Wikiversity

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikiversity

Anthony-73
What's going on over at Wikiversity?  Jimmy Wales has now been threatened
with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he
responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation".  Is
this true?  What does it mean?

Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the
board".  Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this all
being done behind the scenes?  Is it even true that this discussion is
taking place?

I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I
checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=545523#Your_behaviour_in_Wikiversity
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments#Board_discussing_closure_of_Wikiversity
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Fred Bauder-2
I gather there was posting of information which someone determined was
harmful to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation and the suggestion is
being made to take that stuff somewhere else, or else. From the
discussion I gather that the issue is whether Wikiversity is an open
educational resource or a platform for trolls banned from Wikipedia. A
troll platform needs to hosted on a different site and have other
financial support.

Essentially Jimmy is saying the the site needs to be adequately
administered or closed. He would rather it were cleaned up and that its
administrators take care of business.

Fred Bauder


> What's going on over at Wikiversity?  Jimmy Wales has now been threatened
> with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he
> responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation".  Is
> this true?  What does it mean?
>
> Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with
> the
> board".  Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this
> all
> being done behind the scenes?  Is it even true that this discussion is
> taking place?
>
> I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I
> checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
>
> http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=545523#Your_behaviour_in_Wikiversity
> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments#Board_discussing_closure_of_Wikiversity
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Pedro Sanchez-2
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What's going on over at Wikiversity?  Jimmy Wales has now been threatened
> with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he
> responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation".  Is
> this true?  What does it mean?
>
> Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the
> board".  Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this
> all
> being done behind the scenes?  Is it even true that this discussion is
> taking place?
>
> I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I
> checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
>
>
> http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=545523#Your_behaviour_in_Wikiversity
>
> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments#Board_discussing_closure_of_Wikiversity
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

PM created a page explaining how to sock and sirupt. Someone deleted it.
Jimmy then deleted the whole project the page it belong and blocked. Somone
unblocked and reverted. jimmy fired his desysop gun, he didn't get community
support, then he called board to close wikiversity as a pressure measure.
quote:

I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is
an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the
point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER. I
think that my actions here are strongly supportive of the genuine community
who want to do that, making it clear to them that they have very strong
support for making it happen. Some may feel that Wikiversity should be a
place for silly and juvenile experimentation. If people want to discuss such
things, there is an entire Internet open to them - they should not hijack
Wikiversity for these purposes.--Jimbo
Wales<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>14:49, 13 March
2010 (UTC)


basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and
he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the
board. That's my personal reading
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Thomas Dalton
On 17 March 2010 14:46, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:
> basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and
> he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the
> board. That's my personal reading

Well, he doesn't get much support when he does that kind of thing on
the English Wikipedia these days. He has realised that and now doesn't
do them - he's even made an undertaking not to use his block button.
So, if the Wikiversity community (and not just a vocal minority of it
- I haven't investigated the situation, although I am aware of it due
to watching Jimmy's enwiki user talk page, so I don't know which it
is) wants Jimmy to stop using admin powers there, they shouldn't have
any difficulty achieving that. If Jimmy wishes to discuss the matter
with the WMF board he can definitely do that and, if a majority of the
board agrees with him, they can take action, but Jimmy has no power to
act unilaterally if a community doesn't want him to.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Interesting that just yesterday the Russian Wikipedia arbcom has banned
the founder and the only admin of Russian Wikiversity from editing the
Wikipedia namespace for systematic disruptive behavior (not related to his
Wikiversity activity).

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What's going on over at Wikiversity?  Jimmy Wales has now been threatened
> with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he
> responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation".  Is
> this true?  What does it mean?

I wrote up a quick story about this for this week's Signpost (not yet
published), which summarizes what I found out about this as of Sunday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-15/News_and_notes

It doesn't cover whatever has happened in the last few days, though.
-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> If Jimmy wishes to discuss the matter
> with the WMF board he can definitely do that and, if a majority of the
> board agrees with him, they can take action, but Jimmy has no power to
> act unilaterally if a community doesn't want him to.
>

Agreed, but I was hoping that any such board discussion would be made
public.  I don't see any reason a discussion of shutting down Wikiversity
needs to be made private and confidential, and I'd urge the members of the
board to speak up and let us know what's going on.

The Wikimedia Foundaton prides itself in being one of the most open
non-profit organizations around.  I hope they'll extend that to discussions
of shutting down a fairly major project.

For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down
Wikiversity.  Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of note.
But only by having this discussion in public can we be sure that all the
factors have been considered.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Erik Moeller-4
2010/3/18 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down
> Wikiversity.  Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of note.

To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language
editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be
slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do:
producing learning materials. Even the English Wikiversity has a set
of well-developed, rich pages, e.g. Robert Elliott's filmmaking
lessons:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Course:WikiU_Film_School_Course_01_-_Learning_the_Basics_of_Filmmaking

It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a
tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for
using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they
need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're
otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing
toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to
bring about its decline.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Cormac Lawler
On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2010/3/18 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> > For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down
> > Wikiversity.  Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of
> note.
>
> To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language
> editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be
> slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do:
> producing learning materials.



Wikiversity was set up to do *two* things: produce learning materials, and
support learning/research activities and communities. The second question
was always more vaguely defined, but was always the more interesting
question for me. English Wikiversity's problems stem from an uncertainty
about what a legitimate learning/research activity would be, and a
consequent uncertainty in Wikiversity's scope as a project. Dealing with the
question of what someone is free to learn in Wikiversity is the useful
course of action to take here; rather than talk of closing the project.
Unfortunately, due to imminent submission of my thesis, I have no time to
give this for the next two weeks, but will get back to the discussion
thereafter.

Cormac
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

geni
On 18 March 2010 17:16, Cormac Lawler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/18 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
>> > For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down
>> > Wikiversity.  Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of
>> note.
>>
>> To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language
>> editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be
>> slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do:
>> producing learning materials.
>
>
>
> Wikiversity was set up to do *two* things: produce learning materials, and
> support learning/research activities and communities. The second question
> was always more vaguely defined, but was always the more interesting
> question for me. English Wikiversity's problems stem from an uncertainty
> about what a legitimate learning/research activity would be, and a
> consequent uncertainty in Wikiversity's scope as a project. Dealing with the
> question of what someone is free to learn in Wikiversity is the useful
> course of action to take here; rather than talk of closing the project.
> Unfortunately, due to imminent submission of my thesis, I have no time to
> give this for the next two weeks, but will get back to the discussion
> thereafter.
>
> Cormac


Well we could put in place a mechanism for creating open access
journals then tell those in the open source community involved in the
dwm mess to use it. Heh or start the journal of [citation needed] aka
stuff wikipedians know but haven't been able to find a source for.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 19/03/2010, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a
> tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for
> using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they
> need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're
> otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing
> toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to
> bring about its decline.


Indeed. Note that the same sort of troll adoption nearly got en:wq
taken out and shot last year.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Geoffrey Plourde
David and Erik,

I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects.

I oppose the creation of the breaching experiment and usage of Wikiversity as a platform to break the rules of another project but that is a matter that must be handled at the local level. I am fully confident that the community of Wikiversity will be able to effectively handle this situation on their own.

It was unnecessary for Jimbo to personally intervene, rather than simply file a complaint and follow the accepted process. Just because Jimbo is the founder does not mean that he is an unquestionable authority on every single project.

Geoffrey




________________________________
From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 12:44:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity

On 19/03/2010, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a
> tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for
> using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they
> need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're
> otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing
> toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to
> bring about its decline.


Indeed. Note that the same sort of troll adoption nearly got en:wq
taken out and shot last year.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

William Pietri
On 03/19/2010 08:06 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects.
>    

Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done
cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction.

A few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition


William

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by geni
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:41 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 March 2010 17:16, Cormac Lawler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2010/3/18 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
>>> > For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down
>>> > Wikiversity.  Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of
>>> note.
>>>
>>> To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language
>>> editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be
>>> slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do:
>>> producing learning materials.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wikiversity was set up to do *two* things: produce learning materials, and
>> support learning/research activities and communities. The second question
>> was always more vaguely defined, but was always the more interesting
>> question for me. English Wikiversity's problems stem from an uncertainty
>> about what a legitimate learning/research activity would be, and a
>> consequent uncertainty in Wikiversity's scope as a project. Dealing with the
>> question of what someone is free to learn in Wikiversity is the useful
>> course of action to take here; rather than talk of closing the project.
>> Unfortunately, due to imminent submission of my thesis, I have no time to
>> give this for the next two weeks, but will get back to the discussion
>> thereafter.
>>
>> Cormac
>
>
> Well we could put in place a mechanism for creating open access
> journals then tell those in the open source community involved in the
> dwm mess to use it. Heh or start the journal of [citation needed] aka
> stuff wikipedians know but haven't been able to find a source for.
>
> --
> geni

Heh... "The Journal of Citation Needed" sounds more like a potential
blog than a journal, but I like it nonetheless :) Reference librarians
tend to use email lists for this sort of thing -- there are several
specialized and general lists for posting and answering hard
questions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stumpers-L is the most
famous). Maybe we need something similar :)

Re: Wikiversity -- it's worth nothing that PrivateMusings was told to
please quit it as early as mid-January by at least a couple of people
[see his enwp talk page], so the deletion of the Wikiversity page
didn't totally come out of the blue. Also PM posted a clarification to
the Signpost story that I wrote on my en.wp talk page, in which he
writes that no experiment was planned but only a few were written up
"in a very small way".

I suspect few of us have access to the deleted page to see for
ourselves, though personally it's hard for me to imagine someone --
anyone -- coming from the English Wikipedia and choosing such a topic
to write about in the first place without at least having the intent
to be provocative. How much intent does it take to become a troll?
More broadly, I think the global principle of "don't take your fight
to other projects" (x-project or x-language) is a good one, and we
should adopt and enforce it, but I don't know if that includes global
blocking.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Michael Snow-3
In reply to this post by William Pietri
William Pietri wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 08:06 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>  
>> I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects.
>>    
>>    
> Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done
> cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction.
>  
Very true, and that's how we are trying to think about these issues
generally, not just blocking. It doesn't make sense in most situations
for the board or the foundation to interfere directly, nobody wants
things to work that way. At the same time, a community does need to
actively decide upon and maintain certain standards and not, as some
people try to do, abdicate that responsibility back to the foundation. A
community that fails to have standards is not really a community, nor is
it worth preserving.

To indicate the direction we're going, I'll give an illustration in a
less contentious area. We recently had steward elections, and as in past
cycles, the final candidates were appointed by the board. However, the
board has decided to remove itself from the process going forward, and
let the stewards manage the appointment process with the assistance of
the Volunteer Coordinator if necessary. That's more consistent with the
community taking jurisdiction over its own affairs, or becoming more
self-governing if you will.

Incidentally, that offers a reminder that we do have some existing
community structure to manage global project issues, whether it's
blocking or something else. While I wouldn't say that the Meta wiki is
coextensive with the global community, it's one of the spaces that can
be used.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
I think the global principle of "don't take your fight
> to other projects" (x-project or x-language) is a good one, and we
> should adopt and enforce it, but I don't know if that includes global
> blocking.
>
> -- phoebe

That is an old MUD principle: You're welcome, but don't think this MUD is
a platform to continue a fight from another MUD. We have this on Wikinfo
regularly, ChildofMidnight being the latest.

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/ChildofMidnight

Fred Bauder



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

metasj
In reply to this post by William Pietri
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM, William Pietri <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done
> cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction.
>
> A few examples:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Act
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

That is an enlightening point.  I'd like to see a cooperative way of
handling such requests.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Jan Luca
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
Hi,

I have created a central page for this discussion:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Problems

Viele Grüße
Jan Luca Naumann
Admin on de.wikiversity

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Pedro
Sanchez
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. März 2010 15:46
An: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What's going on over at Wikiversity?  Jimmy Wales has now been threatened
> with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he
> responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation".  Is
> this true?  What does it mean?
>
> Wales also has said that he is "discussing closure of Wikiversity with the
> board".  Is there a public place where this is being debated, or is this
> all
> being done behind the scenes?  Is it even true that this discussion is
> taking place?
>
> I'm sorry if I'm repeating some discussion that's already been had, but I
> checked the archives and I couldn't find anything.
>
>
>
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=5455
23#Your_behaviour_in_Wikiversity
>
>
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics
:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments#Board_discussing_closure_of_Wikiversity
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

PM created a page explaining how to sock and sirupt. Someone deleted it.
Jimmy then deleted the whole project the page it belong and blocked. Somone
unblocked and reverted. jimmy fired his desysop gun, he didn't get community
support, then he called board to close wikiversity as a pressure measure.
quote:

I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is
an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the
point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER. I
think that my actions here are strongly supportive of the genuine community
who want to do that, making it clear to them that they have very strong
support for making it happen. Some may feel that Wikiversity should be a
place for silly and juvenile experimentation. If people want to discuss such
things, there is an entire Internet open to them - they should not hijack
Wikiversity for these purposes.--Jimbo
Wales<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>14:49, 13 March
2010 (UTC)


basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and
he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the
board. That's my personal reading
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikiversity

Everton Zanella Alvarenga-2
Here is part of the removed content:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:oUj_qTg8xaQJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Ethics/Ethical_Breaching_Experiments+Wikimedia_Ethics/Ethical_Breaching_Experiments&cd=1&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br

The link was removed from meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikiversity%2FProblems&action=historysubmit&diff=1903926&oldid=1903920

I believe we should have the right to see deleted content in such way
for the sake of transparency.

"*Transparency*

We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent,
thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to
the public."

Source: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values

Regards,

Tom

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l