Talk:Openness and collaboration

Question about RfD proposal

JWS added the following question, as the first one in the list, for discussion. I have reverted this.

1. Why was this learning project targeted for deletion?

The RfD was the proposal of one editor, who had been working to make this resource neutral, and who was, quite likely -- he can speak for himself if he wants -- frustrated at being reverted by JWS. The motivations of an individual for a single person for a single action, an action that is, long-term, moot, since this resource is highly unlikely to be deleted, is hardly a question for this resource, unless it is studied neutrally, and that isn't likely to happen being proposed in this way, and even if it were a question of some value (we may decide to study some examples, subject to policy that isn't developed yet), it's hardly the most important, the first to be considered. Besides, it's obvious why, and the editor explained in the RfD, so the question was purely rhetorical, being asked to make a point, I'd say.

We are seeing, here, some of the reason why disruption has continued. It's not being maintained by "abusive sysops," whose power is transient, but by others, apparently powerless except for the extreme reluctance of the community to do what it would take to stop them. I'm hoping that all interested will actually participate in this resource, following the spirit of openness and collaboration. As part of that, there may need to be, indeed, some "airing" of disputes, but placing that first on the table is likely to do nothing but doom the effort. The first thing for any reconciliation process is to decide on "rules of engagement," or reconciliation process. If people don't agree on the process, I can practically guarantee it, they will sabotage it, consciously or unconsciously.

For starters, all text on the resource page itself should be neutral, and certainly should not incorporate assumptions of misbehavior or abuse on anyone's part. For example, how about a question of, "Why did a long-time Wikiversity participant become disruptive, attacking every active community servant?" That would be rude, provocative, and a loaded question, incorporating a presumption. It would turn an effort to find ways to collaborate into a trial of the user, or, in the contrary direction, of the accuser. Bad idea, eh? --Abd 23:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"frustrated" <-- Abd, are you suggesting that frustration is a reason to delete a Wikiversity learning project? "reverted by JWS" <-- I was editing collaboratively. I returned key components of the learning project to the page after Darklama had removed them. At Wikiversity, pages are deleted when they are damaging the project and its mission. One of the ways that the Wikiversity community is disrupted is by misguided people trying to delete learning resources. This problem, and specific examples of it, need to be studied by the Wikiversity community if this community is going to address the call for openness that was made by the Board. "We are seeing, here, some of the reason why disruption has continued," and here. "assumptions of misbehavior or abuse" <-- Abd, what "assumptions" are you talking about? Everything raised for discussion in the learning project, including what you removed from the page, is drawn from the sickening history of how a few misguided editors have vastly disrupted Wikiversity, what was once a peaceful learning community. It is an embarrassment to the Wikimedia Foundation that a few misguided editors act to prevent discussion of problems rather than correct the problems that have disrupted this community. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

JWS, one problem here is that simple discussions with you become extraordinarily complex, as you seem to want to address all the problems the community faces in one monstrous discussion, which will never work. One at a time, eh?

No, "frustration" is not a reason to delete, as such, it is, however, a cause, and your question was "why?" My point is that the question is largely irrelevant or relatively unimportant. People do request deletion from frustration, people do all kinds of things out of frustration. Were your frustrations reasons to block SJB and Darklama on beta.wikiversity?

Returning what you consider key elements to a page, where others disagree, is not "collaboration," it's, in fact, "disruption," even if you are in some sense "right." A top-level resource page should reflect consensus, not just one person's opinion, don't you agree? Being "right" can't be enough. You must also convince others, or you are not "collaborating," you are merely doing what you condemn, imposing your views on others and on the wiki, without consensus.

You have created far more disruption around this issue of deletion, with tendentious argument at RfD and here, than anything Darklama did. He simply proposed, briefly, a deletion of a new resource, based on some arguments that are not entirely off. But they were inadequate, and the community is rejecting the deletion. That's normal process. What's wrong with simply following normal process, and not allowing RfD to become about the persons, and alleged disruption. That's not what the RfD page is for! If someone is frequently proposing improper deletions, or acting as a sysop to delete, unilaterally, without respecting community consensus, that's a behavioral problem, to be addressed through community mechanisms for that, not RfD arguments that are off the point. Your argument on RfD is not why the page will be kept, if anything, it would have created more reason to delete the page, as representing the kind of disruption that your comments themselves represent. Your own errors would "rub off" on the page. But that didn't happen, it is simply a realistic political possibility. You create the abuse you complain about, sometimes.

There is no action to "prevent discussion of problems" here. There is action to guide *how* the discussion takes place. Please be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem, please help to develop guidelines for discussions of wiki problems, or, at least, sit back and let it happen. You are highly involved, with strong, long-maintained complaints. That's not a good omen for your ability to participate as an academic and scholar, able to objectively study. You would, rather, be a study subject, if you consent! --Abd 19:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

TCNSV has restored the question, without commenting here, in spite of my See Talk in the removal. Not good. But I'll personally let it sit for now. --Abd 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To clear off any confusion that might be brought up by Abd here, there’s no existing policy that would disallow me to make a single revert to the page in question, nor a compelling guideline that I must respond to an unreasonably difficult-to-see comment in the edit summary via the talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen 22:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No claim was made that TCNSV violated policy. I commented that what he did was "not good," which is obviously an opinion. However, when reverting an edit, one normally sees the edit summary, which was (Undo revision 735319 by JWSchmidt (talk)See Talk.) -- not "hard to see." His edit summary was (shorten diff with permalink instead, which will be updated as discussion progresses; abd, this question is not problematic, it doesn't imply censorship as any might think).

Where was "censorship" mentioned? TCNSV did not, and still has not, addressed the reasons for removal, given above. I'll repeat that this is "not good." It does not show effort to find consensus, but only to assert opposition and contradiction, it's beginning to seem. Meanwhile, JWS is continuing his habits of irrelevant wall-of-text, and if he imagines that many people are going to collaborate on this resource, when that continues, he's dreaming. Most won't. They give up and go elsewhere. He's causing what he regrets, more -- much more -- than those whom he criticizes. --Abd 01:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Were your frustrations reasons to block SJB and Darklama on beta.wikiversity?" <-- SB Johnny came into the #wikiversity chat channel and announced that the decision had been made to get rid of Moulton. SB Johnny and Darklama then banned Moulton from the channel, ignoring my objections. Having seen the same pattern in 2008, I expected that SB Johnny would then find a way to block Moulton, so to prevent that from happening I imposed blocks on SB Johnny and Darklama. Of course, SB Johnny did find a way to get Moulton blocked from editing. "consensus" <-- I don't think that a couple of misguided sysops who have vastly disrupted Wikiversity can define consensus by disrupting a learning project and continuing to disrupt this community and the mission of Wikiversity. The Wikiversity community will not recover until this community can have open discussions of how Wikiversity is disrupted and protections put in place that will prevent the disruption from continuing. It is a disgrace to Wikiversity that the Board called for community efforts to improve openness and participation and then a couple of misguided sysops disrupt a learning project aimed at responding to that call. There can't be consensus for anything that undermines the educational missions of Wikiversity and the WMF. "simply following normal process" <-- Darklama did not first discuss the learning project, he went right to a deletion proposal. He never explained how the learning resource was doing harm to Wikiversity. The disruptive practice of deleting content rather than editing to improve it is one of the reasons that people abandon their participation in WMF wiki projects, and is one of the topics that should be discussed as part of the learning project, not removed from the learning project by a disruptive deletionist. There was nothing "normal" about the deletion proposal. The deletion proposal and his removal of important content from the learning resource were disruptive. There is nothing disruptive in my objections to Darklama's disruption of Wikiversity. "the kind of disruption that your comments themselves represent" <-- My comments disrupted nothing. It is a disgrace to the educational mission of Wikiversity that discussions of the causes of disruption of Wikiversity are called disruption. These are the kinds of systemic problems that cause honest wiki editors to abandon Wikimedia wiki projects and exactly what the Wikiversity community should be discussing in this learning project. --JWSchmidt 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How to proceed

If we are going to study "Openness and collaboration," we cannot neglect the "collaboration" part and only go for "Openness," which can easily be understood as complaint, complaint, complaint.

Our first task should be to collaborate on guidelines for how to proceed with this resource. If we can't agree what is to be on the resource page, we have several choices on Wikiversity. We can, for example, set up parallel resources. If JWS, for example, wants to conduct his own "class" on this subject, he can do so, subject to community behavioral guidelines, and we can link to such a "class" from an overall resource. But what is on this page, this top-level resource, should be rigorously neutral, following consensus.

The problem with JWS's approach is that it attracts and perpetuates conflict, which is not conducive to study, conflict is almost the opposite of study, which requires objectivity and neutrality.

We seem to be repeating the debates and issues of 2008. That's not surprising, that whole process was never completed. Issues were considered resolved, perhaps, because certain people had been blocked. Blocking never resolves disputes, it merely buries one side, and since we cannot actually "eliminate" parties to disputes, here, the dispute rises up from the "grave," like a zombie.

JWS's approach is like a shotgun, a myriad small pieces of shot are hurled at us. We can do nothing but duck, there is too much to examine. Let's proceed, on the resource page here, with one step at a time. We can start study projects on particular issues, in subspace. I reverted JWS's latest addition, where he copied much content from this talk page, and put back other material that had been removed, I think, -- I'll confess, I'm no longer reading it all -- even though I'd started to rephrase it, to present issues without prejudgment, because it was simply too much. It's in history, see the revert diff, or a permanent link to the sections involved. We can restore one item at a time and set up subpages to examine issues.

We will need to establish procedural guidelines for this resource, or it will end up accomplishing nothing but more excuse for blocking JWS. --Abd 16:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus required for resource page

• Material on the resource page should enjoy a high degree of consensus. Discussion prior to consensus should take place on the Talk page. Subpages may be used for proposed seminars, studies, etc. Agreed? --Abd 16:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do we know how many participants there are? Are people other than the initiator of the project welcome to participate? What the heck does "a high degree of consensus" mean? --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)