User talk:Moulton/Archive 8.9.14

From Wikiversity

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello Moulton, 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


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! ---- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mascot welcome

Hi! Our name is Vicky-Verity. We are twins and are Wikiversity mascots. We think Wikiversity is a great place to learn and make friends (when we aren't sleeping). Leave us a message!

Archives[edit]

Resumption of Interrupted Dialogue[edit]

Yesterday, several productive and constructive dialogues underway on Meta-Wiki were abruptly and precipitously disrupted by a disinterested Admin who had not seen fit to suffer WAS 4.250 and myself a collegial, congenial, and sociable dialogue.

Here, I will resume the dialogue that WAS 4.250 and I had underway at that time.

FeloniousMonk Misses the Mark Again[edit]

In his latest edit to the BLP on David Berlinski, FeloniousMonk characterizes Berlinski as "a leading proponent of ID and author of numerous articles on the topic."

To support this, FeloniousMonk cites the bibliography of Berlinski's writings, as hosted on the DI web site. Among the 31 listed articles by Berlinski, there are but two that touch on Intelligent Design. If you open the PDF of the only one that includes the term "Intelligent Design" in the title and take a minute to read it, you find this opening paragraph of Berlinski:

Template:Quotation

In other words, he's a harsh critic of both models, because they each fail (in their own idiosyncratic ways) in their explanatory and predictive power regarding the origin and complexity of life as we know it.

Or, as Nathan Salthe puts it, "A pox on both their houses."

Moulton 12:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism#anti-Darwin but pro all natural evolution WAS 4.250 17:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. The main complaint of critics like Berlinski is that Darwin's Model isn't even wrong. By that, he means it's a weak theory in terms of its explanatory and predictive power. It's like espousing a theory that says, "now and then the sun rises in the morning in the east." That's an example of theory that "isn't even wrong." It just doesn't tell us what we really want to know: exactly when and where to look for the sunrise on any given day at any given location on the earth. Darwin's theory has an interesting mechanism (which isn't really explained until we learn about DNA), but it still doesn't tell us what we scientists really want to know. We want a mathematical model of the stochastic dynamics of punctuated equilibrium. We don't yet know enough about the mechanisms of random variation and natural selection to produce such a stochastic model. If you read Berlinski's papers or watch his videos, that (valid) criticism comes through loud and clear. ID is in even worse shape. ID doesn't even have any explanatory power at all. Without explanatory and (quantitative) predictive power, a theory doesn't quite rise to what we expect of a good scientific model. —Moulton 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the same page. We appear to agree. I wanted to add that to the extent ID or creationism has any predictive properties, it predicts stuff that is proven not to be true. DNA mechanisms are spaghetti code as blind evolution would predict and not as designed evolution would predict. WAS 4.250 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:David Berlinski#he rejects ID and creationism as much as he rejects current evolution theory Whoops. Gotta put it in a new section. WAS 4.250 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo again. See also the section I had put in, back in August. —Moulton 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Hrafn and Odd nature missed the mark, too[edit]

Well la-de-da. After 10 months, Hrafn finally finally discovers the passage where David Berlinski says (three times) that he rejects ID. Which would have been obvious if he had viewed the video that I raised to his attention last September...

But evidently Hrafn (and Odd nature) summarily dismissed that definitive source material, as can be seen in their uninformed remarks a little further down the talk page. Earlier in that video, Berlinski reviews what we expect of a scientific model — namely explanatory and predictive power. The predictive power comes primarily from the mathematical component of a scientific model. Given his criticism of Darwin's model for being weak on the mathematical prediction side, is it any surprise that he brooks no quarter for ID at all since it fails on both criteria. Not only does ID make no quantitative predictions, it has negligible explanatory power, other than to lamely suggest some intelligent agent must have been in the loop (because Nature is presumed to be too dumb to have done the job without some ingenious guiding hand at the helm). It's truly a leap of unsupported logic for FeloniousMonk to conclude from his criticism of Darwin's model that he's therefore a proponent of an even crummier excuse for a respectable scientific model.

See also this colloquy with Wikipedian Sage Ross, from Yale University.

What I conclude is that FeloniousMonk, Hrafn, and Odd nature are astonishingly ignorant and unacquainted with the thinking of the subject of the BLP whom they are so arrogantly writing about.

Moulton 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why They Signed

On the talk page about the infamous petition with the adoptive name, you write:

Template:Quotation

I only have the answer to that from but one of the signatories from 2001.

On Sunday, May 4th, when I alerted Rosalind Picard that Krimpet had edited her BLP, she responded to my message with a comment that included this:

I also asked her about what else was on the document besides the two sentences. She said it had been circulated in E-Mail in 2001, and simply said something like this: "Do you agree with these two sentences?" She had tried to find the original E-Mail from 2001, but after 6 years she was unable to locate it. I wrote the Discovery Institute asking them to exhibit the text of the original message as circulated in E-Mail in 2001, but I never heard back from them.

Moulton 23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Wikipedia?[edit]

A Gene Wiki for Community Annotation of Gene Function is interesting. Vickers (I mentioned him earlier) and other scientists are making use of Wikipedia in a way that helps justify my hopes that academia will increasingly be a force in WikiMedia projects. Every year we get more useful. WAS 4.250 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Eventually the utility of these different collaborative models and cultures will become clear. —Moulton 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the start of their efforts, the absolute number of edits on genes in the mammalian genome has doubled" [Archiving Information About The Human Genome Using Wikipedia] is certainly better than doubling the number of elephants! WAS 4.250 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where "Wikipedia" is now like "Kleenex" in which a specific (but well-known) brand of Wiki is used to describe any Wiki-based project at all. —Moulton 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand. As near as I can tell, you have not read the actual articles. Too much Slashdot? WAS 4.250 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. I had gone back to read it a second time and realized they really were using Wikipedia and not a newly launched site for Gene Wiki. My mistake. —Moulton 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"There are about 25,000 genes in the humane genome. We have 9,000 articles," said Andrew Su, one of those behind the "Gene Wiki" project from the Genomics Institute at the Novartis Research Foundation in San Diego, California. "Our goal is to provide a uniform starting point for all genes," he said, noting that afterwards it was up to other scientists to add information and keep it up to date, as happens now with Wikipedia entries. "The entire community will generate content and also oversee that content." [Wikipedia opens online library on human genes] This is how reasonable people treat Wikipedia in my opinion. I think it is a shame Jon Awbrey was unable to find a way to also fit in. You are doing a good job of influencing Wikipedia in a positive way by your own methods, which is fine as far as I am concerned. Things take time in open systems. WAS 4.250 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Awbrey and I are probably not all that atypical in terms of our academic qualifications to contribute to projects like Wikipedia in our respective fields of study. But most academics would not have the patience or perseverance of either of us to deal with the likes of Hrafn, Filll, ConfuciusOrnis, OrangeMarlin, Odd nature, Jim62sch, or FeloniousMonk. One of the reasons I persist is because I'm as much interested the dynamics of online communities as I am in the more conventional subjects that I might have ventured to write about. Jon and I chose considerably different approaches to deal with the systemic dysfunctionality of the English Wikipedia. Obviously the jury is still out on what approach rises to best ethical practices. I have to say that this is one of the more challenging and perplexing scenarios I've ever endeavored to tackle. Moulton 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)—[reply]
You say "Obviously the jury is still out on what approach rises to best ethical practices." Perhaps the problem lies in an ethics orientation versus a pragmatic orientation. I think of ethics as a rule of thumb for best practical objective behavior as it distills the wisdom of countless generations and is useful in providing insurance against the unknown. WAS 4.250 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday at the MIT Media Lab, I was sitting in a meeting with a prospective sponsor whose business is management consulting to major corporations. One of the speakers showed a slide that he called the "Alignment Model." The diagram was in the form of a circle, with elements such as organizational values, objectives, plans, strategies, tactics and results on one side, and feelings, methods, and practices on the other. In terms of methods and practices, I asked him about the balance between pragmatics (do what needs to be done to get results, the ends justify the means) and ethical best practices. The speaker went on at some length about the challenge of nudging managers from myopic pragmatism to get results (think of Enron as the worst case example) to sustainable best ethical practices. He said that when this issue comes up in his workshops with corporate managers, a question along these lines can transform a 30-minute meeting into an all-day seminar on corporate ethics. I asked him if we could dialogue further on this subject by E-Mail, as he has a lot more professional experience than me when it comes to injecting ethical reasoning into the day-to-day decisions of those exercising the power to make organization decisions. —Moulton 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. WAS 4.250 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for moving the conversation here. I guess this page serves as a forum for investigating possible learning projects. Considering your objectives, I would guess we might wind up with a learning project on Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia. Note that I just created that project. Feel free to develop it as you see fit. WAS 4.250 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Meantime, have you seen this? —Moulton 17:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to:

WAS 4.250 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified a couple of people about the existence of Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia:

WAS 4.250 17:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. And it also ties into the notion of the AGF Challenge. —Moulton 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the AGF Challenge?? Link?? WAS 4.250 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filll has been promoting an exercise on the English Wikipedia regarding Assume Good Faith. See, for example, this recently completed workshop. —Moulton 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember now. WAS 4.250 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, you might also want to notify Awadewit who was recently on Not the Wikipedia Weekly to discuss her academic research on the topic of Justice on Wikipedia. Privatemusings is also interested in the subject of Ethics on Wikpedia. —Moulton 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done WAS 4.250 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also told Kim Bruning about it. —Moulton 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, Kim recently contacted me on my talk page and asked me to get in contact via email. Are you able to shed any light on that or should we shrug and move on? WAS 4.250 04:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet dollars to donuts it's about this in relation to this. Kim was trying to figure out what happened on that occasion, and I didn't have enough information to help him solve the mystery. You were the only other person known to be attending closely to my talk page and linking sensitive information over to RfC/ID, so it would have made sense for him to go to you for the missing clues.
More recently, in E-Mail with Lar and Dan Tobias, we finally figured out that Toddst1 had evidently deleted the threads with the warnings from the two of them (Lar and Dan) before I ever had a chance to read them. Lar, even with his wizzy bits, cannot find Dan's warning message that he (Lar) had referred to in an E-Mail message on Jun 16th. And no, we should not shrug and move on. Almost everyone at AN/I assumed I had seen the two warnings from Lar and Dan, and had failed to heed them. That's because almost everyone else had seen my talk pages before I got around to looking at them late on the morning of June 16th. By the time I got there, the threads in question (which evidently must have included the two warnings) had been deleted. Thus I was convicted of not heeding a piece of information which the adversarial parties had removed from view before I had a chance to see it.
—Moulton 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's contradictory rules are crazy-making if you take them too seriously. Kind of like government laws. Ever seriously try to follow 'all government laws? You can't even get a copy of them all... WAS 4.250 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are indeed crazy-making if you happen to believe the misconception that rule-driven systems are inherently orderly, stable, and predictable. But I was one of the first to pay attention to the emergence of Chaos Theory and Fractals which reveals that one or two very simple rules, applied repeatedly, yields mathematical chaos, including those gorgeous fractals that Benoit Mandelbroit and others discovered early on. As you know, I've written a number of essays that celebrate the chaotic nature of recursion laws. My current frontier models drama as one of the more interesting outcomes of rule-driven systems. Among all my essays on the subject, the one that is most polished as a piece of writing is System Doom. Among my song parodies that lampoon the turkitude of rules, I'm rather fond of Three Little Jerks and Cruel from The Mistako by Dilbert and Sullivan. —Moulton 11:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia[edit]

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Brainstorming is coming along nicely. Could you see what you can do about providing some actual subpages that contain learning resource material on the ethical management of the English language Wikipedia - perhaps some sttuff you wrote about more general cases? Frankly, I have no idea how to teach ethics. What does a learning resource that does that look like? Please provide examples. Thanks. WAS 4.250 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can provide summaries (with links) to specific case studies where ethical issues arose. And I can provide links to commentaries and essays that speak to the general issue of ethics, without regard to any specific case. I might build some of these in my own userspace and then move them to the project space when they are ready. —Moulton 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Creating resources off wiki or in user subpages is useful in case of a mugging. That gives me another idea. Perhaps a project subpage called "Ethics Library? WAS 4.250 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When my colleague who teaches Ethics in Journalism comes back from her summer writing workshop, I'll ask her about tapping into the list of titles that she recommends to her students in Online Journalism. —Moulton 10:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add that to the timetable? WAS 4.250 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny's Sense of Ethics[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest WAS 4.250 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know if anyone raised this long-forgotten contest to Danny's attention at his blog (or elsewhere) and obtained a comment from him? —Moulton 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is what is in the section where I posted. I don't know those people so I don't know what to think for sure. Why don't you email Danny and ask him to comment to you or at that wikipedia page or on his blog? WAS 4.250 23:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note at his blog. —Moulton 00:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good show old chap. WAS 4.250 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and outing[edit]

I added a note about personal attacks on the project page. It is necessary that we not only set a good example, but be seen to be setting a good example. So please do not restore what was deleted on this page to this page,. Thanks.

On the other hand see http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&diff=293202&oldid=293060. Outing is to be avoided, but taking the "bad sites" war to this venue is inappropriate, so the management of this site will be responsible for maintaining their standards here. WAS 4.250 19:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What management? It's a wiki, anyone can police it, comment on it, et cetera. The rules of the Wikimedia Foundation that govern Wikipedia govern Wikiversity as well. In other words, if you want to practice outting in certain cases, please start a blog, or a new website. DutchHarbor 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of policing arises in the first four stages of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning. The 5th through 7th stages of their model transcend the notion of policing in favor of more evolved and enlightened concepts of ethical conduct. —Moulton 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I happen to live in the real world, not a Utopia (or Erewhon if you prefer) that exists solely in the mind; hence, while the dream may be soothing it is still but a dream. Additionally, given that at least one editor here is guilty of appearing to defend outting, I assume that the "transcendental" stage has yet to be achieved. DutchHarbor 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of engaging in a learning project such as the one WAS and I have started is to advance a notch or two closer to the asymptotic goal of best ethical practices. Martin Luther King had a dream, which still has not been fully realized. But some progress has been made in the forty years since his death. King, by the way, is said to have operated at Stage 6 of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder. —Moulton 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on WR[edit]

It's not GFDL, but there's no reason that we can't ask posters for permission to use their posts in this study. I see this as a non-problem myself. All we have to do is ask. The Fieryangel 21:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event ideas that we glean from conversations published elsewhere are not subject to copyright. We can paraphrase useful ideas in our own words and attribute them (as is the custom in academia) to the source. It is also customary to quote brief passages, with attribution, in scholarly research. More extensive inclusion of the work of others calls for permission to reprint.  :Moulton 06:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-purposes?[edit]

Hi Moulton. I saw your blog, and all I can say is that your songs seem more than a bit mean-spirited. However, I honor your dedication to the value of education and free thinking, so I'm going to "fight" for you, but not in the way WAS et al do, and I think it would be best if we could pull this particular yoke together.

As I said earlier, I'm very interested in what you seem to be trying to do. I'm also a bit disappointed in you, because so far you've paid way too much attention to the drama rather than to the learning. I'm available to use "sysop tools" such as import to help you along, but aside from that I'm definitely in the "student" category, and want to see if you can teach me something.

My job as a custodian is to clean up messes, take out the trash, and get things from the basement when someone needs them. My role as a checkuser is to expel people that make messes, and you really need to respect the boundaries there: that's my job, not yours.

My job as a "Wikiversity protagonist" is to do what I can to make sure that you can do your work without drama or outside interference. It would be most helpful if you could cooperate a bit by not responding to and/or inviting drama or outside interference. Just ignore the guys behind the curtains... we have our jobs, you have yours. It's a social contract that you and your colleages need to fulfill your side of. We'll meet our side of the bargain even if you don't meet yours, but it really would be nice if you did. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing song parodies is my therapy, Johnny. When I am dispirited from all the bashing, and find myself falling into a state of acedia and spiritual torpor, writing song parodies is my best medicine to lift my spirits. See, for example, an illustration of that effect here. The last time I paused to write a song parody was when the WikiClique on Intelligent Design blocked me on the English Wikipedia.
One of the reasons I've focused on the drama with respect to the culture on the English Wikipedia is because drama is the default method of education when all traditional methods of education have failed. See Cognition, Affect, and Learning for the the background theory. The current research frontier on that material is Drama Theory, which appears to be the method of choice when working with individuals who are resistant to conventional educational resources and teaching methods.
By the way, if you have a written social contract here, I'd love to read it and review it. I had sought, with notable lack of success, to suggest the idea of advancing to a Social Contract Model on the English Wikipedia. But the idea was summarily rejected in favor of something considerably lower down on the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder.
So one of the reasons I had not ignored or rebuffed those who were manifesting resistance to conventional educational processes was because I have been working in parallel with Maggie Martinez to discover how best to relate to that uncommonly difficult class of learner. That's my learning frontier, Johnny.
Moulton 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, I think you finally found the right wiki community, Moulton :-). Going to bed now, but I'll share some thoughts on the drama thing in the morning. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Moulton/MetaArchive[edit]

Wikiversity isn't supposed to be a mirror of content on other projects but this page seems to simply be that. What advantage does hosting this content here present to this project? Adambro 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That archived conversation from Meta-Wiki, which is the root of the project that WAS and I just launched, was in danger of being deleted on Meta-Wiki. WAS and I will be reprising bits and pieces of this conversation as we weave the material into the new project (and perhaps into other projects that I will be signing onto here). It's easier to Wikilink passages that are hosted locally, and it's more reliable, given the erratic and hostile attitude of the uncongenial admin on Meta-Wiki regarding the relevance of these conversations to the project we are contemplating here. —Moulton 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overview[edit]

Thanks for helping out on the overview. I just got an edit conflict there so to avoid stepping on each other, I'll let you work on it for today without me also editing it. I need to do other stuff now anyway. Be creative and don't be afraid to rethink the structure I started with if the muse moves you. WAS 4.250 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, go ahead. I'll go looking for some local templates for you. —Moulton 20:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in a few hours. Got stuff to do. Including a recent brainstorm on "suggested essays?" WAS 4.250 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. I'm lost. The template system seems impenetrable to me. We're gonna need a local expert to help us on getting the citation templates working. —Moulton 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete overhead that is not needed. WAS 4.250 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I have it now. Only the 空引用‎ (幫助)  template seems to work as advertised. The others seem to be broken. —Moulton 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work![edit]

Hey, great work so far. Thanks. I labeled two of the sections lesson 1 and 2. I look forward to lesson three. I'm ready for it, I think others are too. So anytime you get the time to create it... WAS 4.250 18:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a concise summary of John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance. —Moulton 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the lesson. We are touching here on the limits to ethics. Ethics is a part of evaluation of management processes. Pragmatic appraisal of effectiveness is also a part and political reality is a part of the limits. I'm not sure where to fit that into the overall sequence you have in mind. WAS 4.250 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that any organization, community, or system is falling short of best practices (in this case, best ethical practices), we have two problems to solve. The first is to identify and characterize the prevailing practices, and the second is to diagnose the obstacle to advancing the state of awareness, insight, or commitment to ascend the ladder to the next practical rung. Once we have the obstacle mapped out, we can brainstorm ideas for overcoming the obstacle. —Moulton 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There will necessarily be a variety of opinions on each of those issues. Think of this project like a project for sex education in a local high school. We need to be sensitive to a variety of community needs, beliefs and power structures in order to do any good. We will not come up with any one conclusion and recommendation. Instead we will provide a variety of learning resources for the community to draw upon. WAS 4.250 19:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "ban" on en.wikipedia[edit]

Are you going to contest this to the Arbitration Committee?? I don't know the full facts as I'm just a casual editor there, but I did notice your page was locked on meta, so couldn't leave you a message there. Thanks, AP aka --Sunstar NW XP 19:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have several protests already underway, all of which are festering, unresolved. See, in particular, AN/Moulton which is one of four or five such dangling reviews. The community is deeply divided over the issues that arise in my case. (Note that the issues are not uniquely idiosyncratic to me. I'm just one of the more visible players who have stumbled onto the same array of issues, which permeate the English Wikipedia.) Moulton 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also see m:User_talk:Moulton#Use_of_User_Page which includes:
Would you be kind enough to explain how an editor who is arbitrarily, capriciously, and summarily blocked without hearing and without review may post a Petition for Redress of Grievance on one of the applicable noticeboards, bringing suspected violations of core policy to the attention of responsible officials who might care to remediate the harm? —Moulton 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
That's already been done in your case. You had a chance at a Requests for Arbitration by arbcom and you blew it. You had a chance at the admin noticeboard which got you the right to edit your user page and you blew that. Everyone including yourself is now convinced that you should not be editing the English language wikipedia. We are objective oriented, and not Redress of Grievance oriented. Time and again we have asked you to identify something that we do that you wish done and you continually refer to Mu or things we don't do or are so vague that there is nothing to respond to. Your grievances have been heard. It is agreed that the process failed in your case but also agreed that the end result was appropriate. If there is some slur on your name you wish removed, we will do that; we do that all the time. But you appear to want to forever rehash a mistake. We don't do that. WR does that. You are well suited for WR. And we at Wikipedia read WR so you can rehash your mugging there forever and it will be read forever. Happy? WAS 4.250 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not happy. If I were happy, I wouldn't be engaged in this project, to introduce the concept of ethics into the Wikipedia culture. —Moulton 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I disagree with your view that I blew it. I asked ArbCom to opine as to whether I had been afforded Due Process. They declined to say. Then, half a year later, Giggy brought the question up again at AN/Moulton. This time Sam Korn answered on behalf of the silent ArbCom. He said I had not been afforded Due Process. I then asked if my case was a one-off fluke or business as usual. Lar answered that one and said no it was not an unusual example of miscarriage of justice, adding that Wikipedia doesn't even have a concept of Due Process, nor any commitment to provide it. You then characterized my experience as being mugged in Central Park. Those three observations (of Sam Korn, Lar, and WAS 4.250, respectively) were then reinforced in the recent OrangeMarlin case, proving by notorious example that Due Process does not obtain on the English Wikipedia, regardless of how powerful one's ochlocratic street gang may be. I claim that learning all that is a big advance that grounds this project better than anything you or I could ever have hoped for. —Moulton 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is right on the money. Too true. WAS 4.250 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia processes as of now don't include Redress of Grievance issues unrelated to article content or someone being able to contribute to article content. Perhaps this effort at WikiVersity will make manifest the need for such a thing. If so, we should have such processes up and running in no more than a year or two. :) WAS 4.250 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Greg organizing a betting pool as to which of us will die of old age first? —Moulton 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but he won't let me bet because he thinks I have inside information. WAS 4.250 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Review of Comments from Wikinews[edit]

I would happily review the comments made on Wikinews. Do you want me to write something about the comments somewhere on Wikiversity or reply to the comments made on Wikinews. Anonymous101 talk 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a long response here would be most helpful to us, and a brief remark and pointer back on the Wikinews Water Cooler, to make sure no one there misses the review here. —Moulton 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address a few of the concerns and review the comments in replies to Wikinews and a message to foundation-l. Anonymous101 talk 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go take a look. —Moulton 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Importing"[edit]

Hi Moulton. I noticed that you said that this was "imported". That's not actually correct... you just copied it. I (or any other custodian) can do a "proper import" of that page or any other page using the import tool. Files that are imported have the entire edit history brought over, meaning that you can point to diffs, etc., or just look at the page's history to see who contributed. Not sure if protection logs are imported... I've never imported a page with a protection log.

Assuming it hasn't been deleted, I can still import that page, if you like. Just give me the word and I'm at your service :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I really want imported are the deleted pages from my Wikipedia talk page back on Flag Day. The postings by FeloniousMonk and others that were either deleted or oversighted (I don't quite know how to tell which), as they tell the story of egregiously corrupt practices by the WikiClique on Intelligent Design. The stuff that Cbrown blanked on Meta-Wiki just illustrates his failure to address the unresolved issues that surfaced when WAS decided to play Moses and lead me out Meta-Egypt, out of the House of Majorly Bondage. So I played Aaron to his Moses and did most of the talking. The main difference is that I don't have a fancy Ephod, and my idea of Urim and Thummim is to speak the truth to power, perhaps with less insight and wisdom, less awareness and mercy, less mindfulness and compassion than Aaron was supposed to manifest via the Urim and Thummim upon his heart. —Moulton 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton is unclear in such a wonderful way that it makes me smile. I would like to comment that the "imported" material is legal under U.S. w:fair use laws; and all discussion about their use is ..... I choose not to end the sentence. WAS 4.250 03:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about their use as raw material here is probably alarming to those who are alarmed by having their practices reviewed by the likes of me. —Moulton 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly concerned about the copyright status of a user page, I just thought it would be easier to have the page history here so that you can still point to diffs on the off chance it gets deleted on the other project :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SB_Johnny, could you just be proactive and import whatever in your judgment makes sense. Do it whenever, whereever, however you like. Use your own judgment. Why ask us ours, when yours is better for a case like this? I know nothing about importing pages and don't care to learn. You are a valued member of our project, not an outsider. WAS 4.250 11:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the sentiment that if a custodial import is more rigorous and scholarly than a simple copy of the relevant version (before blanking or deletions), then by all means go for it Johnny. The material on Meta-Wiki was chopped up a little (mainly by Cbrown), but it wasn't all that hard to piece it back together again into a single documentary record that suffices for my purposes. However, I appreciate that some would like to ensure that I reconstituted the blanked out sections in an orderly and scholarly manner. —Moulton 12:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Media, etc.[edit]

Hi Moulton. I noticed somewhere or another that you mentioned you were listening to On the Media. I'm pretty much a public radio junkie (I listen to it all day at work), and over the winter I had done a bit of work on using NPR and similar media as a source for "lectures" to which WV users could respond to, make lesson plants around, etc. See Radio Discussion for details... I haven't done much with it since the flowers started blooming, but hope to get back to it this winter.

Another project I played with for a while is Wikimedian Demographics, which uses templates to conduct user surveys. You might be able to use that kind of thing to gather data for the ethics project. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NPR (WBUR Boston) runs 24/7 on at least three radios in my condo. I can walk from one room to another and not lose the audio. Elsewhere (on my blog postings and in forum discussions) I like to use embedded media. I haven't learned the Wiki markup syntax for doing that here, and I don't know if it's even possible to embed media objects in Wiki pages. If so, I'd like to be able to employ that affordance. —Moulton 12:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to load a pic on commons to illustrate, but I listen using "Peltor Worktunes", which is kind of like a walkman but no wires, and provides ear protection (much of my work involves running loud, heavy machinery). I save up shows from ABC (Austrailian PR), Deutsche Welle, and the BBC for fundraising weeks (I modified a broken radio to contain an MP3 player).
We can't really "include" the media on a page, but Mike and I have been putting out feelers to see if they'd be willing to release transcripts under free license (perhaps we could even make the transcripts for them, and use wikilinks for terms and subjects where they could learn more on the WikiMedia projects). Part of the hope is to get some "reciprocal mentions", so that we wouldn't have to rely so much on the Wikimedia communities when doing outreach. My thought was that there could be "live editing" on pages specific to each broadcast, so that when something is brought up in an interview or discussion, participants could quick-add links to further reading, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if you have an applicable policy, but it's gonna be easier for me to link to off-wiki pages where I have more facile HTML editing options to package up a page that includes embedded multimedia content. Here are two examples on my personal blog:


Rush Delivery: Respect and Contempt


Fascinating!


Moulton 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seems to me you could just use a "ref" tag and link to the source of the material you quote, or any audio or visual files. Was that the question?
BTW, Moulton, you might want to give up the habit of monitoring the IP addresses of people who look at your blog. I personally could care less if you know who I am (you're welcome to stop by and buy some fresh organic veggies if you're in the area), but a lot of people have serious personal safety concerns about revealing their real life identity on-line. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time I don't bother to look at the logs. It's only when some anomaly arises that requires some forensic analysis that the data in the logs becomes germane. The anomalies include incidents that appear to include corrupt practices including abuse of power, threats, or other varieties of verbal abuse. —Moulton 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This weekend, Brooke Gladstone interviews Wired Magazine's Chris Anderson on the resurgence of data-driven empirical science in the Age of Google. Note how the discussion relates observational data to pre-scientific stories to scientific theories with explanatory and predictive power. —Moulton 04:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I heard it, and was wondering if you were listening :-). I was also interested in the AP's objections to how its leads were being appropriated by blogs, and the questions of copyright entailed in that. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme go back and listen to that segment again. Commentary on the news, especially in the context of education, analysis, and criticism, envisions a fair use concept in which ledes and other key passages may be quoted for that legitimate purpose. I suppose the problem arises when there is extensive wholesale quoting and not much in the way of scholarly analysis, commentary, or criticism. —Moulton 15:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what the commentator said is essentially that facts are uncopyrightable, and the AP wireservice's lead in paragraphs are so "dense" as to create a question whether they can be copyrighted at all. I've seen that argument made among Wikimedians in several different cases, and it was just interesting to me to hear it on the headset.
I'd really be interested to rekindle the Radio Discussions stuff, particularly with that program (the original ones were for "Living on Earth", an environment-related program). A School of Journalism on WV might be useful to the Wikinewsies, the bloggers, and journalism students alike, particularly if outreach could be done to high-school papers and such. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few weeks ago, I met Bruce Gellerman in person when he hosted an event at the MIT Museum. Since I'm in the audience, I'm in the video. If you take the time to view it, see if you can figure out which person in the audience is moi. I have some follow-up E-Mail with Bruce that you might find amusing. I'll forward it to you if you figure out who I am and how I participated in that Soap Box Forum at the MIT Museum. I've also corresponded at length with Bill Lichtenstein who produces The Infinite Mind. And as you may know, John Hockenberry is now a Fellow at the MIT Media Lab. I've also dialogued elsewhere about Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett. So if we reprise Radio Discussions, I obviously have a keen interest in many of their featured programs. —Moulton 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have prior relationships to build upon, could you ask them if they'd approve of such a project? If so, how can I help you out on this end? --SB_Johnny | talk 10:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we contemplating anything that would require approval? Academic discussion of their programs wouldn't need approval. What would be more interesting would be to have their participation as guests to a discussion. By the way, another terrific program is Studio 360. Do you get that one in your market? I also like This American Life with Ira Glass. —Moulton 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset tabs) Both are broadcast here (WHYY schedule). I guess what approval would be good for is if we could have their transcripts and "wikify" them: essentially linking keywords, names, etc. to resources both within and outside of Wikimedia. Having contact with them generally would be good, since ideally it would be the listeners creating the annotations and "lessons", with the "native Wikiversitans" being available to provide assistance, critique, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, transcripts. Yah, that would surely require approval. And we'd only get it if their transcripts are not licensed for a fee by a commercial transcription service. —Moulton 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Faith: Play as method of developing good character[edit]

Today on Speaking of Faith, Krista Tippett interviews Stuart Brown, a physician and director of the National Institute for Play. Stuart Brown says that pleasurable, purposeless activity prevents violence and promotes trust, empathy, and adaptability to life's complication. He promotes cutting-edge science on human play, and draws on a rich universe of study of intelligent social animals. Krista Tippett interviews him in the context of play as a means of builing both spirit and character. She says this of her guest, "It is established, Stuart Brown insists, that an actively playful life establishes the earliest sense of self; sustains trust; provides increased enthusiasm for effectiveness in learning; prevents violence; invigorates the body; lessens the consequences of stress; contributes directly to the capacity to approach and solve complex life problems; and rewards and directs the living of life in accord with innate talents. —Moulton 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a MMORPG count as play? WAS 4.250 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are influencing my thinking[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision WAS 4.250 10:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The first thing that struck me, when Filll and ConfuciousOrnis blindsided me with their Request for Spammish Inquisition RfC was that not even Pope Urban would have adopted such a patently absurd method of dispute resolution. That's why I immediately proposed advancing to a more functional Social Contract Model, to avoid lunatic social drama. It will be interesting to see if the mustard seeds you just planted at ArbCom sprout this time. —Moulton 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project management styles[edit]

I'd noticed that no two projects seem to be managed in the same manner across Wikimedia. Has this area of study been considered for your line of work here? That is, differentiating between larger, bureaucratic systems such as English Wikipedia, autocratic systems like En.Wiktionary, and more open, transparent communities such as French Wikipedia? I'm afraid I spend too much time putting out fires to keep the buildings from being made from kindling, so it'll fall to someone else to do the legwork on this, if you're interested in doing so. Kylu 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a slot in the project to study different governance models, and learn to recognize which model is operant in any given instance. —Moulton 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Think of the bull's eye as the project title; but the target as a whole can include whatever related items people wish to create a learning resource for. We are inclusive. WAS 4.250 08:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy, contacts[edit]

Hi Moulton. Yes, I think adding the stuff you have on knol would be perfectly appropriate, and in general just about anything you've written that you're willing to offer us. I'm not entirely sure how knol works, but on WV it would become an editable resource that (hopefully, someday) could be edited and expanded into something that might pleasantly surprise even you :-). Duplication of efforts doesn't take a lot of "effort" in an online environment, and what starts as the same thing in 2 places could become 2 quite different things over time.

I'm not at all well-versed in educational theory though, so I think you should talk to a few other people about it and explore ideas. Here's my short list:

  • User:Cormaggio -- he's the one here interested in "action research", and I believe he's actually in the process of writing his dissertation about it.
  • User:JWSchmidt -- a university educator, JWSchmidt served as Wikiversity's "anchor" both before the project was started and for the first year or so of the project's existence. He is also concerned about the problems of Wikipedia, and some of the differences between "there" and "here" are due to his efforts to avoid certain mistakes.
  • User:McCormack -- very interested in connecting WV to "brick and mortar" universities.
  • User:Erkan Yilmaz -- he's pretty much our "anchor" nowadays, and is the best man I know for bouncing ideas off of.
  • b:User:PbakerODU -- Pete has used Wikibooks for "class assignments" for the past 2 or 3 years. He teaches education at Old Dominion University. Probably the best guy I know to talk to about using wikimedia as part of an educational program.

I'll try to think of others. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, may I address you by your first name?--SB_Johnny | talk 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can call me by my first name.
The one thing that Wikiversity might offer that Knol doesn't have is workshops and interdisciplinary seminars. I'd like to apply Action Research to those who voluntary show up in these learning projects, seeking breakthroughs, but perhaps stuck in non-productive paradigms.
Moulton 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barry :). Echo WAS on explaining "Action Research"... Cormaggio's been trying to explain it for a couple years now, but I've still never quite grasped it (no offense to either of you, but it often rings similar to when people try to explain "postmodernism" to an attractive bartender).
I think workshops and seminars will be excellent... that's always been an aspiration around here. The more content we have to mix and match the better, of course, which is why publishing papers on WV is so crucial. We have some category-sorting tricks available here too (DynamicPageList: see Bloom Clock/Keys/Global/Temperate/Early Summer/Red Flowers/DPL (or any bloom clock key's DPL extension) to see what it does... essentially lets you group pages together bey either including or excluding categories). The idea with that is to have each subpage heavily categorized so that if you're looking for, say, materials about anonymity on the web, you can differentiate between pages that are about Wikimedia, or exclude those so you only get pages like that that are not about Wikimedia. Then an instructor or individual learner can parse through the list and cobble together a "course" using any appropriate pages. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knol also uses the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License by default, and that's what I'm using on my articles there. That means that material can be imported from Knol and reciprocally exported back. We can use Knol in lieu of Wikipedia for encyclopedic articles, and dynamically adapt the material to courses, workshops, and seminars here. —Moulton 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between something with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 copyright and something with a GFDL copyright is ridiculously complicated. If all goes well, shortly the two will be legally equivalent. But as of now, technically not. My advice is to look to who would sue and be pragmatic. WAS 4.250 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're the only author, you can release it under GFDL as well... the recommended copyright release for image files on commons uses this type of dual licensing.--SB_Johnny | talk 08:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Geni's point here also points out that regardless of whether or not GFDL is compatible with whatever license you select for other people at Knol; the Knol terms of service give Google copyrights that you can not legally give unless you are the copyright holder. WAS 4.250 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, could you write a learning resource on "How to apply Action Research to those who voluntary show up in these learning projects, seeking breakthroughs, but perhaps stuck in non-productive paradigms"? It would be nice to know what the heck you are talking about. Specifically. It is also most ethical to let people agree to or not agree to whatever you have in mind. WAS 4.250 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that either later today, or during the week ahead. —Moulton 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! WAS 4.250 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See A Beginner's Guide to Action Research. You can copy or transclude that section to a suitable subpage or subsection wherever it best fits. —Moulton 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for something specific. WAS 4.250 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading A Beginner's Guide to Action Research, please tell me where you still have questions on how to apply it. Do you want to synthesize an encounter where you play the problem child pestering me? Perhaps a little improvisational theater is just the ticket here. —Moulton 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question is not how anyone may apply it in general. I want to know what you ... YOU ... right now have planned in this regard. Apparently, you have no current plans, so we are mis-communicating. Sorry for not being more clear myself. WAS 4.250 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it. I plan to solve the problems in real time as they arise, using my life skills at creative problem solving. I can't tell you the solution (or the method of solution) until some antagonist presents me with an unanticipated perplexity. Then I will do what I've done all my life, which is to devise a novel solution out of whole cloth that no one could have anticipated (not even me). —Moulton 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. WAS 4.250 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein said, "Research is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." On another occasion, he put it this way, "If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research."

Action Research has the same characteristic as all genuine research, in that the outcome cannot be known in advance. There is a better chance that Action Research has an outcome that all parties embrace (because all parties are a party to crafting it). When one's antagonist declines to cooperate with the protagonist in crafting a joint solution, then what they jointly craft is a drama. My aim is to accept and operate with the imposed paradigm of that realpolitik (lamentable as it might be in this context) and try to make it as enlightening a drama as I am able.

Moulton 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. WAS 4.250 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review[edit]

I read a claim at Wikipedia Review that you are now blocked there. What's up? WAS 4.250 06:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't rightly know. I'd have copied you on the traffic, except that you don't have E-Mail.
Here is the story, as best I can piece it together...
A few weeks ago (before we started this project on Wikiversity), one of the moderators (Herschel Krustofsky) on WR complained that I was posting more times a day than anyone else. On that day, I had posted 19 times at WR. Kato responded that he didn't get concerned about posting volume until it rose to 35 a day on a sustained basis. Herschel then suggested that it wasn't the total volume of posts that he was concerned about, but the number of individual posts. So I began to combine individual responses into single combined responses in a thread. It's more tedious to do it that way, since the forum software doesn't make that easy. In any event my total posting volume dropped until I wasn't even in the daily top ten any more.
Then Proabiviouac complained that he didn't like the song parodies I was posting, or that I was posting too many of them. The most I'd ever posted was three in one day, as it's not easy to craft song parodies. But NewYorKBrad and Bobby Bombastic (who is on the WR Moderators Team) chimed in to say they didn't find the song parodies all that problematic, and he even put in a request for one based on "Commando" by The Ramones. So I obliged them and crafted one per their request. And Bobby PM'd me to say it was awesome.
In the meantime, Herschel Krustofsky decided to make up a new policy about posting volume or topicality or something. Instead of posting the proposed policy and requesting comments first, he implemented it unannounced, with me as the miscreant he had in mind. He put me on moderation (a la "double secret probation"), which meant that all my postings went into a moderation queue and sat there until some moderator either released it or deleted it. Of course no one bothered to tell me (or anyone else) this was happening.
At the same time (on the same day), some unidentified moderator tinkered with the bad words filter so that 'MyWikiBiz' was translated into 'MyMoneySpinner'. Greg, of course, picked up on that right away and sent out an E-Mail alert that the site might have been hacked. I replied that I had encountered another anomaly, as my posts weren't showing up at all.
As it happened, the very first post of mine that got moderated was a rim shot replying to a joke posted by WikiWhistle. She made a joke about user boxes and I riffed off of that with a rejoinder about juke boxes. I included an animated GIF of a flashing oldies jukebox, which (if you clicked on it) took you to Moulton's Nickelodeon in the Resurrection Hackware Forum at World Crossing.
But (for reasons unbeknownst to me) the moderators had withheld that brief on-topic posting (which had no lyrics and no spam). What they evidently had neglected to foresee was that moderated posts which are never released are all viewed by the moderators and only by the moderators. In this case, they moderated a post that had a flashing juke box GIF, which meant that they had each left a distinctive log entry on the server where the neon GIF resided. Since Greg had just posted a note of an anomaly, and I had an as-yet unexplained anomaly of my own, I turned to the Apache server logs for clues. And that's where I saw that 11 times someone on WR had viewed the posting with the animated GIF; but when I clicked on the referring URL to that post, it wasn't there!
Shortly thereafter, Greg came back in E-Mail saying evidently I had been put on moderation. And about that time, Herschel posted that too, along with a link to a post-facto announcement of a new "provisional policy" that he and the other mods were already enforcing even before announcing it or waiting for community comment about it.
So I contacted Alison and NewYorkBrad and asked their advice about what do to about the fact that the new moderation policy was exposing the IPs of the WR mods to whomever they were moderating. Both of them came back with the same advice (which I followed to the letter), namely not to publicly disclose the IPs but to inform the Mods via E-Mail that their IPs were exposed by their new policy, and showing them what the resultant log entries looked like.
The Mods failed to acknowledge my report to them; they continued to moderate me, with a variety of ever-changing reasons (none of which were valid). For example, that was the week we were building content here like crazy, so I was hardly posting at all on WR. One by one, the WR Mods ginned up yet another pretext, and each time I demonstrated that their pretext was bogus, inapplicable, and not enforced against anyone else.
But it made no difference. They just buried their heads in the sand.
Meantime, Somey (who had been on an unannounced vacation all week) returned, saw what was happening, and PM'ed me about it. I crafted a response to his PM, but obtained an error when I tried to send it. It turns out that some Mod, in the meantime, had blocked my login. It also blocked me from reading or sending PMs, and it even blocked me from logging out. So I was frozen. I couldn't read anything (not in the forums and not in the PMs) and I couldn't even log out. The site had gone catatonic on me. I eventually figured out how to clear the browser cookies and come back as a guest. But guests can only read the public forums.
Meantime, people on WR can still send PMs to my WR mailbox, and the site sends me an E-Mail notice that I have a new PM, but I can't read them!
The real problem for me is that, since I can't log in at WR, I can't read the non-public threads including The Moulton Thread in the The 300 Club, where I had carefully compiled materials for use in challenging the IDCab at the English Wikipedia.
So WR not only repeated the abuses of WP admins, they exceeded the level of abuse by denying me even read-only access to my own material. They thereby weakened WR as a functional protest site and strengthened the ability of corrupt WP admins to resist my efforts to expose their corruption.
FieryAngel can say more, as he was in the loop on the E-Mail (as was Greg). I invite either or both of them to fill in or correct any part of the story that I don't have right.
Moulton 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I hope it all works out for you. I think one issue is perception that links to stuff you wrote elsewhere feels like spam. Greg was very sensitive to not cross some unknown sensitivity line there. You seem less perceptive to that sort of thing. I would suggest not linking to "your" sites more often than Greg links to his; as he seems to understand where the line is on that. As for the material you wrote, see if someone will email it to you. I have other thoughts on what could be going on, but if they were true then other heads would be rolling as well. (Mugged and killed at Wikipedia and now head chopped off at Wikipedia Review - I do like dramatic phrases, don't I?) WAS 4.250 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perception of people becoming overloaded, bewildered, annoyed, or bored comes from observing their non-verbal demeanor. Mostly it shows up in facial expressions. The eyes will glaze over, or the brows will knit up into corrugations, and so on. In text-only forums like WR, these non-verbal feedback channels which normally telegraph a corresondent's affective emotional state are not present. People have to consciously and forthrightly disclose their affective states, or it's nigh impossible to guess them reliably.
When Proabiviouac complained that he didn't care to view all those song lyrics, it occurred to me that no one was compelling him to do that. I have no problem if people ignore me completely. After all, I ignore 99.9% of the "noise" that wafts by me, even when some of it might have been "signal" that I was supposed to decode. More than half of my postings were in "The Moulton Thread" in The 300 Club, which makes it trivial and convenient for people to not read what I write. The odd thing was that Saltimbanco came along and posted a very nice explanation of how to put someone on their Ignore Filter. Except that he posted it in "The Moulton Thread" which is the last place anyone would look if they really needed to learn how to use the WR Ignore feature.
What do you make of that?
As to your other tantalizing but unarticulated theories, I wish we could devise some private channel, comparable to E-Mail, so that you could disclose what's on your mind. As a mind-reader, I am entirely incompetent.
Moulton 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have more problems than most in picking up emotional clues without seeing a face. Emotions lead to behavior; so look at the behavior and ask what motivated that. You say:"When Proabiviouac complained that he didn't care to view all those song lyrics, it occurred to me that no one was compelling him to do that." What should have occurred to you was that the motivation for making such a comment was the desire not to see what he saw. Annoyance was expressed here. You annoy people and don't pick up their signals about it til too late. It just is impolite to get in someone's face with direct messages like "You annoy me" so people leave clues, as a matter of common politeness. Ya gotta be more sensitive and ask "What motivated that?" You say "I ignore 99.9% of the "noise" that wafts by me." Some of that "noise" are the emotional clues you say are not sent. Saltimbanco put a message where you would read it. Get the clue? As for "other tantalizing but unarticulated theories"; well, on the one hand some there want to destroy Wikipedia and your efforts here are not helping with that (sometimes I wonder if anyone Wikipedia is a commercial threat to is behind any of that or not - I think not; but I wonder) and on the other hand, and perhaps most likely, perhaps some who are not able to play the "Great Game" at Wikipedia are doing so at Wikipedia Review. WAS 4.250 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Simon Baron-Cohen "Eyes Test" (for recognizing facial expressions in the eyes), I scored 24 correct out of 36. The mean score for Aspergers is 22 correct. The mean score for Neuro-Typicals is 26 correct. So I am exactly midway between the mean scores for those two populations. I'm am neither Aspergers nor Neuro-Typical. You might say I am Half-Aspergers. "Reading between the lines" to infer unarticulated affect is hard for me. Because of that, my baseline affective emotional state is Perplexity. If you can't read my emotional state, assume perplexity and you will almost always be right.
Your theory is interesting. Those who want to destroy Wikipedia are alarmed that I might be saving it, and thus want to disrupt me. And those who want to 86 me from Wikipedia are afraid I'll expose and disrupt their corrupt ad hoc ochlocracy and want to silence me.
What outcome are you placing your bet on, WAS?
Moulton 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen The neurodiversity movement by any chance? Contributors needed there.
I'm curious who you think is trying to "destroy wikipedia"... the Ethics project (or another project altogether) should really have a full discussion of the cabals and countercabals surrounding Wikimedian culture. I think I've had a bit of exposure to it lately, but aside from realizing that it's more extensive and influential than I had earlier thought, I really know very little about it, where it came from, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved with Diversity University, but NeuroDiversity appears to be unrelated to that project. The NeuroDiversity sites include many Autism and Asperger community sites, some of which I may have been on. See for example, this memoir. Here at the MIT Media Lab, we work with Amanda Baggs, who is one of the better known bloggers from the Autism community. The name of my own personal custom-crafted religion is "Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology". —Moulton 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are referring to Wikipedia Review people who have in the past have openly claimed they wanted for Wikipedia to be destroyed. Various reasons are given. There is some question as to how serious some are. Some have expressed ambivalence in terms of some days wanting to improve it and other days giving up and saying it should be destroyed; while others are very clear that it should either be fixed or ended. None of these comments are very clear in terms of what "Wikipedia" and "destroyed" actually mean in this context. Some are against the English language Wikipedia community while others are against the English language wikipedia database and a few think the Foundation is evil or just Jimbo is. No one seems to care about all the other WikiMedia projects though. All in all, it seems mostly like a lot of childish club in the tree-house role-playing. But a few people there have spent a lot of time causing a lot of trouble at Wikipedia and for Wikipedians. Apparently, mostly motivated by revenge for how they feel they were mistreated by admins at Wikipedia. Our current dispute resolution processes create enemies unnecessarily. WAS 4.250 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<---)My eyesight is unusually poor for several reasons and I have learned to go by words or voice for clues. If someone lacks voice affect and counts on small facial clues (like eye changes) to communicate, I literally can't see the signal many times.

I place my bet on the WikiMedia database continuing to get more useful every year, even if it has to be forked. WAS 4.250 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is to become of all this?[edit]

It may be that in the end copy-left MediaWiki software and the example of the possibilities of wiki-style communication are more influential that any other thing the WikiMedia community does. Never can tell. WAS 4.250 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having edited both in Wiki and in Knol, I can report that Knol editing has Wiki editing beat by a country mile. You can copy/paste straight from a web page into Knol; it has a Web 2.0 interface similar to Wiki for markup, but you can also switch from WYSIWYG to HTML if you want to tweak the appearance. After using Knol, Wiki markup seems quaint and anachronistic. —Moulton 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Moulton, Mediawiki has not deviated much from Ward Cunningham's wiki:WikiDesignPrinciples. Perhaps you can help start a study project comparing wikiversity and knol, examining things that each can learn from the other, and even exploring some possibilities of collaboration. Hillgentleman|Talk 03:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could pick a topic and a team and have them craft materials on both systems. I sure found it easier to build a Knol than to build anything in Wiki. Perhaps teams will also find it easier. Like Blogger, Knol is HTML under the hood. On Knol, competing editors (or competing teams of editors) simply build their own competing articles and the marketplace ranks them all in the Google Search Space. There is no need for one team to annihilate their rivals via Spammish Inquisitions. —Moulton 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sure found it easier to build a Knol than to build anything in Wiki. <-- Yes, the WYSIWYG makes the introduction easy. But it also depends on what you want to do. As I can see, knol supports beautiful pages of traditional text, but not structured contents (they have no categories, and linking is more complicated) or dynamic contents (they have no parser functions or templates). For example, it is impossible to write such a resource as Conway's Game of Life on knol. Hillgentleman|Talk 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what that page does. I see a literal display of a template, but if it's supposed to be dynamically computing anything via underlying dynamically executable code, nothing is happening. Does the game state simply update by one clock tick when the page is edited and then saved? What a typical Game of Life does is run forward continuously from the initial state. I think what you are really pining for is the ability to embed a Java Applet inside an article, the way one can on an arbitrary web page. I frankly don't know what affordances (if any) exist in Knol to embed JavaScript or Java Applets. —Moulton 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some problems with the cache, but it does work - you can check the page history for the diff of your edit. Yes, I want dynamical learning resources. And particularly resources which learners can try their hands on. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've helped craft interactive learning environments, including simulation modeling environments and virtual worlds. Neither Wiki nor Knol is suitable for that kind of interactive modeling and simulation. —Moulton 04:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Calculating the square root of a. Be it suitable or not, Wikiversity is the best open interactive learning environment I could find so far. The whole thing, including the template-program, is open, so that anybody can edit, or creat new ones. I don't know how embeded java applet can be as open. It would be great if you could direct me to another site where I could develop a similar open interactive learning resource. Hillgentleman|Talk 05:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The really fascinating case is where the recursion law does something more interesting than converge to the root of a differentiable function. If you use a logistic function of the form ?x(1–x), with sufficiently large values of ?, as the recursion law, you get mathematical chaos instead of convergence to a fixed point. Being able to animate these is very useful. The Butterfly Curve of Edward Lorenz is especially interesting to watch as it evolves from the initial value. —Moulton 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try this User:Dzonatas/Scripts#Wikianim for javascript. Use it on the Game of Life to animate the page. Let me know if you have any questions. Dzonatas 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

Congrats on being unblocked at WR. WAS 4.250 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Somey appears to have introjected some common sense into the discussions in which the WR Mods had inexplicably gone astray in his absence. —Moulton 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somey is one of the good guys over there. Also, I like him - he's funny. WAS 4.250 07:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College Project[edit]

WAS 4.250 09:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's cool. The subject matter is well outside my own areas of familiarity, and I don't know the principals at Boston College (although I do know some people affiliated with BC, mainly in the School of Education). —Moulton 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of ethical awareness[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=229970709&oldid=229967553 WAS 4.250 12:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an astonishing remark! WAS, can you explain Jimbo's lack of awareness of the case I brought to the attention of Mike Godwin at the Wikimedia Foundation and thence to ArbCom, and which Giggy and Ryan Postlethwaite also brought forward a second and third time to AN/Moulton and to ArbCom respectively? —Moulton 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo has many things on his mind. You can't expect him to pay attention to every detail. WAS 4.250 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody at WMF is paying attention to an "insignificant detail". The last time I put my own name into a Google search, I came up with about 250 unique hits. I kid you not, but my own personal blog was dead last in that list of non-notable web pages linked to my name. (Today, my blog comes up as the 230th hit out of 252 hits on a Google search of my name.) —Moulton 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog[edit]

I'm sorry, Barry, but you can't link to it from here due to some of the content on the first page. I removed it from the "Links" page of the ethics project, and if you've linked to it somewhere else I'd really appreciate it if you'd remove it those too. Send me a mail if you'd rather discuss in private, but regardless of whether it's private or public it will be a few days before I have free time and access to all the facts (real life is limiting my keyboard time, and as you're aware my keyboard time is pretty much spoken for at the moment). --SB_Johnny talk 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What content, specifically, did you find out of order? —Moulton 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it had something to do with "outing". I support Johnny in this matter. He is under a lot of pressure. Please be sensitive to that. While BADSITES is not policy here or at WikiPedia, it makes sense for people to use their judgement and rule in or out individual links based on a variety of data. I delete links at WikiPedia all the time that I think are redundant, COI, untrustworthy or otherwise problematical. Frankly, links to blogs are very problematical in general, and if I had the right to do so, I would delete all links to blog main pages in this project (sometimes a specific blog page is worth linking to, but linking to its main page is linking to whatever thought they had today). WAS 4.250 04:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase the question...
What content, specifically, did you find out of order? —Moulton 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely my call, though the "Fillllll" stuff was certainly problematic, to say the least. I'm not sure what else (I haven't looked at any other pages, if there are any), but as it stands now Wikiversity may not host links to the blog, full stop. When we get to the point where resources have been developed related to outing (including, preferably, some recounts by or input from people who have been outed), we can talk about it then, but even then we might not have any options. --SB_Johnny talk 10:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the distinct impression that someone twisted your arm without spelling out what specifically is in-bounds or out-of-bounds. If there is gonna be some kind of hard line, then it occurs to me the location of the hard line needs to be spelled out clearly so that a person can reasonably estimate what's in-bounds and what's out-of-bounds. So I'll ask the question again, and this time, please go back to whomever is the final authority and extract an answer. What content, specifically, did whoever leaned on you find out of order? It would be easy enough for me to split my personal blog into two, or otherwise move any problematic items to another ointment reserved for flies. Just be good enough to tell me (and everyone else who has a comparable need to know where the foul lines are located). Moulton 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it was very specific. Your blog is not to be linked to. And I really don't know what specifically it's about, but if you can ask that question in the form of an email (and please be as diplomatic as you can language-wise), I'll gladly forward it to the relevant people. --SB_Johnny talk 23:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone who is more into politics and less into science and academics can compose a diplomatic inquiry on behalf of those of us who are vexed and perplexed by the as-yet-unexplained directives of the Wikimedia Foundation. And perhaps someone who is familiar with 501(c)(3) and Section 230 can opine on whether this makes WMF a legally responsible publisher for otherwise lawful content on WMF sponsored projects. Did they really think this one through? Did Mike Godwin sign off on it? —Moulton 00:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it highly troubling that the Foundation is (for the first time that I know of) intervening in the content of a project in the direction of enforcing a BADSITES-style flat link ban, apparently imposed star-chamber fashion with no avenue for discussion and no specifics as to how the owner of the blackballed site can bring it into compliance with whatever secret policy is being imposed on it. For over a year, a civil war has been raging on this sort of link issue, mostly on en-wp but sometimes spreading elsewhere, and while various admins and the en-wp ArbCom have occasionally issued pronouncements on some issue or other related to it, the foundation has remained silent as far as I am aware. It's also rather ironic that you are made into the messenger and enforcer of this given that you're being pilloried elsewhere for failing to wholly endorse the ideology of link suppression. Dtobias 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset tabs) Well, Dtobias, I'm not one to wholy endorse ideologies, and I'm very careful not to push my personal ideology onto others. Make no mistake though: I've not been happy about those links from day one, and I'm not going to be happy about them until someone provides me a good reason for why they're important. So yes, I'm not disappointed by the ruling, and yes, I share your concern about the intervention. Add one to my bittersweet wiki-experiences over the past month :-). If a good, solid argument can be made for the legitimacy of "outing", I'll see what I can do about removing the prohibition. I haven't seen any arguments made of that nature, and since I can't come up with one myself (I did try, but I couldn't), I think the intervention was wise.

And Barry, don't bother downloading the song if you don't like really thrashy punk rock, but the lyrics to this song strike me as something you'd enjoy :-). --SB_Johnny talk 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just about "outting" then have them identify the specific blog post(s) our anonymous coward is troubled by. As it stands now, I am obliged to be a mind reader of an unknown individual for whom I have no better "theory of mind" than the Null Model. —Moulton 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As it stands now, I am obliged to be a mind reader of an unknown individual" ← Barry, I'm in the same boat. Please don't maul the messenger... I'm jut a guy who enjoys contributing to wikimedia projects, and I'm just barely inside the loop. If having the links to your blog here is the price you demand for your participation, I'm afraid I'm unable to pay it. It's not my site, not my decision, and the decisions about CYA stuff are way above my payscale (I'm relatively certain about that, because I assume the foundation folks are baid a bit more than $0.00). If there was something I could do to make things right for you on this point, I would. 'Nuff said, okay? --SB_Johnny talk 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not holding you accountable, nor am I expecting you to fix it. But it's a perplexing mystery, and therefore worthy of scientific study and examination. After all, we are starting from a Null Model, which is an excellent place to begin when crafting a System Model of a Novel Phenomenon. And if Dan is right, this is a Novel Phenomenon. So while Dan may well be politically troubled, I'm scientifically fascinated and intrigued by the rare opportunity to study a brand new phenomenon in the annals of educational and social networking. —Moulton 00:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really opining here about "outing" per se (though I do think the hysteria over it is overblown), but about how concern over it gets turned into a blanket ban on linking to some particular site that allegedly engages in it, without regard to the context and purpose of the links. In this case you removed links even from his user page, which were labeled simply "My blog". It's this sort of thing that gets my anti-censorship hackles up. If the link was labeled "The Truth About [person's name], With All The Gory Personal Details!", my opinion on linking to it or removing the link would be entirely different. (Where [person's name] is a different person from the blogger him/herself, of course!) There's the beginning of a slippery slope here, in my opinion. If we can't link to his blog, next people are going to insist we can't link to his other personal sites either, or to various other sites that link to one of those, in an expanding set of concentric circles. And they'll want to expand the edict to cover other people who say or do things that are disapproved of in some manner. Dtobias 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with more intelligence than a robot please tell me what is wrong with an essay on acedia and spiritual torpor, an examination of a classic portrayal of autism, or a review of an NPR story about fascination as portrayed by Leonard Nimoy's characterization of Mr. Spock in Star Trek? I frankly don't understand why those essays and analyses are inappropriate material for an online university sponsored by a publicly funded non-profit foundation with an educational mission. —Moulton 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that that content is inappropriate. The instructions are that the site is inappropriate. And any outing linked to must be justified in terms of the project mission which is to provide learning resources on ethics in management of an educational website - specifically the English language Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until WMF explains itself, I'm simply going to classify their directive as "inexplicable". If they have a policy that is grounded in common sense, I'm sure I'll be able to understand it, once Cary Bass or someone else at WMF articulates it. —Moulton 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that's the wrong approach. I suggest instead, in deference to your hosts here, that you go through your stuff and remove possibly questionable links, even if you're prepared to make the case that they're not problematic. That's just common courtesy and "meeting in the middle" compromise. If you dig in and act intransigent, you'll find that even this venue is less hospitable to you than before. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think "possibly questionable links" means in this context? I would say that all links on this site should be to valuable learning resources for the project. Moulton believes that they are or he would not have placed them in this project. So the question then becomes why some believe that they are not. It appears that the answer to that is that some are not convinced of their educational value compared to privacy concerns raised. Thus minimizing privacy concerns and/or detailing the justification appears to be what is needed at this point. I believe the new "Cases" learning research page will attempt to provide that justification. Sound about right? Are we all on the same page here? WAS 4.250 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a "political animal" (which I'm not), and worried about being politically popular, I suppose I'd discard anything and everything that gave anyone the slightest pause to reflect. But I'm an educator and a researcher, which is about as opposite a critter from a politico as you'll find. Educators are supposed to give people things to think about. Whether anyone elects to think about them is their free choice. But to deny those who wish to learn the intellectual freedom to study the socio-political dynamics of the culture we find ourselves embedded in is frankly not a realistic or sustainable practice for a 501(c)(3) Section 230 foundation that is expressly chartered to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." To paraphrase Socrates, the unexamined organization is not worth participating in. As Peter Senge wisely points out, successful organizations are learning organizations. —Moulton 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<---) No one is asking anyone to "discard anything and everything that gave anyone the slightest pause to reflect." (Can you say "straw-man"? ... Good. I knew you could.) I do like "the unexamined organization is not worth participating in", though. That was good. Moulton, all that is being asked of you is to continue creating the Moulton section of the Cases learning resource in a way that maximizes its usefulness as a learning resource and does not pointlessly reveal private matters. Sometimes private matters need to be revealed. Sock-puppetry and Conflict of Interest are two such examples. Understanding years long misbehavior that has resulted in a stale-mated arbcom case and illustrates the need for ethical management of the English language Wikipedia is another. WAS 4.250 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes private matters need to be revealed." ← Do not, under any circumstances, post such content here without first contacting either me, Cary Bass, or one of the Wikimedia stewards, and waiting until a decision has been made by the custodians, stewards, and/or foundation representatives. Even if it's made public somewhere else (on the web, in the phone book, on a t-shirt, whatever). --SB_Johnny talk 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's pretty much established procedure at Wikipedia for things like established user's real names. For outing vandals not so much. The tricky part is "what qualifies as private information?" It is not private if everyone already knows it. But given all the drama, it is sensible to be especially careful here about using anyone's real name on site. I see no reason we would have to do that to create our learning resources. WAS 4.250 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a colleague who is a professional journalist. Every summer she goes to one of those summer workshops for professional writers. I've tagged along on a few of those workshops. My understanding is that personal memoir writing is about the hardest thing to write. In my 60-odd years on this planet, there have been scant few episodes in my life where I found it both necessary and therapeutic to write a memoir of a personal experience. My experience on Wikipedia has been one of those episodes. One freedom we are guaranteed in the US is the freedom to tell the true story of one's own life. Isn't it odd that on the English Language Wikipedia, which is touted as "the sum of all human knowledge" I am denied the freedom to tell the true story of my own life, as it is disturbingly affected by the anonymous and ethically challenged editors of the English Language Wikipedia. —Moulton 14:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Wikipedia :-). I'm just saying that if you have even the shadow of a doubt about something like that, please consult with me or one of the others mentioned first. It's perfectly fine to refer to WM usernames and their contributions to WM projects, but for anything outside that sphere you need to be very careful. The wp/commons culture clash on commons would pale in comparison to a culture clash between Wikipedians and Wikiversitans, and I strongly recommend avoiding it, at least until the groundwork has been thoroughly laid out on the Ethics project (and possibly a more general one on "interwiki relations" that I'm thinking about starting. --SB_Johnny talk 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have some anxiety about this issue, although I confess I have only a vague apprehension of why there is so much anxiety in the air. And while I have no doubt that others have genuine doubts about what they can safely say without suffering a backlash, I have no doubt that I have an unalienable right to fairly and honestly report the things that have happened to me (and to many others like me) — including the remarkable backlash effects for even daring to say them — that permeate the culture on sister projects under the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella. It occurs to me that a culture of fear, terror, and reprisals is not a sustainable culture for an enterprise that purports to exist for the primary purpose of empowering people to freely collect, develop, and globally disseminate knowledge for the betterment of humankind. —Moulton 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's really just that it's become clear to me that the political influences have a lot more reality to them than I would like to acknowledge. The Wikipedians are really good at that sort of thing, the Wikiversitans are not. I'd rather not be squashed like a bug, if it's avoidable. OTOH, we have strengths, and further develping this project is a way to get stronger. The account you're working on as a case study is exactly what's needed, though as I (and Hillgentleman) have pointed out, it's still using quite a bit of shorthand that we're not quite familiar with, and assumes a lot more familiarity with the issues involved (I'm learning, but it's taken a lot of effort to figure that out). Even real basic stuff like a history of how "BLP" became a hot-button issue. I know why it is one, but considering how it's played out is a pseudopolitical manner, it would be helpful to understand how that started and who the "players" are (perhaps we could coin the term "wikiusergroups" as a "baggage-free" way of speaking about them?). --SB_Johnny talk 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not be squashed like a bug, if it's avoidable. Back when I was much younger, one of my favorite TV shows was the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. Among their creative writers was one Bob Einstein, who did an unforgettable sketch. Einstein (as stunt daredevil, Super Dave) climbed into the back seat of a car in a junkyard with a wireless mic. The car was then hoisted into a compactor and squashed like a bug, not unlike the comparable scene in Goldfinger. During the entire ordeal, Einstein calmly reported what was happening to him. That's what I've been doing for the past year, Johnny. And it was on my verboten blog that I first began that report. —Moulton 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not odd in the slightest that a web site dedicated to trying to create a free encyclopedia containing the summation of all knowledge should choose to not let you use it as a blog. WAS 4.250 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a blog. Among other things, it records notes about my experiences, including my experiences on Wikipedia. —Moulton 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some Wikiversitans do, in fact, write blogs here. --SB_Johnny talk 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the ironies is that I have been obliged to post on my personal blog (and especially on the Media Ethics Blog) content that properly belongs on Wikipedia, including content that responds to interrogatories put to me at RfC/ID. When adversarial editors abuse the system to corruptly erase evidence and testimony that is unfavorable to their side of a dispute, I have little option but to repost it off-wiki. Had they not corrupted the process, that material would have remained on-wiki, where it belonged, in the context and venue of the RfC's and RfAr's where the evidence and testimony were initially compelled. It actually works against the interests of the adversarial editors when I am compelled to repost such materials off-wiki, because those reviewing that material now have to ring my doorbell to view it, instead of the doorbell on WMF-managed servers. For editors who are concerned about their anonymity, pseudonymity and privacy, it boggles the mind that they would compel the migration of those high-profile resources to my own servers. —Moulton 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Moulton's Blog Really Out Anyone?[edit]

I've posted on the Media Ethics Blog at Utah State University's School of Journalism and Communications a brief summary of the confusion over the WMF Office edict regarding the as-yet-unexplained taboo against posting references to Moulton's Blog. —Moulton 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. And here's why...
As far as I know, no one's ever complained about that song parody because it doesn't actually out anyone. No one knows Filll's real name, and few, if any, believe his Yahoo screen name bears any discoverable relation to his real name or professional identity. I frankly don't know anyone who uses their real name as their Yahoo screen name. Besides, User:Filll on the English Wikipedia requested a CheckUser to conclusively prove that he was not User:Robert Stevens...

Template:Quotation

In short, I have no idea of Filll's real name. On Wikipedia Review, I stated, "I hadn't concluded that the name on Filll's Yahoo E-Mail was his actual RL name. I had held out the possibility that it was just another realistic-sounding street name that further disguised the name by which he is known in academic or professional circles." And Lar (who is a Steward), concurred, commenting, "No it does not, necessarily, confirm that." So I don't know anything more than what Filll had already voluntarily disclosed on-wiki, which is bupkes as far as his real-life ID is concerned. If I were talking to Filll on Skype, and he had a heart attack in the middle of our conversation, I would have no idea how to direct any emergency medical response team to find him.
Moulton 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Cary Bass took himself out of the loop, there was one more inquiry about an item on my blog from another person in the WMF Office, which is documented here. —Moulton 23:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy at Wikipedia[edit]

"Even real basic stuff like a history of how "BLP" became a hot-button issue. I know why it is one, but considering how it's played out is a pseudopolitical manner, it would be helpful to understand how that started and who the "players" are".

I created the initial BLP policy proposal after Brandt was told by Wikipedians that they could treat him any way they wanted so long as they did not break the rules and he said something like treat me like a human being and not like a building (the context is that they were acting like pain and suffering and problems he was trying to avoid were no consideration in their editorial judgement). I asked Brandt and SlimVirgin (the two main people involved) to please contribute to the proposal if the proposal was a good idea. SlimVirgin enthusiastically developed the proposal. Others joined in. Soon it was decided it should be a guideline. About six months after I proposed it, Jimmy Wales asked on a Wikipedia/Wikimedia mail list what would it take to make the guideline into a policy - and very quickly minor wording changes were made and the guideline was promoted into a policy. Since then there have been efforts by some to claim that BLP is not more than a libel policy or else not more than the other policies really "hard assed"; and some on the opposite side trying to turn it into some kind of say no bad thing about anyone policy. So far common sense is winning. WAS 4.250 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, I don't have the context for the above paragraph. Is this referring back to a page on WP? Is this referring back to a recent thread here on Wikiversity? Did you intend for this to go on the Ethics Project talk page? —Moulton 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=304260&oldid=304251 WAS 4.250 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I missed that insert. I've gone back and responded to it. —Moulton 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 230[edit]

Section 230 "provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an 'interactive computer service' who publish information provided by others". It "enhances free speech by making it unnecessary for ISPs and other service providers to unduly restrict customers' actions for fear of being found legally liable for customers' conduct. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. So this act was passed to specifically enhance their ability to delete content without themselves becoming publishers." I just added that last sentence. I read it elsewhere months ago. When the foundation deletes things it does not take away their Section 230 protection, as long as the deletion does not change the meaning of what someone else posted. WAS 4.250 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your view, WAS, the that WMF edict does not jeopardize WMF's Section 230 immunity? —Moulton 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is claimed that there is no such "edict". But yes, it is my view that the foundation can delete as much or as little as it chooses without jeopardizing its Section 230 immunity. If it effectively creates content (like taking out "not" in a sentence) then it is responsible for that content; but still only a service provider for content it did not create (like a comments section at the bottom of a New York Times article). It can encourage content, also. What it can not do is create content and then claim it is not responsible for that specific content. Also people associated with the Foundation can create content outside their Foundation roles and then personally take 100% responsibility for that content. WAS 4.250 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cary is now characterizing it as "advice", which frankly does not jibe with the way Johnny relayed it, nor with the way Mike's Robot was programmed to automatically execute Cary's edict. Nonetheless, if Cary is now backpedaling from the initial characterization of his message to Johnny as a "Foundation directive", then it's not (yet) official policy here, and thus up to the local community to decide what local policy shall be, in the wake of Cary's ill-understood "advice to Wikiversity".
Cary would prefer that I copy content from my web site or my blog to Wikiversity, rather than merely reference it by URL. That seems both unnecessary and impractical, since much of that material is richly encoded in HTML with embedded media. While it's trivial to port such content to Google Knol, it's either nigh impossible or a pain the tochus to port it to a wiki.
So for now, I'll continue to reference content where it resides, in situ, unless and until local policy here changes pursuant to established norms of community self-governance. It occurs to me that an educational site like Wikiversity would cripple itself if it adopted a myopic policy against referencing educational content from the blogosphere.
Moulton 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be good enough to mark it as GFDL licensed, then someone else could move it here and change it to wiki mark-up. WAS 4.250 13:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than mark everything on my website and blog as GFDL, I'd rather just give someone here express permission to act as my agent to reprise here on Wikiversity any items that we all agree we need to have local copies of. —Moulton 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just copy whatever page someone asks you to put in the project as is (minus outing) to the project. Sooner or later someone will fix it. WAS 4.250 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding hysterical claims to the contrary, there is no "outting" on my blog. As you know, what's on my blog is just a comedic sendup of an event that had occured on the English Language Wikipedia a few weeks earlier. You may recall that I am indef blocked (by the IDCab) on the English Language Wikipedia, so events transpiring there, on-wiki (all voluntary actions of IDCab members), cannot possibly be of my doing. —Moulton 04:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to respond to this.[edit]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-August/045246.html WAS 4.250 20:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, WAS.
Cary also sent me E-Mail with somewhat similar remarks, but worded less elliptically (or should I say less parabolicly?), with a copy to SB Johnny. In response, I've exchanged a fair amount of E-Mail all afternoon with Cary and Johnny. If Cary consents, I'll repost his messages to me and my replies to him, as I believe it would be best for everyone to air the issues out in the open.
I've also alerted the regulars on Wikipedia Review, but so far no one there has commented on Cary's thread. I may wait a bit to respond myself, because so far, only three people have commented.
Moulton 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, what do you make of this? —Moulton 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be acting as if BADSITES were a Foundation policy. Is he overstepping his authority? Perhaps we need to ask the Foundation Board members. I'll ask the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees here. WAS 4.250 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It looks like Cary has taken himself out of the loop, so we'll deal with whoever has the courage of leadership to respond. —Moulton 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation-l thread has gone quiet, other inquiries are in limbo, and I have not yet heard anything at all from Michael Snow. —Moulton 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time...[edit]

Would you mind archiving the rest of the conversations? Getting "new messages" that aren't really messages for me is becoming tiresome :-). I'd just archive it by blanking and linking to the diff, but I think they're probably useful for the project and so should probably go to subpages. See Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Wikiversity Discussions for a link hub. --SB_Johnny talk 12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, would you scan the remaining threads on SB Johnny's talk page and identify the remaining ones that, in your judgment, are appropriate to archive as project subpages? Once we have the list, either of us can do the work in an idle moment. —Moulton 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just put them all at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Wikiversity_Discussions/Discussion_2&action=edit&redlink=1 WAS 4.250 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why didn't I think of that :-)? Maybe just pull all those threads onto "discussion 1", actually, then maybe archive this page's old threads to discussion 2, etc. There are a lot of discussions about the project lost on user talk pages, and it would be beter for the project down the line if new users can see the history of things without wandering all over the place hoping to find them. --SB_Johnny talk 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. WAS 4.250 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private conversations[edit]

Don't have them with people who want to tell you what to do. WAS 4.250 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principle, I don't. In the conversation you are alluding to, you will note that I did not accede to the initial request for privacy. I simply ignored it as inappropriate, and made a counter-offer to the effect that my would-be correspondent was entirely free to contact me at his convenience, by any means of communication he preferred, from telephone to e-mail, Skype, or chat. My correspondent availed himself of that offer; he immediately responded to my unfettered and unencumbered invitation. And (since it was a delicate negotiation and discussion that could potentially become adversarial) I availed myself of my unalienable right to consult with counsel. I was astonished to learn that my correspondent deemed that freedom to counsel to be so intolerable. But that's his problem, not mine. I would not have disclosed more, except that my correspondent devolved into hostile, abusive, and coercively threatening remarks. Even when I do expressly accede to a request for confidentiality, that confidentiality agreement does not extend to substantive departures from civility that stray into the land of expressly coercive threats. —Moulton 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea[edit]

User talk:80.176.82.42 has been deleted. It is not your place to allege connections between IPs and Wikimedia users. --SB_Johnny talk 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny, are you aware that the IP in question is also the address of well-known web site? —Moulton 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Don't care, to be honest. Please just stop worrying about who people are and just deal with what they write, OK? I'm sure the user in question knows how to use SUL, but as has been pointed out before, he's not required to do so, and should be free to be "anonymous" if he wants to be. You're also free to figure out who the person is if you like doing that, but please don't post it on this wiki. --SB_Johnny talk 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When dialoguing with people over long periods of time, I find it helpful to keep track of my correspondents by names that are stable and persistent identifiers, rather than IPs that vary from day to day. As it is, I have a nasty habit of repeating myself, because I forgot that I already told somebody something once before. If my correspondents now retract their names in favor of transient IP addresses, the continuity of conversational dialogue is likely to deteriorate even further. And don't even get me started on the issue of hectoring. —Moulton 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I won't :-). My point is that you should just respond to whatever people are saying here and now, and respect their wishes if they choose for whatever reason not to identify themselves. They might do so later, but they're less likely to do so (or even continue talking to you) if you're being all big brothery... catch my drift? --SB_Johnny talk 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we drifting onto the shoals? When I first started posting on the English Language Wikipedia, several of the IDCab editors showed up on my talk page their to post their canned welcomes. I sort of got the impression that it was customary to post cordial welcome messages to people who show up to the party. Keeping tracking of cultural differences across different Wikimedia-sponsored projects can be tricky at times, especially when there appear to be double standards on some Wikis. —Moulton 22:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus[edit]

Moulton,

As I can see it, the creation of learning resources in the wikipedia ethics project has slowed down. I think you have been distracted in the debate in whether a few external links should be allowed on wikiversity.

I have no comment on that matter, but may I suggest that it is not a critical issue; missing a few links would not really hinder the learning project. And in the end, if the project is good enough and the links are good, they should be able to justify their own existence.

As an analogy: (I am sorry to be poor in the architectural language) When you build a skyscraper, the foundation goes first, then you make a scaffolding, then up goes the structural and supporting elements like the pillars, and you make more scaffolding, .... in the end you have the interior design. Building anything can be a complex process, and sometimes certain things need to be done in the correct order. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting to me, in all this bizarre Wiki-Politicking, is that FeloniousMonk escalated it up to Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales, seeking to cut off and suppress the primary source of evidence of corruption that motivated WAS to initiate this project in the first place. As I recall, you were one of those who urged us to provide specific case studies. When I finally got around to detailing the case study in which FeloniousMonk was the ringleader in the IDCab travesties, he swung into action to intimidate or manipulate custodial officials here and at WMF to kibosh citations to the supporting evidence, or to otherwise beleaguer and disempower those building the case that would definitively expose the corruption. In a day or two, ArbCom will rule in a long-stalled case involving FeloniousMonk. At that point, I expect all resistance will collapse like an imploding house of cards. —Moulton 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, even in a court, sometimes there is a certain piece of evidence so sensitive that it cannot be presented to the public. And, yes, it is a good idea to focus on the cases. A link in the context of a case is much more justifiable than a link in a list. And, as I have said, it is better to start with older and simpler cases, where there is much less feedback. Once we have that foundation, we can then really study current cases, which are better for more advanced students. Hillgentleman|Talk 04:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While political corruption may well be characterized as "disgusting", the evidence is not so gut-wrenching as to literally cause people to retch. Next week will mark the first anniversary of my now-legendary encounter with the IDCab of the English Wikipedia. That makes it the oldest case that I'm personally familiar with. It's also the most complex and convoluted case, and will require a full-blown comic opera to properly present it in a maximally snoozeless manner. —Moulton 11:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, I'm probably speaking for Hillgentleman here and possibly others: while inline linking to websites and/or wikipages as part of a response is kinda neat and takes advantage of how hypertext has advanced the potentials of communication, it's usually much nicer to just get a simple answer... even if that means repeating or synopsizing something you already said elsewhere :-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are my remarks too complex, too overloaded with densely packed information, or too bewildering? Are your eyes spinning? Or glazing over? —Moulton 14:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah, glazing over a bit to be perfectly honest. Please don't take that the wrong way: If I didn't want to hear what you had to say, I wouldn't bother reading :-). --SB_Johnny talk 15:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, see I get "eyes glazing over." I just can't view that occular expression through the band-limited TCP/IP connection, as mediated by the prosaic MediaWiki Software. —Moulton 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petition for Redress of Grievance[edit]

Here is a copy of a message to ArbCom and keen observers...

Moulton 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkBrad's Proposed Principles[edit]

This section has been moved to a subpage.

Re: Publishing email addresses without consent[edit]

Woudl you mind having a look please: Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Publishing email addresses without consent ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 04:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Please advise if there are any remaining issues. —Moulton 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries from Friday night edit war with User:71.242.27.212[edit]

In the Friday night edit war with User:71.242.27.212, these edit summaries tell the story of the remarks posted here by the distinguished visitor from the City of Brotherly Love... 


 (diff) 09:33, 16 August 2008 . . SB Johnny (Talk | contribs | block) (User talk:Moulton moved to User talk:Moulton/Mu: admin oversighting :-))
 (diff) 18:50, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (159,663 bytes) (NewYorkBrad's Proposed Principles Fix redlinks.)
 (diff) 18:35, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (159,653 bytes) (NewYorkBrad's Proposed Principles new section)
 (diff) 18:15, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,387 bytes) (That's nothing. Do you have any idea how much I'm reviled by the musicologists around here? They think my musical stylings are utterly atrocious.)
 (diff) 18:09, 15 August 2008 . . 71.242.27.212 (Talk | block) (138,022 bytes) (rv vandalism -- you give ethics a bad name)
 (diff) 18:06, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,383 bytes) (Petition for Redress of Grievance Time to update my signature line, too.)
 (diff) 18:04, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,379 bytes) (I prefer Bon Jovi. Do you have a song request for my next musical parody?)
 (diff) 17:56, 15 August 2008 . . 71.242.27.212 (Talk | block) (137,830 bytes) (Undo revision 307590 by Moulton (Talk)non licet bovi)
 (diff) 17:53, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,307 bytes) (Reverting vandalism.)
 (diff) 17:47, 15 August 2008 . . 71.242.27.212 (Talk | block) (137,830 bytes) (Undo revision 307587 by Moulton (Talk)does it hurt?)
 (diff) 17:43, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,307 bytes) (Reverting vandalism.)
 (diff) 17:36, 15 August 2008 . . 71.242.27.212 (Talk | block) (137,830 bytes) (Undo revision 307581 by Moulton (Talk)how late you stayin up?)
 (diff) 17:35, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,307 bytes) (Reverting vandalism.)
 (diff) 17:31, 15 August 2008 . . 71.242.27.212 (Talk | block) (137,830 bytes) (Undo revision 307578 by Moulton (Talk)Yep, and no 3RR -- we can do this all night you fucking psycho.)
 (diff) 17:30, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,307 bytes) (Reverting vandalism. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia.)
 (diff) 17:26, 15 August 2008 . . 71.242.27.212 (Talk | block) (137,830 bytes) (Petition for Redress of Grievance this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. DO NOT REPLACE IT. See WP:Civil)
 (diff) 14:20, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (139,307 bytes) (Petition for Redress of Grievance new section)
 (diff) 12:30, 15 August 2008 . . Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (137,830 bytes) (Focus Feel free to signal when you are rolling your eyes, weeping in despair, etc. Just be sure to use In-Band Signaling.)

In addition, there are these undeleted edit summaries from User:71.242.27.212... 


 18:49, 16 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Moulton ? (?Petition for Redress of Grievance)
 21:13, 14 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Ethics Resources - Links ? (?Web Resources rem per SBJohnny -- obviously Kort's definition of ethics differs from that of most people.)
 20:51, 14 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Ethics Resources - Links ? (this does not belong here)

Moulton 15:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned links[edit]

Thanks. I now am using a more functional IRC client. :) Moulton 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your email exchange with Jimbo Wales[edit]

Hi Moulton, I read some of the electronic mails between you and Wales. As I can see, he was upset because you carbon-copied your emails to someone else, not that you have a counsel, (which is actually none of his business). Of course you are free to send your own writing to whomever you like. He might have been worried that you forwarded his emails to somebody else (but of course I cannot guess his thoughts), which you have no right to do (but it would have been okay if you talked about it in your own words, and were careful not to disclose any sensitive information [which I didn't notice any]...). Do you find the flow of information a little confusing, when you want to solve problems where privacy is involved? I do. Hillgentleman|Talk 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the initial E-Mail came in from Jimbo, I typed this into my Skype chat window with Alison:
Alison typed back, "Interesting. Call me?"
I then opened a Skype voice call with Alison, which I kept open throughout the exchange of E-Mails. Alison composed substantial portions of my responses, which I copied from our Skype chat window into the E-Mail, editing to write in my voice, rather than hers. I bcc'd her on everything, since she was acting as my counsel.
When Jimbo wrote that message taking exception to my bcc'ing Alison, she and I discussed it. I pointed out that in replying to Jimbo's opening message, I had ignored his (inappropriate) request to communicate "in private" (i.e. without benefit of counsel), and simply made him a counter offer to contact me at his convenience by phone, Skype, chat, or e-mail. He took up my counter-offer.
Note that I never acceded to his request for privacy, as I would have been a fool to enter into delicate (and potentially adversarial) discussions and negotiations without the benefit of counsel. Jimbo has on the WMF payroll the most brilliant counsel in all of cyberspace, and I imagine he routinely avails himself of that counsel. Surely Jimbo did not intend to deprive me of the right to comparably competent counsel from among those whom I consider to be comparably well-placed in the Wikisphere to wisely and intelligently reckon the subtleties of such delicate discussions and negotiations.
There was no privacy issue involved. Jimbo was just stepping in after FeloniousMonk, Centaur of attention, Jim62sch, and Cary Bass had all tried (and failed) to directly remove (or to induce me or SB Johnny to remove) links to my blog.
I would not have published the E-Mails except for the last one, in which Jimbo — apparently taking leave of his senses — violated his own ethical principles and issued a threat to personally block me on Wikiversity.
On Wikipedia, it is against policy to write an autobiographical article in mainspace, or even edit your own biographical article. Here on Wikiversity (and also on Wikipedia) Centaur of attention and FeloniousMonk have both redacted the brief biographical sketches in my user pages. On the English Language Wikipedia, FeloniousMonk replaced the biographical sketch on my user page with false and defamatory allegations and used his Admin powers to block me and lock my user pages against editing.
But do I not have an unalienable right to tell the true story of my own life somewhere? Perhaps my blog or personal website is the only venue where I am free to bear accurate witness and tell the true story of my own life. Do I yield to Jimbo Wales — the founder of the seventh most visited web site in the world — the power to dictate whether or not I am free to tell the true story of my own life on an obscure personal blog that hardly anyone reads except for a few ridiculous characters on Wikipedia who seem to be obsessed with providing me with more memoir material than I can possibly fit into a full-length book?
Moulton 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillgentleman says "you forwarded his emails to somebody else [...] which you have no right to do". I am unaware of the source of this claim. Can anyone help me out in this regard? If someone sends me a threat in the mail why would I not have the responsibility to bring that threat to others attention? Is this some kind of mafia code? "When I tell you 'Give me money or I will burn your house down', you do not have the right to tell anyone about it". I saw nothing in Jimbo's mail to Moulton that was private. Just behavior that he was ashamed to be made public because he wishes to be enabled to continue behaving in ways he claims he is not, i.e. cabalism. A term he himself first used to describe this manner of management of an online site. Is cabalism an ethical way to run a charity-funded online encyclopedia site? Is cabalism an appropiate subject for a WikiVersity project on the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia? What do others think about this? When this project was first started, I warned that Jimbo would not like it - now you know why. WAS 4.250 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't forward them. I bcc'ed Alison on my replies to Jimbo, since she had helped me draft them. Had he called me on the phone, she would have heard me speaking to Jimbo, since I had a live Skype voice call in progress with her all through the exchange with Jimbo. —Moulton 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wound of Amfortas[edit]

Elsewhere you mentioned "most problematic Narcissistic Wound of all — the Never-Healing Wound of Amfortas" and provided this link - http://www.jrhaule.net/wound.html - which says "Complexes are the sub-personalities into which our psyches have been "split." Such a formulation, common to both Jung and his French forebears, implies an original wholeness which has been injured or wounded in some way." My understanding of "Society of Mind" ideas is that the mind's subsystems are necessarily "split" - just as a computer program's contents are necessarily split into separate subsystems. So there is no wounding needed. It seems to be a difference between believing there is a unified soul that has been wounded thus causing separate subsystems versus a belief in the human mind as a meat computer thus necessitating separate subsystems.

It goes on: " Jung addresses the human tendency to dissociation and fragmentation: 'The breakdown of the harmonious cooperation of psychic forces in instinctive life is like an ever open and never healing wound, a veritable Amfortas' wound, because the differentiation of one function among several inevitably leads to the hypertrophy of the one and the neglect and atrophy of the others.' " Amfortas' wound is then, in modern cognitive science, simply the necessary balancing and unbalancing of output from the body/mind's various subsystems.

All in all, it boils down to a misunderstanding based on the myth that we have a soul. WAS 4.250 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to understand either the literary analysis of the Parsifal story or the Jungian analysis that goes with it. John Ryan Haule does claim to be a scholar of the subject, and I find his scholarship intriguing, but I am in no position to evaluate, critique, or defend it, as the subject is a fairly new one to me. —Moulton 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WAS, please see this thread on Storytelling in Moulton's Playspace at WorldCrossing for more thoughts about Freudian/Jungian perspectives on the subject. —Moulton 12:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother: "Act like a professional and stop fucking your patient who is my daughter!"

Jung: "She is a whore who is paying me with sex so if you will pay me with cash, then I can stop accepting her 'payments'."

Daughter: "I thought we were in love, you cad!" (hit, kick, scratch)

WAS 4.250 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An amazing story, eh? See this portrayal of Sabina Spielrein reading from her diaries. —Moulton 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth and Reconciliation Process[edit]

Topic:Moulton Vs. Centaur of attention WAS 4.250 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! —Moulton 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Server[edit]

At www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu it says: "Authorized USU students may request a channel assignment for originating live MPEG (MP3 or AAC+) audio streamcasting". Would it really be possible for Wikiversity participants to use this resource/system/equipment? --JWSchmidt 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. A few months ago the USU School of Journalism and Communication upgraded to a new Fusion HD3 Streaming Audio Server. The old server, which I installed some four years ago, is idle on a little used machine. We've long used it for casual stream-casting by friends of USU, MuseNet, and the Orenda Project. You are welcome to use it anytime. I can even assign you permanent channels on ShoutCast. IceCast allows you to create arbitrary named channels at will. Also, I can fire up the TeamSpeak-2 voice conferencing server, too. —Moulton 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Historybuff has been the "technical guru" for our past Wiki Campus Radio experiments....I just sent him an email informing him of your offer. I have previously experimented with some podcasts about Wikiversity. If we wanted to streamcast a list of audio files on your "old server", how would we get that started? How can we set up the TeamSpeak for use by Wikiversity participants? --JWSchmidt 20:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once a live program has been recorded for archival purposes, there is no particular advantage to rebroadcasting it unless you have a distributed audience that you want to listen to it in synchrony. Individuals can just request a direct feed from the archive. ShoutCast will feed such static files on demand, or they can just be accessed as MP3 files (or Ogg Vorbis files) like any static resource via a Web browser. The main point of ShoutCast or IceCast is for an audience to listen to program content that is being originated live. Of course music radio stations just stream from their library in some semi-random order, so that listeners just get some mix of music from some genre.
To serve up a library of existing podcasts, they just have to be uploaded to the server machine, so that they reside on the server's hard drive, to be accessed on demand.
For example, I had an historic vinyl recording about Spiro Agnew, which I recorded off my old phonograph player into MP3. You can listen to it via the ShoutCast server or just fetch it directly. It comes out the same either way.
Here is another web page, with an album of folk music saved in AAC format.
Moulton 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information about the capabilities of the system you have access to. One thing that we learned from our previous efforts is that due to the small size of our community and the fact that people are busy and distributed all around the world it is hard for us to get multiple participants together for live recording sessions, so having a way to do that was only one of the goals.....we were also looking for other ways to gradually build up and retain a group of participants. We previously spent some time exploring ways to help people record their audio contributions for temporally distributed collaborative efforts. One approach we experimented with was a "call in system" where Wikiversity participants could be listening to a pre-recorded "show" and then connect to the server when they had time to record their comments/contributions. A major problem we had was that we were using multiple "donated servers"...just when we started to learn how to use one, it was no longer available. --JWSchmidt 23:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old server at USU will run until it physically dies. As long as I don't put more load on the machine than it can sustain, it won't be going away. It also has the archives of many years of back issues of the Hard News Cafe, so the J-School has a vested interest in keeping that machine healthy. —Moulton 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone can create additional rooms (channels), but if not, I'll extend the privileges as necessary. I have the SysAdmin privileges on that server, so I can extend registration invitations to visitors, which will then lock in their registration ID and privileges. If you want SA privs, I can extend that, too. I'll be home from MoS in about an hour from now. Moulton 22:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio barnstar[edit]

Audio barnstar

Thanks for your contributions to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, kudos to you, John, for adopting, embracing, promoting, and employing appropriate, creative, and productive media technologies to support the educational vision and mission of Wikimedia-sponsored projects. Setting up the multi-media technology is the easy part. Encouraging Wikimedians to innovatively employ such useful communication affordances is the hard part. —Moulton 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has the right to create pages and sections that express THEIR point of view[edit]

Feel free to create whatever new learning resources you think would be useful for someone trying to manage a media or encyclopedia project ethically or improve existing learning resources. Collaborative edits are fine; completely changing the meaning should not be done to another's contributions - instead, create an alternative learning resource rather than do that. Others can read either or both and make up their own mind.

Moulton, you and everyone else have the right to create sections and pages that represent their point of view. You and everyone else should feel free to revert anyone who changes the meaning of such sections or pages that they create which represent their point of view.

The creator of such learning resources are the final authority of if their point of view was changed.

WAS 4.250 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about replacing a blatantly false assertion unsupported by a shred of evidence with "allegedly" so? —Moulton 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just create your own section with your own claims and evidence and let the reader make up their own mind. WAS 4.250 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I just create a Section 7, claiming that Section 6 is false and defamatory, published by an anonymous coward, and unsupported by a shred of evidence and reasoning? —Moulton 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of an alternative that is within the rules of WikiVersity. I suggest you get advice from at least one other person before you embark on making such claims. I'm guessing that there are considerations I should advise you about that have not occurred to me. WAS 4.250 04:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikiversity:Request custodian action: Are personal attacks unsupported by any evidence allowed?, where SB Johnny doesn't answer that question. —Moulton 05:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikiversity, as at all Wikimedia projects, we try to be civil. I'd ask that you please try and be civil with User:Salmon of Doubt — your repeated insertions on his talk page of something that he clearly deems offensive just seems provocative. Cormaggio talk 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that he deems it offensive. Rather it seems to me that what he wants from me is a response the he can use when someone does to him what he is doing to me. That is, my theory is that he is presenting to me one of his more troubling unsolved issues from his own life experience. Do you appreciate the evidence to support my theory as to what he does or doesn't want? Moulton 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is he "doing to you"? Also: please note that I've no way of evaluating your claims, unless you point to specific edits/pages. But then again, I, like anyone who is following this project from an 'outsider' pov, am overwhelmed by the sheer baggage of this project. It would really help if you could try to build a case study that includes different points of view, and discusses and analyses those points of view. Cormaggio talk 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is doing what IDCab has always done on en:WP. He is an otherwise unidentified anonymous editor who blithely publishes false and defamatory statements about an identifiable living person, unsupported by evidence or reasoning, unwilling to be held accountable or respond to questions, and defiantly erasing any challenge to his atrocious mendacity. The resulting liminal social drama is well known and goes by the name "Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination." It's alternatively known (on the English Wikipedia) as The BLP Problem. In other words, Salmon of Doubt exemplifies and reifies the unmitigated and appalling absence of ethics in online media. This absence of ethics on the English Language Wikipedia has long been documented on the Media Ethics Blog in the School of Journalism and Communication at Utah State University and on any random newspaper on any day of the year...

So, Cormaggio, how does IDCab manage to get rid of those like me who are willing to stick around and argue the lonely case for accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media? —Moulton 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, wouldn't it be better if you both tried to engage each other — or at least, work on alternative representations of the case, and discuss your differences? Wouldn't that be a more likely way for this project to actually achieve something in feeding back some of your experiences to Wikipedia? Does it really matter that there's someone who thinks that your participation might not have been so productive? Can't you let that representation sit, and deal with it via another means, rather than resorting to the kinds of potentially insulting comments you've made? Btw, I'm deliberately not taking anyone's side here — I'm simply trying to push this conflict into a more productive arena. Cormaggio talk 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are engaged, Cormaggio. Salmon of Doubt and I are playing a little game of chess. This is Salmon of Doubt's preferred way to engage with me. It's a curious way to learn, but there are some people who prefer to learn by engaging in games, dramas, or similar kinds of structured asymmetrical competitions. It's not my favorite way, either, but sometimes one has to speak the other person's language. This is one of those times. There is no doubt that my participation in the English Wikipedia was entirely unproductive. I utterly failed to produce the outcome I sought, namely accuracy, excellence, and ethics in those dozen or so atrocious BLPs and related articles and non-article space pages.
Salmon of Doubt has not characterized my comments as "insulting" (even though some might characterize them that way). The problem we are jointly working on, Cormaggio, is how to play a high quality Two-Person Non-Zero Sum Game of Narcissistic Wounding, which is a scaled down version of the Massive Multiplayer Game of Narcissistic Wounding and Mugging, which was the game IDCab played with me last August and September. This is the game that WAS 4.250 did the play-by-play on when we reran the movies on it a few months back...

Template:Quotation

Moulton 17:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that's my job! But seriously, thanks — I agree with you completely, Cormaggio. WAS 4.250 13:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from SB_Johnny's page (Johnny is busy, and tired of seeing new messages that aren't for him!)[edit]

Outcome of Sunday's IRC Discussions[edit]

Sunday afternoon on IRC...

Moulton 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of your neurotype, and while I know it takes a non-typical amount of effort, you need to accept guidance as guidance, which is something different from coersion or negotiation. For my part, it's not worth offering guidance if you're not willing to follow it. I know you feel hurt and that you want that to be acknowledged, and that you'd like to see this come to an end. Larry (and Jimbo) know that too, but we just can't work with you if you're not willing to stop hurting people as well. So all I can offer is guidance, and if it's a neurotype issue some of that guidance will be guidance towards navigating in an NT dominated culture. I can't promise to give you guidance tomorrow, but if I have something to say, I'll say it. --SB_Johnny talk 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually quite easy to provide guidance to me. Alison did it flawlessly in E-Mail in the same thread where Lar excoriated me for violating some non-existent clause in the WMF Privacy Policy. What Alison did is candidly disclose her fear — namely that some robot scraper would pick up the one mailbox address of hers that was not one of her public throw-away mailboxes for public consumption on-wiki. With that datum on Alison's Affective Emotional State, I was instantly able to compute my ethical best practice, which was to redact the e-mail address so as to allay her fears. You see, I am quite able to do emotional information processing. What I am poor at is guessing the hidden variables of another person's mindset or psychological state, such as their worst fear. Most people in power like to make rules that outlaw whatever it is they dread the most. But I find it nigh impossible to infer the precise dread that impels some Machiavellian Control Phreak to make a rule that covers their otherwise unarticulated dread. —Moulton 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday night on IRC...

Moulton 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good step. Maybe you could just send him an email telling him you took it down, apologizing, and asking him if there's anything else you can do to smooth the way between you two. You can CC to me if you like, or better yet send me a draft to look over before emailing him. I don't have a lot of time today, but I'll try get to it before sundown. --SB_Johnny talk 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the designated go-between, Johnny. I took it down at your behest with the understanding that doing so would unshackle and unencumber you to mediate between me and Jimmy, or perhaps between yourself and Alison. It's abundantly clear to me that Jimmy is very nervous when it comes to dialoguing with me, for reasons that you no doubt understand better than I do. —Moulton 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, send me an email to look over. I'm not really sure what you want to talk to him about. --SB_Johnny talk 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny, Jimbo opened a channel to me. I had never written him before in my whole life. He wanted to talk to me about something. I told him he could contact me at his convenience, by phone, Skype, chat, or E-Mail. He still can. All he asked me to send him (by E-Mail) was a list of problematic articles on en:WP, which I sent him the next morning. They are also now posted here, in lieu of the E-Mail transcript that you entreated me to redact from the Media Ethics Blog. —Moulton 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of Monday's IRC Discussions[edit]

On Monday morning on IRC, SB Johnny asked me to compose a message to Jimbo, telling him I took down the blog post, and apologizing for it.

I composed the first draft and posted it on IRC, but it wasn't very good. Then a counselor of mine showed up on Google Chat and proposed a rewrite. That led to a second draft, which I also posted on IRC.

Then my counselor decided to compose a third draft on his own.

You can view all three drafts here.

Feel free to comment on any or all of them.

Moulton 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of Wednesday's Google Chat Discussions[edit]

On Wednesday, another counselor asked me to redact the annoying lyrics to "Screw Barry Thrill" as a favor to him, to pave the way to resolve the year-old conflict on en:WP over the atrocious BLPs of various signers of the petition known to many readers of Wikipedia as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."

I have done so, in the hopes that he, like SB Johnny, will now be unencumbered in working with Jimbo to solve the problems that have vexed and perplexed us for a full year now.

At his request, I also revised his Third Draft to accurately reflect the new state of affairs. Please see the new Fourth Draft of the letter that SB Johnny asked me to send to Jimbo.

If there are no objections to the wording, I'll send that version to Jimbo.

Moulton 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks a lot better, and I think removing the "Screw Barry Thrilll" stuff will help cool things down in general (and might be one of the reasons that people on the other side of the debates on Wikipedia are now willing to collaborate (more or less) on the Wikiversity project). However, now that I know what you're asking him about, I'm not sure how much he'll be able to help you: he has long taken the position that he should keep himself out of edit disputes on Wikipedia. Is that what you want him to do? --SB_Johnny talk 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So could you and my other counselor (do you know who that is?) come to an agreement or understanding about whether there is any need or point in my sending Jimbo the fourth draft? If I sent that, would you and the other counselor be in a liberated position to work cooperatively and constructively with Jimbo to address the issue of the atrocious BLPs, et al, as cited here?
What I want Jimbo to do is to manifest his leadership as the Co-Founder of Wikipedia, as Chairman Emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as Self-Styled Spiritual Leader of the Project, in accordance with his own Personal Principles. How he manifests that leadership is his sole decision. It is not my station, as an indef-blocked Wikipedian, to dictate to Jimbo how he should go about intervening on behalf of those academics who have been sore afflicted and aggrieved by dint of being the subject of atrocious BLPs on Wikipedia. Perhaps Jimbo could just suggest that Wikipedians establish a better practice of Fair Play than has thus far been afforded to outcasts such as myself.
Moulton 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, he certainly could suggest that, and I think asking him for that favor would be OK (just remember that you're asking a favor, not demanding service). And no, I've had no contact with your other mentor. --SB_Johnny talk 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it would be a tad arrogant on my part to suggest to Jimbo that he manifest his influence as spiritual leader by promoting a better practice of fair play. And the reason he might be inclined to do that is not as a favor to me, but as a matter of demonstrating his own ethical principles, which are presumably designed to provide a sustainable foundation for the enterprise. Do you need me to provide you with the name and e-mail contact of my other counselor, or do you already have that at hand? —Moulton 18:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're in a position to demand demonstrations from him. You're certainly not in a position to demand demonstrations from me, and I'm just some guy. If you really want to have a conversation with him, you need to make an effort to see him as just some guy. This ain't politics, it's just discussion among equals. --SB_Johnny talk 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Between you me, and the lamp post, Johnny, I wouldn't expect Jimbo to do the right thing if saving the Universe depended on it. Remember, Johnny, Jimbo initiated contact with me. I had never contacted him in my life. He was the one who was desperate to talk to me. And why? Because FeloniousMonk was relentlessly hocking his chinek over a silly song parody. —Moulton 01:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a third party who does not have relationships with the subjects or the original background, but has been sought for advice, I think the outcome to hope for in relaying this information to Jimbo is not for him to change, or to interfere, but to make sure that he knows of the possible problems (as he has stated before that he believes strongly in the "respect" issue around BLP) and to negate any of the possible abuse of admin tools that could be attempted in retaliation or as a preventative measure to hinder these articles from becoming neutral. I took it upon myself to rework the one article to bring it in accord with "weight". The problem that I see is that many professors are having their action work and life's progress being ignored while something that could (at most) be discussed in a few lines being expanded into multiple paragraphs. When I stepped in before, it was to add content, and no one bothered too much with me. However, that is not to say that the same possibility could happen again. By bringing it to Jimbo's attention, we could, at least, get the moral support for the motivating philosophy (not necessarily an agreement on the actual dispute). I'm sure this is all a jumble, but I thought I might add my 2 cents on the matter. Ottava Rima 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support is something Jimbo can offer. He can also offer moral opposition. Moral opposition tends to have a stronger effect, and right now Moulton has earned moral opposition from Jimbo among others. --SB_Johnny talk 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I exhibit the language through which Jimbo has expressed to me his "moral opposition"? —Moulton 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, SB, and I assumed that from the beginning. Hence, the need to take Jimbo's negative and turn it into a positive. :) Ottava Rima 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton: no :-). Do send him the letter though, and see what he says. Can't hurt, but don't expect too much from him when it comes to content disputes on en.wp. --SB_Johnny talk 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See your E-Mail for a copy. —Moulton 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SB, when you get a chance, I would like to discuss some things with you. I can work on 17th - 19th century British Lit (poetry, prose and novels) if there is any need. Moulton has been trying to get me to start contributing. Ottava Rima 06:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

It has now been 11 days since Jimbo first contacted me and requested that I send him a list of atrocious BLPs on the English Language Wikipedia. It's also been three days since I sent him the soothing reminder note that SB Johnny and Ottava Rima suggested as an olive branch. I have not yet heard back from him. Nor have I yet heard back from FloNight, the inactive ArbCom member who promised to get back to me on a question I posed to her on IRC last Thursday, on the occasion of the first anniversary of my initial (and now legendary) encounter with IDCab. —Moulton 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton, if you quote specific claims in specific wikipedia articles and provide links to reliable online sources that dispute those claims, then I will see what I can do to render those claims NPOV. Perhaps create an ethics project learning resource with that data as a resource useful especially in conjunction with the Moulton case study. You can also add reliable published offline sources and someone else might use those to do something. I'm not sure unreliable sources are useful here, but perhaps they should also be added (but noted as unreliable according to Wikipedia standards); to the extent that you find them convincing - such as a record of a conversation you had with someone. This would detail why you believe the claims are false even if they could not be used to add content. Sometimes we use unreliable sources to remove a claim, even tho such sources can not be used to add a claim. WAS 4.250 19:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the next section, Travesties of the Intelligent Design Cabal. —Moulton 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travesties of the Intelligent Design Cabal[edit]

Last week, I sent to Jimbo Wales (at his request) a list of problematic BLP's and related articles and non-article pages produced by members of the Intelligent Design Cabal. Here is a concise summary of the items in that list.

Template:Quotation

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The main complaint that permeates most (if not all) of the above pages is the ungrounded assertion that 103 scientists and academics who signed an untitled 2-sentence, 32-word statement in 2001 are, ipso facto, proponents of Intelligent Design and/or anti-evolution. As you know, James Tour, David Berlinski, and Rosalind Picard are all on record as being skeptical of assertions that fail to meet the rigors of scientific review. In particular, Picard responded this way to me in E-Mail:

Moulton 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One change[edit]

Maybe it is a matter of too much data. Hit me with one change you want to be made. WAS 4.250 05:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Picard BLP, change this paragraph...

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[23][24] Though some of her beliefs are similar, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[22]

to this...

Picard is one of the original signers (in 2001) of the following untitled statement promoting rigorous adherence to the protocols of the Scientific Method:

The above quoted statement has since evolved into a controversial petition which the Discovery Institute has labeled and characterized as A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media (notably including Wikipedia) has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[22]

And then obtain a permanent injunction against IDCab barring them from ever going anywhere near Picard's BLP, the related article on Affective Computing, or Moulton's en:WP User page.
I am not asking for any of them to write Picard (or me) an apology, as I don't imagine they are capable of feeling even a tinge remorse for their atrocious and unmitigated travesties under the watchful eye of the cognizant officers of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Moulton 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Religion and science" section as a whole now reads:

Picard says that she was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult.[2] She is dismissive of scientific reductionism and said that scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure. She believes it likely that there is "still something more" to life, beyond what we have discovered, and sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are".[2] She sees her religious beliefs as playing a role in her work in affective computing.[1]

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[3][4] Though some of her beliefs are similar, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[2]

I believe that is a fair neutral representation of the sources provided. Why do you think it is not? WAS 4.250 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence contains two falsehoods unsupported by evidence from any reliable source:
WAS, can you identify the two falsehoods in the above sentence and determine why they are false (and unsupported by any reliable evidence or sound reasoning)?
There is also a follow-on sentence that begins, "Though some of her beliefs are similar..." What is the reliable source for stating that "some of her beliefs are similar" to what the preceding sentence (the one with two embedded falsehoods) asserts?
Note that I did this exercise here twice before, once with Ottava Rima and once with John W Schmidt. Each time it takes me about an hour to do the exercise to enable someone to discover what the two falsehoods are and why they are not supported by any reliable source. If I have to do this exercise independently with several dozen editors, one-by-one, it will probably take me a long time (notwithstanding the often overlooked fact that I have previously published a blog post about them).
I wonder if there is a more efficient way to arrive at the ground truth, or to bring Wikipedia up to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Moulton 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced of your assertions. Please provide evidence and logic rather than unsupported claims. If you wish to assert that the wikipedia article contains an unsupported claim, you must identify the claim. WAS 4.250 23:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I exhibited the false claim. The claim is false because someone made it up. There is no reliable source upon which the exhibited false claim can be demonstrated to be true. —Moulton 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not successfully communicating. I do not know what claim you are referring to. Be clear. WAS 4.250 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(an aside) On Wikipedia at the article about the dihydrogen monoxide "hoax", there was a short sentence about it, something related to harming a bladder , and me and another person had a hilarious back and forth where we just could not understand each other and it turned out that he was concentrating on one word of the sentence while I was concentrating on another word in the sentence. Something about it not causing harm because you can piss. It was funny. WAS 4.250 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Three unsupported claims[edit]

There are three unsupported claims in those two sentences that I raised to your attention:Moulton 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The first unsupported claim is that Picard signed a document entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" ("ASDFD"). That claim is false. Picard signed an untitled document which was later given that label by the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, who took it from a headline in a PR campaign in which the untitled statement was embedded.Moulton 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make the claim that Picard signed the document that is now identified by the name "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" after it was so labeled. Further as that identifier is not especially misleading to the average reader, it would be undue weight and fairly pointless to add that claim to that section. Further, I do not have published reliable sources for that claim, although I believe you. WAS 4.250 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then take the sentence out, since it's false and misleading and unsupported by credible evidence or analysis. —Moulton 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I just explained, it is neither false nor misleading. Seriously, do you have reading comprehension problems? That would explain a lot. WAS 4.250 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I have reading comprehension problems, WAS. It's that Don Hopkins has reading comprehension problems. —Moulton 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) The second unsupported claim is that the 2-sentence, 32-word statement which is now referenced by both the Discovery Institute and by the WikiClique on Intelligent Design by that name ("ASDFD") is used by the "Intelligent Design Movement" to "to promote Intelligent Design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution" is unsupported by evidence or analysis. In particular, the only reliable scholarly source on the Intelligent Design Movement is Barbara Forrest's definitive study, Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. If you examine Barbara Forrest's 44-page document, you will discover that nowhere does she identify the petition as a resource employed by the Intelligent Design Movement for any purpose whatsoever. The only other known reference, "often cited as proof" is a press release by the DI staff, which is not WP:RS for any purpose other than its own existence.—Moulton 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the ASDFD petition is used to promote Intelligent Design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution seems obviously true to me and it is enough if it is adequately sourced in the linked article; however as you point out, it is not so I have requested help in finding an appropriate source.By the way, Barbara Forrest's study, Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals is NOT "the only reliable scholarly source on the Intelligent Design Movement. Why would you think it was? Please read w:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al (I read that at the government site it was first published at - http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). WAS 4.250 01:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the NY Times article. It doesn't support what the IDCab says. More to the point Barbara Forrest's comprehensive study utterly refutes it. And the findings of the trial rest on Forrest's expert analysis. —Moulton 01:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the NY Times article doesn't support what you say the IDCab says it says. I don't see how that justfies me altering that section of that article. WAS 4.250 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) The third unsupported claim is the claim that "some of Picard's beliefs are similar" to the beliefs expressed in the aforementioned sentence, which I have just shown to be a fabrication of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, and unsupported by any WP:RS.Moulton 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "some of Picard's beliefs are similar" is adequately supported by the sourced claims in that section that she:
  1. believes in a "Maker that has brought this about"
  2. "converted to Christianity as a young adult"
  3. "is dismissive of scientific reductionism"
  4. believes DNA is too complex to have originated through purely random processes and believes that it shows the mark of intervention
WAS 4.250 00:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can her beliefs be similar to a fabricated statement — an idiotic flight of fancy crafted out of whole cloth by IDCab?!? That's utterly absurd. Her beliefs are so nuanced that I couldn't begin to characterize them in my own words. And neither can you or anyone else who's never met her. —Moulton 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in that sentence. WAS 4.250 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of a new discussion thread on the Picard BLP talk page. Ottava Rima is arguing with Dave Souza and Ian Ramjohn over the same issue. The IDCab editors are playing dumb. —Moulton 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: w:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Problems_with_a_petition and w:Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#OR_synthesis_n_a_BLP_problem, posted today by Ottava Rima. —Moulton 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=234900790 WAS 4.250 02:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desist[edit]

Untill such time as you can write on my talk page without engaging in personal attacks, you are requested to contact me no further. Salmon of Doubt 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to discontinue responding to you when you desist summoning me by name. —Moulton 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, please just leave the guy alone. If you want to have working relationships with other users, you might not want to start by adding comments like "Now comes the whiner of our discontent" to their talk pages. You're more or less just proving him right about being disruptive. --SB_Johnny talk 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny, I'll be happy to leave the guy alone, provided he can see his way clear to discontinue the practice of summoning me with his endless allegations of wrongdoing. It occurs to me that if it pleases him to perpetually publish allegations of wrongdoing, then I am entitled to respond to his summonses. Do you disagree with that ethic? —Moulton 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, you are entitled to respond. Where you respond depends on the circumstances. To the extent that someone owns a venue, they can decide whether you can respond there or not. At WikiVersity, on a user talk page, it seems reasonable for the user to require all such responses to not be perceived by them as an attack. WAS 4.250 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salmon of Doubt has the affordance here of restricting who can respond on his talk page. He has declined to invoke that affordance in favor of exercising the "reward and punishment" model of the lower rungs of Kohlberg's Ladder. I infer he wishes to learn more about the human socio-cultural dynamics of operating at the lower rungs of the Kohlberg Ladder. He has a right to learn that by the method he prefers (dramatic re-enactment). —Moulton 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It brings tears to my eyes to see the magnificent generosity of you and he being willing to expend so much time joyfully educating each other — he with punishments carefully and judiciously applied and you with your multi-player tit-for-tat dramas. The loving kindness of mankind is a wonderful thing to behold. WAS 4.250 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. —Moulton 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request, or two, or three[edit]

Wikiversity:Request custodian action#User talk:Salmon of Doubt and User:Moulton

Teaching style. Moulton, could you please find ways to work with "Salmon of Doubt" that do not upset him/her? I'm thinking that if you want to create a learning project called "How Moulton taught Salmon of Doubt a Lesson" then you should do so and restrict your efforts to that page. It is disruptive to Wikiversity if you try to run your educational theater performances on pages that are not explicitly related to teaching "Salmon of Doubt" a lesson. --JWSchmidt 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a teacher, John. I'm an educational researcher. I don't even believe in teaching. But I do believe in crafting efficacious learning environments. I have not yet discovered how to do that for characters like Salmon of Doubt. —Moulton 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said "scholar" but I did not expect quibbles. You are free to explore your "puzzles" such as how to match "Salmon of Doubt" to an appropriate learning environment, but try to find a way to do so that does not interfere with the activities of other Wikiversity participants. This is a compromise request: I'm asking you to sacrifice a small amount of your freedom for the harmony of Wikiversity. Not every learning activity you can imagine is suitable for Wikiversity. I think there are other more constructive activities that we can engage in here. Pages such as the Colloquium are not the place to put on a performance of the Moulton and Salmon show. I've tried to explain to you that drama disrupts Wikiversity...this community has a much lower tolerance for it than does Wikipedia...you could say that this community expects people to be friendlier. Wikiversity participants do not come here to witness the kind of drama that you and Salmon have been generating. If you do not understand that, I'd be happy to continue discussing it with you. --JWSchmidt 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am studying Salmon of Doubt, because he is a perplexing character to me. I am perplexed why he persists in posting mean-spirited screeds and diatribes on his user page, on his talk page, and on a half dozen project pages spanning the site. I am perplexed why he posts terroristic threats on WAS 4.250's talk page. I am perplexed why he rejects the offer to negotiate a mutually agreeable social contract. These are discordant and disharmonious practices, John. I do not have the musical talent to convert that discord and disharmony into music that pleases the ear. It's possible that someone of the musical aptitude of The Fiery Angel could do it, but he's not here. If you want to be rid of liminal social drama ranging to lunatic drama, it's trivially easy to do that. All known scholarly research on the subject says the way to do it is to advance from the lower rungs of the Kohlberg Ladder to Level 5, the Social Contract. Since Salmon of Doubt is on record as refusing to negotiate, agree to, or abide by a Social Contract, that would automatically make him (and others like him who thrive on the heart-pounding, gut-wrenching drama of police procedurals) ineligible for admission to a placid scholarly refuges like Wikiversity. —Moulton 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I view Salmon's user page statement as the "world according to Salmon". What would be particularly useful is a short, easy to understand statement describing what was wrong with that rfc. You could put such a statement at the top of your user page. I'm not familiar with the other problems you mention, but if you think the constitute an actionable violation of Wikipedia policy you could document them at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. Maybe we need to make a "learn by doing" learning project for "The Kohlberg Ladder". --JWSchmidt 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I hate to be the one to break the news to youse guise, but Salmon and Moulton have been doing just that the past week or so. Moulton's been trying to reel that Salmon up Kohlberg's Ladder, whilst others are bashing him back down to the submerged bottom rung of Kohlberg's Rusty Ladder. Can't youse guise agree on the desirable direction of motion in the Kohlberg-Gilligan Plane? —Montana Mouse 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, we could ban anyone who acts as if punishment or tit-for-tat were a useful way to resolve disputes. WAS 4.250 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muhahahaha. —Gastrin Bombesin 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Creative signatures. I think it would be constructive if all your signatures included a link to your user page. If you need help creating such a signature, just ask. I think we could find some folks who would be glad to help. --JWSchmidt 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Researching that would be a waste of my time, especially since (as you well know) no one is the least bit confused about the identity of my alternate avatar names, all of which I have used for years, and all of which have long been disclosed on the project discussion page on participants and objectives. However, if you want to assign that Wiki-coding exercise to someone who enjoys doing arcane Wiki-coding, be my guest. —Moulton 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you say "Researching that would be a waste of my time". Making a link to your user page is trivial. I suspect that you understand the utility of linking signatures to user pages. I can't imagine why you are digging in your heals on this matter. Knowing who said what is an important part of social interactions in a wiki environment. In the interest of social harmony, I'm asking that you please try doing a few small silly traditional things that help your fellow participants interact with you in this collaborative environment. Using signatures that link to your user page is such a small thing...I cannot understand why you resist making such a tiny effort to help your fellow editors. This is not something I'm going to force you to do. I have no authority to do that. I'm requesting that you try this as a simple method that should remove a silly source of conflict and let people get back to more constructive activities. What's wrong with making a big link to the character page and a small link to your user page? --JWSchmidt 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Researching Wiki-Markup is not my cup of tea, John. I despise Wiki-Markup. That's why I've written 22 articles on Google Knol and none on any Wikis. If somebody hands me working code, I'll use it. But I am not going to waste my time trying to get this ferchachta markup language to do what you want. I am sick and tired of pointless make-work. Did that idiotic letter to Jimbo achieve anything? Hell no. And everyone knew beforehand it would have zero effect. It was just make-work, just a delaying tactic. I'm sick of it. —Moulton 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, you are focusing an one part of one leaf of one tree in the forest. Have any signature you like so long as you have "Moulton" somewhere near the end of each talk page contribution. Type it in for all anyone cares. WAS 4.250 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's so special about Moulton? He's not even from Mars. Barsoom Tork 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what research would be involved, but then again, I always use the automatic signature. Can't you just include [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] in all of your signatures? --JWSchmidt 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to stay focused on constructive activities such as finding ways to improve the Wikimedia projects. --JWSchmidt 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add music back into to this project. I did that at the beginning, but much to my annoyance and chagrin, WAS unilaterally removed the musical accompaniments. I'm in a much better mood when the musical themes express the mood of the hour. Trying to express moods in text is very annoying, as you have so painfully learned the past few days. —Moulton 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see you start a project for musical satire or whatever you have in mind. Just remember, mean-spirited ditties are going to go over like a lead balloon. People come here to have fun, not experience stressful dramas. That's just the nature of this community. Just put a small muffler on your creativity so that you do not disturb the peace. By making small sacrifices we can all work together and do great things. --JWSchmidt 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Moulton's Nickelodeon. —Moulton 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had links to what was identified as "music to work to" at the very top of the main page. I removed it with the edit comment "Put it elsewhere". If you think the music links are a valuable resource for managing the project, then feel free to create a page with those links on that page and link to that page in the "Resource Management" section of the main page. WAS 4.250 23:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only page we had at the beginning of the project. Compare your discouraging and dispiriting dismissal of the music to JWSchmidt's enthusiastic embrace of it. —Moulton 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what was there to embrace at the beginning of the project. I think you are talking about something that happened before I ever looked at the ethics project. I do embrace the spirit of music, as long as it is not going to cause too much upset to other Wikimedians--JWSchmidt 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight...
You're worried that some music (which nobody is obliged to take notice of, attend to, or listen to) is going to be annoying or upsetting to Wikimedians, while I'm utterly outraged by dozens of atrocious BLPs that, for two and a half-years have libeled and defamed a dozen academics and caused them untold grief that I still haven't found the words to tell you about.
Yah, right.
Moulton 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm not entirely against getting Wikimedians upset, its just that it has to be done in a way that will lead to constructive results. I'm not interested in seeing you just be a bull in the china shop. --JWSchmidt 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting people to think sometimes requires a little creative chinek hokking. Gastrin Bombesin 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1-week restriction[edit]

Hi Moulton, Salmon of Doubt. You two are getting out of hand, and before it really gets out of hand, I'm imposing two minor restrictions on each of you. This isn't intended to stifle your ability to add content, but rather to keep things from getting truly untenable, because you're both getting way too personal about this. Here's the rules:

  1. You will not edit one another's talk pages, period.
  2. You will not edit the "case study" that the other person initiated.

Moulton has had 6+ weeks to work on his study, Salmon of Doubt should have at least some time to collect and relay his thoughts unperturbed. Salmon of Doubt will be expected to accept lists of questions added to his narrative by other users -- including Moulton -- after the week is up.

This has teeth, guys. If you break those rules, you'll be indefblocked until we've had some time to discuss and agree upon further ground rules. Just give each other a week to cool off and get some work done: there's no deadline here, and there's lots of work to do. --SB_Johnny talk 00:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking down the atrocious screed that Salmon of Doubt put on his user page and talk page archive? —Moulton 01:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'll read through it over the next day or two and see what's to be done. It's really the same situation CoA was putting you in a month or so ago, except this time you're the one "firing the shots", and he's the one who needs space to get his work done. Hopefully he'll do as you did and take the opportunity to both finish his narrative and cool down a bit. Ideally you two should be working on this together... is there some kernel of common purpose that you share with him which can serve as a basis for collaboration? --SB_Johnny talk 08:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton, you act as if your claiming something counts as evidence that that claim is true. It does not. Further your use of extreme language in characterizing things that do not appear so extreme to others gives you credibility problems. You are your own worst enemy. Some of your initial claims have been supported by reliable published sources and have resulted in beneficial improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for that. Further changes must await someone providing published reliable sources that support the changing of content. We can not change content based solely on your opinions. WAS 4.250 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But WP can publish initial claims based on nothing but hysteria, and those hysterical claims remain presented to the public as if they were the ground truth until we can get a licensed shrink to publicly declare the initial editor to be a raving lunatic? —Moulton 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia Review and Knol and internet blogs and newspapers and Presidents can publish initial claims based on nothing but hysteria, and those hysterical claims remain presented to the public as if they were the ground truth until we can get a licensed shrink to publicly declare the initial editor to be a raving lunatic? — WAS 4.250 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knol articles are signed by an identifiable author; readers can post comments or questions, and rate the articles (which then rise or fall in the rankings). WR and blogs are opinions that do not purport to be definitive encyclopedic articles on a subject. WP purports to be an online encyclopedia compiling the "sum of all knowledge."
Today you discovered that the cited reference for an otherwise unsubstantiated claim in the ASDFD article does not, in fact, support the claim in the article. And it was good that you took away the bogus reference and replaced it with a template that a WP:RS is needed.
I am disappointed you did not do the same in the Picard BLP. I defy you to find a WP:RS that substantiates the questionable claims I highlighted upthread. The NY Times story says that DI asserts what the 2006 version of the petition means, but then Chang's story goes on to reveal that what the DI asserts is not broadly supported by interviews with known signers. The other cited link is to an exhibit of the actual petition, which carries the 5-word title (not in quotes!) that the first 103 signers did not put their name to. The reframed petition with the 5-word title does not mean the same as the 2001 statement w/o the title. The 2001 statement is a call to rigorously adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method (which Berlinski, for example, does to a fault). There isn't a shred of reliable evidence to support the DI's questionable claims (which the WP BLP inexplicably elevates to the status of {fact}).
Where in the the WP article on the ID Movement can you find a reliably sourced "belief of the ID Movement" that compares to a known (and documented) belief of Picard?
Moulton 03:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - that tells everyone what to expect. Nowhere do we claim to be anything else. That people at WR insist WP should be perfect or nonexistent is patently ridiculous. Wikipedia is useful and every year more useful. I disagree with you that "The reframed petition with the 5-word title does not mean the same as the 2001 statement w/o the title. The 2001 statement is a call to rigorously adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method". But I did take a second look to see if there was anything that could be done to make it more faithful to available sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=234718939&oldid=234697107 WAS 4.250 04:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've know Picard for 24 years. I don't know anyone who is more of a stickler for adhering to the protocols of the Scientific Method than her. Period. No one else even comes close. —Moulton 05:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? How does that prove that something she signed means what you claim it means ? Are you claiming that everything she has ever signed is "a call to rigorously adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method"? That makes no sense. Go to sleep Moulton, I'll talk to you when you are thinking clearer. WAS 4.250 05:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken to her at length on many occasions over the past 24 years. She's articulated her position to me time and again. If that means nothing to you, then you and I have no relationship. Moulton 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support[edit]

I strongly support SB_Johnny's action. I think you both should cool off from the interpersonal clash, and focus on generating a narrative of the case in question, which you can use for further discussion. You don't need to work together for the moment; you don't even need to read the other's narrative (though, obviously, you can do both if you like) - but you should focus on what you want to achieve in addressing this case, and what kinds of resources would help this process. I think it's safe to say that no-one wants to see any more disdainful comments and/or edit warring from either of you. Cormaggio talk 11:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cormaggio, you will find the narrative you requested here. —Moulton 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech[edit]

Moulton,

From my point of view, in this thread [1], you are missing two key points in Johnny's action: 1. the technical limitations of the MediaWiki engine; 2. the intention of Johnny. Let me start with number 2:

2. Johnny is trying to allow freedom of speech both for you and for Salmon; you are free to develop a learning resource from your point of view, and Salmon his; and to protect such freedom for both of you, and to make sure that both of you have your voice heard, he asked specifically that none of you edit the learning resource of the other for a week.

1. It is unfortunate that the Mediawiki engine wikiversity is using (despite being simple and powerful) doesn't allow Johnny to protect the page in such a way to allow only "some" editors edit their pages; the only options are protect, semi-protect, unprotect, or (if it is a ".js" or ".css" subpage of a userpage) editable only by one user or sysops. So Johnny had to resort to a social constraint, with the aid of an instrument of a blocking-threat, which (as far as I can see) was in the spirit of Thomas Schelling's work on The Strategy of Conflict and it was nothing personal (since, according to Schelling's arguement, in the simplified situation of a 2-player game of prisoner's dilemma, a threat is just an instrument for the player with the second move to gain the first move or the initiative.)

Moulton, I hope that you stay focused on the important study of ethics and management in wikipedia and do not be distracted by other minor issues. Good vine needs no bush; and The virtuous seeks from within himself (Confucius). Hillgentleman|Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have separate learning resources, Hillgentleman, then I request that Salmon of Doubt initiate an independent learning resource, distinct from the Ethics Project. I have no objection to any other project here, be it a Hammurabi Project, a Machiavelli Project, a Klingon Project, a Suicidal Terrorist Project, or Nuclear Holocaust Project. But I object to his contaminating the Ethics Project with patently unethical content, whilst displaying a hypocritical banner on his user page disingenuously proclaiming his adherence to the highest standards of scholarly ethics.
If Johnny's concept of free speech includes extendinig to Salmon of Doubt the unrestrained freedom to issue blatantly terroristic threats, then perhaps we can discuss that in the Colloquium, provided the Wikiversity assembly hall is not yet reduced to rubble by a self-professed suicide bomber armed with a high-power Pythonesque TerrorBot.
If you would like to implement the functional equivalent of surgical page protection (an affordance unavailable in the Media-Wiki software), then it is trivial to accomplish that via a social convention. I am eager to enter into a mutually agreeable Social Contract with everyone in Wikiversity — a Social Contract in which everyone gets exactly what they want (and then some) with a minimum of drama or stress. For the life of me, Hillgentleman, I cannot fathom why Wikiversitans have eschewed the highly functional and maximally peaceable Social Contract Model in favor of the sheer lunacy of maximally erratic and chaotic Hammurabic/Machiavelian/Klingonesque liminal social drama.
Moulton 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, I would just say that you shouldn't let Salmon of Doubt distract you. I believe his main purpose is to cause disruption, with a probable secondary goal of antagonizing you into acting up enough to get blocked here. If he gets blocked in the process of getting you blocked, I doubt it would bother him in the least, since he's intentionally hiding what his primary username is. Just interact with him as little as possible. If he follows you around messing with your edits, revert him, or let someone else do it. If he eventually decides to contribute constructively, we can work with him then.
There's also always the "heap burning coals upon his head" approach (Prov 25:21-22). Look on the bright side: you have your own groupie.  ;)
As to the actual purpose of the project, I think I might do some work on the topic of privacy soon. I've about hit the extent of my desire to bother with Salmon's absurdities. S?eptomaniac?a??ete 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are building a system, and someone comes in and dismantles it, even as you are building it, it's hard not to be distracted. Can you really ignore vandalism? Do you happen to know his primary user name? I proposed to WAS and to SB Johnny that SofD be given his own separate learning resource to develop, rather than dismantling the one WAS and I started.
He is actually quite valuable to the project. He is the most reluctant student of ethics I have ever met, and he is voluntary attending school here. So now I can discover all the ways didactic education can fail. My plan is to fail again and again, but each time, to fail better.
Moulton 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can ignore vandalism: you just revert it and move on. When you make it into some kind of battle between you and the vandal, you're playing his game.
You can't teach someone who isn't interested in learning. There are a lot of editors who could use the resource, but it's not going to be useful if it's focused on him. It's going to be too narrow, and not a broad examination of the Ethical Management of WP. I tried entering into the discussion over at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Brainstorming, but haven't gotten a response yet. What do you think of those principles?
You also should consider that both WAS and Johnny have expressed annoyance at your behavior lately. It's a pretty strong indication that you're taking things too far. S?eptomaniac?a??ete 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with your comments on the RP BLP talk page. —Moulton 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome :-)[edit]

Thanks for this... I think it's better to keep all the discussions in one place so they can be categorized and used appropriately if they're going to be used as "data" for new case studies or other aspects of the Ethics project. --SB_Johnny talk 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing to Accuracy, Excellence and Ethics in Online Media[edit]

I'm trying to bring us into port. Don't get all panic-y when I tack a little to the left and then a little to the right. WAS 4.250 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the port you have set sail for? —Moulton 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You initially set out for the port of Unbiased Article, but with you not knowing how to navigate in the face of a Cabal created political wind blowing you in the opposite direction from that port, I got on your little fine sailing ship and have tried tacking first in one direction and then another, with most motion parallel to the shore, but none-the-less making small incremental improvements in movement toward the port you originally were aiming at. On the way, we will travel quite a bit to the left and right, seeing many marvelous things. It has been an interesting trip, yes? WAS 4.250 21:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned that the port of Accuracy, Excellence and Ethics in Online Media is under an impenetrable blockade by a vicious band of pirates. I've taken up a new Bearing: Accurate Witness. —Moulton 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, in tacking far to the left we wound up in the WikiVersity bay which has the port of Accurate Witness, through which we can access the port Unbiased Article via the road Influence. But the pirates with their political wind machines have arrived here in this bay, and some tacking back and forth is still needed; yet to a lesser degree as this bay has many excellent qualities that the pirates find hinder their political wind machines. Some say that the port of Accuracy, Excellence and Ethics in Online Media is a mythical place; while others claim it refers to the whole island. None the less, all agree that whatever sparked the tales of its existence is on Kohlberg-Gilligan island somewhere. WAS 4.250 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music project[edit]

Wikiversity the Movie/Wikiversity is a Mighty Fine Ditch
--JWSchmidt 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New song: Salmon Writhing —Moulton 18:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three more new songs:
Moulton 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More new songs:
Moulton 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from Hopkins to Picard[edit]

Can you ask Picard to sign up at wikiversity and verify the authenticity of the email that you quoted at [2]? Hillgentleman|Talk 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do better than that. Hopkins sent about a dozen letters, with copies to a dozen of Picard's students and faculty colleagues (including me). I'll forward the lot of them to you.
And then I'll do one more thing, with everyone here watching over my shoulder on live WebCam. I have two or three more messages from Don Hopkins in my mailbox, some of which I've never opened. I'd like to open them "on camera" and let everyone read them along with me for the first time.
Are you up for that?
Moulton 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we have to be make sure that these are not private letters which are not to be published. And if that is the case, thanks for that, you can use special:emailuser/hillgentleman. I just wanted to make sure everything is well referenced. However, it would be great if we could get her participate (a little) in wikiversity. Hillgentleman|Talk 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your concern, then let's just use the messages he sent directly to me. I don't know how to prove their authenticity short of a forensic examination of the headers and parallel evidence where he contemporaneously posted the same or similar messages on Slashdot and World Crossing. Check your Wiki-Mail for the screen shots of all the messages in my folder from (or about) Don Hopkins, and pick some you want me to send you (including the three that have never been opened). I have no qualms about publishing (verbatim and unredacted) any unsolicited messages which are obscene, abusive, harassing, or otherwise tortious. —Moulton 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have received your message. Hillgentleman|Talk 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone here using their real name who has scientific credentials other than Moulton needs to talk to Picard. Something weird is going on here. I have no idea what. WAS 4.250 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate Alison Cassidy. —Moulton 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alison is a fine choice. WAS 4.250 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picard has also exchanged messages with Kim Bruning. Ottava Rima would be another fine choice. —Moulton 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the kind of due diligence that can withstand the scrutiny of the "What if it were a hoax?" level to insure that there is not something that will bite us later (a lawsuit by Picard for violating her privacy???). Emails can be faked. I trust what you say is true. But trust is not a scientific way to establish reliable facts. WAS 4.250 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hoax. I am prepared to walk you, item by item, through the evidence demonstrating that the postings by SimHacker on Slashdot, the postings on WorldCrossing by "notluom" and the E-Mail messages sent to Picard, to her students, and to me were all from Don Hopkins (photo). —Moulton 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<---)Yes, I'm sure it is not a hoax. Further, I'm not interested in me coming to a conclusion based on anything on the internet. I am interested in someone such as Alison talking in person or on the phone to someone she is sure is Picard, and getting a feel for the situation. Asking: Do you know about this ethics project? what do you think of it? do you have any objections to it? do you want this conversation to be private? are you willing to go on the record with any kind of statement related to any of this? I just think there is something missing here and I don't know what it is. And we won't get it by only relying on canned evidence from someone other than Picard. WAS 4.250 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She knows about previous efforts, in which Kim Bruning and Ottava Rima worked with me and with her to clean up her BLP back in May. Kim can confirm to you that he received E-Mail from Picard in the days leading up to the first major re-write by Ottava Rima last May. The Picards have just returned from summer vacation, and we have not yet had our first group meeting of the new semester at MIT. I usually report any significant work I am doing at these meetings. I did mention that I was starting to work on a new Ethics Project at our last meeting (in July) before everyone disappeared for summer vacation, but that was long before JWSchmidt or Ottava Rima began doing their independent case studies. —Moulton 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Picard[edit]

Have you considered helping Picard publish, on her university home page, a clarifing statement about the petition, or having her contact OTRS about it? It seems that the first, the creation of a reliable source, would get instantly included in her biography and the second would be taken up by an OTRS volunteer *cough* who could browbeat the change through. Just a thought. You can go back to cooking up conspiracy theiroes about cabals and singing songs wishing for my death now. Salmon of Doubt 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The error committed by the IDCab is not Picard's to repair. The Wikipedia editors made the identical error with the every member of the initial group of 103 scientists, researchers, and academics who affirmed the same two-sentence 32-word untitled petition that circulated in e-mail in 2001. Many of those 103 scientists, researchers, and academics are listed at List of Signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which, until recently, began with this false and defamatory opening sentence:
Many of the scientists, researchers, and academics so listed also have BLPs on the English Language Wikipedia created or controlled by IDCab. Of these 103 individuals, many of them did, in fact, give direct quotes to Kenneth Chang and other journalists, publish independent disclaimers on their personal web pages, publish commentaries in peer-reviewed scientific journals and other national publications, and otherwise make their views known in reliable sources. It made no difference. IDCab continued to falsely portray them as pro-ID, and/or anti-evolution.
See, for example, this review of that same error which FeloniousMonk committed with respect to David Berlinski, who not only affirmed the same 2-sentence statement in 2001 (along with James Tour, for example), but had long been on record as sneeringly dismissive of Intelligent Design. Note that Berlinski is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute even though (like Nathan Salthe) he criticizes both Darwin's Model and Intelligent Design (albeit it on different grounds). Berlinski criticizes Darwin's Model on two grounds: Firstly that it lacks a quantitative component to model the arrival statistics of new species; the arrival process is clearly not a Poisson Arrival Process. Secondly he criticizes the probity of the evidence used to support Darwin's Model. This would be like a math teacher putting up a true theorem (say the Pythagorean Theorem) and then proceeding to provide an incorrect proof of it. In mathematics, we not only want to sort out the true theorems from the false ones, we also want to make sure that the attached proofs are technically correct in all details. If you bother to read Berlinski's papers or watch his video, you will appreciate that this is his complaint.
A simple "Picard dosen't care" would do fine. Also, you'll want to be careful using the word "Darwin" - it makes your creationist credentials obviously apparent. Salmon of Doubt 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how Picard feels about this. For more details, see the next subsection. —Moulton 11:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picard's Edits on Wikipedia[edit]

Please take note of this compilation of all of Picard's edit summaries on her own biography:

Template:Quotation

The above edit summaries make it abundantly clear that Picard's on-wiki complaint (spanning 11 months from March 2006 to February 2007) coincides in substance and detail with my own complaint (spanning 13 months from August 2007 to September 2008), that the Picard BLP erroneously connects her (and the notorious petition) to Intelligent Design, and utterly fails to apprehend the text of the 2001 pre-publication petition, as circulated in private E-Mail among academics, to be a sincere and sober call for rigorous adherence to the protocols of the Scientific Method when examining the evidence for any theory.

Moulton 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Picard, it's you. If Picard cared she'd contact OTRS (she's been sent the info), or write a clarification on her home page (she knows how). Or she would have responded to one of the many people who approached her asking for a clarification. Salmon of Doubt 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, she did respond to an e-mail inquiry from an editor who identified himself to her as an authorized and responsible agent of Wikipedia. Did you not see her response? —Moulton 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. Salmon of Doubt 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, there were at least four different editors who requested and received responses from Picard. As I recall, two of them have been published on-wiki. Did you see both of them? — Moulton 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why is Picard unwilling to post to OTRS/her web page? Salmon of Doubt 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's already contacted four responsible editors. And her religious views have long been posted on her web site and published in a number of interviews. Have you read them? —Moulton 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Her" statement about the petition not having a title and blah blah blah has only been advanced by you and IP addresses that you state are her but are more likley you. Salmon of Doubt 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your theory that I had an office at Boston College in March 2006 or that I was editing from the Picard residence in Newton MA at midnight on March 30, 2006 and April 27, 2006? —Moulton 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an alibi? Does everyone else? If Picard doesn't take the edits as hers, I'm not going to be the one who assumes they are. Call it "A scientific dissent from Moultonism: I am skeptical of claims that Roslaind Picard believes things that she has not said in a public forum that she believes. Careful examination of the evidence for Moultonian theory should be encouraged." Salmon of Doubt 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've theorized the cited edits are mine. Please support your theory with evidence and reasoning. I encourage everyone to examine my evidence for my theory and your evidence for yours. —Moulton 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just skeptical of claims that Roslaind Picard believes things that she has not said in a public forum that she believes. Careful examination of the evidence for Moultonian theory should be encouraged. Salmon of Doubt 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now apply that same healthy skepticism to the things you've said, unsupported by evidence or reasoning, and we are done. —Moulton 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<---)It is psychologically easy to be skeptical about claims made by some you dislike and psychologically difficult to stop believing something one is emotionally invested in. WAS 4.250 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Into the life of every political scientist, a little chagrin must fall. —Moulton 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and Salmon[edit]

Just wanted to say, I know you and Salmon don't get along, and he(?) may not be any nicer to you than you are to him(?), but it would really be helpful if you could try to not tease him(?) in other areas. I'm starting to understand that here at Wikiversity there seems to be whole trains of antagonism: you and Salmon, JWSchmidt and McCormack, Salmon and JWSchmidt, etc. I think, however, if we spend more time trying to get along and encourage one another's efforts, we might discover we have more allies than we think here at Wikiversity. The Jade Knight 07:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jade, I'd prefer to employ Action Research and related conflict resolution methods and protocols to resolve such recurring disagreements, but that requires a commitment by all parties to a conflict to adopt and employ those methods and processes. In the absence of such a commitment, what arises is called a "Liminal Social Drama." Any "Breach of Expectation" gives rise to Liminal Social Drama. This is predicted by Sociologist, Victor Turner. Why doesn't Wikiversity have a functional protocol for peaceably resolving such breaches of expectation without the Liminal Social Drama morphing into Lunatic Drama? Why doesn't Wikiversity avail itself of the well-established Principles of Community Building? —Moulton 11:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia was started as an experiment to see if doing the opposite of tightly controlling editing as was done at Nupedia would work; and it was so wildly successful that no one wants to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs and no one knows exactly which factors have made Wikipedia as successful as it is. Maybe the very things you find wrong (the drama etc.) are the things that have been critical for its success in the first place. We have parallel efforts that take Wikipedia articles, check them for accuracy, and put them on CDs for distribution. We have an experiment with stable versions at the German Wikipedia. We have this WikiVersity ethics project. We are making progress. Wikipedia is useful and every year more useful. WAS 4.250 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, Wikiversity would benefit by drinking the same toxic Kool Aid that is killing Wikipedia. —Moulton 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just because it worked for Wikipedia does not imply that it will work for something else. It is not a formula that has worked elsewhere. The original participants who were computer savvy and motivated to create a free of cost free of ads copy-left encyclopedia have not been motivated to help ad-rich Wikia nor other similar endeavors like WikiNews. Further, just because it used to work, does not mean it will forever continue to work now that we are large and popular. Don't invent bad logic and stick it in my mouth. Tastes terrible. WAS 4.250 02:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBJ: Archive all above this break[edit]

This is the break point. Archive above this point. —Moulton 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima's Exercise[edit]

Ottava Rima's Exercise goes here...

Current Talk Page Threads[edit]

Keep these talk page threads...

Five of Seven, meet Seven of Nine[edit]

There is an interesting model of the Five Big Personality Traits of Successful Managers. They go by the acronym "OCEAN":

  • Openness
  • Conscientiousness
  • Extraversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Neuroticism

Of these, the second one is the one most interesting to me.

When I was in grammar school, my second-grade teacher, Mrs. Brown, wrote on my report card a big word that I didn't know. I had to ask my parents what it was. The word was "Conscientious". It was the first 4-syllable word I ever learned.

There is a Sixth Trait not listed among the Big Five.

The Sixth Trait is Insight.

The Seventh Trait is Compassion.

Put them all together, you get OCEANIC.

I reckon that successful business managers have five of those seven traits.

There are two more character traits that are worth mentioning, elusive as they often are.

The Eighth Trait is Absolution.

The Ninth is Love.

Put all nine together, you get OCEANICAL.

Many of us are still looking for the last two.

Five of Seven, meet Seven of Nine.

Moulton 08:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning[edit]

The next time you link to a malicious site or a link to a link to a malicious site on my talk page, you will be banned from my talk page. If in doubt, do not link. Salmon of Doubt 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you issuing a terroristic threat, in contravention of your pledge to commit to scholarly ethics? Moulton 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System Failure[edit]

Well, that was fun. You wrote a SodBot to automatically revert anything I posted to your talk page. But your bot failed to remove my question (I asked you if you were the same Salmon of Doubt as the one on Encyclopedia Dramatica). So you manually removed my question, whereupon your SodBot helpfully swung into action and put it back. :)

Whereupon you immediately logged off of Wikiversity and IRC rather than suffer through the humiliation of system failure.

Moulton 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have compassion for those among us who are so blind to their human-ness that they inadequately debug their beliefs and bots. WAS 4.250 05:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me the name of the affective emotional state of those who feel inadequate? I'll see if my Empathy Function is adequately equipped to feel the same way. —Moulton 07:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unjustified feelings of superiority lead to inadequate double checking of one's efforts; which leads to failed efforts; which leads to anger at others if there are psychological mechanisms in place that were the cause of the initial self over-estimation. It is a sad cycle. WAS 4.250 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good insight. I had not looked deeply into the issue of complexes of inferiority/superiority and had not thought about that issue very much. Do you have a thesis regarding Salmon of Doubt's level of confidence/doubt of his own competence and proficiency? Would it be healthier for him to be more skeptical of his beliefs, and check them more rigorously before acting on them? —Moulton 07:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<---) It is a very complicated issue. Sometimes it is more useful for an individual to be certain than right. Women are attracted to men who are certain for example. Leaders are often chosen for their confidence more than their intelligence leading to people who know less seeming to have greater confidence than someone who knows that a situation is not black and white. Further sometimes vigorous efforts in a wrong direction can have unexpected benefits by confusing an enemy or revealing previously unknown opportunities. Thus nature has equipped us with many emotions and instincts that regulate our confidence levels. It is not an easy question to answer. WAS 4.250 08:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's simplify the problem then, by restricting it to one or two scenarios.
Scenario #1: You are part of a team writing articles for an encyclopedia. How important is it to write articles that are accurate? How important is it for the author of an article to feel certain they are right, rather than carefully check their story for accuracy?
Scenario #2: You are part of a team crafting a learning exercise, together with live laboratory experiments to test your current level of knowledge. How important is it for a scholar to have a comprehensive understanding of the subject? How important is it for a student to have the courage of his convictions to test them in full view of his peers?
Moulton 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are cases where due diligence means taking great care to get it right. WAS 4.250 09:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, bro. And now, what are the best practices for embodying due diligence to get it right? —Moulton 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different situations call for different means. Situations can be distinguished based on resources and the full set of goals and priorities involved. What happens when an important goal has only volunteer resources available? WAS 4.250 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. I answered that earlier this morning on Wikipedia Review.
Moulton 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<---) You are drinking too much Wikipedia Review Kool-aide. Jimbo does not skim any money out of WikiMedia funds. He pays his own way on his trips these days. As for empathy, he demonstrates more empathy than you did just now in making fun of Salmon of Doubt on his user page. It is unethical of you to throw around these unsourced libelous claims about Jimbo and lacking in compassion to make fun of others. You and Salmon are both setting a very bad ethical example. WAS 4.250 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't come from Wikipedia Review. It comes from Danny Wool, who used to do the books at WMF. —Moulton 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 Report[edit]

Today is 9/11 the seventh anniversary of one of the most notorious terror attacks in recent memory.

Today is 9/11, the first anniversary of one of the most notorious terror attacks in recent Wikipedian memory.

Yes, it was exactly one year ago today that KillerChihuahua executed an indefinite block of Moulton on the English Language Wikipedia, on the grounds that he had "no interest in writing an encyclopedia" (notwithstanding the fact that he was already the co-author of one article in a prestigious print encyclopedia ("Electronic (Virtual) Communities"), and subsequently the author of 20 articles in Google Knol. And here we are, exactly one year later, and KillerChihuahua is still defending her disgraceful actions of a year ago, acting as an agent of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design (IDCab) — 14 allied editors who acted in concert as Plaintiff, Arresting Officer, Bailiff, Witness, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, all in the space of one week (September 4th to September 11th, 2007).

The evidence of corruption in the ethically challenged editors of IDCab has been accumulating for over a year now, and yet the erratic and dysfunctional community at the English Language Wikipedia still cannot decide the case.

Montana Mouse 21:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Moulton's block with the 9/11 attacks seems a bit over-the-top to me. Dtobias 02:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd compare it to Tisha_B'Av, but that's a different calendar date than 9/11 and I doubt anyone here even recalls what happened on that date. —Moulton 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject study before editing[edit]

Hi Moulton,

Which article, or couple of articles would you like to choose as participant of this project?--Daanschr 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the BLP on David Berlinski and the article on Icons of Evolution (specifically on the section regarding the Coldwater video of that title). In both cases, I found that a modest amount of study made a significant difference in the level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in those two articles. Moulton 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John also liked to take those articles, so i will prepare a project for them. I have never heard of them before.--Daanschr 14:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the links to the analysis and review of those two articles that I had previously posted, prior to the initiation of our studies here in Wikiversity? —Moulton 14:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something down on this issue on this special page dedicated to the topic.--Daanschr 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Moulton, it is pretty rude to refer to someone by an alternate name than they have given, unless they've requested to be referred to by that name. I don't see the purpose in this, for example. If she's given you permission to call her by that name elsewhere, and I missed it, then my apologies. At the moment, though, it makes you look bad, IMO, and lowers your chances of actually getting her to respond to you, if that's what you want. S?eptomaniac?a??ete 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is even ruder for anonymous and pseudonymous editors to publish blatantly false and defamatory characterization of 103 scientists, researchers, and academics who have never done anything to harm the utterly irresponsible and cowardly editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design. —Moulton 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but what does one have to do with the other? You've made no direct connection between the use of anonymity and pseudonymity and the BLP problem surrounding the petition signers like Picard. So far you're only rationalizing this behavior for editors you consider opponents, when I and others edited Picard's article pseudonymously, too.
From where I stand, it's like one of those feuds between neighbors, where one guy slashes the other's tires because that guy mowed over his flower garden. After a while, it doesn't matter who started it or is more in the wrong, because both are behaving inappropriately, and any outsider looking in at the conflict just sees two guys behaving like jerks.
From what I see, KC is attempting to communicate in a straightforward manner regarding the problems she has with the project, so why not meet her halfway? S?eptomaniac?a??ete 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered to negotiate with her to reach a mutually agreeable account of the events of 9/11 of last year. So far she has rejected that overture. —Moulton 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were blocked temporarily. I went out on a limb and edited her name out, as it clearly did bother her, and we don't need that to escalate any further. I would much rather you have done it, as I don't like the idea of editing someone else's comments, but it seemed better for me to do it than anyone else. As always, the door's open for discussion if and when you're ready. S?eptomaniac?a??ete 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was on the phone with SBJ at that hour, and then I had to leave for the evening. —Moulton 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

You seem to be confused.[3] You have "instructed" me to follow Wikiversity:Scholarly ethics. That is not only not policy, it has failed utterly. 6 oppose, 1 support, and 1 neutral. OTOH, you are failing to abide by the actual policy of WV:CIVIL. Your edit summary characterizes me as "antagonistic and adversarial editor" and you continue to edit war on a page which is clearly titled as JWSchmidt's investigation. As JWSchmidt has thanked me for my corrections, your edit warring is merely to keep inacurracies and attacks which are not needed nor wanted and which are against policy in that page. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between your idea of what the rules should be and what the rules actually are. If you check the WV:RULES page, you will save yourself such embarassement in the future. Let me know if I can help. KillerChihuahua 13:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered this on your own talk page. All participants in the Ethics Project are obliged to adhere to Scholarly Ethics whilst editing within the confines of the project. These are the terms of engagement established and agreed to by those who initiated the Ethics Project at Wikiversity. —Moulton 13:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I didn't agree to that. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing to the terms of engagement for participants in the Ethics Project is a requirement if you wish to participate in the Ethics Project. If you do not agree to the terms of engagement, then you may not be a participant. Your edits of the content prepared under the byline and signature of others is unauthorized tampering with the scholarly work of others. Each scholar has pledged to respond to scholarly questions about their contribution. If you corrupt their contributions, you disrupt the ethical foundations for scholarly research. —Moulton 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that any content on any Wikimedia project, as they are released under GFDL in our wiki systems, are required to be free to be edited by any other user at any other time. Can you please link the consensus accepted approved Wikiversity policy or guideline that supports your position that none may edit others' materials? Do not answer on my talk page. I prefer all conversation in one place at all times for naked transparency. Rootology 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rootology, There are numerous types of content on English Wikipedia which it is inappropriate for users other than the author to edit in place (though the GFDL of course allows you to take the words and adapt them elsewhere): Discussion page comments, RFC summaries, Arbcom evidence and workshop proposals; just to name a few. Those are all "meta-space" stuff and not actual content, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- but the nature of Wikiversity is sufficiently different that, at least to an outsider such as myself, it seems not entirely unreasonable for some projects to be structured such that some of the content has a specific author. Random832 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I understand that, Random. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the WV rules on this, for "content", which is why I'm asking if there is a specific policy or guideline that says authors' edits are sacrosanct, for clarification for myself. Rootology 19:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, You said "unauthorized tampering with the scholarly work of others" but KC has clearly indicated the edits were authorized. Do authors in the academic world not have editors that propose changes to their written material before publishing? Random832 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not enlisted her to edit the cases which I have prepared under my own byline and signature. She is free to write up her own cases or alternative versions of events, and she is welcome to put questions to me (and other scholars) in accordance with protocols of scholarly peer review. All scholars in the Ethics Project are committed to responding to scholarly questions. Since I am committed to answering questions on what I have written, it is inappropriate for others to alter my report, as that corrupts the process. I cannot defend the content of my research if others are free to tamper with it. —Moulton 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton's three day trial research project[edit]

I have approached Moulton and I feel that it would be in the best interest of the community that Moulton participates in a three day trial ethics research project, as defined below. However, I believe that it would be best that Moulton devotes himself to this project, and that others refrain from responding directly to Moulton during this time. I would ask that if there are any developing problems or concerns, to contact me first, and I will discuss the issue. This will take place at User:Ottava Rima/Moulton's task, which is in my user space, and I ask that people please respect my user space in this way in order for this task to be completed.

At the end of the three days, I will establish a makeshift peer review process and welcome those to respond to Moulton's research project and to then discuss philosophical issues afterwards.

Day One: Definitions.

I would like you to define the following terms. Please limit your responses to two or three sentences each and no mention of specific users or actions that have taken place on Wikipedia/Wikiversity. Do not discuss their application at this time. Terms: Ethics (general), Ethics (research), Ethics (response), Ethics (editing), Civility, Discourse (general), Discourse (scholarly), Revert, BLP (ethical responsibility), Respect, Commitment.

Day Two: Application.

I would like you to come up with three answers for how to deal with each situation (without talking about particular individuals or past experiences): Someone edits other people's comments, Someone removes content, Some follows another and attacks others, Someone responds aggressively to another, Two people constantly responding aggressively to each other. After this, apply the terms above and how they become involved in these situations.

Then answer these philosophical questions: When is blocking appropriate during an edit dispute? When it blocking appropriate during a fight between two editors? Is the individual greater than the community?

Day Three: Personal analysis.

For each of your situation's three responses, list two positives and two negatives to each of these responses. Weigh the pros and cons, especially considering how each would make you feel (integrity), make others feel (community), and what kinds of emotional problems could come out of each.

Then, try to come up with an alternate answer to each of the philosophical questions in which you think other people may hold, in which you may not agree with, but you find perfectly acceptable.

Peer Review: When Moulton has completed this task, I will ask that the community then respond in a peer reviewed analysis. I will welcome that each person produces their own section without interaction. This section will have a short response to the tasks of Day One, Day Two, and Day Three. After enough people have weighed in, I will open up a discuss on what other people's responses were, and focus on what people think are the positives and negatives of what Moulton has come up with, and how we can incorporate these ideas into our own understandings and habits to create a better system of interacting with others.

I feel that this would be beneficial to Moulton and to the community, and that the structure will help us determine what kind of Peer Review system could work in the future. I had a few ideas on how to work out a Peer Review system, and this seemed to be the easiest to put together and try. Remember, this is in my user space and not part of any official project right now. This is a trial. Ottava Rima 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Harvey Blume. A Function Specific to Joy. The Atlantic Monthly. 1998-04-29 [2008-05-05].  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "atlantic" defined multiple times with different content
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Petricevic, Mirko. A scientist who embraces God. The Record (Kitchener, Ontario: Metroland Media Group Ltd.). 2007-11-03 [2008-05-06]. 
  3. ↑ Kenneth Chang. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition. The New York Times. 2006-02-21 [2008-05-05]. 
  4. ↑ Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism' (PDF). The Discovery Institute. April 2008 [2008-05-05]. 
Retrieved from "https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton/Archive_8.9.14&oldid=152738"