a thing! At the very least, I hope to see the record of such a discussion, because the mere mention of such a thing has severely dented my confidence in Wikiversity and the Foundation with it. A colleague and I are preparing to start training staff at The University of Canberra on how to participate in Wikiversity and sister projects. Just last week, we were discussing a considerable investment of time and IP around Nutrition and Health topics. Needless to say - seeing this remark from Jim will have to to be taken into account before we commit to such work. It is very disappointing :( Leighblackall 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Leigh, it's good to see you here :) I was a bit alarmed myself to see the issue raised... but the Board is not looking to close Wikiversity (see my note above, and Jimbo's comments below).  Wayne is on our advisory board, not the board of trustees, and to my knowledge has not weighed in on the subject.  Erik is no more active on Wikieducator than you as far as I know.  I don't believe Wikieducator has been part of this discussion at all, save for your concern here.  Sj 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sam, thanks for these reassurances. They go some way to addressing my concerns. I'm catching up on the discussion here, and yet to wade through the additions below. I wanted to share with people the link out to my blog post on this issue, and the subsequent discussion taking place there as well (thanks for your comments there too Sam). Sorry to fork the discussion in this way, but I didn't want to add my long post to this these threads. Regards --Leighblackall 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wales: being a big fan of OER in general and WV in particular, I have to say that the information about the "closure" hit me very hard. In fact I was writing a longer comment, but deleted it afterward to focus more on the crucial question: Sincerely, --Gbaor 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse - see below in "My similar deletion" for my primary role in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who proposed the closure of Wikiversity? Name(s) please... Who propose such a thing, should stand behind it as a person.
 * Do you want have WV closed?
 * I raised it as a possibility. I stand behind it.  I do not want to see Wikiversity closed - very far from it.  What I want to see is Wikiversity's community feeling brave enough and strong enough to simply ban trolls on sight, and ask them to take their silly projects somewhere else - they can start their own "breaching experiments" site if they want.  This project could be one of the most important and most exciting projects in the entire universe of education - and I think it can and will become that.  But not unless the Foundation and the community take the potential seriously.  If we can't take it seriously, and if we can't support this community towards positive goals, we should shut it or spin it off and let someone serious do it.--Jimbo Wales 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty! What I don't really understand, why you proposed the closure if you don't want to have it closed? At this point I also feel that I have to react to some of your comments:
 * "...Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER." - I don't think that WV should be restricted to anything. What I value above all in this site is its openness. The content of pages you deleted were questionable, but as for me, this is not a reason to delete and ban without discussion. If one just removes the planning part and keep the "documentary" part from past events, it would be much better and even interesting. Besides we are not a conventional OER, we are WV - the sister project of WP - an unconventional encyclopedia. The difference between us is the openness and several thousands of active contributors.
 * "...the community take the potential seriously." - I want to assure you that everybody here takes the potential seriously. I would like to invite you to take a "WP vacation" and stay with us a little bit more, so you can see that the community here is about.
 * "...let someone serious do it." - What do you meant by this? Any candidates already? Anyone with interest in building the site is most welcomed, but frankly the meaning of your last sentence for me is: Stick to the rules or you (WV) will be replaced. --Gbaor 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions - I didn't propose closing Wikiversity, I merely raised it as a possibility. If it turns into something we can't all be proud of, then I think we can all agree that it should be closed.
 * Second, be careful about valuing 'openness' above quality and the achievement of serious goals. Take a look at how badly trolls can upset and ruin a culture.  I absolutely support openness - in a framework of quality and thoughtfulness.
 * And finally "stick to the rules or you will be replaced" is not my meaning. "Create some thoughtful rules, get rid of the trolling, and you can achieve something great" is my meaning.--Jimbo Wales 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification! --Gbaor 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What thoughtful rules do you think Wikiversity could use to get rid of the trolls? I think some insight into specific problems that you think the Wikiversity community needs to address would be helpful. I think part if the reason you have had to come back to this project and step in again is because the community has not been able to understand and learn from the experiences in a useful way. -- dark lama  18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This discussion relates to this info from Jimbo Wales.

Sigh. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The more deletion without community discussion the more we foster the motivation to sockpuppet harmfully undetected. How to do this info and discussion of course goes on elsewhere.
 * The board discussion about closing Wikiversity (a different review topic?) - would it perhaps also be related to those in the Wikieducator camp?

 * Regarding the "board discussion about closing Wikiversity" - could you point to that discussion JT? The relations and plans there have always troubled me, and if I'm about to invest energy encouraging my Institution to work on WV, I'd like to be sure those troubles aren't going to come back and bite me again. Leighblackall 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a heading and note with link above. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am confident that Wikiversity will adopt firm policies in line with other WMF projects against trolling. The key is that this needs to be a serious, responsible, professional project, and not a haven for "breaching experiments" and attacks on Wikipedians.  Stick to serious work, and all will be fine.  It's really up to the community here to get things under control so that serious work can happen.--Jimbo Wales 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Jim, could you or someone point to a log of the things that the Foundation consider in need of control? Sorry if this request repeats discussion history elsewhere). I was not aware that WV was seen as a haven for trolls, breaching experiments (what are they?), and attacks on Wikipedians. I admit I don't have the overview that other custodians of WV would - (I'm trying hard not to get drawn into these things so I can focus on content generation and user recruitment across Pedia, Books, Versity and News), but my experience with WV to date has been excellent by comparison say to Wikieducator. Leighblackall 05:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Breaching experiments are experiments involving breaches of social norms. While they can be instructive, they pretty much by definition cause discomfort and potentially animosity in those involved (especially those unwittingly involved), so there are inherent ethical issues in carrying them out. 87.254.92.101 09:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Leigh Blackall has blogged some further thoughts on this: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to close Wikiversity? - -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am also quite disturbed by the mention of project closure. Why is the wikiversity community left out of the loop on these discussions?  We seem to only find out about issues that are of concern to wmf through rumour and off-hand comments.  There are many here who have been working hard to build an online learning community, and to form partnerships that are mutually beneficial.  Along with Leighblackall, I'm also concerned about the time I've invested in trying to promote wv within my institution.  --mikeu talk 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There weren't any discussions until the day this thread was started. So the community here was engaged as soon as the idea was proposed anywhere.  A public forum is the right place to have such a discussion, and I will keep my comments on the matter public.  I count myself among the people who have worked to build and support Wikiversity, though I was mainly involved in the founding discussions, and assure you that work that has gone into WV will not be wasted. Sj 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


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

Thoughts from Privatemusings
First, thanks to SB for unblocking me - I'm pleased to be able to participate here, and in WikiVersity in general (I'm not the most active, but I've enjoyed my time here for a couple of years now, and do intend to continue participation, hopefully).

I support the new project / page name (from 'ethical breaching' to 'the ethics of....') - and hope that a few of the people who have commented here are up for signing up or just generally helping out - a few folk have mentioned that they feel it would be useful if I said a few words about my intent when I started the project - I kinda feel that this diff (the start of the page) sums it up. It seems to me that the 'possibly execute' bit I mentioned there is what has caused the most trouble - I'm happy to see that gone from the current project, and (as I mentioned over on en) I think the project is going to develop slowly, and everything will be discussed out in the open - to be clear though, I have absolutely no plans to encourage / enable / design / execute / get involved in any way with any breaching experiments.

In regard to Jimbo's ations - I received a short email from him after he blocked me, which I'm yet to respond to - I think he's been hasty here, and I hope the entire situation will now calm a little, and talk of closing wikiversity etc. can move on to more productive discussions.

Finally, I'd like to encourage anyone from board member to curious lurker to pop in to my talk page at any time if you have any questions / concerns / ideas / advice etc. etc. - I've promised for quite a while that I'll stop absolutely anything that I'm doing and listen and discuss concerns. I'm also committed to abiding by any consensus. Perhaps reiterating these extant committments will help those still worried to feel that there's a positive way forward. Cheers, Privatemusings 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * just a quick note to say that I also replied to Jimbo via email. Privatemusings 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It is equally alarming to me to read this evidence of Privatemusing attempting to negotiate an outcome and state his/her case, but Jimbo has desysoped SBJ and undone the steps he took to bring PrivateMusing's back into the discussion! I am trying to read through all this as objectively as possible, and what I notice more than anything is a clear majority rejects Jimbo's actions and calls for a different approach to deleting, blocking and banning. I think it is evident that such actions produce the malcontent known by Jimbo and others as "trolling", and perhaps Wikipedia and other's need to reflect on their actions and how they perhaps create the problems they are trying to deal with. To this end, I feel Jimbo needs give some ground here in this debate. So far he has repetatively held to the points he made from the beginning, and appears not to be taking in any of the reasonable arguments pitched to him. Thanks to Sj for his comments of reassurance and ability to make constructive suggestions --Leighblackall 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Professional Journals

Professional Journals
Similar breaching experiments of Wikipedia have been published in professional journals, or have received considerable (and sometimes positive) coverage from popular media. The references for these breaching experiments are used as citations in the article Reliability of Wikipedia, as notable measurements and indications of Wikipedia's reliability. I do believe that breaching experiments, under controlled conditions, are the only way to test certain aspects of Wikipedia's reliability. However, because misinformation harms real people, research ethics mandate that any breaching experiments be performed in a way that includes a carefully thought-out attempt to minimize incidental damage to the integrity of the wiki. I don't think this was done here. For example, the attempt to transform the fabricated article into a DYK probably led to the misinformation being gratuitously broadcasted to more people than was necessary.

On this particular wiki, we've already got a proposed policy that could be interpreted as prohibiting Wikiversity from hosting any "breaching experiments" of Wikipedia--No shrines for vandals. It seems to me that just as Wikiversity should not protect, sanction, glorify etc. the people who disrupt it, it should also not sanction or glorify the people who disrupt its sister projects. This could include recognizing people who commit blockable offenses on Wikipedia as some of its "original researchers," with the offenses being the "research." At this stage in its development, Wikiversity's research is largely informal, and Wikiversity lacks an organized system of peer review for researchers to receive ethical and scientific feedback on their experiments. This, I believe, is a major shortcoming of our research facilities. Ideally, the experiment should have been recognized as a problem while the research was still taking place, by fellow members of the Wikiversity community who were giving it feedback. For example, in addition to the ethical problems discussed above, I also believe there were several scientific problems with the research, such as the lack of discernible controls and clearly-articulated hypotheses. In the absence of an organized system of research review and feedback, certain other policies such as "No shrines for vandals" probably need to be strengthened to prohibit the misconduct here. There is an ongoing discussion about developing a Original research policy, and this type of clause would also fit within its scope. --AFriedman 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made some changes to No shrines for vandals and Deletion policy, and proposed making similar changes to Original research. Any thoughts about these changes?  --AFriedman (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your changes to deletion policy could be a bit stronger -- it isn't that "Wikipedia and sister projects" should be specially protected. And this debate points to broader issues with OR and research projects -- research into the different ways people learn and teach, and neutral secondary research (which are within scope) are quite different from original research such as writing up the results of novel chemistry experiments (better suited for a journal submission) or running sociology experiments (which further have ethical, peer review, and other problems).  There are some interesting examples of original research on WV, but it's not one of the project's strengths.   –SJ + > 06:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think some types of research are within and others out of scope. While you can not do a chemistry experiment on WV (since this is done in the lab) you can still include the documentation of the methodology here. The exact and precise methodology allows also other people to repeat your experiment which is on of the core issues in research (i.e. repeatability). So the original research is for me within scope. The social experiments are in a way a special category as in this case we (the people) are the lab rats. This could be a controversial issue, which may lead to problems. The current case is the best example. It is up to us to take up the challenge to face these problems, but personally I would not exclude these "by definition". I am not even sure if you would mention social experiments if we would talk about the issue before this discussion about deletions. Maybe yes, maybe no... --Gbaor 08:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The question of what sorts of original research are appropriate for Wikiversity is open; related policies are still drafts, and a review board was never set up. Original research has never been the primary goal of Wikiversity, and has been a source of controversy and debate since the project was founded.  A similar case in which 'research on wiki ethics' was combined with some amount of trolling took place in 2008.  Then as now, there was possible harm or nuisance to others as a result of a research project... this seems like an easy case to rule out under current guidelines, but defining what 'do no harm' means can be tricky.  –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My colleagues and I at University of Canberra have been discussing our desire to establish an open journal for publishing original research. I would like to see Wikiversity in the list of platform considerations. As it is now, we have set up a portal on Wikiversity for one of the education and research institutions within the University of Canberra, and our thought was to publish research on Wikiversity as it relates to this institution. --Leighblackall 05:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Where are the custodians?

Where are the Wikiversity admins?
This breaching project should have been deleted on sight and the editors involved banned as trolls. Where are the Wikiversity admins and why are they not protecting the integrity of this project? The fact that Jimbo had to intervene is a sad commentary on the diligence of the admins here. It is especially troubling to see that two of the main people defending the breaching project, darklama and SB Johnny, are administrators here. Ottava is to be commended for at least objecting to the most blatantly problematic aspects of this project. I don't understand her reluctance, however, to delete the rest of it, nor the lack of any action by the other admins here to put an end to such trolling. Kaldari 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My dear Kaldari! I counted to ten several times before writing these words. First: I want to point out a valuable resource. Read between the lines... Second: A nice little policy. Read between the lines again... Third: We (custodians and wikiversitans) were here all the time, but we also value discussion before deletion. Now if you have anything to say which moves the discussion further, say it. --Gbaor 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you weren't aware, I founded that valuable resource, so I'm well aware of it's existence. Are you also aware of the proper procedure for addressing ducks? Kaldari 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my dear Kaldari! I told you to read between the lines! I was aware of the fact that you created the resource, and in fact this was the reason why I pointed it out. I didn't wanted to "call a spade a spade" because I thought you will understand... Now in plain English: First: For the person who brags with creating an anti-censorship project on WP you are just too in a hurry to delete! Now you believe in freedom of speech or not? Second: This was easy, just follow the link. "No personal attacks" is written right in the title... Clearer now, or I have to elaborate more? (Edit: Maybe elaborate more to be sure: I think the form how you stormed this page with your initial note was a personal attack.) Third: You had no problems with this one I hope... --Gbaor 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one don't see it as a project aimed at breaching anything. I do not support, condone, or endorse breaching anything without permission. I support people that wish to write about security matters because people do attempt and sometimes successfully succeed in circumventing security. The best way to improve security is to discuss security problems openly. I also do not consider the main editor a troll (WV:AGF). I was trying to work with the editor to clarify and make the project more appropriate for Wikiversity, before Jimbo came along and I have continued to do so even now. Some people seem rather quick to criticize, but unwilling to put time in to improve works. Sometimes discussion is needed with contributors to understand how best to improve works. -- dark lama  16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So a project about Wikipedia breaching experiments that includes "how-to" and "planning" pages doesn't aim to breach anything? That's a bit hard to swallow. Kaldari 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "how-to" page was intended to document how people that breached security managed to do so. When you know the means, methods, strategies and motivations holes in the system are that much easier to plug. I think the "planning" page was intended to be a scratch-pad for the main editor to write down their thoughts and plans for what to look into, or to document what planning if any do people do when they breach a system. The "planning" page is an example of an area where discussion with the contributor is still needed to understand how best to improve the page. I think the "how-to" page could use some of the same editing treatment that Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments had got. -- dark lama  17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A five-year-old child can breach Wikipedia. It doesn't require scientific documentation of the methods involved. I really can't see any possible value to such a "scratch-pad", other than as a place to coordinate and plan efforts to breach Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't seem to be educational in any legitimate sense. Kaldari 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, I deleted all pages containing information about the experiment. The page that Jimbo left was simply an index page that had none of the information left. At the time, I left it because if Privatemusings wanted to discuss the ethics of the two documented cases of breaching (the ACID and McBride's recent case), then that could be discussed without encouraging socking or the violation of rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear position Darklama and Ottava, but I think it is no need to defend your good intentions. We all know you here at WV and SB Johny as well. Anyone who spent at least some minimal time around here knows that... And who came here to heavily criticize without any or little prior knowledge... Well... --Gbaor 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you deleted all of the pages except the index page, why did Jimbo have to delete Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments/planning? Had someone recreated it? Kaldari 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Real World

Breaching ethics in a real world and digging holes in the garden
Breaching ethics is a break in the rules. You do not do that in any university. You are likely to be expelled for such behaviour because it is not a matter of how ethical you see it but a matter of how ethical you didn't see it whilst continuing to act, i.e. the ultimate incompentence, the liability. How about a police psychologist around dropping litter and parking out on the road as an experiment in breaking the law. He is absolutely crazy, with no capacity for the job. You can't think of him as a competent professional any more. I don't know about closing Wikiversity because I have not been studying it and all I know of this project is a few very good pieces of work, above and beyond the scope of this rubbish. But of Jimbo acting like this I can say, it is Jimbos perspective when finding somebody digging holes in the back yard that lends his position some merit. He doesn't interfere with the running of the wikis save for promoting and explaining them, he gave them away to us in fact, but when somebody is digging holes in the back yard and everybody else in the house has been chatting about it for three months, Jimbo is liable to walk out there and say, "Clear off!". The ultimate and obvious findings of ethical breaching experiments: The breacher gets fired. RTG 16:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Nobody is condoning or endorsing law breaking. However people do break laws. Social scientists, psychologists, philosophers, engineers, lawyers, law enforcement, and perhaps people in many other fields like to study why people break laws, how they break laws, when do they break the law, etc. -- dark lama  16:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * As I've said on IRC, this was never simply about passively observing "breaching experiments", aka violating policies to make a point. The description, "On this page we discuss, brainstorm, and possibly execute ethical breaching experiments" on Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments, and on Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments/planning where it says "make some notes about your intended experiment" make that clear. Unfortunately the idea of studying breaching experiments here has been tainted by the proposal to use Wikiversity as a base for launching attacks on our sister projects so if it ever was an appropriate subject to study here, it certainly isn't now. Adambro 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * N.B. almost certainly an "ethical breaching experiment" is intended to mean carrying out a breaching experiment in an ethical manner. I think you (RTG) have understood it differently to that. Clearly breaching experiments, carried out ethically, can be accepted in academia and are not intrinsically a firing offense. Possibly what you want to argue is that people here are clothing mischievous behaviour in academic language in order to disguise the mischievous nature (I don't necessarily agree with that but it could provide the basis for a reasoned discussion). 87.254.92.101 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * How can you conduct a breech of ethics in an ethical manner? You should be working on cold fusion. Certainly the project in its core invites disruption of the projects. "Experiments" is a very perspective driven word for the title. I have suggested a Hall of Fame on the talk page and elsewhere a set of barnstars. We used to get little stars in our school and we performed quite well. RTG 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * And, yes it does condone and endorse. Alludes to performing breeches of ethics and has suggestions sections. What train are you on? Wake up. RTG 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Experiments in breeching fire safety. Let's perform experiments like this in our own home. Who is up for it? No, it's not a very good line of experiments. RTG 16:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of difficulty following you RTG. Is it your contention that all breaching experiments involve breaches of ethics? Or just that the ones that would be discussed on that particular project would do so? 87.254.92.101 16:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not having difficulty following you, but I think you're making a category mistake. WP:POINT is not an ethical or moral principle, but rather just a guideline agreed to in the hopes of avoiding community strife (since, after all, what is done on a wiki is just as easily undone). The point for Wikiversity is that these breaching experiments have indeed taken place, and have had considerable effect (w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people being the obvious example of a political movement within the community in response to the sorts of experiments documented on the page in question). Were the experiments in violation of Wikipedian norms? Yes. Did they do any harm to the "living people" who are the subjects of the articles? No. Does the end justify the means? Well, that's the question being asked on that page. --SB_Johnny talk 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The kind of experiments given on the page, such as inserting false information or creating false biographies are harmful. Not necessarily to the subject of the article, even less likely if the subject doesn't exist, but potentially harmful to people who are trying to use Wikipedia. I very much doubt anyone could come up with a "breaching experiment" that wasn't harmful but that question is irrelevant if most of these experiemnts would violate policies or guidelines, organising experiments which involve violating a sister project's policies or guidelines is not something to be done at Wikiversity, whatever the community consensus at the time might apparently say. Jimbo has a responsibility to look after the WMF projects and that will at times involve going against what many people may think. It is a credit to him that he isn't afraid to do so. I hope that he will, whilst considering what has been said here, restate that this type of content is inappropriate and that it should be deleted. This isn't the Wikipedia Review wiki. Adambro 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The false information added was very intentionally constructed to be "non-harmful", and I can confirm that as I've been following it. I'll try to get the diffs for you.
 * That's the whole point of the ethics of the experiment: do no harm. I assume Privatemusings will have something to say on this, but I'll also ask the experimenters to weigh in. --SB_Johnny talk 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that adding any false information to articles can ever be "non-harmful" is a concept I struggle to understand. Nevertheless, diffs to look at are always appreciated. Adambro 20:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good point - SB_Johnny is, I think, considering harm only to the article subjects. But if I write graffiti in chalk (very fixable) on someone's house, and that graffiti is carefully worded so as not to offend anyone, has my act caused any harm? I think you, and many people including me, would say "yes, you caused harm; you put graffiti on that guy's house".

 * One problem here though is that we're discussing exactly the ethical issues that the deleted page apparently existed for. If I were to go so far as to say "ah, but how about a breaching experiment arranged like, that would be completely ethical, right?" then I'd have gone to the next step of actually designing an ethical breaching experiment. Should I then be blocked and this page deleted? 87.254.92.101 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * While an abstract discussion of non-offensive chalk on someone else's house could very well be interesting in a sophomore philosophy class, it has little bearing on the current case. It may be fun to speculate on cases where this sort of thing could be ok, but that should not deter us from recognizing that this should have been deleted and the perpetrator blocked for doing nothing more than annoying and disrupting others.  I encourage this community to quickly grow strong policies to prevent such juvenile nonsense going forward.  Are you a serious effort to generate free OERs that will change the world, or are you a sophomoric place for trolls?  It is within your power to choose.--Jimbo Wales 04:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It wasn't intended to be abstract - it's a direct analogy. The question was raised as to whether inserting untrue information into Wikipedia could ever be non-harmful. SB_Johnny made the point that the information inserted was carefully designed to be non-harmful (like the chalk graffiti). I think that deliberately messing someone's work up, even in small ways, is always going to have some element of harm whether in an encyclopedia or on someone's house. Now you might feel that's trite or simplistic but I think it has "bearing on the current case". With regards to "sophomore" I think you were intending to be insulting (if your aggressive manner in this discussion is itself a breaching experiment then I think it very effectively makes a point) but realistically a university or even a wikiversity is a place you should expect to encounter sophomores, materials aimed at them and discussions involving them (though hopefully much more than that too). 87.254.92.101 10:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * If the rules were designed to be impervious, you'd really be on to something. Imagine hacking for a company or burgling past high tech defenses, like James Bond or something, wow! But, let's consider a similar and non-harmful experiment. Let's have the police ring the fire brigade and time them to see how long they took? "Did anyone get hurt?" you ask the fireman when he arrives expecting a fire. Then, how do we focus study be on the most notable fire brigade ringers of the past? Are they quite ingenious? That's all you've got here, public service phone numbers, Bart, not fort knox vault breaking. The rules are not even designed to prevent harm, they are designed to control the addition and removal of information. There may be a few parts of that which say that information can be harmful. Why don't you study that? "How can information become or be used in ways that are harmful?" There's definitely more scope for that one, it would more than cover your Wikipedia attacks and it would appear that is the topic folk are suggesting. It would also be quite useful in defining ethics. Possible a major point of reference. Or really must you ring the fire brigade too? RTG 16:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Some of the other subpages in the project do actually cover how harm can come about from that. Or at least they did... I haven't really had a look in a while. --SB_Johnny talk 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On "Breaching Experiments" in Social Psychology and Ethnomethodology
I haven't been able to follow all of this widely scattered discussion, but there appears to be some confusion about the term. Wouldn't it be nice if there were some place we could look it up?

 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=breaching+experiment
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_epq=breaching+experiment
 * http://sniggle.net/breaching.php
 * http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/socthink/garfinkel.html

Not to mention:

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_experiment

Ciao, Jon Awbrey 12:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This link may prove useful to those who are unfamiliar with Jon Awbrey.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or Breaching experiment? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E4DF1130F937A2575AC0A9629C8B63 from the Wikipedia page
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RU7E_lXWVo&feature=related
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x4HV4_KBPQ&feature=related
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYp3EA8Kjrg&feature=related

It would appear that most of these experiments are insane for the experimenters but you can conclude that ethics are usually not suggested. Most of these experiments are about "Breaking the norm" to study reactions, which is understandable because people are animals and you want to see them react to things but ethics are about right and wrong. No class tells you do go and be bad or test how bad you can be. Certainly, the examples here do not apply to violations of BLP policy or anything like that. They apply more to contacting people on their talk pages and asking crazy questions. I would presume that classes given these experiments as a task are given warnings about what they cannot do. But that sort of warning need not apply to WV, right? Well I think it does according to the WV professional standard goals. RTG 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/SB Johnny

Pages redeleted
I have redeleted the pages in question, reblocked Private Musings, and desysopped SB Johnny.

I am happy to reinstate SB Johnny upon his agreement not to do this again.

I am happy for us to have a discussion about process and policy for the future, but for today, I'm calling an absolute stop to this particular project. It is not appropriate for Wikiversity for the reasons hat others have outlined above. It is simply not within the scope of Wikiversity to host projects of this nature. I am interested in bringing in very good, high quality, innovative contributors and helping Wikiversity become something really amazing and special, and I am here to assist in that process by empowering those who wish to see the same. I expect and insist upon a professional environment we can be proud to show to serious newcomers - and this means drawing a firm line that frivolous trolling projects have to be deleted.

I agree, quite strongly in fact, with those who would argue that Jimbo coming in to lay down the law is not an appropriate and sustainable longterm governance model for Wikiversity. I have no interest in doing things that way. At the same time, it is clear that at least so far, appropriate policies have not been put into place, and one of the reasons is that the endless search for consensus (a good thing) fails when there is no clear guidance on the endpoint goals.--Jimbo Wales 17:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am still recused from related discussions, but I am leaving this note to acknowledge that I have cleaned up broken redirects, redlinks, and talk pages related to the matter in addition to notifying both parties to the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I requested the removal of my sysop tools as a form of protest against your approach. What you have done is simply not right! Even if you reinstall SB in this very moment it is too late. Think, discuss, act. The order is important. --Gbaor 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Jimmy, you're really not making your point very well here. I've always "held sacred" your long-ago statement that "being an admin should be no big deal", and I don't think it's a big deal to lose the status either. But, well, wow. --SB_Johnny talk 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wales. Right now, I'm working with other editors on changing the policies so that materials promoting or commemorating activities disruptive to other Wikimedia projects are explicitly prohibited. Re: "helping Wikiversity become something really amazing and special," I'd like to share my thoughts about what could be done.

First of all, I think there are tremendous misunderstandings about what Wikiversity is, and many unrealized opportunities to promote Wikiversity. When I went to the Wikipedia NYC meetup back in February, I realized that most of the other people there did not realize what Wikiversity was for, especially how it is based on a University/academic model but very flexible about what types of learning resources could be added. This was not because of a lack of interest--people were interested, but they just didn't know what it was. For example, I'm not sure the one-line description of Wikiversity on the main page of Wikipedia is specific enough to capture what it is. Perhaps "Free school, university and research materials" or some such phrase might draw more of the right people to the site. In addition, I think Wikiversity might benefit if more articles on Wikipedia linked to it. Attending the Meetup, I met Wikipedia people who are now thinking about using Wikiversity for their project but would not have considered it without my input. I would very, very much appreciate your feedback re: my thoughts. --AFriedman (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * AFreidman, I think that sounds delightful. I think your formulation is a very good start, although I don't think Wikimedia projects should necessarily be privileged.  I would feel the same way about a project started to discuss ways to destroy a messageboard community through sockpuppeting and trolling (as just one example of many that we could come up with in a short time).--Jimbo Wales 13:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The question then becomes, where do we draw the line. The goals and values of the other Wikimedia Foundation projects are all very similar to Wikiversity's, and I strongly believe that the sister projects should promote, support and protect one another. However, not all websites share our core values, and not everything on the Internet is used for a good cause. In most instances I would agree with you about the message board example, but on the other hand, is it wrong to infiltrate and disrupt a terrorist website or a website used to coordinate the trafficking of child prostitutes? Would it be wrong for Wikiversity to commemorate or encourage people who do this? How do we decide where disruption is acceptable, and where it isn't? In order to expand the policies to encompass non-WMF projects, which is likely to be necessary if a similar project finds its way onto this site, IMO there needs to be more careful thought about how to formulate things. According to our policies, another one of our goals is to minimize censorship. --AFriedman (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Preparing people for assault and war, that shouldn't be open to discussion. If you find terrorists and child molestors on the internet, tell Interpol or the FBI. They are out of your league at reacting and will be happy to hear from you. Don't patronise people like that. There are no havens for such people on these sites and there are no war factories either. Am I mistaken there? RTG 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick note from SB_Johnny
I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to all this, but two things I'm sure of: What we should be focusing on in this Community Review is on the two questions I was originally looking for clarification on: We're supposed to be a community of scholars here, so let's act like it. Look at the underlying principles and ignore the mundane dramas. One way or another, we're going to be OK, and we'll grow from this. Don't be afraid of "losing wikiversity"... we won't. --SB_Johnny talk 00:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) My undoing of User:Jimbo Wales actions were absolutely what I was supposed to do: yes, those pages were questionable, but the question was something for the community to decide. I un-deleted the pages so that we could discuss them and decide whether they were within our scope, and I unblocked the user who created them so that he could explain his intentions. I then opened this Community Review, because that's what we're supposed to do when we're unsure about policy.
 * 2) My custodian tools are no big deal. I really believe in that, and I've tried over the past few years to get other people to see it that way too. I was fully aware of the possibility that Jimbo would "desyssop me", my feelings are not at all hurt, and I don't really need the tools at the moment. This is no big deal.
 * 1) Is the (now deleted) project within our scope? Jimbo's deletion reason was "out of scope"... I reversed his action because I didn't think that was clear. I undid his block because there didn't seem to be any justification (or even a warning).
 * 2) Should Jimbo be free to use his tools outside of community policy and process? I don't see why he should.

 * I fully support the undoing of those actions and agree that these are issues that should be debated and decided by the full wikiversity community. We have long had a process in place for discussing deletion of project pages that some find questionable; to bypass that process is not a healthy way to build our learning community.  Moving forward...

 * it is up to the community to decide if there is confidence in SB_Johnny as custodian and crat. As tempted as I am to undo the desysop action, I feel that in the interest of keeping drama to a minimum we should carefully follow our established procedures.  If sbj gains the support of the community through the process of a Request for Custodianship I will respect the consensus will and reflag his account.

 * while I sympathize with the gesture made by Gbaor I feel that the request was made in haste and consider that this respected custodian still has the support of the community and will reflag his account, if he has second thoughts about the decision to resign. and I hope he does reconsider...

 * The deleted pages should be subject to a Requests for Uneletion to discuss the merits of those project pages and the final status of these pages should be decided by the full community.

 * a Community Review should be opened to discuss the indef block of User:Privatemusings

 * another Community Review should be opened to discuss the unilateral actions that were recently taken by User:Jimbo Wales. If any elected custodian had taken such actions without discussion or support of the community it would have resulted in the removal of tools.  I don't see that there is any mandate from wikiversity participants to support such actions.

 * --mikeu talk 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Mikeu, I would like to request that - in the interest of keeping drama to a minimum - you not do any of this. In particular, do not reflag SB_Johnny without my approval, do not undelete these articles without my approval, and do not unblock Privatemusings without my approval.  I have the support of Sue Gardner to assist this community in a process of reform - and that process needs to proceed in an orderly and professional fashion, not as a civil war.  I am neither dictatorial nor unreasonable, so there is no need to get into a wheel war with me.--Jimbo Wales 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear mr Wales! I thought long what to write here... You are certainly not unreasonable, but what you have done is dictatorial for sure. I am really sorry to say that, because I respect you as a person very much. To do it in professional fashion, I feel that the community review of your should be made as a direct consequence of your actions. Since this is a situation involving both WV and WP editors from both sides should be notified. --Gbaor 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have to say that I don't like your approach of blocking users. The revert of the comment could be seen as getting rid of a personal attack (for me it was a borderline case as well) but the ban is simply too much. The user might be blocked on WP, might not be an angel, but here he has just as much right to speak as anybody else (given that it moves the discussion further and the wording of the comment is polite or at least not a direct or indirect attack). The core question of this user remains valid: "Does the Wikimedia Foundation have no interest in allowing the community to discover how the WMF might be persuaded to improve its position on matters of ethics?" Rather a short and maybe unclear question but since the user is blocked, no more explanation (for now).--Gbaor 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales, sorry if my statement was unclear. I have no intention of taking any unilateral action.  I am simply proposing that a discussion of these issues would be a productive exercise in clarifying the scope of wikiversity and gaining consensus on what appropriate action the community feels should be taken when a project page falls outside of the scope.  I do not see my role as one of making a judgement on these topics, but rather facilitating debate and then acting in a manner that is consistent with the will of the wikiversity community.  --mikeu talk 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity's review process for research is community-led, taking the following steps: I believe that 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. --JWSchmidt 16:04, 16 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

Just a note: I'm following the discussion here, but I'm relatively sure I would be banned if I expressed anything close to what I'm thinking. I'm looking into somewhere off-site to hold discussions, so feel free to email me about progress on that. --SB_Johnny talk 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommend SBJ be reinstated
I agree with Collect, above. "SBJ clearly was of the opinion that where a process exists, it ought well be followed. I thus doubt the wisdom of punishing SBJ for doing what was clearly the process in existence at the time on WV." It seems clear that Jimbo desysopped SBJ for following process - hardly an offense. I recommend he be reinstated. KillerChihuahua 18:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Following what process? We don't have a process for dealing with instances where Jimbo uses his Founder rights to delete content and block users. There is no process which says when that happens, despite Jimbo requesting "please do not unblock without consulting with me", we should ignore that request and unblock the user and restore the content that was deleted.
 * Of course the counter argument to that might be that Jimbo didn't follow the usual deletion process in the first place but two wrongs don't make a right as the saying goes. It is obvious from what has gone on that Jimbo didn't block PM and delete this content and then disappear. He has responded to messages on his talk page and commented here.
 * There should have been no rush to reverse Jimbo's action, and as I suggested shortly before SBJ went ahead and reversed Jimbo's actions, doing so might not be a good idea. Despite SBJ saying "Unless I'm missing something or there are strong objections, I intend to undo both", he didn't seem to wait for others to share their thoughts at WV:RCA before acting. Unsurprisingly that didn't turn out to be a good idea. Whilst I appreciate that SBJ's intention here would be to enable the deletion (or not) of this content to be discussed by the community, I'm afraid his attempts to do this were poorly thought out and inevitably resulted in more drama.
 * I don't think it would be appropriate to reinstate his rights at the current time since there is a risk his actions could further escalate this issue rather than help to resolve it, particularly inn light of recent comments that Jimbo "must accept the community's decision" regarding Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments. It still seems that SBJ doesn't "get it". The "community" can have their say on things but they can't overrule the WMF board on what is and what isn't appropriate. His apparent failure to recognise that the community of any WMF project can never have completely free rein over what goes on is concerning.
 * I've seen some describe the WMF projects as a dictatorship, presumably with Jimbo in charge. I think a better analogy would be that of a constitutional monarchy like that of the United Kingdom. The Queen (Jimbo/WMF board) is ultimately in charge but the citizens (community) elect officials (custodians/admins) to make decisions and look after day to day affairs. The Queen could dismiss the government if she wanted, just as Jimbo/the WMF can get involved in affairs if they consider to do so in the interests of the WMF. The community is only the group of users active on a project at a moment in time. The unfortunate reality is that those individuals might not be able to agree on something which could ultimately be in the interests of the project or the wider WMF. It is in those situations where direct intervention by Jimbo/the WMF might be considered and presumably what was felt to be the case here. Adambro 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Last time I look, the WMF has long tried hard to maintain the stance that they are, technically, only a host and are not responsible for the contents. The board of trustees for sure has the right to do what they see fit to whatever they see.  However, jimbo wales' simply do not have god-king status on Wikiversity.  It is neither written in ink, nor ever discussed seriously, nor a custom.  Mind you, Adam, Wales launched the wikiversity in august 2006, but the true Founders of Wikiversity are our fellow Wikiversiters, like Sebmol, Cormaggio, Wisewoman and JWSchmidt.   Wales' one principal contribution is to agree to kick (English) Wikiversity out of (English) Wikibooks, making it necessary to form a new independent project.   In fact, I had wished Wales to come by, to contribute in the building of contents, perhaps something like The idea of Wikipedia, or The problems we faced in building Wikipedia.    Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 22:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


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

Scope
Two issues are becoming clearer for me:
 * 1) Scope: Whether or not the deleted material was within the project's scope. I think I need guidance from those who think it is out of scope - can you offer a generic guideline which can be used in similar cases? What line did this material cross? Can you point to relevant WMF and/or WV policy - or failing that, propose changes to policy?
 * 2) Process: Some believe that the material was of such a nature that it should be deleted on sight; others that the material was of such a nature that it warranted community discussion and action by consensus. Again, I would appreciate guidance about what is the relevant general principle here? When to act alone vs. when to consult community? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Good questions. I think the Wikiversity community in general could use some guidance on this. If the Wikiversity community doesn't understand where the line is being drawn people will likely cross that line again and the Wikiversity community will likely do nothing about it again, or worse people may overreact and delete works that haven't crossed the line. I think the deleted material was within Wikiversity's scope myself. I have some questions myself with regards to scope:

 * Is social research out of scope?
 * Is social sampling out of scope?
 * Are any of these social research methods out of scope?
 * Are experiments out of scope?
 * Are observations out of scope?
 * Is ethics as a topic out of scope?
 * Is ethics as a research topic out of scope?
 * Are non-notable topics out of scope?
 * Are non-notable people, places, and things out of scope?
 * Is research on non-notable people, places, and things out of scope?
 * Is Wikipedia as a topic out of scope?
 * Is Wikipedia as a research topic out of scope?
 * Is investigating Wikipedia out of scope?
 * -- dark lama  11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the deleted material was within the scope as currently defined, which is part of the problem. Jimbo and others feel that it was clearly trolling and supportive of trolling, even though it was written in the form of a research project.  Effective trolling  manages to frustrate others while abiding by the letter of existing policy.
 * To your specific questions, I think that social research involving experimenting on groups of people, online or otherwise, or any research that would normally require review at a public institution, should not be considered until a Review Board has been set up. –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those things, per se, are necessarily out of scope. But trolling is out of scope. I do not have a magical answer for you, but I think the best way to approach this kind of question is to understand that there are no magical answers. There is no mathematical formula for the identification of trolling. But a workshop on how to disrupt Wikipedia - including a page called "planning" is just not even close. What is necessary, I think, is a policy against trolling and a willingness to say "we are going to make judgment calls and we are going to be strict about it". One of the factors, though by no means dispositive and by no means the only factor, will be to look at who is doing the writing and what their purpose is. If you have banned and sanctioned users from Wikipedia writing allegedly purely academic research on how to disrupt Wikipedia, you can bet that they are just doing what they always do - disrupting our communities to make a point.--Jimbo Wales 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm glade to hear you write that none of those things are out of scope. That is a bit of a relief for me. Wikiversity has No shrines for vandals. I am afraid that even with a policy specifically about trolling that this would still have happened. I believe people did make a strict judgment call and concluded the work was not about how to disrupt Wikipedia. With that in mind should Wikiversity process be to delete works that is in the judgment of people from Wikipedia and other projects disruptive? How to deal with the differences in how people judge works? Finally, what would be required for this specific work to be undeleted and privatemusings unblocked? Is there any way that can happen? -- dark lama  16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ethical breaching experiments" is not even remotely close to a valid topic. Perhaps our views on what amounts to a "strict judgment call" may be very far apart at the moment, but we can work to close the gap.

"Improving Wikipedia quality" is a valid topic. "How to prevent 'experiments' including hoaxes and 'breaching'" is a valid topic. The point here is that there is a way to look at real issues in a positive, constructive way - and a way to simply be a troll. There is no way to get those topics deleted, and Privatemusings can contact me privately to discuss conditions for his reinstatement.--Jimbo Wales 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe that our views on what the "Ethical breaching experiment" topic meant is entirely different. I think that may explain why our views on what amounts to a "strict judgment call" may appear to be very far apart at the moment. Do you consider "What motivates people to experiment with breaching and including hoaxes" or "Why do people include hoaxes and breach projects" valid topics? I believe both those topics were apart of what the work was trying to examine/explore. I believe because the work was attempting to explore several questions a more general topic name was picked. -- dark lama  17:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Both of those could be, in theory, valid topics.--Jimbo Wales 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am still confused. I don't understand what/where the problem is. Should Breaching experiments be deleted? What makes Breaching experiments a more acceptable topic than "Ethical breaching experiments"? I think the Wikiversity page was in my judgment trying to look at real issues in a positive and constructive way. Some people that add hoaxes or test the integrity of a system seem to believe that what they are doing is ethical. What name would you give to a topic intended to study, question, and/or understand this perspective? Would you not include "ethical" or "ethics" in the name of the topic? Is there more involved than just the choice made on what to call this topic? How was the Wikiversity page not looking at real issues? How was the Wikiversity page not constructive? How would you have covered the topic constructively? If you were researching this, what would you do differently? Would you have avoided studying, questioning, and/or understanding the perspectives of people who have added hoaxes or tested the integrity of a system? Would you have avoided interviewing people who had done these things in the past? Would you have avoided documenting what the interviewed people had to say? Would you have avoided trying to understand how people were able to succeed for a time? -- dark  lama  13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps this analogy may be helpful. A topic at Wikiversity called "How to successfully and ethically rob a bank" would be bad.  A topic at Wikiversity called "Bank security and robbery prevention" would be ok.  I would say that it would be valid to have a page on "Detecting and preventing hoaxes in wikis," the primary focus of which would be to look at how such things can be stopped.  There is no more sensible argument in favor of an "ethical breaching experiment" than there is for an "ethical bank robbery" - that is to say, outside the realm of sophomoric debate.  Any project can be looked at holistically - taking into account the history of who created and contributed to it, how it was written, and why.--Jimbo Wales 14:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think "ethical bank robbery" may be a good analogy. Can you see how that name may be used as a general topic name, rather than a specific topic name? Can you see how "ethical bank robbery" in the general sense can be a reference to how bank robbers may perceive there own actions and not how the author of the work perceives the bank robber's actions? Can you see how that name may be used because the author is attempting to study bank robbery from the point of view of a bank robber without actually supporting bank robbery? Is there something unethical about trying to understand a topic from someone else's point of view? I can see how trying to understand a bank robber's perspectives could be misunderstood in some contexts by others. Can you?
 * I think the problem here is how the work was written was still being developed because the wiki model exposes work-in-progress. I think unless someone does all there planning off project work-in-progress will be exposed and what people think is going on can be misunderstood. Wikiversity tries to encourage people to do there research planning on wiki so that people can contribute to the planning process, and so that all parts of the research process is as transparent as possible. This means if you were trying to do research that involves putting yourself in someone else's shoes that at first look it could look like you share the same values as the people whose shoes your trying to wear. If people happen not to like those values this could get you into trouble if the community is not willing to take the time to understand what the intent of the research is about. Does this mean some smart trolls with bad intentions may get through the cracks, sure. I'm not sure what the Wikiversity community can really do about that without assuming bad faith which is currently against Wikiversity policy. How a work is written can change, but it shouldn't need to be perfect from the start because people aren't perfect. People may also not have a lot of time on their hands to immediate address concerns. -- dark lama  15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC) -- dark  lama  15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I can see myself making similar research mistakes in trying to understand someone else's perspectives. Under the current circumstances I would probably not even consider using Wikiversity in fear of being blocked myself. I know I would prefer that people worked with me, provided constructive help in what my mistakes were and where I went wrong, and have people help to correct any misconceptions, rather than be blocked or have the work deleted. I guess this is part of why I am so strongly able to give the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure what mistakes exactly privatemusing made or where he went wrong here, to be able to offer advice to other people on how to avoid similar situations in the future. That is part of why I wanted to know what you would have done differently. -- dark lama  15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


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

Start of review
Several hours ago, User:Jimbo Wales deleted 2 subpages (this and this of the Wikimedia Ethics project, apparently in response to a request on Wikipedia. I left a note on RCA when I first saw it, and have since discussed it on IRC and found the discussion on his WP talk. He also indef blocked the primary contributor to the page.

It's quite clear to me that this is out of process:
 * 1) The project does seem to fall within Wikiversity's scope, as established by precedent in numerous and exhaustive discussions surrounding most of the other pages in the Wikimedia Ethics project. As this page was primarily simply an investigation into breaching projects that have taken place on Wikipedia, it is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia studies.
 * 2) Unlike the materials in that project that were found to be objectionable, this was because they were perceived to be attacks or inappropriate criticism of individual Wikipedia editors. This page does not do that.
 * 3) Since the page seems within scope and I didn't see anything in User:Privatemusings' other contributions, the block was inappropriate as well.
 * 4) The only "background" to this seems to be this note on Jimbo's WP talk page, which is insufficient reason for the actions he performed here.

While Jimmy is perhaps deservedly venerated by some or our community, I don't think we would let this stand if any of our Custodians went outside of process in this fashion, and he should go by the same standards that we do. I would like to have a community review of this to settle the following:
 * 1) Does this project lie within our scope (it seems to fit within current policy, therefore this can't be resolved at WV:RFD).
 * 2) Should User:Jimbo Wales be required to engage in community discussion before using sysop tools? (He has neither gone through mentorship nor an RFA here, and is hardly an active contributor.

 * Thank you. I agree completely and would like to emphasize that what I want to do here is empower this community to have stronger policies against this kind of trolling and disruption.  You have important work to do here.  One of the most important ways to build a community is to set down very clearly what you are NOT.  Strong community does not come from an "anything goes" attitude - but from rallying around a set of principles that define the mission in such a way that productive work can be accomplished.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Jimmy, the main policy that went through for dealing with these situations was Community Review/Policy and process, which is why we're here now. Various limiting policies were discussed as well, but we couldn't come to agreement on a line that wouldn't end up throwing out babies in the bathwater, so case-by-case discussions and the following of precedent were adopted to allow better flexibility. --SB_Johnny talk 12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I haven't seen the pages you deleted Jim, nor am I familiar with any history that may be regurgitating in this discussion (I'm pretty new to WV). But I'm guessing the two pages were offensive in some fundamental way, and that a Wikimedia Foundation policy generally was enough to justify the deletion..? If it was simply troll content, would a policy necessarily have addressed the issue? I take it a no-deletion policy is now considered not possible? Perhaps its the experience of others that such a liberal policy only feeds trolls, I dunno. In my experience it is weak and premature policy that feeds trolls.

 * What I'm mostly wondering is if it is a policy that is needed to "empower" this community, or more support for the community in the first place so that we can realistically create policy? As I've said, I am new to the community, but on seeing mention of the WMF Board discussing the closure of Wikiversity, my commitment to helping build this community is wavering. So, you could say you and the board is presently disempowering a community and prolonging the absence of policy therefore.

 * I am not saying 'keep out of it' quite the opposite. I'm asking for a clearer indication of what you think the Board expects, what their commitment is to Wikiversity, and what they think they can do to help strengthen the community and not undermine it. I think a statement such as this is now needed more than ever if empowerment is what its about. Thanks Leighblackall 06:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This wasn't a Board action; it was a personal intervention by Jimbo, followed by a discussion with the Board in parallel with this discussion here. –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi Leighblackall, the pages were Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments and Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments/planning. Sorry for the confusion. --SB_Johnny talk 12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts on these issues. --SB_Johnny talk 13:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Endorse deletion and the right of Jimbo, as a member of the WMF board, to take actions such as this as he considers appropriate and in the interests of this project or sister projects. The block, or more specifically the length of the block, is perhaps excessive. On the material in question, that something may be in scope, or at least as it is currently set out, does not mean it is appropriate. In my view, most of the "Wikimedia Ethics" work that we've seen has been misguided and poorly thought out. This is simply the latest example. Discussions about such content can be carried out at WV:RFD. Just because content doesn't necessarily fall outside any guidelines it doesn't mean we can't consider deleting it at RFD.
 * I would acknowledge that it would be helpful if Jimbo could explain his reasons for taking these actions. I can fully understand why he has done but it would be useful for everyone to have a clear statement about this situation that can provide guidance as to what future work is and isn't appropriate.
 * I think a few in the community here are being naive to think we can reasonably expect to host projects such as this or should consider doing. These kinds of projects are clearly going to be controversial and as a small project I don't believe we really have the policies, guidelines, and processes in place to deal with any problems that will inevitably arise. We would be much better focusing on creating learning resources that have a much wider appeal to the public and aren't going to cause as much hassle. I think people are perhaps attracted by the excitement of these kinds of project but blind to reality of the consequences. We've seen Wikiversity try to act as the Court of the Wikimedia Foundation and analyse conflicts that have occurred elsewhere and inevitably found users turning up irritated about that. We now have attempts to organise sock puppetry and similar "experiments" on our sister projects that would violate their policies and some seen unable to foresee that might not go well.
 * Nothing of any value would come from allowing this project to continue here. Jimbo is completely right to try to nip this in the bud to allow us to concentrate on creating proper learning resources that might be of use to someone. Adambro 13:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's undeniably true that the WMF board could grant its members individual rights to do pretty much anything on WMF projects. I don't believe for a moment that they would ever actually pass such a motion though. Board membership is a red herring here. 87.254.92.101 14:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Adambro's comments:
 * Jimbo clearly did not have time to discuss this with the board, and his current position is honorary in any case. He's also not supposed to interfere with content in this manner according to the general rules (and/or laws) of the game. I should also point out that other pages in that project failed to be deleted at RFD because there was no policy to exclude them, and these pages are arguably less offensive than some of the others were.
 * From what I understand (and I've also read some of Privatemusings' comments on the project at Wikipedia Review), the goal here is to examine the ethics of these "breaching experiments". The experiments were already going on (and I suspect continue to this day), so there's no harm discussing them and documenting them. On the contrary, having them in an open document like this should be helpful for those who are on the other side and are looking for ways to prevent the breaches and/or the problems the experiments are meant to expose.
 * As far as Jimbo having free rein here, I should point out that the last time he got involved turned out to have very destructive consequences for the community, and in fact he was less than honest in his description of the "endorsement" he recieved from the 'crats. He needs to discuss things in the open, on the wiki, with the full participation of the community. His status as founder does not give him license to act unilaterally on this wiki. --SB_Johnny talk 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My similar deletion
This is a page I deleted. It was a socking guide. I deleted it with a user page statement as to the reason why. Discussion can be found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, as the primary admin who first took it upon himself to deal with this issue on March 1st, I am sadden that no one came to me first, especially when I deleted the most harmful of the material. I find it odd how my deletion was ignored in the original discussion, and that it seems as if Wikiversity took no steps towards correcting the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I'm glad you've been on the case, but I don't understand what your issue is here. Who was supposed to come to you, and what were you expecting?
 * From my perspective, the issue here is how it was handled by Jimbo, and what we should do from here. --SB_Johnny talk 20:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This shows that RTG knew of my deletion and instead of coming to me, went to Jimbo and acted as if no action was taken about the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I rolled back one of RTG's contribs as trolling. If you feel more response is required, you should make the response. --SB_Johnny talk 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
User:Solstag

Welcome!

My friends call me Ale. My enemies never call me, so hopefully I have none. ;D

You'll find links to my pages in other language Wikiversities at the bottom of the sidebar, and here for my ORCiD.

To get in touch with me, leave a message on my discussion page or through my personal social channel.

Current projects [en]
Semi-exhaustive list ;-)

CyberGen, a mixed-methods branch of the larger project.

COSH: Collaboration in the development of Open Science Hardware

Argentina169: investigating the interaction of social movements and academia on the issue of pesticides in Argentina

Mapping WAYS-OUT: how the problematic of destabilization and phase-out appears throughout the social sciences.

AIREG: mapping policy discourse around the regulation of artificial intelligence.

OSH-QA - measuring the openness qualities of scientific publications of Open Hardware.

Past
Only projects whose content was hosted on English language Wikiversity.

The dynamics and social organization of innovation in the field of oncology

ContentMine in Open Global Health - A short experimental project awarded a ContentMine fellowship.

E-participation in the EuroDIG - A short project executed during the final phase of the IGCB Programme of the Diplo Foundation

Presentations
See User:Solstag/Presentations.

Past
ContentMine

Open Global Health

Past
Open Global Health ContentMine Fellowship Application

/OCSDNet Proposal/ - Understanding and strengthening the development impact of community based knowledge production spaces by combining ethnographic and data analysis of their evolution as a collaboration network.

OCSDNet Proposal with Sarita and Jenny - Social development from open and collaborative science communities.

E-participation and Internet Governance - A research proposal prepared for the final phase of the IGCB Programme of the Diplo Foundation.

Portuguese Wikipedia Qualitative Researcher - A research proposal in response to Wikimedia Foundation's RFP.

Spreading health information and behaviour through social media seeded by a national survey in Brazil

/Refusing Intellectual Property/ - How could the State recognize and empower free-as-in-freedom authors, and how could these authors make it happen?

Comments
Trust transitivity in social networks - minor notes about a paper in arXiv from Oliver Richters and Tiago P. Peixoto.

pt:Utilizador:Solstag fr:Utilisateur:Solstag

title: User:Solstag


text:
Using social media for teaching and research/Header

The University of Canberra (UC) brings you: Social media in teaching and research A series of live streamed and recorded seminars demonstrating how people at UC and afield are using social media in their teaching and research.


text:
User:Egm6341.s2010.Team1.lei/HW5

For HW5,I am responsible for 3 problems: (1)27-1; (1)28-2 and (1)29-3.

=Problem 2-Pf of Trap.error =

Find
Do steps 4ab to find $$ p_{6}(t),p_{7}(t)\,$$

Given
[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg26.djvu|p.26-1]],[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg26.djvu|p.26-2]],[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg26.djvu|p.26-3]]

Solution
Step 4a [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg26.djvu|p.26-3]]

$$ E= \,[\,p_{2}(t)g^{(1)}(t)+p_{4}(t)g^{(3)(t)}\,]_{-1}^{+1}\,-\,\underbrace{\left (\int_{-1}^{+1}p_{5}(t)g^{(5)}(t)dt\right)}_{B}\,$$

$$ B=\,[\,p_{6}(t)g^{(5)}(t)\,]_{-1}^{+1}\,-\,\underbrace{\left (\int_{-1}^{+1}p_{6}(t)g^{(6)}(t)dt\right)}_{C}\,$$

$$ p_{6}(t)=\int p_{5}(t)dt = \int -\frac{t^{5}}{120}+\frac{t^{3}}{36}-\frac{7t}{360}dt \,$$

$$ =-\frac{t^{6}}{720}+\frac{t^{4}}{144}-\frac{7t^{2}}{720}+\alpha \,$$

Step 4b [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg26.djvu|p.26-2]]

$$ C=\,[\,p_{7}(t)g^{(6)}(t)\,]_{-1}^{+1}\,-\,\int_{-1}^{+1}p_{7}(t)g^{(7)}(t)dt\,$$

$$ p_{7}(t)=\int p_{6}(t)dt = \int -\frac{t^{6}}{720}+\frac{t^{4}}{144}-\frac{7t^{2}}{720}+\alpha dt \,$$

$$ =-\frac{t^{7}}{5040}+\frac{t^{5}}{720}-\frac{7t^{3}}{2160}+\alpha t+\beta \,$$

Select $$ p_{7}(t)\,$$ st $$ p_{7}(+1)=0,p_{7}(-1)=0,p_{7}(0)=0 \, $$

$$ \Rightarrow \beta=0, \alpha=\frac{31}{15120}\, $$

Summary: steps 4ab

$$ p_{6}(t)=-\frac{t^{6}}{720}+\frac{t^{4}}{144}-\frac{7t^{2}}{720}+\frac{31}{15120} \,$$

$$ p_{7}(t)=-\frac{t^{7}}{5040}+\frac{t^{5}}{720}-\frac{7t^{3}}{2160}+\frac{31t}{15120}\,$$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

 * style="width:50%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * $$ \displaystyle
 * $$ \displaystyle

p_{6}(t)=-\frac{t^{6}}{720}+\frac{t^{4}}{144}-\frac{7t^{2}}{720}+\frac{31}{15120}, p_{7}(t)=-\frac{t^{7}}{5040}+\frac{t^{5}}{720}-\frac{7t^{3}}{2160}+\frac{31t}{15120}\,$$ $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * }
 * }

=Problem 5-Deriv.Trap.rule error =

Find
Deriv.(1)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg27.djvu|p.29-1]]

Given
(4)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|p.21-2]]

$$ E= \int_{-1}^{+1}p_{1}(t)g^{(1)}(t)dt = [P_2(t)g^{(1)}(t)]_{-1}^{+1}-\int_{-1}^{+1}P_2(t)g^{(2)}(t)dt \,$$

Solution
From the (4)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|p.21-2]],we can get the generalized form:

$$ E= \int_{-1}^{+1}p_{1}(t)g^{(1)}(t)dt \,$$

$$ =[p_{2}g^{1}+p_{4}g^{3}+...+p_{2l}g^{(2l-1)}]_{-1}^{+1}-\int_{-1}^{+1}p_{2l}(t)g^{(2l)}(t)dt \,$$

Recall that

$$ [p_{2}(t)g^{1}]_{-1}^{+1}=p_{2}(+1)g^{1}(+1)-p_{2}(-1)g^{1}(-1)\,$$

where $$ p_{2}\,$$ is even func.

$$\Rightarrow p_{2}(-1)=p_{2}(+1)\, $$

thus

$$ [p_{2}(t)g^{1}]_{-1}^{+1}=p_{2}(+1)[g^{1}(+1)-g^{1}(-1)]\, $$

and $$ p_{2i}\,$$ is even func.

$$\Rightarrow E=\underbrace{\left (\sum_{r=1}^{l} p_{2r}(+1)[g^{2r-1}(+1)-g^{2r-1}(-1)]\right)}_{A}-\underbrace{\left (\int_{-1}^{+1}p_{2l}(t)g^{2l}(t)dt\right)}_{B}\, $$

next, we should change varible t into x

from (3) [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|p.21-2]]

$$ g_{k}^{(i)}(t)=(\frac{h}{2})^{i}f^{(i)}(x(t)), [\,x_k,x_{k+1}\,]\,$$

$$ \Rightarrow g^{(2r-1)}(+1)=(\frac{h}{2})^{2r-1}f^{(2r-1)}(x_{k+1})\, $$

$$ \Rightarrow g^{(2r-1)}(-1)=(\frac{h}{2})^{2r-1}f^{(2r-1)}(x_{k})\, $$

Recall (3) [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg27.djvu|p.27-1]]

$$ \overline{d_{2r}} = \frac{p_{2r}(+1)}{2^{2r}}\, $$

$$ \Rightarrow p_{2r}(+1)=\overline {d_{2r}}*2^{2r}\, $$

thus $$ A \,$$ can be changed into

$$ A=\sum_{r=1}^{l} 2\overline{d_{2r}} h^{2r-1}[f^{2r-1}(x_{k+1})-f^{2r-1}(x_{k})]\,$$

from (3) [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|p.21-2]]

$$ g_{k}^{(i)}(t)=(\frac{h}{2})^{i}f^{(i)}(x(t)), [\,x_k,x_{k+1}\,]\,$$

$$ g_{k}^{(2l)}(t)=(\frac{h}{2})^{2l}f^{(2l)}(x)\, $$

thus $$ B\, $$ can be changed into

$$ B=\frac{h^{2l}}{2^{2l}}\int_{x_k}^{x_{k+1}}p_{2l}(t_{k}(x))f^{(2l)}(x)(\frac{2}{h})dx \, $$

Recall trap.rule error is in (5)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|P21-1]]

$$ E_{n}^{1}=\frac{h}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}[\int_{-1}^{+1}g_{k}(t)dt-(g_{k}(-1)+g_{k}(+1))]\,$$

Plug A and B into the equation $$\displaystyle E_n^1$$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

\begin{align} E^1_n & = \left(\frac{h}{2}\right)\sum_{r=1}^{\ell} p_{2r}(+1) \left(\frac{h}{2}\right)^{2r-1} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \Big[f^{(2r-1)}(x_{k+1})-f^{(2r-1)}(x_k)\Big]- \frac{h}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left[   \int_{x_k}^{x_{k+1}}p_{2l}(t_k(x))\left(\frac{h}{2}\right)^{2\ell}f^{(2\ell)}(x)\frac{2}{h} dx \right]\\ &= \sum_{r=1}^{\ell} h^{2r} \frac{p_{2r}(+1)}{2^{2r}} \Big[f^{(2r-1)}(x_{n})-f^{(2r-1)}(x_0)\Big]-  \left(\frac{h}{2}\right)^{2\ell} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left[ \int_{x_k}^{x_{k+1}}p_{2\ell}(t_k(x))f^{(2\ell)}(x) dx \right] \end{align} $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 * }.
 * }.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

E^1_n = \sum_{r=1}^{\ell} h^{2r} \overline{d}_{2r} \Big[f^{(2r-1)}(b)-f^{(2r-1)}(a)\Big]-  \left(\frac{h}{2}\right)^{2\ell} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left[ \int_{x_k}^{x_{k+1}}p_{2\ell}(t_k(x))f^{(2\ell)}(x) dx \right] $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 * }
 * }

=Problem 9-Recurrence formula =

Find
Use (6)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg29.djvu|p.29-2]] to obtain $$ (p_{2},p_{3}),(p_{4},p_{5}),(p_{6},p_{7})\,$$

Given
Using $$ p_{1}(t)=-t,i.e.,c_{1}=-1 \, $$

Solution
(6)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg29.djvu|p.29-2]]

$$ \frac{c_{1}}{(2i+1)!}+\frac{c_{3}}{(2i-1)!}+\frac{c_{5}}{(2i-3)!}+...+\frac{c_{2i-1}}{3!}+c_{2i+1}=0\, $$

when $$ i=1 \,$$

$$ \frac{c_{1}}{3!}+c_{3}=0\, $$

Recall $$ p_{1}(t)=-t,i.e.,c_{1}=-1 \, $$

$$ \Rightarrow c_{3}=\frac{1}{6}\, $$

when $$ i=2 \,$$

$$ \frac{c_{1}}{5!}+\frac{c_{3}}{3!}+c_{5}=0\, $$

Recall $$ c_{3}=\frac{1}{6}\, $$

$$ \Rightarrow c_{5}=-\frac{7}{360}\, $$

when $$ i=3 \,$$

$$ \frac{c_{1}}{7!}+\frac{c_{3}}{5!}+\frac{c_{5}}{3!}+c_{7}=0\, $$

Recall $$ c_{5}=-\frac{7}{360}\, $$

$$ \Rightarrow c_{7}=\frac{31}{15120}\, $$

From (1)and (3)[[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg29.djvu|p.29-2]]

$$ p_{2i}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{i}c_{2j+1}\frac{t^{2(i-j)}}{[2(i-j)]!}\, $$

$$ p_{2i+1}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{i}c_{2j+1}\frac{t^{2(i-j)+1}}{[2(i-j)+1]!}+c_{2i+2}\, $$

where $$ c_{2i+2}=0\, $$

thus when $$ i=1 \,$$

$$ p_{2}=c_{1}\frac{t^{2}}{2!}+c_{3}=-\frac{t^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\,$$

$$ p_{3}=c_{1}\frac{t^{3}}{3!}+c_{3}t=-\frac{t^{3}}{6}+\frac{1t}{6}\,$$

when $$ i=2 \,$$

$$ p_{4}=c_{1}\frac{t^{4}}{4!}+c_{3}\frac{t^{2}}{2!}+c_{5}=-\frac{t^{4}}{24}+\frac{t^{2}}{12}-\frac{7}{360}\,$$

$$ p_{5}=c_{1}\frac{t^{5}}{5!}+c_{3}\frac{t^{3}}{3!}+c_{5}t=-\frac{t^{5}}{120}+\frac{t^{3}}{36}-\frac{7t}{360}\,$$

when $$ i=3 \,$$

$$ p_{6}=c_{1}\frac{t^{6}}{6!}+c_{3}\frac{t^{4}}{4!}+c_{5}\frac{t^{2}}{2!}+c_{7}=-\frac{t^{6}}{720}+\frac{t^{4}}{144}-\frac{7t^{2}}{720}+\frac{31}{15120}\,$$

$$ p_{7}=c_{1}\frac{t^{7}}{7!}+c_{3}\frac{t^{5}}{5!}+c_{5}\frac{t^{3}}{3!}+c_{7}t=-\frac{t^{7}}{5040}+\frac{t^{5}}{720}-\frac{7t^{3}}{2160}+\frac{31t}{15120}\,$$

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

 * style="width:50%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * $$ \displaystyle
 * $$ \displaystyle

p_{2}=-\frac{t^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{6}, p_{3}=-\frac{t^{3}}{6}+\frac{1t}{6}\,$$ $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

 * style="width:50%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * $$ \displaystyle
 * $$ \displaystyle

p_{4}=-\frac{t^{4}}{24}+\frac{t^{2}}{12}-\frac{7}{360}, p_{5}=-\frac{t^{5}}{120}+\frac{t^{3}}{36}-\frac{7t}{360}\,$$ $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

 * style="width:50%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * $$ \displaystyle
 * $$ \displaystyle

p_{6}=-\frac{t^{6}}{720}+\frac{t^{4}}{144}-\frac{7t^{2}}{720}+\frac{31}{15120}, p_{7}=-\frac{t^{7}}{5040}+\frac{t^{5}}{720}-\frac{7t^{3}}{2160}+\frac{31t}{15120}\,$$ $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * }
 * }

title: User:Egm6341.s2010.Team1.lei/HW5


text:
Instructional design/Rapid Prototyping/Introduction

Traditional ISD

 * Most traditional design models follow the basic ADDIE model in a linear fashion, as the diagram below indicates. Each step is usually well-defined and separated from one another.

What is Rapid Prototyping?

 * Rapid Prototyping is the "process of quickly building and evaluating a series of prototypes" early and often throughout the design process. Prototypes are usually incomplete examples of what a final product may look like. Each time a prototype is used, a formative evaluation gathers information for the next, revised prototype. This cycle continues to refine the product until the final needs and objectives are met. The following diagram demonstrates the non-linear nature of Rapid Prototyping.

Example of Rapid Prototyping

 * Below is an example of Rapid Prototyping in product development. As you watch, ask yourself how you can apply some of the rudimentary strategies used in the video in the design of your instruction:

Proceed to the next page.


text:
User:Kamlesh Kumar

Kamlesh Kumar January01,1980. Village-Bhadher, P.O.-Kuja Balh, Tehsil-Sarkaghat, District-Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, India-176090.

title: User:Kamlesh Kumar


text:
User talk:Cybil1836

 Hello Cybil1836, 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 project.
 * Browse 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 07:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 07:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cybil1836


text:
User talk:Vahc

 Hello Vahc, 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 project.
 * Browse 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vahc


text:
User talk:Totalimortal

 Hello Totalimortal, 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 project.
 * Browse 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Totalimortal


text:
User talk:Samratdeepak

 Hello Samratdeepak, 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 project.
 * Browse 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 07:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samratdeepak


text: Category:Rapid Prototyping

title: Category:Rapid Prototyping