Talk:Solution-focused problem solving

Practical Example

James, as you know, one of your students (Laura Hale) prefers demonstration over theory.

Can the concepts here be demonstrated by applying them to any number of festering problems which have plagued Wikiversity these past 2 1/2 years?

In particular, how about applying the concepts to this long-festering problem.

Moulton 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do any of the question sequences suggested by Swenson and Anstett appeal to you in relation to your problem? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Miracle question sequence.
  This question sequence is often one of the most productive. It seems to establish a more relaxed and creative attitude and frees the problem solver from the constraints of the problem focus.

1. If a miracle occurred tonight, and when you woke up tomorrow the problem was solved, what would be the first just noticeable indication that things were different?

2. What will have to be different for that to begin happening?

3. When does that already happen, even if only a little? Who will have to do what to make that happen more?

4. What will be an indication to you and others that the problem is really solved?

1. The first thing would be that the error-ridden BLPs would be systematically corrected, and letters of apology would be in the mail to all those who were unjustly defamed in the pages of Wikipedia.
2. WMF will need to establish normative standards for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially with respect to the biographies of living persons.
3. It happens when someone who has some semblance of ethics tries to fix the problem. Charles Ainsworth and Scott MacDonald tried. They (and others like them) will have to prevail in the general case, rather than in one or two hard-fought illustrative cases.
4. When the WMF Board of Trustees establishes a code of ethics for editors who are responsible for crafting biographies of living persons (be it in the main article space or in discussion pages outside of the main article space).

Moulton 17:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Moulton. Your responses at least help me to envisage and understand what you'd like to see happen. It may then perhaps be possible to describe steps that could be taken towards the goal, based on your experience of what works. To that end, some follow-up questions you might consider are (feel free to find other questions):

1. Is #4 your overall goal (preferred future)? (If not, clarify your overall goal).
2. How progressed are you currently towards achieving this goal? (e.g., out of 10)
3. What successful steps have you already taken towards achieving this goal?
4. What were you doing when these successful steps towards this goal occurred?
5. What action sequence (steps) do you think you could pursue which would make your your preferred future most likely to occur?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside of WMF, my overarching life goals are expressed here:

The Orenda Project

Vision Statement
We envision a wholesome world in which everyone can enjoy the fruits of world peace, prosperity, lifelong learning, spiritual growth, physical health and emotional well-being, satisfying roles and careers, and meaningful participation in the joy of creative living.

Mission Statement
To play a leadership role in guiding the advance of civilization through creative innovation, life-affirming applications of technology, and the wise and responsible use of scientific knowledge. To play a nurturing role in educating and empowering people to realize their full potential to participate cooperatively, creatively, innovatively, effectively, productively and rewardingly in achieving the common goals embodied in the Vision Statement.

Inside of these WMF-sponsored projects, I have a narrower set of goals. Permit me to repost, verbatim, my Objectives, which have been prominently posted on all my user pages since December 2007:

Objectives

My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

After 3 1/2 years, my state of progress on the above objectives, stands at about 3/10.

With respect to just one person's BLP, my most successful maneuver was to post this excerpt on the talk page of her BLP. At the time, I was reading a newly published book by my colleague, Sherry Turkle, a sociologist at the MIT Media Lab.

I'm unclear what, if anything I can do to achieve Professor's Picard's goal of improving science education, as stated in that excerpt from Professor Turkle's book. Many of us have been working toward that goal for about 30 years now, and I am chagrined to say it appears we are losing ground (especially in the pages of Wikipedia and Wikiversity).

Moulton 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Why do you think your w:Talk:Rosalind Picard#Purple_Haze contribution has been (so far) your most successful maneuver for that particular BLP? What did you do differently on that occasion that made it so successful?
2. Can you think of other examples of progress made by yourself (or others) towards your broader objectives? What was done by those people that helped to facilitate progress?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It succeeded because it supplied incontrovertible evidence of Professor Picard's beliefs, in the form of an autobiographical memoir on the very subject of dispute in her BLP. Prior to that, the allied editors of IDCab were absolutely confident that their haphazard theory of mind regarding Picard's beliefs was an unassailable true account of her frame of mind. I knew they were dead wrong, but I had no way to convince them them of their error. The allied editors of IDCab fought me every step of the way, going so far as to recruit Jimbo Wales to site ban me and threaten to shut down Wikiversity if I didn't get out of their way.
2. Charles Ainsworth has made the most progress. He launched a protracted ArbCom case against FeloniousMonk, then the dominant leader of IDCab. ArbCom unanimously adjudged FeloniousMonk guilty poor judgment, abuse of power, and leveling meritless accusations against others. Ainsworth succeeded in getting ArbCom to act where I had failed. When that case was in progress, NewYorkBrad wrote down his list of principles upon which he proposed to judge the case. I copied NYBrad's principles here to Wikiversity so we could study them. But at Jimbo's direction, Darklama baleted that review, thus crippling our effort to study NYBrad's concept of best principles for deciding a case.

Moulton 05:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant next questions might be:

1. How can that be made to occur more often? (Q3 from Exception question sequence)
2. Who will have to do what to make that happen more? (Part of Q3 from Miracle question sequence)
3. How are those things helpful? What else would be helpful? (Q3 from Coping question sequence)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I suppose if more scientists wrote and published more autobiographical memoirs that got included in Sherry Turkle's books on the Sociology of Science, the erratic OR PoV pushers in IDCab would find it harder to sustain their haphazard theories of mind regarding the libelous and defamatory BLPs they are crafting.
2. Scientists and academics will have to spend more time writing and publishing personal memoirs detailing their philosophical beliefs, but writing them in sufficiently simple and concise language that people like Tracy Walker, Paul Mitchell, name redacted as (i) that person has not given (implicit or explicit) permission to use it & (ii) it contains nothing even-vaguely-resembling "representations of [their] views", Ian Ramjohn, Mark Pellegrini, and Bob Stevens can understand them.
3. Miracles are helpful, but not terribly reliable. What else would be helpful is to have well-educated editors who are required to take and pass a course in ethics before they are allowed anywhere near a BLP. And then they must take personal responsibility for accuracy and fairness.

Moulton 03:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)