Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation

Active discussions

add your comments here

no to Deletion: I suggest keeping Moulton material around as it has historical value --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PerspectiveEdit

I think this is actually a very interesting project, though the comment-response at the end is much less interesting than the single-user content at the top. I would be very interested if someone on the anti-ID end of the issue could also post a like section for comparison; unfortunately, the closest thing to it is Salmon of Doubt's responses, but those are hardly on par with the individual accounts. Perhaps he/she coule be invited to create a similar account? The Jade Knight 07:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See The Peerless Editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design. Feel free to invite User:Filll here. User:Guettarda is also a credentialed scientist, with a Ph.D in Ecology and an interest in science education. —Moulton 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The two sides are not pro versus anti Moulton; nor pro versus anti ID; nor pro versus anti evolution. The two sides are pro versus anti certain behaviors that are characterized as "cabal like" and consist of people acting as a group to cause others to be blocked/banned at Wikipedia based on trumped up charges and driving people away by deleting any and all content contributions and using threats, intimidation, and insults. The idea is to maintain a certain point of view across a group of articles by bullying and thinking of this behavior as helpful to Wikipedia because it is the other people that are percieved by the bullies as pushing a POV while they are certain they are simply maintaining an accurate scientific consensus POV. Further, to some extent this is actually true, but many innocent people like Moulton get caught in their nets along with creationist POV pushers, who are actually a threat to NPOV at Wikipedia. The situation is not black and white. Add to all that the fact that Moulton has decided to right his wrongs by using methods that are against the rules at Wikipedia (no disruption to prove a point) and he is rightly indef blocked there. WAS 4.250 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
study question: if Moulton had been properly welcomed at Wikipedia would he have ever been blocked? --JWSchmidt 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If Moulton would say "I'm sorry for breaking the rules and I promise to try to not break them again; and I will especially go out of my way to avoid creating drama or creating disruption to prove a point"; then he would be unblocked. He is unwilling to play the WikiPedia game by the rules. If you want to play chess at a chess club you have to be willing to play by house rules. WAS 4.250 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not interested in MMPORGs there. I was interested in accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, full stop. —Moulton 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia we do both; imperfectly, but better every year. WAS 4.250 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
My assessment is that the gamesters are getting better at gaming the system, whilst the encyclopedists are losing ground to the gamesters. The latest wrinkle, as near as I can detect and diagnose it, is that the gamesters are now making specious arguments about whether a given edit, (or a given editor) constitutes an improvement. Can you assess the degree to which any editor is using the rules to game the system? —Moulton 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The game is constantly changing. At the Foundation level, we are getting very professional. At the content level, we are getting larger and more accurate. At the game playing level, the gamesters and the anti-gamesters are jockeying for position. The winning hand is held by the Foundation and the free culture movement. The "I just wanna level up" teenage gamesters are being taught free culture values and helping to create copy-left content. It is a highly successful propaganda machine for the free culture movement. WAS 4.250 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What are the core values and over-arching goals of the Free Culture Movement? —Moulton 10:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
By the time I arrived at Wikipedia, it had already evolved into a new species. Superficially, it still resembled an encyclopedia, but under the hood it had already become a souped up MMPORG. —Moulton 02:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
True enough. WAS 4.250 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you're not already familiar with it, you may be interested in Robert S. De Ropp's "The Master Game". Here's a brief overview of the types of games he characterises: http://www.livereal.com/spiritual_arena/spiritual_members/master_game.htm. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Twenty years ago, I joined the Network Center at MITRE (a federally funded research and development corporation). It turned out that the Network Center was a unit of the C3I Division, where C3I stood for "Command, Communication, Control, and Intelligence." I was frankly aghast at discovering the presmumptive aims of C3I, and proposed we redefine the acronym to be "Comprehension, Cognition, Consciousness, and Insight." Alas the managers of MITRE were singularly uninterested in striving toward those higher order objectives. —Moulton 10:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
My father was a career military intelligence officer. I was raised on military bases. I am highly amused at your reaction to "Command, Communication, Control, and Intelligence". WAS 4.250 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Free Culture MovementEdit

What are the core values and over-arching goals of the Free Culture Movement? —Moulton 10:52, 9 September 2008

Does w:Free Culture Movement answer your questions? Supporters range from idiots who think total anarchy is a good idea to people like me who see copy-left as a needed addition to society's many other methods of doing things. Pluralism is a good thing. WAS 4.250 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to deny that much of what one finds in the pages of Wikipedia amounts to creative flights of fancy of the novelists and creative writers there. —Moulton 12:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And every bit of it that is not fair use images or quotes or trademarks is available to be copied and modified so long as a copy of the copy-left copyright licence is supplied and the main authors are attributed. Even the talk pages. It is a tremendous resource for psychologists and sociologists. I'm dead serious about this. The encyclopedia part is only part of the vast copy-left free of cost content that has been and is being created. WAS 4.250 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidden revisionsEdit

Hi. We're already on a talk page, so I don't know where to add this comment.

Several revisions of this page have been hidden permanently. As a result, some edits are not attributed to their authors any more. Below is the full old history. guillom 10:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

# (cur) (last)  10:18, 26 September 2008 Guillom (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,673 bytes) (outing) (rollback | undo)
# (cur) (last) 06:46, 17 September 2008 Emesee mobi (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,732 bytes) (but uh...) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 06:44, 17 September 2008 Emesee mobi (Talk | contribs | block) m (8,068 bytes) (→Neutral point of view?: new section) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 18:41, 15 September 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs | block) m (Talk:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation moved to Talk:Wikipedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation: lets begin clean up with a shorter name) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 13:50, 9 September 2008 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs | block) (7,732 bytes) (→Free Culture Movement: :::And every bit of it that is not fair use images or quotes or trademarks is available to be copied and modified so long as a copy of the copy-left copyright licence is) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 12:27, 9 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (7,227 bytes) (→Free Culture Movement: Ah. Creative Writing. Yes. That clears it up.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 12:16, 9 September 2008 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs | block) (6,768 bytes) (→Free Culture Movement: new section) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 10:52, 9 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (6,307 bytes) (→Perspective: What are the values and goals of the Free Culture Movement?) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 03:59, 9 September 2008 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs | block) (6,159 bytes) (→Perspective) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:12, 8 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) m (5,323 bytes) (→Perspective: Another link.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 11:47, 8 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (5,264 bytes) (→Perspective: Guettarda states he is a biologist on his Meta-Wiki user page.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 11:31, 8 September 2008 Salmon of Doubt (Talk | contribs | block) (5,243 bytes) (Outing) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 10:59, 8 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (5,302 bytes) (→Perspective: The Aim of the Game) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 10:40, 8 September 2008 Jtneill (Talk | contribs | block) (4,670 bytes) (→Perspective: If you're not already familiar with it, you may be interested in Robert S. De Ropp's "The Master Game". Here's a brief overview of the types of games he characterises: http://www.liv) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 10:36, 8 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (4,262 bytes) (→Perspective: The Gamesters vs the Encyclopedists) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 06:41, 8 September 2008 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs | block) (3,690 bytes) (→Perspective: :::::::At Wikipedia we do both; imperfectly, but better every year. ~~~~) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 03:06, 8 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (3,562 bytes) (→Perspective: Rules define games, not literature.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 03:01, 8 September 2008 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs | block) (3,377 bytes) (→Perspective) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 02:55, 8 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (2,850 bytes) (→Perspective: You can't judge a book by its cover.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 02:45, 8 September 2008 JWSchmidt (Talk | contribs | block) (2,592 bytes) (→Perspective: study question) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 02:07, 8 September 2008 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,422 bytes) (→Perspective) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 12:00, 6 September 2008 Moulton (Talk | contribs | block) (1,187 bytes) (→Perspective: See related thread on WP.) (undo)
Return to "Wikimedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation" page.