Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Countrymike/Interview

Note: shortly after the original interview was posted on 2nd January, Countrymike left a note on the talk page comparing the interview to McCarthyism. Please see the talk page for this comment. The candidate then answered the questions on 15th January, taking the interview seriously, as below. People are invited to refer to the Wikipedia guide to requests for adminship, which in particular points out that requests for adminship can be met with extremely gruelling procedures in which every edit/comment is called into question, and recommends to candidates that they see this as an opportunity for showing their abilities to deal with conflicts. --McCormack 11:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment regarding the interrogative nature of the dialog with McCormack came after this post by him:

"An ambassador is just a nice way to say "spin doctor", "spammer" or "advocate"; all the words have to do with marketing. Wikimedia projects are constantly the target of forms of vandalism which attempt to attract attention to particular websites or viewpoints. Edit-and-run vandals are easy to fix. The tougher vandals are the ones who infiltrate deeply and non-obviously into the system, manipulating content in the long term, never quite enough to become conspicuous. Many link-spam vandals never actually see themselves as vandals - they may genuinely believe in the usefulness of their edits and the validity of their viewpoints, and they may be not fully aware of policies on neutrality and the ban on advocacy. Perhaps Brent has really not realised that his "ambassadorial" platform can be seen as precisely this. There are issues which need to be explored here such as the difference (if any) between what Brent is proposing and (banned) advocacy. We need to think about an ethics code for custodians. It would be an interesting experiment to propose to Brent that custodians adopt an ethics code in which they ban themselves from ever mentioning any external site with which they are associated - would he prefer to continue with his candidacy? or remain an advocate? Which is more important to him? I would encourage Brent not to perceive this as an attack on him, but as an opportunity to reflect on his intentions, to learn from the wiki-way, and to modify his perception of himself and his goals here so that he can play a more valuable role."

By this time the constant questioning of my trust in relation to this project and the suggestion that I was some kind of "sleeper vandal" was starting to wear on me, particularly so early on in my mentorship (there is supposed to be a period of 5 days after the probationary month). I was not going to answer these questions from McCormack because it seemed that the debate was being designed as a constant rhetorical rounding up, and painting me in clothes that I don't wear. I have responded now in reqeust from my mentor JWS. It should also be noted that the reference to Wikipedia Admin policy was added here on January 6th by User:McCormack and that no custodian before me (particularly not McCormack) has been subjected to such extremely gruelling procedures, and I would hope that no applicants after me will be asked to "modify their perceptions of themselves", which sounds a little like a suggestion to confess to something that you have been accused of but haven't done. Countrymike 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These extremely gruelling procedures are what allow the community to verify and assert the integrity of custodians who are entrusted with a level of control over the project. Potential custodians are faced with them where necessary, and while McCormack's wording could have been slightly different there is little reason why you should not answer such questions. While you are granted rights as a custodian, you have a responsibility for transparency towards the community that goes beyond sysop action logs. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an error to look to Wikipedia for insight into how to run a wiki community. The system that exists there for selecting sysops is particularly dysfunctional....it contributes heavily to the caustic and in-civil atmosphere of Wikipedia, an atmosphere that is the subject of embarrassment and concern at the Foundation level. Much of the fundamental structure of Wikiversity has been established to avoid the errors of Wikipedia. There is no excuse to violate the fundamental Wikiversity policy Assume Good Faith. As far as I can tell, McCormack does not like Wayne Mackintosh and WikiEducator and rather than judge Countrymike on his history of participation at Wikiversity, McCormack is creating a big witch hunt based on his fears about how Countrymike, through his association with WikiEducator, might damage Wikiversity in the future. "little reason why you should not answer such questions" <-- I think the questions from McCormack violate the Assume Good Faith policy and are designed to prevent Countrymike from working towards his stated goal of promoting cooperation between Wikiversity and WikiEducator. In contrast to McCormack's xenophobic approach, think we should work towards constructive interactions between education-oriented wikis. In my view, a reasonable way to deal with someone who does not follow the Assume Good Faith policy is to refuse to have anything to do with them, including ignoring their questions. I commend Countrymike for being willing to hold his nose and answer McCormack's questions....questions that as far as I can tell only increase "transparency towards the community" in that they reveal the depth of McCormack's xenophobia and paranoia. --JWSchmidt 17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with the candidate

This is an interview with User:Countrymike, conducted as part of his request to become a Wikiversity custodian. Questions are designed to be penetrating and challenging, as befits a candidate for a role of trust.

McCormack: Thank you for being here. Understanding other people's points of view is important for a custodian, so could you start by telling us why some people might regard your request for custodianship at Wikiversity as controversial?
So far the only person that I know of who has viewed my custodianship as "controversial" is the interviewer, McCormack who has subjected me to an interrogation previously unseen in the process of custodianship. James' suspicion of me stems primarily from my relationship with another educational wiki, WikiEducator. Most people who know me on Wikiversity, know my relationship with this wiki. James' seems to have established a vision of me as some kind of "sleeper vandal" just waiting to do long term damage to Wikiversity. I'd like to assure the community here that this is a total fantasy and not at all the case as I think my edit history, the learning projects I have started, my discussions on IRC, my relationships with other Wikiversity participants, and my general contributions towards the Open Educational Resource movement would attest to. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: You have stated that your main reason for wanting to be a custodian is to enable you to act as an ambassador for an external site. These diplomatic goals could equally well be fulfilled without access to the admin "privileges" of deleting, blocking and protecting pages, and you have expressed an interest in nevertheless having access to these admin "privileges" as well. Please feel welcome to extend your original request for custodianship by adding additional reasons why you feel you need access to these admin "privileges".
As I have argued elsewhere, Custodianship is not only about access to the tools; a custodian should be considered also as a person entrusted with the custody or care of something, this entails welcoming new users, adding categories, or representing Wikiversity in a positive way to participants, administrators, and founders of other open educational projects. In my work in the OER community I often have opportunity to suggest that people take a look at Wikiversity and often specific projects within the site; carrying the label of custodian of the project helps me establish a level of confidence and trust between potential new participants and myself. Access to the tools helps me in the administrative duties that also come with being a custodian, but I think its wrong to conflate custodianship as only designating access to these tools. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: You have stated that there are two websites, including Wikiversity, which you are mostly involved with, but your edit counts suggest a preference for the other one. Is your loyalty primarily for one or the other? Where would your loyalty lie in case of conflict?
I was involved in WikiEducator from its inception and have done a lot of work over there to get it to where it is today; that site also has a lot less experienced editors than here who often require more help than editors on Wikiversity do; this may account for my edit count. I wouldn't like to think that there would ever be a 'conflict' and I would do my best to see that this was not the case; as I have often stated that I think the two projects have differing yet complementary missions. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: was Erik Möller correct to call Wikiversity a "mess" and to praise WikiEducator by comparison? Even if he was correct, was it a breach of trust for him to use his role as Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Board to state such things in public?
I don't believe that Erik knows enough about Wikiversity to have had the status to call it much of anything, but it also doesn't take much experience on Wikiversity to see that yes - Wikiversity is a bit of a mess ... but most wikis in their early stages are just that and I don't think that WikiEducator is any less of a mess either. I'd rather not comment on Erik's new role as Deputy Director. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: In the current climate of tension over the Möller statements, how have you exercised your diplomatic skills as an ambassador? You are, of course, closely associated with Erik as joint leader of the other site. Have you remonstrated with Erik that his statements are insensitive, incorrect and inappropriate? Would you go on record with strong criticism of him? Or do you think your diplomatic skills would be better directed towards helping the Wikiversity community accept that he is right?
There isn't really a "climate of tension"; lets just get on with it. I'm not that closely associated with Erik, we have little to do with each other really. This question is a bit loaded don't you think? I'm not really into strongly criticising anyone, especially someone who from my limited dealings with him has shown a strong dedication to the freedom culture movement; the Wikiversity community will have a range of diverse opinions about Erik and the WMF board, thats fine. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: Advocacy is a breach of neutrality, which is an absolute value of all Wikimedia projects. Do you think custodians should be more highly bound to this ethical code, or exempted from it? How does your proposed "ambassadorship" differ from advocacy, and how would you avoid any possibility of your site gaining exposure or visitors from your ambassadorship?
I don't agree that 'advocacy' is a breach of neutrality. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: As an especially fervent supporter of the Free Software Foundation, you have strong views about the meaning of the word "freedom". Do you think those views should influence the content or merely the licencing of edits at Wikiversity? Can you explain, in this context, why you find Benjamin Cardozo's statements on freedom controversial and inappropriate for inclusion on Wikiversity?
"fervent supporter of the Free Software Foundation"? don't know where this comes from. I just think that being overly obsessed with "freedom" is a dangerous thing. History is littered with the trampled bodies of those who got in the way of others championing their idea of freedom. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: As a custodian, should it be your duty to help Wikiversitarians and visitors understand and adhere more strongly to the views of the Free Software Foundation?
No. It should be to help them use this tool/platform to learn and teach. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCormack: Perhaps the Wikiversity/Wikieducator relationship could be likened to that of a boy/girlfriend break-up where one side just won't stop phoning and saying "we have to talk about this"? Wouldn't it solve Wikiversity's problems if Wikieducator just stayed away and stopped trying to market itself at Wikimedia or play the uninvited guest?
Wikiversity's problems can only be solved by Wikiversity; its not a competition. Countrymike 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Draicone: What are your thoughts on the role of custodianship for yourself, given that you also intend to act as an ambassador for the WikiEducator project? Please describe what actions you have in mind to be taken a) as a custodian and b) as a representative of WE, and any relationship between these.
Draicone: What do you personally feel about this debate regarding your inevitable NPOV issues between WE and WV as a custodian? Would you consider using two separate accounts on WV, one for your custodian actions, and another for your input to the community, to be able to demonstrate a clear separation between the two?